Dr. Siegel recently blogged about the West Springfield, Massachusetts Board of Health. Links to an article in The Springfield Republican and to the first draft regulation are included in the first and second paragraphs of the blog:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/01/west-springfield-board-of-health.html
The Board of Health is considering banning the sale of e-cigs to ADULTS, and indicated at their recent meeting that they would be revising the regulation after further discussion.
Boston, Great Barrington, Northampton, Saugus and South Hadley have already banned the use of electronic cigarettes where smoking is banned. These bans are harmful to smokers, because it wrongly suggests that the product must be dangerous if public health says it is. The Boston regulation reads "WHEREAS, e-cigarettes and their use in the workplace serious compromise current laws and regulations governing indoor smoking bans and have the potential to undermine the positive health and behavioral impacts associated therewith;". This statement shows me that they are completely clueless since e-cigs HAVE positive health impacts. They want to CONTROL behavior they don't like, rather than take on the more important role of actually helping the 20% of the population that continues to smoke.
I attended the West Springfield Board of Health meeting on January 16th, as did tobacco company representatives, retailers, other e-cig users, and a woman representing the state's tobacco control program. The Vice-Chair, Dr. Angel Morales, is a pediatrician who arrived late. Prior to his arrival, the board discussed Dr. Morales' experience with "minors" who presented with signs of nicotine overdose from using an electronic cigarette. This is troubling, but lets face facts, kids younger than 21 still drink alcohol, and kids younger than 18 still smoke, which shouldn't deter adults from being able to purchase legal products. Once Dr. Morales arrived, we learned that the one patient he had seen was a 19 year old. Old enough to buy cigarettes, but still a "minor" in the eyes of the board members. Dr. Morales also spoke of his own son, a smoker, who has tried electronic cigarettes, but they were of poor quality and didn't satisfy him. This seemed to be of great concern to the board, since the product isn't "FDA-approved and regulated", there is no way of knowing if the product is consistent. What if I buy a product that says 18mg, and it actually has 20mg? How would I know? What if there are dangerous chemicals? What if? What if? Cigarettes are a legal product. I know it drives public health crazy, but that is a fact. Adults have the right to make decisions for themselves. Smokers have the right to buy tobacco. Adults have the right to buy alcoholic beverages. That 19 year old could just as easily have ingested a few too many cups of coffee. Many of the board's concerns really seemed to me to be more of a consumer issue than a health issue. If I were still smoking, and I bought a convenience store e-cig that wasn't great, I might not buy that brand again, but it might be enough for me to seek out more information. If the cherry flavor tasted like cough syrup, I might try cinnamon the next time. If the nicotine content were too high, I'd be able to tell before I ended up in the ER. Even if (and I seriously hope this never happens to anyone) the e-cig I bought contained 100% pure nicotine, one vape would be enough for me to put it down and not pick it up again. It wouldn't kill me. What if the cartridge contained anti-freeze? What if it contained arsenic? What if it contained formaldehyde? It would still contain fewer chemicals than the tobacco cigarettes that I can legally purchase. Electronic cigarette manufacturers, especially the ones whose products are sold in convenience stores and national chains, aren't mixing liquid in a bathtub. These companies don't want to poison their customers, they want to bring to market a product that provides a positive experience, so their customers continue to buy their product and tell others of their good experience.
Which leads me to their other concern. Why are vapers so enthusiastic about vaping? Well, it's the vapor. It's the ability to exhale beautiful clouds of white puffiness that can be formed into rings, slowly releasing all the stress that made you want a vape in the first place. It has NICOTINE in it. Well, maybe. Some people vape zero nicotine liquid, but their behavior doesn't look right either, so we'll just tell them no too. We have NO WAY of knowing what dastardly damaging chemicals have magically formed by adding a little heat. The package may say the liquid contains PG, VG, flavorings and nicotine, but, but, but, surely that atomizer has atomized horrible, toxic, poisonous, vile chemicals that you are exhaling into the air. Why don't you people just use a nicotine inhaler? That is FDA-approved, so we'd like you do just use that, and then what you exhale can't trick the public into thinking that you are SMOKING. Now I suppose I could still blow a nicotine ring with that inhaler, but it just wouldn't be the same, would it? If we can't see it, it must be fine. But we CAN see it, so it has to be banned. After all, we don't know what is in this vapor. It has never been tested. Oh, it has been? But not by the FDA. If the FDA hasn't approved the vapor, we have no way of knowing what is in it. The company that manufactures the product can't be trusted to test their own product. Unless, of course, it's a pharmaceutical company.
Kevin from Vapers Place spoke, as did Jamie from the Vape Team. Jamie brought along his girlfriend and his parents. His mom, who is an MD, spoke. She was a great big ball of fire in a little package, and gave the board a lot of great information. New England Vapers was also represented by Santo, who brought his wife Brenda. Debbie told the board about her husband's allergy to cigarette smoke and his constant sinus infections when she was a smoker, and how he has not suffered from any sinus issues, despite exposure to vapor.
Throughout the meeting, the damage done by the FDA was glaringly apparent. Public Health officials look to the FDA for guidance, and the FDA's refusal to correct the inaccurate information it has disseminated about electronic cigarettes continues to jeopardize smokers and vapers alike. The last person to speak was the lady from tobacco control, who told the board that both her son and husband spoke. She told them that she wished they would both switch to electronic cigarettes. And then she told them that regardless, they had to do what they thought was right.
The board did not vote on this, they posted this on the town website after the meeting:
"NO vote was taken at the BOH meeting on 1-16-13. Additional research and conversation will occur before another public hearing is held, perhaps in March."
So for the time being, smokers in West Springfield are able to buy a safer alternative. Whether they will continue to have that choice remains to be seen.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/01/west-springfield-board-of-health.html
The Board of Health is considering banning the sale of e-cigs to ADULTS, and indicated at their recent meeting that they would be revising the regulation after further discussion.
Boston, Great Barrington, Northampton, Saugus and South Hadley have already banned the use of electronic cigarettes where smoking is banned. These bans are harmful to smokers, because it wrongly suggests that the product must be dangerous if public health says it is. The Boston regulation reads "WHEREAS, e-cigarettes and their use in the workplace serious compromise current laws and regulations governing indoor smoking bans and have the potential to undermine the positive health and behavioral impacts associated therewith;". This statement shows me that they are completely clueless since e-cigs HAVE positive health impacts. They want to CONTROL behavior they don't like, rather than take on the more important role of actually helping the 20% of the population that continues to smoke.
I attended the West Springfield Board of Health meeting on January 16th, as did tobacco company representatives, retailers, other e-cig users, and a woman representing the state's tobacco control program. The Vice-Chair, Dr. Angel Morales, is a pediatrician who arrived late. Prior to his arrival, the board discussed Dr. Morales' experience with "minors" who presented with signs of nicotine overdose from using an electronic cigarette. This is troubling, but lets face facts, kids younger than 21 still drink alcohol, and kids younger than 18 still smoke, which shouldn't deter adults from being able to purchase legal products. Once Dr. Morales arrived, we learned that the one patient he had seen was a 19 year old. Old enough to buy cigarettes, but still a "minor" in the eyes of the board members. Dr. Morales also spoke of his own son, a smoker, who has tried electronic cigarettes, but they were of poor quality and didn't satisfy him. This seemed to be of great concern to the board, since the product isn't "FDA-approved and regulated", there is no way of knowing if the product is consistent. What if I buy a product that says 18mg, and it actually has 20mg? How would I know? What if there are dangerous chemicals? What if? What if? Cigarettes are a legal product. I know it drives public health crazy, but that is a fact. Adults have the right to make decisions for themselves. Smokers have the right to buy tobacco. Adults have the right to buy alcoholic beverages. That 19 year old could just as easily have ingested a few too many cups of coffee. Many of the board's concerns really seemed to me to be more of a consumer issue than a health issue. If I were still smoking, and I bought a convenience store e-cig that wasn't great, I might not buy that brand again, but it might be enough for me to seek out more information. If the cherry flavor tasted like cough syrup, I might try cinnamon the next time. If the nicotine content were too high, I'd be able to tell before I ended up in the ER. Even if (and I seriously hope this never happens to anyone) the e-cig I bought contained 100% pure nicotine, one vape would be enough for me to put it down and not pick it up again. It wouldn't kill me. What if the cartridge contained anti-freeze? What if it contained arsenic? What if it contained formaldehyde? It would still contain fewer chemicals than the tobacco cigarettes that I can legally purchase. Electronic cigarette manufacturers, especially the ones whose products are sold in convenience stores and national chains, aren't mixing liquid in a bathtub. These companies don't want to poison their customers, they want to bring to market a product that provides a positive experience, so their customers continue to buy their product and tell others of their good experience.
Which leads me to their other concern. Why are vapers so enthusiastic about vaping? Well, it's the vapor. It's the ability to exhale beautiful clouds of white puffiness that can be formed into rings, slowly releasing all the stress that made you want a vape in the first place. It has NICOTINE in it. Well, maybe. Some people vape zero nicotine liquid, but their behavior doesn't look right either, so we'll just tell them no too. We have NO WAY of knowing what dastardly damaging chemicals have magically formed by adding a little heat. The package may say the liquid contains PG, VG, flavorings and nicotine, but, but, but, surely that atomizer has atomized horrible, toxic, poisonous, vile chemicals that you are exhaling into the air. Why don't you people just use a nicotine inhaler? That is FDA-approved, so we'd like you do just use that, and then what you exhale can't trick the public into thinking that you are SMOKING. Now I suppose I could still blow a nicotine ring with that inhaler, but it just wouldn't be the same, would it? If we can't see it, it must be fine. But we CAN see it, so it has to be banned. After all, we don't know what is in this vapor. It has never been tested. Oh, it has been? But not by the FDA. If the FDA hasn't approved the vapor, we have no way of knowing what is in it. The company that manufactures the product can't be trusted to test their own product. Unless, of course, it's a pharmaceutical company.
Kevin from Vapers Place spoke, as did Jamie from the Vape Team. Jamie brought along his girlfriend and his parents. His mom, who is an MD, spoke. She was a great big ball of fire in a little package, and gave the board a lot of great information. New England Vapers was also represented by Santo, who brought his wife Brenda. Debbie told the board about her husband's allergy to cigarette smoke and his constant sinus infections when she was a smoker, and how he has not suffered from any sinus issues, despite exposure to vapor.
Throughout the meeting, the damage done by the FDA was glaringly apparent. Public Health officials look to the FDA for guidance, and the FDA's refusal to correct the inaccurate information it has disseminated about electronic cigarettes continues to jeopardize smokers and vapers alike. The last person to speak was the lady from tobacco control, who told the board that both her son and husband spoke. She told them that she wished they would both switch to electronic cigarettes. And then she told them that regardless, they had to do what they thought was right.
The board did not vote on this, they posted this on the town website after the meeting:
"NO vote was taken at the BOH meeting on 1-16-13. Additional research and conversation will occur before another public hearing is held, perhaps in March."
So for the time being, smokers in West Springfield are able to buy a safer alternative. Whether they will continue to have that choice remains to be seen.
