Proposed e-cigarette regulation sets off a spark

[D103]

This is a little off topic so I apologize in advance - this is a good read for anyone learning more about exactly who and what we are up against.

I can't get a link to work correctly -damn!!!

If you go to Freedom-2-Choose(Scotland).blogspot and then look along the right side of the page, an article from Monday 16, 2011 is listed in the third box: "More on Stakeholders: How Corporations Influence and Profit from Public Policy. There is the 'ending of the longer article' - if you click on the first two words of the first sentence, "This paper......." it will take you to the entire article.

 

[JustJulie]

Thanks for sharing that blog, D103. It's indeed a must read.

I notice you've got a small typo in the link, though. It should be: Freedom-2-Choose (Scotland): More on stakeholders: how corporations influence and profit from public policy

 

[D103]

Thanks Julie!!! I am computer illiterate when it comes to posting links. From your link you get the ending of the article and you still have to click on "This paper......." to get the entire article.

Thanks again Julie

 

[JustJulie]

Thanks Julie!!! I am computer illiterate when it comes to posting links. From your link you get the ending of the article and you still have to click on "This paper......." to get the entire article.

Thanks again Julie

Crud. Well, then, I didn't get the link right, either.

Is this the "this paper" you're talking about? The New Corporate America Business Model

 

[kristin]

I just read that - it's VERY good. Tweeted, Facebooked & posted it on the CASAA blog, as well! (Thanks to Thad for sending the link!)

Crud. Well, then, I didn't get the link right, either.

Is this the "this paper" you're talking about? The New Corporate America Business Model

 

[rothenbj]

See if this works, it's a great find and read.

Should have read further in the thread.........

 

[Bill Godshall]

I e-mailed the following letter to all members of the Tacoma-Pierce County Board of Health earlier today.
- - -

RE: Proposed Environmental Health Code (Chapter 9) to ban indoor usage of e-cigarettes, and to ban sales to minors

Dear Tacoma-Pierce County Board of Health members:

As a twenty five year veteran activist of the anti smoking movement, I encourage you to ban e-cigarette sales to minors (despite no evidence of usage by minors), but to REJECT the counterproductive proposal to ban indoor usage of e-cigarettes, which have helped hundreds of thousands of smokers quit or sharply reduce cigarette consumption.

In 2006, I coauthored a comprehensive scientific report "tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for inveterate smokers" at HRJ | Full text | Tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for inveterate smokers and in 2007 the Royal College of Physicians
issued a similar report "Harm reduction in nicotine addiction; Helping people who can't quit" at http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/contents/e226ee0c-ccef-4dba-b62f-86f046371dfb.pdf Epidemiology studies have consistently found that cigarette smoking poses 100 times greater morbidity and mortality risks than use of smokeless tobacco products in the US and Sweden, and the available evidence indicates that all noncombustible tobacco/nicotine products (including e-cigarettes, nicotine gums, lozenges, patches) are also about 99% less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.

Smokers who switch to smokefree tobacco/nicotine products reduce their health risks nearly as much as smokers who quit all tobacco/nicotine usage, and several million smokers have already switched to smokeless tobacco products, e-cigarettes and/or NRT products. Besides, usage of e-cigarettes or other noncombustible tobacco/nicotine products poses no known risks for nonusers because they emit ZERO smoke.

As such, there is no scientific or empirical evidence indicating that any e-cigarette product "presents a threat to the public health," as claimed in "Section 3: Findings" of the proposed regulation. The FDA's 2009 laboratory report on e-cigarettes marketed by two companies found a trace (and well below toxic) level of one so-called toxic chemical in one of eighteen samples tested, and various lab reports have found that levels of nitrosamines in e-cigarettes are nearly identical to those in nicotine gums and patches, and exponentially lower than those in cigarettes or tobacco smoke
http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf
http://www.starscientific.com/404/stepanov tsna in.pdf
CASAA.org
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-institutes/population-development/files/article.jphp.pdf
SEIKATSUEISEI : Vol. 55 (2011) , No. 1 p.59-64

E-cigarettes also have been found to contain/emit similar or lower levels of nicotine than nicotine gums and lozenges
http://www.healthnz.co.nz/2010 Bullen ECig.pdf
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...eissenberg-study-vindicates-e-cigarettes.html
This indicates that e-cigarettes emit enough to satisfy the cravings of smokers, but may not emit enough nicotine to addict nonsmokers. Several published surveys have confirmed that e-cigarettes satisfy the cravings of smokers, and provide many health benefits to users who switched from cigarettes.
Sign In
http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2458-10-231.pdf
THR2010. (tobaccoharmreduction.org) (see chapter 9)

In sum, e-cigarettes emit ZERO smoke, don't appear to emit enough nicotine to cause addiction, pose no known health risks for nonusers, appear to be 99% less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, are easily distinguishable from tobacco cigarettes, and have already helped several hundred thousand smokers in the US quit smoking. As such, Section 9 (that would ban the usage of e-cigarettes in all Tacoma-Pierce County workplaces) should be deleted from the proposed Chapter 9 regulation because it provides no public health benefit, but rather poses a public health threat (as it would encourage e-cigarette users to switch back to cigarettes, and would discourage other smokers from quitting).

Other public health organizations that have extensively studied e-cigarettes have also endorsed their use by smokers, including The American Association of Public Health Physicians Regulations.gov and the American Council on Science and Health.

In contrast, Dr. Chen's recent op/ed in the News Tribune If e-cigarettes aren’t harmful, then prove it | Regional Voices - The News Tribune confused e-cigarette vapor with tobacco smoke, claimed nicotine is poison while endorsing NRT, and demanded that e-cigarettes comply with FDA drug device regs after courts and FDA rule products aren't drug devices.

Smokers who are struggling to quit and those who have recently quit need the support of, not harassment from, public health agencies, organizations and healthcare professionals.

Section 9 of the proposed regulation is also unenforceable since e-cigarettes can be used discreetly (so nobody else knows) as most e-cigarette vapor cannot be smelled and is only visible if exhaled immediately by the user. Besides, employers and managers of public places already have a legal right to ban the usage of e-cigarettes if they so choose.

Since 1990, Smokefree Pennsylvania has advocated public policies to protect people from tobacco smoke pollution, reduce tobacco marketing to youth, increase cigarette tax rates, preserve civil justice remedies for injured smokers, increase funding for smoking prevention and cessation programs, and inform smokers that smokefree tobacco/nicotine products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes. For disclosure, neither Smokefree Pennsylvania nor I have ever received any funding from tobacco, drug or e-cigarette companies or their trade associations.

Sincerely,


William T. Godshall, MPH
Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh PA 15218
412-351-5880
smokefree@compuserve.com

 

[Avanna]

Personally I don't see what the big deal is. At least they aren't banning them completely. I do agree they are not willing to admit the benefits of ecigs to our health, but I also understand why they don't want ecigs used where analogs are not allowed. So step outside and have a puff, or go vape in the bathroom. It's really no different than what we used to have to do when smoking. Remember we are vaping for better health, not convenience.

Unfortunately, that's the way of politics:

1. Ban e-cig use in public (show the public that there's something wrong with it);

2. Let that message sink in and then ban them for public sale (Doctor's prescription only) - (Keeps the medical industry on their side and paves the road for government control);

3. Legislation kicks in and the government is now regulating and taxing who uses it.

All they need to do is win that first damning step that makes the assumption that vaping is evil. Only then can they march in like Super Hero do-gooders to control what happens next. And that IS the only reason they won't ban them completely. There's no money in that.

 

[rothenbj]

Well past that Avanna. They will be treated as tobacco products and will need to prove health risks to promulgate regulation against them. They may be able to increase the cost, but unless something truly bad can be identified, they're here to stay.