URGENT - NYS Outright Sales Ban On the AGENDA Again

[Vapor Pete]

So whats the deal.... I've read back a few pages and havent seen an update. Has New York banned e-cigs and made criminals out of us?

-VP

 

[CarrieM]

So whats the deal.... I've read back a few pages and havent seen an update. Has New York banned e-cigs and made criminals out of us?

-VP

This passed in comittee, it will now be presented to the enire assembly for a vote...

 

[Sassyonemeis]

Awesome letter!!

well... I had contacted my local assemblyperson's office monday afternoon, and then again yesterday morning, to express my feelings and advise them about the fda rulings. Don't know how he ended up voting.

But the news this morning got my goat, and i sent this off:

Assemblymember linda b. Rosenthal
assemblymember richard gottfried

dear sir / madam,

it was with great dismay that i read this morning of the health committee's passage of a01468.

I should say up front that i am an e-cigarette user. Not someone who is using them in order to quit smoking, but rather someone who is using them as an alternative to smoking. I have no intention of giving them up, or using them temporarily in order to quit smoking. I apologize in advance if my tone seems harsh at all, but i did a great deal of research before making the informed choice of switching to e-cigarettes - and in reading quotes from both of you, it's clear to me that you didn't do even the most basic research on the subject before making up your minds - and trying to legislate away my choice.

First off - mr. Gottfried: You stated that "e-cigarettes are for some people a tool for enabling them to continue their nicotine addictions when they are someplace where they can't smoke."

i don't know how many of those "people" you actually spoke with, but i'd venture a pretty safe bet that i've interacted with a whole bunch more - in fact, just one online forum i frequent has over 52,000 members who use e-cigarettes. I have yet to meet a single person there who smokes, but uses e-cigarettes to "continue their nicotine addictions" indoors. Not one.

You also reportedly said that the manufacturers should prove to the fda that e-cigarettes are an effective smoking cessation aid in order to sell them to adults.

Well, the federal district court and the d.c. Appeals court disagree with you. They have ruled that the fda cannot regulate e-cigarettes as a drug/device, as they are not marketed or sold as therapeutic products. (this was decided in december - well in advance of yesterday's vote.)

e-cigarettes can't be banned, regulated by fda - other - decided

d.c. Circuit decision:

dc circ. Won't revisit decision on e-cigarettes - law360

secondly - ms. Rosenthal:

You are quoted as saying "so i did some research...i found what is in the e-cigarettes is a mystery." which is odd, as i was able to to that research in a matter of under an hour before i started using them. And the d.c. Court of appeals found out too... Here, from their ruling:
___________________________________
electronic cigarettes are battery-powered products that allow users to inhale nicotine vapor without fire, smoke, ash, or carbon monoxide. Designed to look like a traditional cigarette, each e-cigarette consists of three parts: The nicotine cartridge, the atomizer or heating element, and the battery and electronics. The plastic cartridge serves as the mouthpiece and contains liquid nicotine, water, propylene glycol, and glycerol. Id. At 5. The atomizer vaporizes the liquid nicotine, and the battery and electronics power the atomizer and monitor air flow. Id. When the user inhales, the electronics detect the air flow and activate the atomizer; the liquid nicotine is vaporized, and the user inhales the vapor.
____________________________________

here - from michael siegel, professor of community health services at the boston university school of public health: "the fda and major anti-smoking groups keep saying that we don't know anything about what is in electronic cigarettes," siegel said. "the truth is, we know a lot more about what is in electronic cigarettes than regular cigarettes." this as part of a review from the journal of public health policy - which was also able to identify 16 separate studies identifying the ingredients found in e-cigarettes.

"taking these products off the market would force thousands of users to return to cigarette smoking," siegel said. "why would the fda and the anti-smoking groups want to take an action that is going to seriously harm the public's health? The only ones who would be protected by a ban on e-cigarettes are the tobacco companies, as these new products represent the first real threat to their profits in decades."

siegel, an md, has 25 years of experience in the field of tobacco control and has no financial interest in e-cigarettes.

One would expect that if you were going to sponsor / co-sponsor a bill, you would do even the most basic research before attempting to legislate something that affects people's health.

Since i switched over to electronic cigarettes, my breathing has drastically improved, my smoker's cough is gone, my blood pressure is lower, my sense of smell has returned - and i have avoided over 6700 traditional cigarettes. I have been cigarette-free for over 250 days...this after 35 years of smoking. Mine is not an unusual story, either. I have read and heard the identical story repeated back to me from other e-cigarette users more times than i can count.

I can surely understand wanting to prevent minors from obtaining e-cigarettes, and am strongly in favor of the same. But a complete ban is throwing the baby out with the bathwater... If this ban goes through, me and thousands like me will be forced to go back to cigarettes. Why on earth would you want me to go back to cigarettes?

I've read through both of your websites, and you strike me as pretty progressive - which makes me doubly disappointed, as i consider myself to be a progressive, and believe strongly in many of the public policy stances that you do. I can't help but wonder what your motivation is - because it's clearly not my health, or the health of any of my fellow ny residents who choose to vape rather than smoke.

I strongly urge you to reconsider your stance on this issue. Lives and health are in the balance.

For your consideration, i am attaching both court rulings i referred to in the above, plus the study from the boston university school of public health, and, for comparison, a department of health and human services list of additives used in traditional cigarettes - which has been proven to be thousands of times more dangerous to public health than an e-cigarette.

Thanks to you both for your time.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Quote Originally Posted by mgmrick View Post
Link to local syracuse, ny newspaper on e-cigs

New York bill would ban 'e-cigarettes' until FDA action - NewsChannel 9 WSYR
Staff with St. Joseph's Tobacco Cessation program are happy to hear the state will start taking a closer look at the devices.

"There's no regulation over the production of the solution, so there's nothing to say extraneous elements aren't added into the solution," said program coordinator Chris Owens.

Wow. I look forward to calling Mr. Owens tomorrow and asking him what he thinks is going to happen to current e-cigarette users if a ban is put in place.

I called Mr. Owens' office a few times yesterday and got his answering machine. He called me back an hour ago.

Sadly, he appears to think that NRTs are king, and that anyone who can't quit using these methods doesn't deserve to not smoke. He refused to admit that an inevitability of an e-cigarette ban is that some e-cigarette users will go back to smoking. "Thre's no data to support that." I explained my story, complete with being unsuccessful quitting with traditional methods, and repeated several times, "I love smoking." I explained that I love the feeling and the habit of smoking so much that if I no longer could get that feeling in a way that 99% less harmful than smoking cigarettes, I will go back to smoking. He attempted to be helpful by recommending that the patch and gum be used in concert, but that wasn't what I was looking for.

I asked him if he'd heard about the negatives associated with e-cigs, including carcinogens and antifreeze. I explained why these facts are insignificant, and later offered to send him Dr. Siegel's article. He said he already has it, although I doubt he's read it, or ever will read it.

He wanted to get off the phone so I encouraged him to think about what he's supporting, and noted that, considering he sees the harm of tobacco every day of his life, he needs to realize that this bill would literally be a death sentence for many New Yorkers.

 

[MoonRose]

It's time we started to tell these people the truth whether they want to hear it or not. They are now becoming accessories to outright murder in my opinion. The FDA is the one pulling the trigger on the "smoking gun" so to speak and the so called leaders of our country are standing by and watching while they fire that gun at us. It's time to stop being nice about it and call it what it is ... MURDER.

 

[Mark Marshall]

"There's no regulation over the production of the solution, so there's nothing to say extraneous elements aren't added into the solution," said program coordinator Chris Owens."

There's no regulation over the production of cigarettes, either. Sounds like he's hooked on his own program.

And I don't see that "the state will start taking a closer look at the devices" at all. They're just handing that off to the FDA, who can't do anything about it.

 

[phenixred]

The FDA includes Propylene glycol on its list of substances Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS), and it meets the requirements of acceptable compounds within Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Considering PG has been widely used for many years without serious side effects, the substance can reasonably said to be of negligible concern.

The FDA already said its safe. So there reasong of "well the fda has to do more tests" is a bull.... excuse.
Chantex causes sever nausea and vometing and dizzyness and sucidal thoughts. they approved that. Nicotene patches cause sever skin irratation ( i have SCARING from them) They approved that. Nicotene Gum causes throght eye and nose irritation (i felt like i was maced in the face) they approved THAT.

This is about taxes not about health. There acting like a bunch of spoiled kids because there losing tax money. i know 6 people useing e-cigs exclusevly. lets assume all of us were one pack a day smokers. For 5.00 tax on all 6 people is 30.00 a day. multiply that by one year $10,950 on just 6 people switching.

 

[WNY]

Hello all,
I just received a call from my Assemblyman, Dennis Gabryszak, D - Buffalo who is a personal friend. I spoke with him at length while he was on his way home from Albany for a couple days and while he is familiar with the pending legislation to ban the e-cigarette currently in the Assembly, it was very clear to me after speaking to him that both he and his fellow Assembly members know almost nothing about the product they are proposing to ban. Clearly all they know is the negative propaganda about e-cigarettes. He is extremely interested in learning more about the product and invited me to his office tomorrow to make a case against the ban. I will be bringing the letter the CASAA wrote in addition to the article published by Michael Siegel and Zachary Cahn about e-cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy. As a supplier, I will also be showing him several of the countless testimonials that I receive from my customers who praise the changes this product has made in their lives. What I did get from speaking to Assemblyman Gabryszak is that many of his colleagues are hanging their hat on waiting for FDA approval of the e-cig as a drug delivery device and none of them have any idea that currently the FDA has lost multiple rounds in court against the e-cig industry and unless they appeal and win in the supreme court, it will be classified as a tobacco product. To their knowledge, the FDA holds all the cards.
Anyhow, can anyone suggest any other documents or articles they think would be helpful? Also I would like to find an article or timeline that shows a summary on the FDA case. Thanks in advance.

Taras

 

[MoonRose]

Let's for argument's sake say that there are 100,000 USA adults who have switched to using PV's exclusively and use the $5.00 tax as the standard. Now at an overall average of 1pk a day of tobacco cigarettes not bought by those 100,000, that's $500,000 a day in lost taxes, multiplied by 365 days for a year it comes to a grand total of $182,500,000 in lost tax revenue to local, state and federal government. Yep, I'd say it all has to do with all that lost tax income base that has so many up in arms against the use of PV's, not any concern at all about our health ... follow that good ole money trail.

 

[cracker75]

Hello all,
I just received a call from my Assemblyman, Dennis Gabryszak, D - Buffalo......

Thanks so much. You rock!

 

[DC2]

I just received a call from my Assemblyman, Dennis Gabryszak, D - Buffalo who is a personal friend. I spoke with him at length while he was on his way home from Albany for a couple days and while he is familiar with the pending legislation to ban the e-cigarette currently in the Assembly, it was very clear to me after speaking to him that both he and his fellow Assembly members know almost nothing about the product they are proposing to ban. Clearly all they know is the negative propaganda about e-cigarettes. He is extremely interested in learning more about the product and invited me to his office tomorrow to make a case against the ban. I will be bringing the letter the CASAA wrote in addition to the article published by Michael Siegel and Zachary Cahn about e-cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy. As a supplier, I will also be showing him several of the countless testimonials that I receive from my customers who praise the changes this product has made in their lives. What I did get from speaking to Assemblyman Gabryszak is that many of his colleagues are hanging their hat on waiting for FDA approval of the e-cig as a drug delivery device and none of them have any idea that currently the FDA has lost multiple rounds in court against the e-cig industry and unless they appeal and win in the supreme court, it will be classified as a tobacco product. To their knowledge, the FDA holds all the cards.

This is what our folks are generally finding everywhere they go to fight these statewide bans.

People love to think it is corruption and greed that is behind everything everybody does when it comes to electronic cigarettes.
The truth seems to be that at the statewide level these politicians are clueless and just vote for what sounds good.

The reality of the situation is that these politicians simply do not have the time to educate themselves on everything they vote on.
They trust those who provide them information, and sometimes they do that when they really shouldn't be.

Education is the key, and making our voices heard.
It is how we have been able to squash these bans at almost every turn.

As for what happened in New York, well, that may be another story.

Also I would like to find an article or timeline that shows a summary on the FDA case.

These links are stickies in the E-Cigarette News subforum...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ut-why-do-we-need-watch-how-get-up-speed.html
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...174-se-njoy-vs-fda-court-dockets-updates.html

 

[cracker75]

NY has 4 categories of tobacco-related tax, these are the totals for FY 2010:


Cigarette Tax $1,287,699,624
Tobacco Products Tax $63,632,247
Cigarette Retail License Fees $12,698,360
Cigarette Vending Machine Stickers $224,141

Text copied from tax.ny.gov

 

[Mark Marshall]

Hello all,
I just received a call from my Assemblyman, Dennis Gabryszak, D - Buffalo who is a personal friend. I spoke with him at length while he was on his way home from Albany for a couple days and while he is familiar with the pending legislation to ban the e-cigarette currently in the Assembly, it was very clear to me after speaking to him that both he and his fellow Assembly members know almost nothing about the product they are proposing to ban. Clearly all they know is the negative propaganda about e-cigarettes. He is extremely interested in learning more about the product and invited me to his office tomorrow to make a case against the ban. I will be bringing the letter the CASAA wrote in addition to the article published by Michael Siegel and Zachary Cahn about e-cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy. As a supplier, I will also be showing him several of the countless testimonials that I receive from my customers who praise the changes this product has made in their lives. What I did get from speaking to Assemblyman Gabryszak is that many of his colleagues are hanging their hat on waiting for FDA approval of the e-cig as a drug delivery device and none of them have any idea that currently the FDA has lost multiple rounds in court against the e-cig industry and unless they appeal and win in the supreme court, it will be classified as a tobacco product. To their knowledge, the FDA holds all the cards.
Anyhow, can anyone suggest any other documents or articles they think would be helpful? Also I would like to find an article or timeline that shows a summary on the FDA case. Thanks in advance.

Taras

Here are a couple of pertinent links - and I'm going to try attaching PDF's of the court decisions.
E-Cigarettes Can't be Banned, Regulated by FDA - Other - Decided
DC Circ. Won't Revisit Decision On E-Cigarettes - Law360

 

[Rosco]

That is cool WNY. Good for you...and him. Make us all proud

 

[Placebo Effect]

Thank you Mark Marshall and Taras. We need people as passionate and dedicated as the two of you in every district in every state and all around the world.

 

[Zen~]

I am in no way suprised that the law makers are confused by all of this, because we are sending erronious and mixed messages in defense of our use of these devices. I keep seeing those that oppose the ban trying to claim they do not use the e-Cig as a smoking cessation device, only to fully confess they actually DO use them for that purpose.

To switch from SMOKING to VAPING is using the device as a smoking cessation device. If you currently vape, and formerly smoked, and are in fear of going BACK to smoking if a ban is passed... you are using these items as a smoking cessation device.

This is Nicotine Replacement Therapy in it's purest form.

To make the claim that you will go back to analogs if a ban is in place sends the message LOUD AND CLEAR that as a community, we ourselves don't understand the difference between smoking cessation, nicotine replacement and nicotine cessation.

The time to develop a clear and unified message is here... and we need to carefully craft the message and deliver it accurately if we hope to make any headway.

If we make ANY of the following claims, we have supported their understanding of this device as being a smoking cessation method.

1) We no longer smoke cigarettes because we now use e-cigs.
2) We don't WANT to quit vaping, we enjoy this MORE than cigarettes.
3) If you ban e-cigs, we will be forced back to analogs.
4) If you ban e-cigs, you are murdering us.
5) anything that resembles any of the above messages.

Lets face it... many, if not most of us, use these as smoking cessation devices. There is a HUGE difference between this and nicotine cessation products and NRTs.

It serves NO PURPOSE to misunderstand and misrepresent our use of these devices, because our arguments only serve to strengthen the oppositions claims.

Whether the eCig is intended to be used as a smoking cessation device or not... most of us use the devices for that sole purpose. From the start, these devices have been marketed as smoking cessation devices... there are countless websites out there that make this exact claim.

And we contact our representitives and tell them these devices are not for the purpose of quitting smoking... these are an alternate to smoking analogs... oh, and BY the way, if you BAN them we will have no choice but to go BACK to analogs, therefore you murdered us... BUT... These are NOT smoking cessation devices.

Can you see why they are confused?

So... what is our message?

On what point or points should we focus to prevent such a ban from happening?

We cannot tell them they are safe... We assume they are. There are studies that say certain components are harmless and considered to be safe, but in what amounts? Do we KNOW? Do we have PROOF?

We cannot in all honesty say they are NOT smoking cessation devices. We are in a panic over this BECAUSE we use them in our own self-devised smoking cessation rituals.

They are NOT Nicotine Cessation devices... they ARE smoking cessation devices...

So... what is the factual message we wish to send to the law makers?

We are SCARED?

We feel VIOLATED?

The message they will listen to is as follows:

Dear Law Maker:

I am addicted to a substance that is relatively harmless when ingested safely, and our lawmakers are proposing to ban the only safe delivery system I have experienced to date, that actually works for me.

I am scared and I feel violated.

I admit that I have not been able to control my addiction to the point where I no longer an a slave to it, but you, as an elected official, have a responsibility to me. You are in office to protect my interests and safeguard my freedoms.

I'm not breaking any laws.

Nicotine ingestion is completely legal. Unfortunately, the incumbent methods of ingesting nicotine are either unpleasant, or lethal. E-cigs are neither of these two things.

There has been a lot of debate regarding how to "classify" this new device that has found its way to the market.

I don't care what you call it.

You can call the device whatever you want to call it. If you wish to call it Nicotine Replacement Therapy, that's fine. If you wish to call it Smoking Cessation... that's fair. If you want the FDA to regulate it as a tobacco product, fine...

But please don't ban the sale of these devices.

I have tried patches, gum, and pills... I have relapsed over and over again. Ultimately, I have surrendered to my nicotine additiction.

It wins.

I wasn't always addicted.

I became addicted when I smoked cigarettes many many years ago. These cigarettes, bearing the NY tax stamp, were the gateway to my addiction. Slowly I went from a few cigarettes per day up to a few cigarettes per hour. I was smoking three legally taxed packs of cigarettes every day. Over time I was able to cut back... I even quit entirely for an extended period of time... but nicotine is a powerful addiction, and in a moment of weakness I relapsed yet again.

I am powerless against this addiction and I am ashamed of it.

With eCigs, I no longer smell like a smoker. I no longer cough like a smoker and I no longer ingest carbon monoxide and smoke of any kind. I am free of the harmful toxins associated with ingesting smoke of any kind.

Technology is supposed to make our lives better... and in this case... it's working.

Yes... I am addicted to Nicotine... but I do not want to die because of it, and thankfully, I don't have to... Unless you ban the only relatively safe alternative that has ever been invented for the ingestion of this legal substance.

I beg you from the bottom of my heart, which has improved in function since I discovered eCigarettes...

Do NOT ban the eCigarette...

 

[nickf41680]

Zen- I agree with you 100% and I feel as though this is the direction we should take... My only question is for those that vape at a zero nic level... Is it still considered NRT? I wouldn't think so bc there is no nicotine present....and if the decision is made that it is a " drug delivery device" if there is no nicotine what drug is it delivering?


Sent from somewhere in my daily travels....

 

[Mark Marshall]

I don't agree with your assessment re: cessation.

In order for me to be using something as a cessation device, the intent must be that I'm using it in order to avoid cigarettes - which is not the case. I'm using them because I actually prefer them. (I've had to resort to analogs a couple of times when a shipment was delayed, and I didn't like it one bit.)

However, if that choice is taken away from me, then I will go back to cigarettes. I will freaking hate it, but I will. In order for my e-cigs to be a cessation device, my intent has to be using them in order to cease smoking.

But this is besides the point. The courts have already ruled that e-cigs are not considered cessation or drug delivery devices, and should be regulated as Tobacco Products.

Look at it this way (hypothetical): I used to drink beer, but then I found wine. I like wine so much, I don't want beer anymore at all. But I really do like having something to take the edge off at the end of the day. Now if you ban wine, and I want to take the edge off - I'm going to have to resort to beer - even though I much prefer wine.

I think one reason some of us point to the health aspects of e-cigs is because those are the terms in which those who are proposing the bans are talking.

For me - the health benefits are secondary to the actual enjoyment of the vapestick.

 

[DC2]

Interesting points, but they don't really apply to me.
I like nicotine, and believe it has benefits that I intend to continue enjoying.

I am not a slave to nicotine, however, and can easily go without.
I am, however, a slave to the social and mental benefits, as well as the actions of simulated smoking.

 

[yvilla]

There is one major problem with your analysis Zen. Our opponents are the ones who conflate, confuse, and just plain don't understand the difference between smoking cessation and nicotine cessation. We DO understand it.

THEY believe smoking cessation and nicotine cessation are one and the same thing. All their so-called smoking cessation methods and drugs are designed and marketed with one underlying purpose and goal - to get people to stop smoking AND cease all nicotine intake. That's what NRTs, or nicotine replacement therapy drugs are for. They all come with those wean-down-over-time-to-zero instructions and plans (which is why so many NRT quit attempters who need nicotine in their systems continually relapse time after time).

So when we say ecigs are not a smoking cessation device/drug, we are really trying to rebut their MISperceptions, for the most part, that we are trying to cease nicotine use, when most of us are not (obviously some are, but I think not the majority of ecig consumers). Again, they are the ones who fail to understand the critical difference between ceasing smoking and swearing off nicotine. So we say we have switched to ecigs, or that ecigs are an alternative to cigarettes, or that we WANT to continue to use nicotine, all in the attempt to make them see the truth - that there is a critical difference between smoking cessation and nicotine cessation.

Bottom line, given the meaning our opponents ascribe to the term smoking cessation - ecigs are not smoking cessation products. In an ideal world where they understood that smoking cessation does NOT mean nicotine cessation, then your thesis would hold true - for we ecig users for the most part do not want to smoke anymore. But since we do not inhabit that ideal world, we have to continue to educate opponents that they are the ones who are wrong, and who do not understand.