Wow. If you havent read this, do it now.

[Dpowell]

Why Ban E-Cigs in No-Smoking Sections

 

[jj2]

I predicted they'd come out with something.
ASH probably got the heads up from the FDA so before the FDA decision became public, ASH had time to sit around drinking their coffee and put this together.
As it's been said, the fight is far from over.

 

[cookiebun]

I hope some of the more eloquent folks we have here on ECF challenge the many lies posted there:

"More specifically, although exhaled e-cig vapors apparently contain smaller amounts than cigarette smoke of nitrosamines and other cancer-causing chemicals which are the apparent cause of about 3,000 nonsmoker deaths each year from lung cancer, nicotine – which is a major factor in tobacco smoke causing about 50,000 annual nonsmokers’ deaths from heart attacks – is found in abundance in e-cig exhaled vapors.
Also, the other major component of e-cig vapors is propylene glycol, a respiratory irritant used in antifreeze, and known to cause respiratory tract infections. "

Sure PG is an irritant >sarcasm< They put it in asthma inhalers to torture asthmatics more.
Stupid, lying jerks.

 

[kristin]

Well, I just threw this together...but it needs better editing to be "official CASAA" material:

"nicotine – which is a major factor in tobacco smoke causing about 50,000 annual nonsmokers’ deaths from heart attacks – is found in abundance in e-cig exhaled vapors."
There have been no peer-reviewed studies on exhaled vapor from e-cigarettes. All current research of INHALED vapor indicates low levels of nicotine.

"propylene glycol, a respiratory irritant used in antifreeze, and known to cause respiratory tract infections"
The report of a 3 years' study of the clinical application of the disinfection of air by glycol vapors in a children's convalescent home in the 1940's showed a marked REDUCTION in the number of acute respiratory infections occurring in the wards treated with both propylene and triethylene glycols.

"Thus, even if (as claimed) e-cig vapors contain fewer carcinogens than tobacco smoke, nicotine – a major cause, along with carbon monoxide, of causing the overwhelming majority of secondhand smoke deaths (about 50,000 a year) – is still present in abundance."
What studies show that NICOTINE causes the "overwhelming majority of secondhand smoke deaths??"

"In short, even if e-cigs largely eliminate the risk of lung cancer in nonsmokers, it appears that they may do little to reduce the risk which is much larger – by a factor of about 15-to-1 – of heart attacks."
Eliminating the smoke also eliminates the risks of emphesyma, oral cancer, pancreatic cancer, chronic bronchitis, Acute myeloid leukemia, Bladder cancer, Cancer of the cervix, Cancer of the esophagus, Kidney cancer, Cancer of the larynx, Cancer of the pharynx (throat), Stomach cancer, Cancer of the uterus AND reduces the risk of heart attack.

"FIRST, the number of heart attack deaths caused by secondhand tobacco smoke is about 15 times that caused by secondhand tobacco smoke due to lung cancer, and is the third major cause of death in the U.S. – second only to primary smoking (i.e., to smokers) and obesity. Indeed, the estimated 50,000 annual deaths from heart attacks triggered by secondhand smoke is larger than the number of deaths from all automobile accidents, from all crimes, from all guns, from AIDS, or from all illegal drugs.

The second reason is that extensive research has demonstrated that only minute amounts of the chemicals in drifting secondhand tobacco smoke are sufficient to trigger potentially fatal heart attacks in nonsmokers. These chemicals are believed to include nicotine and carbon monoxide.

While e-cigs apparently emit no carbon monoxide, they do emit (and users exhale) large amounts of nicotine – amounts and concentrations
which may be even higher than that emitted by cigarette smokers, depending upon how the e-cig is loaded, and how it is used by the purchaser."
All of this is completely unsubstantiated and highly contested and debated by reputable scientists. The CDC site states "More deaths are caused each year by TOBACCO USE than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined" That is NOT just second hand smoke, but ALL TOBACCO USE. It lists the deaths from second hand smoke as "49,400 DEATHS per year" NOT "heart attacks." And "Secondhand smoke causes 46,000 annual deaths from heart DISEASE" not "heart attacks. Heart disease takes YEARS to form, not 30 minutes of smoke exposure.

"This warning was based in large part on an article in Circulation, a prestigious peer-reviewed medical journal, entitled “Cardiovascular Effects of Secondhand Smoke – Nearly as Large as Smoking” which reported: “the effects of even brief (minutes to hours) passive smoking are often nearly as large (averaging 80% to 90%) as chronic active smoking.”
IN THE SHORT TERM. The body returns to normal shortly after being removed from exposure.

"Another published medical study reports that: “While the dose of smoke delivered to passive smokers is approximately 100 times smaller than that delivered to an active smoker, the effects of even brief (minutes to hours) passive smoking are often nearly as large (averaging 80–90%) as chronic active smoking.”
So, even though the smokers aren't dropping dead from 30 minutes of direct exposure, bystanders at 100 times smaller doses ar going to be at greater risk?

"Although e-cig makers and supporters initially claimed that their products contained no cancer-causing chemicals, a study by the FDA found that the e-cigs it tested contained detectable levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals to which users could potentially be exposed. More specifically, the FDA said the “toxic” chemicals included diethylene glycol [in addition to propylene glycol], “an ingredient used in antifreeze, [which] is toxic to humans;” “certain tobacco-specific nitrosamines which are human carcinogens;” and that “tobacco-specific impurities suspected of being harmful to humans – anabasine, myosmine, and B-nicotyrine – were detected in a majority of the samples tested.”
Well, we all know the standard answer to this drivel.

"In short, it appears that bystanders are being exposed to a wide variety of chemicals in addition to nicotine and propylene glycol when e-cigs are used in public places. While the amounts of these toxins, carcinogens, and other chemicals may be small, ASH respectfully suggests that no person should be able to force others to unnecessarily inhale any potentially dangerous chemicals, regardless of the amount of toxins or carcinogens present."
There are trace toxins in auto fumes, cooking fumes, cosmetics fumes, perfume. Based on this standard (regardless of the amount of toxins or carcinogens present) these all should be banned from public use so no one is forced to be exposed to them. A ridiculous argument that the level of toxins doesn't matter.

"how anyone could say with any certainty that frequent exposure to nicotine (an addictive stimulant drug), propylene glycol (a respiratory irritant known to cause respiratory tract infections), and other miscellaneous toxins and carcinogenic impurities which apparently are present, is completely harmless."
Millions of users and their families have used them for years without anyone dropping dead from an instant heart attack.

"Remember, it took dozens of years to demonstrate that cigarettes caused cancer in smokers, and at least a dozen more years to show that it caused cancer in nonsmokers – despite the tens of millions of smokers and exposed nonsmokers, and exposure periods measured in years."
Which is why we now know what it is in cigarette smoke that causes disease and illness and we know what the FDA and other tests have found in e-cigarettes don't carry those same risks.

"The uncertainty as to the level of potential risks to nonsmokers from e-cigs was summed up by a government authority at a recent news conference sponsored by the expert and unbiased FDA."
An "expert" FDA which unleashed Chantix onto the unsuspecting public, was headed by a hardcore anti-tobacco zealot who is in the pocket of Big Pharma, which want's its NRT market protected. Yes, very "unbiased."

"E-cigs have already been banned outright in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, and Mexico, among other places, and restricted in Finland, Malaysia, and Singapore. The use of e-cigs is prohibited in Suffolk Country, New York in any area in which tobacco smoking is prohibited."
None of which banned them based on any evidence of harm.

"The State of Virginia has also ruled that e-cigs are included in the state's existing smoking ban: "Are electronic cigarettes banned under the new law? Electronic cigarettes are considered cigarettes and are banned in the same locations affected by the new law."
The Attorney General reversed this policy nearly immediately after it was posted when CASAA member demanded a ruling!

"Perhaps most importantly, legislators in New Jersey recently voted overwhelmingly to ban the use of e-cigs wherever smoking is likewise prohibited."
Again, based on absolutely NO evidence of danger to the public.

"Such a ban on sales is also already partially in effect in Oregon as a result of legal action by the Attorney General. The Attorney General has filed a similar law suit against a major manufacturer of e-cigs, and the Attorney General of Connecticut has announced similar actions in the near future."
The lawsuit affects only the two companies that were suing the FDA and only one agreed to suspend sales in Oregon. There is no "partial ban" in Oregon.

"In short, the movement to prohibit the use of e-cigs around innocent bystanders is a strong and growing one supported by strong evidence and backed by precedent."
What evidence? None of this legislation provided ANY evidence of harm or potential harm.

"ASH respectfully suggests that, until proven completely safe for all bystanders – including those who are especially susceptible – the use of e-cigs in public places must be prohibited just as the use of ordinary tobacco cigarettes is."
The burden of proof is NOT on the users or manufacturers to prove absolute safety unless there is reasonable evidence to suggest that they would be a danger to the public. There have been no tests nor any illnesses or injuries in 7 years on the market to indicate any danger. There are thousands of products ranging from diet aids to vitimins to sexual health aids that are NOT burdened with proving they are harmless before being released to the market. The only required burden of proof applies to supporting health claims as a treatment or cure for disease.

How's that? LOL

 

[BCB]

Good start. Keep up the good work! CASAA rocks.

 

[Traver]

Amazing! What a bunch of crap and of course no way to refute this nonsense.

 

[Jennie O]

I couldn't read very far without getting ..........second hand PG and nicotine harm, really?? It's like Trump fishing for reasons to show Obama shouldn't be president. Hmmm this didn't work, let's try this crazier thing instead.

 

[syderial]

I need to look into groups that want to protest this kind of crap and help them. I have severe allergy triggered asthma. The allergy? Cigarette smoke! I can go out where smoking is allowed, if I want to go to the ER. On the other hand I use a pv with no effects at all. Love to hear the anti-vape crowd explain that.

 

[Traver]

Well, we all know the standard answer to this drivel.

True if you are writing this for us but for others it needs a better answer.

For instance:
The FDA has never said there is a risk of cancer from the traces it from the minute traces of chemicals it found. They are also present in chantix and other FDA approved products.

An "expert" FDA which unleashed Chantix onto the unsuspecting public, was headed by a hardcore anti-tobacco zealot who is in the pocket of Big Pharma, which want's its NRT market protected. Yes, very "unbiased."

I may be wrong but when you accuse someone in the FDA as being in the pocket of Big Pharma you loose credibility. To me it seems better to use the FDA's studies and words to bolster your arguments rather than to attack the FDA.

I need to read this again but that will have to wait till tomorrow when I am a bit more awake.

 

[Cat_in_the_Playground]

@ Kristin - I figured they were misquoting the CDC... It read as if they had cut and paste statements together to serve their purpose.

As for this statement: "After all, those using nicotine replacement therapy [NRT] to help quit smoking and end their nicotine addiction entirely need not use e-cigs, but rather may ingest nicotine by using patches, gum, inhalers, lozenges, and sprays, all of which are approved and tested by the FDA, and all of which present no health risks whatsoever to bystanders."

Seems to me that if I inhale a nicotine spray (likely using PG like my asthma inhaler), I will be exhaling something similar to what I exhale from my PV... and those "present no health risks whatsoever to bystanders."

 

[Thulium]

Seems to me that if I inhale a nicotine spray (likely using PG like my asthma inhaler), I will be exhaling something similar to what I exhale from my PV... and those "present no health risks whatsoever to bystanders."

The nicotine used in most e-cigarettes generally comes from the same (or fundamentally similar) sources as the nicotine used in pharmaceuticals, so other than whatever is not absorbed by the user of the less than 5mg/puff* of air sanitizing fog, the exhale of e-cigarette vapor would be substantially similar to what you exhale while chewing Nicorette gum.

*FYI: .005g/puff = 1ml / 200 puffs. In a recent Japanese study they used .25ml for 150 puffs which is less than .0017g/puff

 

[Dob_Bobolina]

Wow, what an aggravating letter. Makes you realize exactly how ignorant people are to e-cigs, choosing to attack rather than support them when they could be the best stop smoking aid ever made.

 

[MusicBox]

E-cigs are NOT banned in Australia

 

[bigtimeweb]

HA I just tried their contact form and got an error. Figures.

 

[Nicko]

A disgusting bunch of lies from ASH, as usual.

I looked at ASH New Zealand website last week. They say clearly that nicotine is NOT HARMFUL !!

It boggles the mind that ASH USA and ASH NZ can have such totally different views on the topic of nicotine. One says it causes 50,000 deaths by heart attack to BYSTANDERS in America every year, the other says it's harmless. What exactly is going on? I mean, this is beyond insanity.

Maybe Americans need to learn how to produce safe nicotine just like those lucky New Zealanders are enjoying.

Anyway, I emailed ASH NZ, asked why they recommend NRT but not e-cigs. I went into some detail about how good e-cigs are. Surprisingly I got a brief reply saying they are aware of the benefits of e-cigs. Well, whatever benefits they are aware of, they don't seem to be willing to tell the public about them. The website is devoid of any mention of them.

Kristen, maybe you should include this information in your letter to ASH USA. It seems utterly incredible to me that even the anti-smoking groups can't even agree on such a fundamental issue as to whether nicotine is harmful or not.

 

[mpetva]

The State of Virginia has also ruled that e-cigs are included in the state's existing smoking ban: "Are electronic cigarettes banned under the new law? Electronic cigarettes are considered cigarettes and are banned in the same locations affected by the new law." Link

WRONG:
http://www.revo-lution.com/2010/Virginia-AG.pdf

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Office of the Attorney General
Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II 900 East Main Street
Attorney General Richmond, Virginia 23219
804-786-2071
April 27, 2010 FAX 804-786-1991
Virginia Relay Services
800-828-1120
7-1-1
The Honorable Christopher K. Peace
Member, House of Delegates
P.O. Box 819
Mechanicsville, Virginia 23111
Dear Delegate Peace:
I am responding to your request for an official advisory opinion in accordance with § 2.2-505 of the Code of Virginia.
Issue Presented
You ask whether an e-cigarette falls within the definition of smoke or smoking for purposes of § 15.2-2820.
Response
It is my opinion that using an e-cigarette does not fall within the definition of “smoke” or “smoking” for purposes of § 15.2-2820.
Background
You relate that an electronic cigarette, also known as an e-cigarette or a personal vaporizer, is a battery-powered device that provides inhaled doses of nicotine by way of a vaporized solution. You note that the e-cigarette serves as an alternative to traditionally smoked tobacco products, such as cigarettes, cigars, or pipes. Finally, you observe that the e-cigarette produces no smoke and no combustion is involved in its operation.
Applicable Law and Discussion
Section 15.2-2824(A) prohibits smoking in a variety of locations, including elevators, public school buses, and the interior of public elementary, intermediate and secondary schools. Section 15.2-2825(A) forbids smoking in restaurants. Finally, § 15.2-2820 defines “smoke” or “smoking” as “the carrying or holding of any lighted pipe, cigar, or cigarette of any kind, or any other lighted smoking equipment, or the lighting, inhaling, or exhaling of smoke from a pipe, cigar, or cigarette of any kind.”
First, an e-cigarette does not involve the “inhaling, or exhaling of smoke.” Smoke is defined as “the gaseous products of burning carbonaceous materials made visible by the presence of small particles of carbon.”1 To be sure, one definition of smoke is “fume or vapor often resulting from the action of heat
1MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE UNABRIDGED 2152 (1993).
The Honorable Christopher K. Peace
April 27, 2010
Page 2
on moisture.”2 That, however, is not the way the term smoke is commonly understood.3 Statutes should be construed under their “ordinary and plain meaning.”4 Water vapor containing traces of particulate matter, such as water evaporating from a tea kettle, is not ordinarily understood to be “smoke.” An e-cigarette does not function in manner of a traditional cigarette because it functions electrically5 rather than via combustion of a material such as tobacco. Therefore, the vapor emitted by an e-cigarette would not fall within the definition of “smoke” or “smoking” in § 15.2-2820. Second, an e-cigarette is battery powered and is not “lighted” as that term is commonly understood.6 No flame is involved in its
Accordingly, it is my opinion that u
Kenneth T. Cuccin

 

[randyith]

API picked this up and is publishing for worldwide release

 

[krijmo]

What a bunch of horse pa-tooty...

 

[Nicko]

Here is a link to the ASH NZ page where they clearly state that nicotine is not harmful.

Treatments to quit smoking - ASH NZ

 

[GitMoe]

Great article. Really opened my eyes to the dangers of killing people with my second-hand vapor. I couldn't figure out why all those people went into cardiac arrest around me when I was vaping in public... Come on. Really? That article was awful. First off it never even said why ecigs are bad. It just clearly stated on repeat that there hasn't been any research. I'll have to bookmark that one for future review when its not 4am...