Did some final editing, and cut out the confrontational tone from the e-mail, and sent it out seconds ago. Here's what I finally ended up sending:
Hello Professor Hahn,
I am writing to you in regards to a news piece that I read in which you stated you had some serious concerns about the electronic cigarette, and intended to pursue the banning of the sale of the devices in Kentucky, much as Oregon has. I am not a supplier, a manufacturer or distributor of these products. I'm just a guy that lives here in Lexington, I'm a server at a local restaurant, and I was a smoker for 14 years. I'm only 28. Until recently that scared me. I knew it was killing me. Then I found these products. I am not someone who easily has the wool pulled over their eyes. When I discovered these products, I researched them for several weeks. I saw the FDA report, but I am also not someone who takes one side of a story for truth, even if it is a trusted Government organization. There are always three sides to a story. What "he" said, what "she" said and what really happened.
After my research, I finally decided to purchase one of these devices. I initially bought it so that I could sneak a bit of nicotine at work without needing to go outside, and potentially missing the needs of a customer and losing a tip. To my surprise, I left an unopened pack of cigarettes on my coffee table for over a week, because I really just didn't need one. I haven't smoked tobacco in 25 days now. I breath better, my lungs do not rasp when I lay down to go to sleep. My sense of taste and smell are improving. I can smell my co-workers when they come in from smoking, and I realized that used to be me. I tried to smoke an "analog" (the humorous term "vapers", or electronic cigarette users coined for traditional tobacco cigarettes), and I found it to be downright disgusting.
If this product is taken off the market, I and several others whom have been turned on to "vaping" will be practically forced back to tobacco cigarettes. Since the FDA found trace amounts of DEG in one cartridge out of the 18 they tested, several suppliers of "e-liquid" (the nicotine, propylene glycol, water and flavoring solution used in personal vaporizers/ e-cigarettes), most notably Johnson's Creek, have taken it upon themselves to have their products tested for purity. The FDA also failed to release in any statements that no traces of DEG were found in the resultant vapor produced by these devices.
As to the Nicotine Specific Nitrosamines which were found, they are of similar quantities of those found in FDA approved Nicotine Replacement Therapies (NRT's) such as nicotine gums, patches, and inhalers. I have noticed of late that since this has been pointed out the "copy and paste" press releases talking about the FDA research have neglected to mention these nitrosamines. These are the only two concerns that are brought up as regards the "dangers" of electronic cigarettes, and a minute amount of research quickly brings one to the realization that the FDA was either 1) negligent in their duties, or 2) deliberately disingenuous with their testinig. Neither of these prospects is comforting to me.
Of course, the FDA does receive a large portion of its funding from Pfizer, another piece of information that is rather easy to come by should you bother to poke around enough. And with news items like this this article quoting from an Associated Press release in which FDA scientists were coerced and intimidated to push through approval of medical devices which had questionable use, it would not surprise me in the least to find that they had purposefully done lack luster work on the electronic cigarette under duress from one of their financial supporters.
I would like to provide you with some links to other information I have found through research and extensive help from other "vapers".
Johnson's Creek Smoke Juice - One of the companies which has hired an independent research and analysis firm to test their liquids.
Johnson's Creek "Smoke Juice" testing by Alliance Technologies - The results of the analysis of Johnson's Creek "Smoke Juice"
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary - A blog by Michael Siegel, a physician who works in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department at the Boston University School of Public Health.
FDA Smoke Screen on E-cigarettes - A Washington Times article by Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, President of the American Council on Science and Health
Three Professors of Medicine speak out against ASH claims - An article about the disingenuous nature of the organization Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), the loudest proponent on the banning of electronic cigarettes.
Letter from the AAPHP to the FDA director - This letter urges the FDA to divulge all of its information regarding the data in they testing of e-cigarettes, and proposes a sensible way for the products to be regulated.
University of Auckland Study on the Effects of E-cigarettes on Cravings and Withdrawal - This study finds that e-cigarettes have legitimate potential as cessation aids.
Professor Hahn, I do not wish to deluge you with an over-abundance of information, but I feel that having the information easily available to you will cause you to be more likely to look into it. I believe that with your pursuit of the banning of e-cigarettes that you have the best interests of the public at heart. I sincerely believe you are just being taken in by the propaganda of persons, organizations and corporations who's pocket-books are threatened by a reduction in the use of tobacco, and therefore: tobacco tax revenue. As well as companies who spent a lot of money to bring their NRT's to the market, most of which do not work, statistically speaking.
An article published in the Journal of Tobacco Control suggests that an effective nicotine inhalation device might be promising in tobacco harm reduction.
"Tob Control. 2003 Jun;12(2):124-32.
Estimating the health consequences of replacing cigarettes with nicotine inhalers.Sumner W 2nd.
Department of Medicine, Division of General Medical Sciences, Box 8005, 660 South Euclid Avenue, St Louis, MO 63110, USA.
wsumner@im.wustl.edu
BACKGROUND: A fast acting, clean nicotine delivery system might substantially displace cigarettes. Public health consequences would depend on the subsequent prevalence of nicotine use, hazards of delivery systems, and intrinsic hazards of nicotine. METHODS: A spreadsheet program, DEMANDS, estimates differences in expected mortality, adjusted for nicotine delivery system features and prevalence of nicotine use, by extending the data and methods of the SAMMEC 3 software from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The user estimates disease risks attributable to nicotine, other smoke components, and risk factors that coexist with smoking. The public health consequences of a widely used clean nicotine inhaler replacing cigarettes were compared to historical observations and public health goals, using four different risk attribution scenarios and nicotine use prevalence from 0-100%.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in years of potential life before age 85 (YPL85). RESULTS: If nicotine accounts for less than a third of smokers' excess risk of SAMMEC diseases, as it most likely does, then even with very widespread use of clean nicotine DEMANDS predicts public health gains, relative to current tobacco use. Public health benefits accruing from a widely used clean nicotine inhaler probably equal or exceed the benefits of achieving Healthy People 2010 goals.
CONCLUSIONS: Clean nicotine inhalers might improve public health as much as any feasible tobacco control effort. Although the relevant risk estimates are somewhat uncertain, partial nicotine deregulation deserves consideration as part of a broad tobacco control policy."
Your stated purpose is to look out for the public when it comes to issues of health, and to reduce the harm done by tobacco products. From the information that is available online and from many health organizations and medical professionals, not to mention my own personal experience, it appears that you may be moving opposite to that directive. Myself, my brother, my father, several friend and co-workers, have all significantly reduced or halted the use of tobacco products all together because of these literally life-saving devices. That is only within my own personal circle of aquaintances. There have supposedly been one million e-cigarette kits sold in the US. Taking into account replacement part and repeat purchases, a very conservative estimate based on those sales of those who have started using personal vaporizers to reduce or supplant their tobacco habit could be 100,000 or more in the US alone. 100,000 lives Professor Hahn, possibly greatly extended because of this new and little-known product!
If these devices were taken off the market, myself, my friends and my family would have no choice but to go back to tobacco products, or attempt, once again to use an "approved" NRT, all of which have abysmal success rates for quitting. They also fail to address the physiological and behavioral conditioning of being a smoker. Many of my family and friends have all tried them, and they have either not worked, or have led to extremely short-lived success. The high failure rate of the available NRTs is readily available to a quick online search.
Some apparently do work, but not without their dangers. Chantix, the most "successful" of the approved NRT's, has been involved in 70+ deaths, 28 of which are suicides. I would rather take my chances with the extremely minute amounts of tobacco specific nitrosamines than with a drug that could potentially change my psychological underpinnings to the point that intentionally killing myself becomes a good idea. What scares me, and my circle of friends and family, is that the removal of these products from the market will force us back into being tobacco dependent. I do not want to be a smoker again, it was killing me.
I recognize that you are a public health professional, so I am presenting to you what I, a regular citizen have found in my research as regards electronic cigarettes/personal vaporizers. I am willing to listen to good reasoning as to why these products are not a good or effective alternative to smoking for me and many others. Not a cessation product, but an alternative to tobacco. Is there something I am missing? All the data I can find suggests they are far less damaging (if at all) to my body than smoking tobacco, which is the alternative I will be left with if these devices are taken off the market. Would I be better off sticking with the tobacco, which is a better known quantity? I'm a bit confused and concerned about the whole issue, and really looking for guidance here. I look forward to your response, Professor. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Sean Howard - average guy in Lexington."
I did my best to leave the ball in her court, and gave an opportunity to legitimately explain and justify her position. That's all I can do. I really can't wait for a response, I hope I get one.
-Rook
