To All Whom it May Concern:

[MoonRose]

The following is a copy of the letter that I have written to start sending out to the presidents and CEO's of all the health affiliated agencies and the FDA.

I would appreciate any recommended changes that would make this letter more forceful and memorable to those that read it.

To All Whom it May Concern,


Instead of only promoting the quit or die response to smokers and treating them as nothing more than second class citizens, please institute the Reduced Harm tobacco Products response. By not doing so, you are directly contributing to and are responsible for the continued deaths of thousands each year that die as a direct result of smoking burning tobacco. We all know it's actually the smoke from burning tobacco that is the causative of the majority of all the “so called” smoking related health problems encountered by both smokers and non-smokers. Stop being anti-nicotine when it comes to allowing those who smoke the chance to give up the act of lighting up and start promoting smoking alternatives such as Swedish Snus, Dissolvables, Electronic Cigarettes and the other smoke free alternatives that are available and have been proven to be 98-99% safer than smoking cigarettes. And let me be very clear here, I'm talking about smoking alternatives, not nicotine cessation, there is a big difference. One can quit smoking tobacco cigarettes without giving up the use of nicotine, and that is what electronic cigarettes allow smokers to do, they are an alternative to smoking.


Electronic cigarettes do not emit smoke, nothing is burned, so there is no air pollution, no tar, particulates, CO, or thousands of chemicals created by the process of combustion. What you see is actually vapor, Health New Zealand has studied the vapor and pronounced it “harmless, inhaled or exhaled.” Given what we know from research on nicotine delivered from other safer sources such as Swedish snus and medicinal nicotine products, medical experts predict that switching to an electronic cigarette will reduce the risk of smoking-related diseases by up to 99%. And let's not forget the thousands of people who die or are injured in fires each year, since the e-cigarette is not burning there is no risk of a fire starting due to a cigarette being dropped or left unattended. Bystanders are in no more danger of being exposed to “drug use” by former smokers who have switched to a reduced-harm tobacco product like snus, dissolvables, or an e-cigarette than they are by being around former smokers using the FDA approved patch, gum, lozenges, or prescription nicotine inhalers, in other words, no danger whatsoever.


Now let's address the myth that e-cigarettes are being marketed to kids because of the different flavors available, news flash, we adults like and enjoy flavors as well. E-cigarettes are expensive to begin with, costing about the same price or more as a carton of cigarettes. I personally don't know of many kids, if any, who would be willing to part with that much of their money for something that is going to require a lot of maintenance and the purchasing of replacement parts on a regular basis. Also, every internet site I have ever bought e-cigarette products from has the statement that you must be 18 or older to purchase from them and one must have a credit card or bank account to do so. The e-cigarette industry as a whole follows that same rule, that one must be 18 or older to purchase their products. So using the intelligence that I assume you have, which do you think kids will do? Buy a pack of cigarettes at $5-$12 a pack or spend $35-$150 on something that requires daily maintenance and the cost of buying replacement parts on a regular basis.




Dorothy Taylor, LPN

 

[bonniegirl]

Moonrose
I appreciate, as a vaper, and as a nurse, anyone getting involved and taking the time to write letters or any other form of activism. That being said, I do have a few thoughts and they are just my opinion...take it for what it is worth.
1. The letter reads confrontational....We are all angry, I get that. But...and it is a big but...whomever reads this will become defensive and not "hear" your message. Attacking with statements such as "..using the intelligence I assume you have...". will serve ro turn off the reader.
2. While your facts check true to us because we are using and enjoying the e-cig experience, references to proper resources and studies will go further in your argument.

I am presently visiting Doctor offices one at a time. I provide breakfast or lunch and present the studies we have and the resources the Dr could use and ask the Doctor to draw his/her own conclusion. I see 5-10 people a week sent from their Dr. to learn about e-cigs. Make the idea the readers and the letter will have greater impact. Unfortunately, new ideas and paradigms are tough to switch and big pharma can afford gourmet while I can afford local deli sammys. Big Pharma can send Dr X to Bermuda for a "seminar" (of 18 holes) and I can send them to Dr Mikes website.

All Sad

All true

Keep up the good work...we need vapers like you. And, most important to me, my profession needs more like you that are willing to stand up and speak out for the health of our patients. Thanks for asking for input and happy vaping!
Bonnie RN

 

[kristin]

Hi Dorothy,

That is a really nice start!

As you are an LPN, I would open with that & make a few changes:

Dear Sir/Madam,

My name is Dorothy Taylor and I am a Licensed Practical Nurse in the state of ______.

I am seriously concerned about your organization's policy of tobacco and nicotine abstinence vs. tobacco harm reduction. CDC Director Thomas R. Frieden recently issued a statement that "the 40-year decline in tobacco use in the United States has stalled" and the CDC data showed that one in every five American adults still smoked cigarettes in 2009.

The irony here is that while the Director condemns general "tobacco use," the medical community acknowledges that the vast majority of tobacco-related illnesses are the result of SMOKING, while smokeless products such as Swedish snus, dissolvables and electronic cigarettes have been shown to be up to 99% less hazardous than smoking. They also eliminate the danger of second-hand smoke harming bystanders. While smokeless tobacco has been tenatively linked to some cancers in lab rats (oral, stomach, pancreatic), reviews of these studies show that the risk of oral cancer is minimal and smokeless tobacco use "did not substantially increase risk for cancer incidence above that of non-tobacco users" ("Cancer Incidence among a Cohort of Smokeless Tobacco Users," Neil A. Accortt, John W. Waterbor, Colleen Beall and George Howard, 2005).

Although all tobacco use carries some risk, the concept of reduced harm is not unknown to the medical community for other products. Health experts readily recommend low-fat food products to the obese, rather than expecting patients to eliminate all fat from their diet. Sugar-free products are made available for diabetic patients. Automobile drivers are encouraged to use seatbelts, rather than told to stop driving altogether. In light of the recent CDC report that people are continuing to use tobacco, in spite of the known health risks, does it not seem logical to encourage them to use the tobacco products which carry the least risk?

Electronic cigarettes are an even better option. As nothing is burned, they do not emit smoke, so there is no air pollution, no tar, particulates, CO, or thousands of chemicals created by the process of combustion. They only contain FDA-approved ingredients: propylene glycol, nicotine and food flavoring. None of these ingredients is linked to cancer. Additionally, as e-cigarettes contain no processed tobacco leaves, they further reduce what little risk is found in smokeless tobacco. What you see with electronic cigarettes is actually a water-based vapor. Health New Zealand has studied the vapor and pronounced it “harmless, inhaled or exhaled.” Given what we know from research on nicotine delivered from other safer sources such as Swedish snus and medicinal nicotine products, informed medical experts predict that switching to an electronic cigarette will reduce the risk of smoking-related diseases by up to 99%. And let's not forget the thousands of people who die or are injured in fires each year. Since the e-cigarette is not burning there is no risk of a fire starting due to a cigarette being dropped or left unattended. Bystanders are in no more danger of being exposed to “drug use” by former smokers who have switched to a reduced-harm tobacco product like snus, dissolvables, or an e-cigarette than they are by being around former smokers using the FDA approved patch, gum, lozenges, or prescription nicotine inhalers, in other words, no danger whatsoever.

Claims that e-cigarettes are being marketed to children, because of the different flavors available, are completely unsubstantiated and illogical. Adults like and enjoy flavors as well and this is proven by the fact that even FDA-approved nicotine reduction therapies (gums, lozenges) come in a variety of fruit and candy flavors. Additionally, e-cigarettes are expensive to begin with, costing about the same price or more as a carton of cigarettes. I personally don't know of many children, if any, who would be willing to part with that much of their money for something that is going to require a lot of maintenance and the purchasing of replacement parts on a regular basis. Logically, what is a typical teen more likely to do? Buy a pack of cigarettes at $5-$12 a pack or spend $35-$150 on something that requires daily maintenance and the cost of buying replacement parts on a regular basis?

While the majority of e-cigarette merchants voluntarily refuse to sell to minors, the FDA and organizations such as your's have the power to immediately make it illegal to sell e-cigarettes to minors in all 50 states - by classifying e-cigarettes as tobacco products. However, your organizations have gone on record that your's is an "all or nothing" policy and have refused proposed state legislation, which support banning sales to minors while leaving them available as an alternative for adult smokers. So, while most merchants ethically refuse to sell to minors, your own policies are what are keeping the few unscrupulous vendors from being prosecuted.

I have been using e-cigarettes since...(insert your story here.)

Since there have been no official reports of serious illness or injury linked to e-cigarette use in the U.S. since they came on the market in 2003 and even the infamous FDA test you cite in your warnings against e-cigarettes failed to find any toxic levels of any chemicals nor dangerous levels of carcinogens, your opposition to these potential life saving devices is completely unwarranted. I and fellow health professionals, such as the AAPHP, have reviewed the evidence and concluded that a reduced-harm approach to tobacco use, including e-cigarettes, have the potential to save over 4 million of the 8 million smokers in the U.S.

Considering that the evidence to date overwhelmingly supports this belief, don't you think your organization will look quite foolish when these facts come to light? I strongly encourage you to step back from the "quit or die" mentality and support tobacco harm reduction and encourage smokers (who either cannot or will not quit) to make the smarter choice of smokeless alternatives such as e-cigarettes.

Sincerely,
Dorothy Taylor, LPN

You could also include a copy of CASAA's Medical Info-graph and the tri-fold brochure in your mailing!

 

[CJsKee]

I agree with Bonnie, and also thank you for your hard work.

The one thing I would point out is your statement: "And let's not forget the thousands of people who die or are injured in fires each year, since the e-cigarette is not burning..." We absolutely must be factual in all our statements. I don't believe it is correct that "thousands of people" die or are injured each year in fires (caused by smoking). I read so much that I can't remember where I saw this. But, since e-cigs don't burn is a valid statement (duh ), I would suggest just deleting the clause about fires.

Again, thanks for stepping up! And you, too, Bonnie!

 

[kristin]

I agree with Bonnie, and also thank you for your hard work.

The one thing I would point out is your statement: "And let's not forget the thousands of people who die or are injured in fires each year, since the e-cigarette is not burning..." We absolutely must be factual in all our statements. I don't believe it is correct that "thousands of people" die or are injured each year in fires (caused by smoking). I read so much that I can't remember where I saw this. But, since e-cigs don't burn is a valid statement (duh ), I would suggest just deleting the clause about fires.

Again, thanks for stepping up! And you, too, Bonnie!

Yes, it'd be good to have supporting evidence to that comment or adjust it to reflect the true numbers.

 

[MoonRose]

Thanks for all the advice on how to make the letter better. Though there are some who really should get my original letter since they seem to have no problem with being controversial and attacking us. I would dearly love to meet some of them face to face and yes, accuse them of being directly responsible for the continued deaths of thousands of smokers each year. Especially those who insist on the quit or die response even when they've known for the past 20 years or so that smokeless alternatives have been proven safer than smoking. Perhaps if they had been honest all those years ago and promoted safer alternatives to smoking, my mother would still be alive today instead of having died at the age of 59 from cancer.

As for the fire issue, there are at least 2 thousand fires each year around the US that are attributed directly to dropped, unattended or deliberately thrown out cigarettes. These fires cause untold amounts of damage each year to properties, and yes there are 2-3 thousand burn injuries or deaths each year due to these fires. The burn injuries run from the minor injuries of children burning their little fingers when touching lit cigarettes or their arms when accidently running into a lit cigarette held by an adult to severe burn injuries. There are several hundred deaths each year due to fires caused by dropped or unattended cigarettes.

 

[Luisa]

Thanks Kristen. That is a good outline for us to use in our letters.

 

[MoonRose]

Ok, to clarify who I was planning on sending the original letter to, that would be the FDA, AHA, ALA, ACS and any other groups that have known for years now that smokeless tobacco and smoking alternatives are much safer than smoking cigarettes and yet still refuse any course except the quit or die response. As far as I'm concerned this is a war to save our lives and war is not played nicely. Yes I'm attacking them and accusing them of being directly responsible for the continued deaths of thousands each year due to their continued hard line approach towards smokers.

Kristin, your letter is perfect for sending to newspapers, tv news, and physicians to give them an accurate view of smokeless products and reduced harm products. But for the hardliners against any type of smokeless product then they need to be hit with the hard facts that they are directly contributing to the continued deaths of smokers due to their refusal to even consider reduced harm smokeless alternatives for smokers.

 

[kristin]

Kristin, your letter is perfect for sending to newspapers, tv news, and physicians to give them an accurate view of smokeless products and reduced harm products. But for the hardliners against any type of smokeless product then they need to be hit with the hard facts that they are directly contributing to the continued deaths of smokers due to their refusal to even consider reduced harm smokeless alternatives for smokers.

Moonrose, I used your letter as the base and added to it with supporting research. I just made it a little more PC, because bonniegirl is exactly right that attacking statements just make them stop reading and concluding you're a nut. Where do you actually make that statement (bolded) in your letter? You say stop the "quit or die response," stop being anti-nicotine" and stop "treating them as second class citizens," but you don't clearly make the point that their actions are contributing to continued deaths. I did echo the actual sentiments you made in my version, specifically in the last lines:

your opposition to these potential life saving devices is completely unwarranted. I and fellow health professionals, such as the AAPHP, have reviewed the evidence and concluded that a reduced-harm approach to tobacco use, including e-cigarettes, have the potential to save over 4 million of the 8 million smokers in the U.S.

Considering that the evidence to date overwhelmingly supports this belief, don't you think your organization will look quite foolish when these facts come to light? I strongly encourage you to step back from the "quit or die" mentality and support tobacco harm reduction and encourage smokers (who either cannot or will not quit) to make the smarter choice of smokeless alternatives such as e-cigarettes.

 

[kristin]

Other things to consider when writing these organizations is:

1. It's not really about health, it's about their survival. If e-cigarettes succeed, their funding and reason for existence is gone. If they really cared about smokers' health, they'd fight harder to ban CIGARETTES.

2. It's not about health anymore, it's about controlling other people and power.

3. They don't understand that people will return to smoking (if they even cared.) In their minds, you should just switch to FDA-approved NRTs, so smoking again is not your only option.

Your passion is admirable, but please be prepared to get the boilerplate response everyone else has received so far: "Thank you. Glad to hear you've quit smoking. The FDA...blah, blah, blah..."

Because you are a healthcare professional, you have a better chance of making an impact. It's important your letters reflect your status & expertise and not just your passion.

 

[maclean]

Because you are a healthcare professional, you have a better chance of making an impact. It's important your letters reflect your status & expertise and not just your passion

I agree with that. When I read your original draft, my first thought was 'They're going to get to the 2nd paragraph and say '"Who does she think she is telling us we're a bunch of criminals?"

Just because we all know they're criminals doesn't mean that calling a spade a spade will get you anywhere with these goons. That will allow them to write you off as a crank because they think you're being insulting - and that's an excuse they'd love to have. A non-confrontational letter backed with facts is something they may not like, but it'll be harder for them to ignore.

I'd like to add my thanks along with the others for putting your effort into this.

mac

 

[bonniegirl]

Moonrose
Please understand I am not disagreeing with your intent. It is very frustrating. I use the adage...the war is won one battle at a time. I see those members of ALA...pulmonologists, inerventionists and respirartory therapists and teach them about e-cigs and the benefit of vaporizing. When given the right documentation they conclude..(especially after their COPD patients pulmonary function study improves in as little as a few weeks) that their benevolent "SOCIETY" may not be so benevolent. I always ask those physicians to write their experiences down or publish and send copies to those "antis." Just my 2 cents.
Good job and keep up the noise...as the squeeky wheel gets the grease.
Happy vaping
Bonnie

 

[maclean]

I think you should read this thread before sending out any letters. It's one of the strongest and most positive statements in favor of smokeless alternatives by the medical profession yet.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/e-cigarette-news/125668-acsh-takes-aha-task.html

mac

 

[MoonRose]

Ok Kristin, I'm using your rendition and have added this part for my personal story:

I have been using e-cigarettes since July 19, 2010 and have not smoked a tobacco cigarette since that date. I worked as a Hospice Nurse for 5 years, caring for hundreds during that time who died of smoking related diseases, and not even when my mother died of cancer in 2002 was I able to quit smoking. Now for the first time in 26 years I am cigarette smoke free, this after more than a dozen attempts over the years to give up smoking cigarettes using all the different FDA approved smoking cessation products without success. Let me be clear on this one point though, I have stopped smoking cigarettes, not given up nicotine. The use of nicotine is actually of benefit to me, as it keeps my anxiety and bouts of depression under control without the use of prescription drugs and their side effects. Also the physical act of using the e-cigarette satisfies the hand to mouth habit of smoking a real cigarette and thus has allowed me to lower my nicotine intake to a mere 8mg/ml from the 18mg/ml that I started with, which was comparable to the amount of nicotine I was getting when smoking cigarettes. This combination of the physical act of smoking and being able to get the nicotine that I crave and need is what has led to the success of my being able to give up smoking tobacco cigarettes.

 

[Vocalek]

As I said shortly after you joined the community, you are a very valuable addition to our ranks, MoonRose. It is brave of you to openly discuss your anxiety and depression. I was reluctant to do so until after I retired, due to fear of on-the-job repercussions.

There is a terrible stigma attached to any "mental health" diagnosis. Kaiser has changed the name of its center from "Mental Health" to "Behavioral Health" but I don't like that any better. In fact, I think it's worse. That label implies that what we have is 100% under the control of our own willpower. I'd rather see the field called "Brain Health".

 

[Jetmec]

I agree with Bonnie, and also thank you for your hard work.

The one thing I would point out is your statement: "And let's not forget the thousands of people who die or are injured in fires each year, since the e-cigarette is not burning..." We absolutely must be factual in all our statements. I don't believe it is correct that "thousands of people" die or are injured each year in fires (caused by smoking). I read so much that I can't remember where I saw this. But, since e-cigs don't burn is a valid statement (duh ), I would suggest just deleting the clause about fires.

Again, thanks for stepping up! And you, too, Bonnie!

In addition to your statement in the US the government has mandated that an additional chemical be added to analogs that causes them to burn out if you don't actively drag on them. I am still using a few analogs and I have to keep lighting them if I set it down in an ash tray.

 

[MoonRose]

Only problem with the so called "fire safe" cigs is that they do have a tendency to drop a smoldering chunk of tobacco when relit which poses an additional fire hazard. Hubby and I have both been burned by those dropping chunks of smoldering tobacco when we relit a cig.

 

[Art-n-Cate]

I love everyone's passion! Very much reminded of the women who fought for their right to vote...
People who have smoked for many years fight a long, uphill battle to quit when using the FDA approved methods. I know. I tried them all. My inability to quit made me feel like such a weak coward...
On July 2nd - my grand daughter's ( we're mom and dad ) fifth birthday - I tearfully prayed to God, literally begging Him to show me a way to quit the 2+ PAD habit I'd had for more than 35 years. At that point, I'd been taking Chantix for six weeks, with no sign of being able to quit; rather it was driving me to the very limits of my sanity with it's side-effects. On July 10th, we bought an e-cig kit at the mall. On the way out to the car I smoked my last analog.
Long story short, I think a personal letter written by each and everyone of us who have found success this way could prove a very effective tool with which to show our cause to the powers that be. Perhaps CASAA could - or perhaps already does - collect them. I can just see Kristin leading a train of little red wagons filled with letters up the Capital steps...
But what MoonRose, Kristin, bonniegirl, Vocalek and others are doing is so important; too many people want someone else to handle their problems. My agenda is to speak before our local Chamber of Commerce, City Council, Toastmasters - any group that would have me - and educate them. Kristen, I'd love to use the letter you posted here for some talking points.
I have one other thought I'd like to point out as to the FDA's concern over children and e-cigs. Kids start smoking to be cool, just like I did so many years ago. If my little one came to me in a few years and said she'd thought to give it a try, I would order the coolest looking PV kit I could find, load her up with a no-nic juice and let her go. Having worked with kids for years, I gaurantee this could cut the number of teenage smokers down to nil. Just my personal .
I'm off topic and I apologize for that but your courage and dedication caused me to weigh in.
HBO has a movie called 'Iron Jawed Angels'. I think all of you would find it both very moving and inspiring.

 

[kristin]

have added this part for my personal story:

That's a great personal story, Dorothy. Thank you so much for sharing it!

 

[kristin]

As I said shortly after you joined the community, you are a very valuable addition to our ranks, MoonRose. It is brave of you to openly discuss your anxiety and depression.

+1

...................................