tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-89195568248565273442024-03-13T22:35:36.517-07:00Glimpses Through The MistMy views on tobacco and nicotine consumer issues, nanny state policies, Libertarian viewpoints, harm reduction, electronic cigarettes, snus, Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association, Smokefree Wisconsin and other random topics that pop up.Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-42387570609638439642019-07-22T10:57:00.004-07:002019-07-22T15:45:32.857-07:00It's My 10 Year Smoke-free Anniversary and I'm TerrifiedFirst, I want to say that TODAY IS MY TEN YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF QUITTING SMOKING. I can say with 100% certainty that, without vapor products, I'd still be smoking today. And I'm horrified and terrified that these low risk products may soon not be available for people who vape or still smoke, while cigarettes remain freely sold!<br />
<br />
This article, <a href="https://reason.com/2019/07/19/anti-vaping-researchers-claim-e-cigarettes-cause-heart-attacks-before-smokers-try-them/" target="_blank">"Anti-Vaping Researchers Claim E-Cigarettes Cause Heart Attacks Before Smokers Try Them,"</a> exposes the kind of junk science that risk reduction advocates are constantly dealing with. Twisted and outright unethical research that causes people who smoke to avoid or give up products that are actually 99% safer, because they believe the "trusted" anti-tobacco groups that lie, telling them that vaping is as bad as or worse than smoking!<br />
<br />
Stanton Glantz has been a leader in the propaganda against vaping, and because of his history fighting the tobacco industry, people believe his lies. But this shows that he willfully and purposefully misrepresents the data to further his prohibitionist agenda.<br />
<br />
<b>FACT:</b> Vaping REDUCES the exposures of toxins linked to smoking-related diseases (cancer, heart disease, stroke, COPD) to nearly that of non-smokers.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrfrF7p5g0BNWRX_93YBrhyphenhyphenNAcrP8H4zH9WZgxiO7XcbgxibbR7sJtTt7DkBZLD7AfvKWgUu-vLFjnE6f3YpXNGbcXdu8boqqjMvjrHNLWMkatLwI9ZMCJqHwqSdn-3Q72hqCwGEGAnym_/s1600/Comparison+of+Toxicants.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="524" data-original-width="709" height="472" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrfrF7p5g0BNWRX_93YBrhyphenhyphenNAcrP8H4zH9WZgxiO7XcbgxibbR7sJtTt7DkBZLD7AfvKWgUu-vLFjnE6f3YpXNGbcXdu8boqqjMvjrHNLWMkatLwI9ZMCJqHwqSdn-3Q72hqCwGEGAnym_/s640/Comparison+of+Toxicants.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<b>FACT:</b> The Royal College of Physicians (UK) has determined that <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review" target="_blank">vaping is AT LEAST 95% safer than smoking </a>(probably more like 99%) and recommends that people who smoke switch to vaping if they cannot or will not quit smoking.<br />
<br />
<b>FACT:</b> The same data that Glantz used to determine vaping caused heart attacks actually shows that vapers were SIGNIFICANTLY LESS LIKELY TO HAVE A HEART ATTACK.<br />
<br />
<b>FACT:</b> There HAS NOT BEEN ONE CASE of "popcorn lung" diagnosed in someone who vapes. In fact, the suspected chemical in popcorn lung, diacetyl, is found at much higher levels in cigarettes and popcorn lung has never been linked to smoking. So, it makes no sense that vaping would carry a risk of popcorn lung when smoking doesn't.<br />
<br />
<b>FACT:</b> The "teen vaping epidemic" has been purposefully misrepresented. After JUUL hit the market in 2015, teen vaping DECREASED from 16% in 2015 to 11.3% in 2016 (according to CDC data.) In 2016 & 2017, the US Surgeon General, FDA, CDC, Truth Initiative, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and the media began issuing statements and articles about teen vaping, informing teens (who otherwise saw vaping as "lame smoking cessation for old people") that vaping was a teen trend, that the devices were easily hidden from parents and teachers, and that they came in "kid-friendly" flavors. Suddenly, teen vaping (or at least, teens giving vaping a try at least 1 time in the past 30 days) skyrocketed. But, looking at the actual numbers, just 5.8% of high school students were vaping daily, and they were already smoking before vaping (or may have been smoking if vaping wasn't an option.)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipt1G98lUv63oZNSWrwdgZ3tbqXcKI3M0v_J5p4aYUCou2MvXK69j7nTC4feVj2Z5IG8v12CvRs0iOIwBaKL3pSv-BWZKely7FAlnrTpfUlqzWCnPiHL0WKJcjL0xzGse6u9zOutb8DWEl/s1600/Epidemic+Youth+Vaping+vs+Smoking+2009+to+2018.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="560" data-original-width="968" height="369" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipt1G98lUv63oZNSWrwdgZ3tbqXcKI3M0v_J5p4aYUCou2MvXK69j7nTC4feVj2Z5IG8v12CvRs0iOIwBaKL3pSv-BWZKely7FAlnrTpfUlqzWCnPiHL0WKJcjL0xzGse6u9zOutb8DWEl/s640/Epidemic+Youth+Vaping+vs+Smoking+2009+to+2018.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<b>FACT:</b> There is ZERO evidence that vaping leads to teen smoking. The anti-vaping people use the same kind of science as was used in this heart attack study to "prove" a gateway. They look at surveys and see how many teens who smoke also used vapor products at any time in their life. They found that more teens who smoke had used or currently used vapor products, so decided that meant vaping leads to smoking. But they admit in the fine print that they cannot really determine if the vaping CAUSED the smoking or if it was just that kids who are more likely to smoke were trying vaping first.<br />
<br />
<b>FACT:</b> With this "teen vaping epidemic" raising fears of a "gateway" to increased youth smoking, high school smoking rates have actually DECLINED from 15.8% in 2011 (when they first started tracking vaping rates) to 8.1% in 2018. Middle school smoking went from 4.3% to 1.8%. Smoking for 18-24 years old (those who would have been teen vapers that became smokers as adults) <a href="https://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2019/07/as-young-adult-smoking-evaporates-teen.html" target="_blank">went from 15.5% in 2014 to 8.1% in 2018</a>. YOUTH VAPING IS CLEARLY NOT LEADING TO TEEN OR YOUNG ADULTS SMOKING.<br />
<br />
<b>FACT:</b> Nicotine is NOT A CARCINOGEN nor is it considered the cause of other diseases related to smoking, such as heart disease, COPD or stroke. "Addiction" isn't what causes those diseases, either. SMOKE INHALATION is what is linked to those diseases. Nicotine gums, lozenges and patches were approved by the FDA because they were safer than smoking and had low probability of addiction without the smoke. Vapor products use the EXACT SAME nicotine as pharmaceutical nicotine products. Studies using 4 mg nicotine patches as treatments for Parkinson's and ulcerative coalitis found that, after 6 months of nicotine treatment, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2014383/" target="_blank">patients were NOT addicted to nicotine</a>. Away from smoking, it appears nicotine is no more dangerous or addictive than caffeine.<br />
<br />
<b>FACT:</b> Most of the stories about "vape pens exploding" are actually BATTERIES NOT IN DEVICES that are in pockets or purses with other metal objects that caused the batteries to overheat. They weren't even in the device, in spite of the alarming headlines. Other cases are caused by the consumer "modifying" their device in ways not intended by the manufacturer, using old, damaged batteries or using improper charging equipment.<br />
<br />
<b>FACT:</b> There is no proven risk of seizures because of vaping. Just as with the heart attacks, information was withheld, such as the fact that many of the cases were patients with previous history of seizures, the seizures didn't even happen close to the time the patient vaped or the patient was also using drugs. Additionally, there were only 35 self-reported cases (ie. unverified and not reported by scientists or doctors) over nearly a DECADE. With millions of people vaping in that decade, an average of 3.9 seizures per year is actually lower than the average number of seizures reported by people who weren't even vaping!<br />
<br />
<b>FACT:</b> The majority of ex-smoking, adult vapers use non-tobacco flavors. They report that sweet flavors make real cigarettes taste horrible and that keeps them from relapsing. Also, for many, the "tobacco" flavored vapor products just makes them crave the real thing. Claims that "adults trying to quit smoking don't want fruit and candy flavors, so vape companies must be targeting teens" are hypocritical by completely ignoring the fact that the FDA-approved Nicorette gums and lozenges they promote come in cinnamon, Fruit Chill, orange, cherry and mint - but DON'T come in "tobacco" or "menthol" flavors. Is Nicorette "targeting youth," too?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwtPpLEgyLm16ajVyi33mvZFYs9_idYqfl2_SGQEo5VlTKISiV4CHfJY6LLsSWM38SsKzpmE8x4JRp4wRoBO4x-xOPo_CTT-o64rv64LGVrpQbtbet2wtLFQe235CVnW6tTaJ1GSk4RpB6/s1600/Nicorette2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="586" data-original-width="960" height="390" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwtPpLEgyLm16ajVyi33mvZFYs9_idYqfl2_SGQEo5VlTKISiV4CHfJY6LLsSWM38SsKzpmE8x4JRp4wRoBO4x-xOPo_CTT-o64rv64LGVrpQbtbet2wtLFQe235CVnW6tTaJ1GSk4RpB6/s640/Nicorette2.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
I started vaping back in 2009 and was active on a vaping discussion forum. Minors weren't even aware of vaping back then or thought it was "for douches" and weren't even allowed in the forum. I joined the forum because I had just purchased my first vapor product and it was tobacco flavored. It was gross and tasted nothing like smoking, so I was trying to find out if there were other flavors. At the time, most companies only sold tobacco or menthol flavors. There were hundreds of threads on that forum of people trying to find or make all kinds of flavors. Thousands of requests for candy, fruit, beverage, cereal and dessert flavors by adult vapers of an average age of mid-thirties. I am a first-hand witness to the fact that the vaping industry didn't come up with flavors "to entice and hook kids." They came up with them because adult vapers WANTED those flavors! I'm a 51 year old ex-smoker, who smoked non-menthol cigarettes for 20 years, and I use a flavor that's a blend of blueberry, raspberry and dragon fruit! My 71 year old aunt, who smoked for 50 years, uses the same flavor.<br />
<br />
These are the FACTS about the so-called "science" that's being used in the US to scare people who smoke away from switching to vaping - and scare people who don't smoke or vape into supporting the horrible laws being passed against vaping, like use bans, flavor bans, high taxes and even outright banning the sale in stores and online, while leaving cigarettes to still be sold in just about every corner gas station, convenience store, big box store and grocery store.<br />
<br />
Please don't believe the lies. Millions of lives depend on it - both now and in the future.<br />
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-2854506354947665972016-08-08T08:39:00.001-07:002018-08-08T06:51:41.872-07:00FDA Vapor Regs Analogy for Non-VapersDon't get why the FDA vapor product regulations are ridiculous? Let us give you a more relatable analogy...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjH8TniVhALbkS5zx05LIoDB3m3WXdIpHGIlVkz4LKbjj7ApYtTT11NkfbETjt_JaOLiRo6TqvbdNvGVYrjdAXfdCHC9ief-8Tmot0OT1oJA2onL4uz0y40RFwmiKZo_0IFWvYETFj6WDGp/s1600/maxresdefault.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjH8TniVhALbkS5zx05LIoDB3m3WXdIpHGIlVkz4LKbjj7ApYtTT11NkfbETjt_JaOLiRo6TqvbdNvGVYrjdAXfdCHC9ief-8Tmot0OT1oJA2onL4uz0y40RFwmiKZo_0IFWvYETFj6WDGp/s320/maxresdefault.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Imagine that some small, upstart tech company developed a car that significantly reduces accidents and emissions, and makes driving at least 95% safer for the public and cleaner for the environment.<br />
<br />
Except the government, environmental groups and insurance companies claim that the remaining 5% risk is still too high and that teens might be lured into buying these cool-looking, colorful cars (adults don't want cool cars, of course) and drive recklessly, because they (correctly) perceive the car to be safer. So, they say these safer, cleaner cars need to be regulated just like the existing, dangerous gas guzzlers.<br />
<br />
The new regulations require the small tech company to jump through new, prohibitively expensive and complicated regulatory hoops that were supposed to reduce accidents and emissions. Not only do they have to prove they're safer and cleaner than existing cars, they have to prove that their car will never cause an accident, can't be misused to cause an accident, can't be modified to increase emissions, will never inspire someone to drive recklessly and won't cause someone to buy a different car (that doesn't have the same safety and environmental features) in the future.<br />
<br />
Even if they do manage to prove all of that and can scrape up the money to get approved, the regulations also prohibit the company and car dealerships from allowing customers to test drive the car and forbid them from advertising or telling their customers that the car is safer than other cars and better for the environment.<br />
<br />
On top of all of that, the regulations DON'T apply to the existing car designs on the market, because the law grandfathered in any car design that was on the market before 2007, allowing them to keep selling without hindrance. Of course, if Big Auto wants to introduce a new design, it can afford the millions of dollars it would cost to meet the requirements OR it can just make a few tweaks and claim the new design is "substantially equivalent" to its pre-2007 design. As long as they don't make their car safer or cleaner, it's substantially equivalent.<br />
<br />
Therefore, the new, reduced risk and cleaner car won't be able to be sold and the far more dangerous gas guzzlers will be the consumers' only option. Or, the government and policy groups tell them, they should just quit driving altogether and walk or bike everywhere, since that's the safest and healthiest option.<br />
<br />
To add insult to injury, the governments that passed high taxes on the old cars - to encourage the public to buy cleaner and safer cars - are now applying the same onerous taxes to the cleaner and safer cars, too.<br />
<br />
That's EXACTLY what the FDA is doing to the vapor industry.<br />
<br />
If you're a vaper, the fight is NOT OVER! Go to <a href="http://casaa.org/">http://CASAA.org</a> NOW!Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-11091293762101026562016-03-05T08:04:00.000-08:002016-03-05T15:59:43.115-08:00But You're Still Addicted...Vapers are often told, "Sure, you quit smoking, but you're still addicted." What does that even mean?<br />
<br />
I consume around 12 mg to 18 mg of nicotine per day as a vaper. Vapers may consume anywhere from 0 mg to 200 mg per day. If I don't use my vapor device for a while, I sometimes feel a bit anxious and maybe feel a little crabby. Nicotine is not a carcinogen, but some studies say nicotine could raise the risk of cardiovascular disease.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWdHJBT9w_XeXfJB4u1EKRNdfRUkqHm-_Jl7Ihcc8ltdWdM1Ahfn6fTUTfehq-KEVQVffD6o9qx8yhRrPOKd7ewqPM40sMEJd7GpQCdDO30O2inl8Cf7Bvr12QIfesDgk3kvgS4XHbsKsU/s1600/starbucks_line.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="239" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWdHJBT9w_XeXfJB4u1EKRNdfRUkqHm-_Jl7Ihcc8ltdWdM1Ahfn6fTUTfehq-KEVQVffD6o9qx8yhRrPOKd7ewqPM40sMEJd7GpQCdDO30O2inl8Cf7Bvr12QIfesDgk3kvgS4XHbsKsU/s320/starbucks_line.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Lining up for a fix of their socially acceptable.<br />
mood-altering, psychoactive drug.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
But compare that to caffeine. The average daily caffeine consumption (from all sources) by US adults is, on average, 178 mg per day. (If you include children under 18, the mean only goes down to 165 mg per day, so kids are consuming a significant amount of caffeine, as well.) Some age groups consume 300 mg to 400 mg per day. Many health experts say that the safe level is around 300 mg per day. People who eliminate caffeine from their diet can experience "withdrawal" symptoms such as headaches, anxiety, nausea and restlessness, in many ways similar to the effects of nicotine "withdrawal." Some studies have also linked caffeine to cardiovascular disease.<br />
<br />
Both caffeine and nicotine use are linked to improvements in mental alertness and concentration, but nicotine is curiously known to also help with relaxation. Both chemicals have been linked to possibly helping in some way with brain diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and MS. Nicotine has additionally been linked to aiding patients with ulcerative colitis.<br />
<br />
Both caffeine and nicotine occur naturally. Caffeine in coffee, tea and cocoa; and nicotine in eggplant, green peppers, tomatoes, other vegetables and the tobacco plant. (Notice which chemical is present in nutritious, fresh, whole foods and which must be heavily processed for human consumption?) Both chemicals are stimulants. Both are a mood-altering, psychoactive drug. Both chemicals are natural insecticides. Both chemicals are toxins and can kill you if you consume too much.<br />
<br />
One clear difference between nicotine and caffeine is that the effects of nicotine wear off far faster than the effects of caffeine, so nicotine consumers take in more or less the same in milligrams, but do it more frequently. Because of that, a caffeine consumer can drink a big cup of coffee and be good for a few hours, whereas a vaper may seem to have their device glued in their hand. That gives the false impression that nicotine consumers are "more dependent" than caffeine consumers. (Of course, many caffeine users are never far from their morning cup off coffee then switching to their afternoon energy drink or caffeinated soda, but no one really notices that.)<br />
<br />
So, does it really make sense that vapers are treated as "addicts" and nicotine use is warned against, while caffeine consumers are treated as "normal" and caffeine use is practically worshipped?<br />
<br />
Vapers aren't smoking. They are just nicotine consumers and, as I've just shown, that's not much different from being a caffeine consumer. Unless you never consume caffeine and also see caffeine consumers as "addicts," maybe consider checking your judgemental opinion of "vapers are still addicts" at the door?Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-18125163056918775242015-09-29T06:42:00.000-07:002015-09-29T06:53:14.893-07:00Vape Industry: Don't Forget Older Smokers<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px;">
My 66 year old, smoker aunt has watched nearly my entire family switch from smoking to vaping over the past 6 years. She never showed any interest - "too much fuss" she said, so we never pushed it. We even set up a smoking area, on our screen porch, for her when she moved in with us a few weeks ago.</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjV7dWC3Mj2qsKONWDNtCPHYVTAefw1DQGXMICWudYXwODVpDnoWTKYmIsJJc75lQv1HpJA48iUYypZ4mlu8wKjT-FNFc-5fWa_O7e8Kfpr9Gdla4_wXsUtAn0lzeYfnf8PtpljKOUxaDQw/s1600/Sheila+cigalike.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjV7dWC3Mj2qsKONWDNtCPHYVTAefw1DQGXMICWudYXwODVpDnoWTKYmIsJJc75lQv1HpJA48iUYypZ4mlu8wKjT-FNFc-5fWa_O7e8Kfpr9Gdla4_wXsUtAn0lzeYfnf8PtpljKOUxaDQw/s320/Sheila+cigalike.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Enjoying her first cigalike inside</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<div style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px; margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
A couple of weeks ago, we were at Walmart and I casually mentioned that a disposable cigalike being sold was the most realistic I'd ever tried and, to my surprise, she bought one<span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline;">! A week or so (and 3 disposable ecigs) later, she mentioned she'd like it if it could be recharged and refilled. So I picked up a rechargeable cigalike, with extra cartos, for her when I was in Walgreens.</span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19.32px;">
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px;">
Yesterday, my husband and I stopped in a vape shop for supplies and she came in with us. She is now the proud owner of a new, shiny, red mod (100% her idea.)</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
At the store, she told me, "I'm finding that I'm using it (the cigalike) more often then smoking and I'm really enjoying it. I'm only smoking in the morning. So, I may as well get something better."</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgImEHUkLoRhZR1HOVADu5YmBf2kc7pXtfobdLn1U1E85b58iI5eKqLC0eEmSp1yUhXJcrQczjKrmI4v-Bk-GD6sx2eUXE5kx0fAnMVv6LO8I3UGOkePK6XDeZJhXY4KmzpdM-3FFPl089J/s1600/Sheila+Vape+Shop.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgImEHUkLoRhZR1HOVADu5YmBf2kc7pXtfobdLn1U1E85b58iI5eKqLC0eEmSp1yUhXJcrQczjKrmI4v-Bk-GD6sx2eUXE5kx0fAnMVv6LO8I3UGOkePK6XDeZJhXY4KmzpdM-3FFPl089J/s320/Sheila+Vape+Shop.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Buying her first mod</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
This story, folks, is a perfect example of why we need to keep fighting for diversity in the marketplace. Without that first cigalike and unbiased guidance, in a safe, comfortable and reassuring environment, she was unlikely to walk into a vape shop. This can be extremely important for a smoker's journey from smoking to vaping. (On a side note, this shop only had 2 straight tobacco flavors. Shop owners would be smart to have more than that for smokers.)</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
It also shows a classic case of a typical "dual user" that the ANTZ are wringing their hands over. Most dual users just haven't finished their journey. To do so, they need truthful information and gentle guidance, not pressure to jump in over their head with advanced devices and low nicotine levels or to quit smoking right away.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
And it makes an important point that many "dual users" are smokers who had ZERO interest in quitting, yet they are now cutting down their smoking and likely on a path to quit that they wouldn't have been on with only NRT as an option.</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
This is what THR advocacy is all about - getting out truthful information about ALL low-risk alternatives!</div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
For more information, go to <a href="http://casaa.org/">http://casaa.org</a></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 6px; margin-top: 6px;">
Wisconsin residents, please also join the Wisconsin Smoke-free Alternatives Coalition at <a href="http://wsac4wi.org/">http://wsac4wi.org</a></div>
</div>
Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-20680364036690456882015-02-06T12:31:00.000-08:002015-02-07T12:21:15.504-08:00The Irony of Vapers Supporting Vaping Bans<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Something I'm coming
across more and more these days is vapers emphatically defending banning public
vaping along with smoking. This completely mystifies me and every argument I've
seen simply regurgitates ANTZ ideology and supports their baseless propaganda.
Below are some of the comments I've been seeing and my responses.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">People have a right to
clean air, free from our vapor.</span></b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">What supports this
claim? It's not in the Constitution. There are no laws that state that right.
"Clean air" certainly isn't a basic human right or else every other
emission would be illegal. That includes emissions from cars, trucks, buses,
boats, planes, factories, restaurants, heating systems, fireplaces,
grills...well, you get the picture. There is simply no way for there to be a "right" to clean air. If people don't have a "right" to be free of all of
those other emissions, then they don't have a right to be free from our vapor.
It's just plain silly to claim they do and just supports the ANTZ fallacy.</span><br />
<hr />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="color: #0b5394; font-size: x-large;"><i>"If you wouldn't want someone else spraying air freshener, talking loudly on their phone or playing with a laser pointer where you are, then don't vape there, either."</i></span></span></div>
<hr />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">I'm a vaper and I don't
want to have clouds blown at me while I'm __________(in a restaurant, watching
a movie, in a store line...)</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Fair enough, but that's
about common courtesy. Do we need a <u>law</u> for this? I shouldn't
have to put up with people talking loudly during a movie or at their dining table, but there is no need for a law against it. That is left
up to the owner or management to address. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">The same should be true
for vaping in those places.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Personally, my rule of
thumb is: "If you wouldn't want someone else spraying air freshener,
talking loudly on their phone or playing with a laser pointer where you are,
then don't vape there, either."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">But vapers who support laws against vaping in restaurants and stores seem to forget that such a law would also
prohibit vaping in places where it makes no sense:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In a park.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In an open-air stadium. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In a vape shop. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In an apartment. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In a private room at a nursing home. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In a single dorm room. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In a private office. <o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In a weld shop where the owner and all of his employees
vape or smoke.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In a designated vaping area of a building, where the
employer wants to encourage smokers to switch.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">All of those places
would also have to prohibit vaping - just so you aren't bothered at a restaurant. Does
that seem fair and reasonable?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">So, here is a better
idea than a law for those places that you don't want people vaping:
<br />
</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAGHIlJrxHYnD04HYzgyL4n1fEryjUmHzotVaV0N-9qL1n01QmM73l2sIAV3oxNbs69G9TVmIQNe85r4vShdyr5FTmR5_taVTCyEVWNdh2ZDZ8U-S41D6LAaFRQQTbudZ9fbDVLy8oNO4P/s1600/No-Smoking.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhAGHIlJrxHYnD04HYzgyL4n1fEryjUmHzotVaV0N-9qL1n01QmM73l2sIAV3oxNbs69G9TVmIQNe85r4vShdyr5FTmR5_taVTCyEVWNdh2ZDZ8U-S41D6LAaFRQQTbudZ9fbDVLy8oNO4P/s1600/No-Smoking.gif" height="200" width="135" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">We don't know if they
are safe yet.</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">First of all, see the
above about "right to clean air." </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Second, please name any
other product that was banned from use "just in case it might prove to be unsafe some day." You
can't, because the general policy for other products has been to let it be
unless it proved to be a health risk. Even FDA-approved drugs aren't pulled from the market until they actually are shown to cause harm and even then, they usually get a "black box warning." Chantix is a perfect example of that.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Third, I </span><u style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">do</u><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"> know
it's safe to bystanders. I've actually <a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/18/abstract" target="_blank">read the science</a> (not just the
headlines) and every study has shown the levels of any chemicals detected in vapor to be
so low that it would be impossible for it to pose a health risk to bystanders. </span><u style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">In
fact, every study for the past 10 years has failed to show vapor is even a
significant health risk to the actual user!</u><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 18px;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 18px;">Since most vapers agree that vaping is - at the very least - far less risky than smoking, then the risks of second-hand vapor must be far less than second-hand smoke. If the risk of exposure from second-hand smoke is extremely low, then the risks of second-hand vapor are extremely lower than extremely low. In fact, according to THR experts, the possible contaminants in second-hand vapor are lower than the hazardous contaminants commonly found in typical restaurant air!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Many vapers may not be
aware of the deception of second-hand smoke. Most just take the word of public
health and government officials - the very same people exaggerating the risks
of vapor products! I've done the research, so I'll give you the Cliff Notes
version of the facts that ANTZ will never tell you: </span><i style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Not one study has found an increased risk of any disease
for bystanders or employees exposed to second-hand smoke, in a work or social
environment, that was statistically significant. Only two studies have found a significant increase in health risks
for second hand smoke and those risks only applied to the spouses of heavy
smokers, after decades of exposure.</i><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">It's scientifically
proven that the risks of second-hand smoke are extremely low. The CDC even
admits that the (purely estimated) number of deaths from second-hand smoke makes
up less than 10% of the deaths "caused by" cigarette smoke in the United States. In fact,
CDC statistics show just as many people are estimated to be </span><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">killed by the flu</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"> every
year and </span><u style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">twice as many</u><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"> die from adverse reactions to </span><a href="http://www.fda.gov/drugs/developmentapprovalprocess/developmentresources/druginteractionslabeling/ucm110632.htm" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;" target="_blank"><span style="color: blue;">FDA-approved pharmaceuticals</span></a><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">!</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<div style="font-size: 13.5pt;">
</div>
<hr style="font-size: 13.5pt;" />
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="color: #0b5394; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: x-large;"><i>"Banning public vaping to protect bystanders from "toxins" is like banning the use of water to put out house fires to protect gawkers from lead-based paint chips."</i></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">
</span></div>
<hr />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></b>
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">It took decades to find
out smoking was bad and they've already found bad things in vapor.</span></b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">It took decades because
it was new science. Now we know what is bad in smoke. It's a simple matter of
determining if those same things are in vapor and we've already determined that
most of those chemicals are absent. Of the chemicals that have been detected,
they have been found to be at lower levels found in other common products that
are generally considered safe: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><b>Carcinogens:</b> Lower than found in FDA-approved nicotine
patches.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><b>Formaldehyde:</b> At about the same levels as found in human breath
when used as intended. Only found in higher levels if the device is
"dry burned," which would create a harsh vapor that no consumer
would tolerate.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><b>Metals: </b>Lower than what is allowed in FDA-approved
inhaled medications.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><b>Particulates:</b> Misrepresented as the same solid
particulates found in smoke/tar, but really are liquid particulates (ie.
"droplets") that behave differently than solid particulates, so
do not pose the same danger.<o:p></o:p></span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 18px;">No matter how hard they try to spin the results, the fact is that the past decade has produced more than <a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/18/abstract" target="_blank">100 studies and thousands of chemical analyses</a> that have failed to find harmful levels of any chemical, metal or carcinogen.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 18px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">I'm more concerned about
taxes and other things. I can live with an indoor use ban.</span></b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">If you've followed the
war on tobacco at all, you know that the ANTZ pushed really hard for the bans,
even though they knew the science didn't support any real health risks. The
reason they did this was "public perception." As soon as they got the
bans passed, they used the new perception that second-hand smoke was a danger
to justify their other actions against tobacco users. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">The very indoor vaping
bans you "don't care about" are going to bolster and support the
taxes and other regulations that you do care about. The indoor bans are just
the first step.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">I'm still concerned the
vapor would bother non-vapers.</span></b><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Let me ask you this - do
you think vaping is saving the lives of smokers? Does it reduce their risks? Do
you think millions of smokers switching to e-cigarettes would save millions of
lives?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">I assume you do, because
I've seen you posting as much on Facebook.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">In that case, what if indoor bans actually <u>cost</u> lives? What if one smoker, right
now, is considering buying an e-cigarette only because his boss said he can use
one at his desk instead of going outside? What if he also has a wife and 3 kids
at home, who are being exposed to his second-hand smoke (which is the one place any actual health risks have been found?) What if, because he can use an
e-cigarette at his desk, he ends up quitting altogether? This would not only
save his life, but possibly the life of his wife and children. And because he's
quitting while his kids are young, it dramatically reduces the risk of his
children becoming smokers themselves.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Now imagine if that
indoor ban was passed first. He keeps smoking. His wife gets lung cancer. He dies
from heart disease and two of his kids become smokers themselves.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">How does that compare to the "risks" of vapor to bystanders? How does that compare to the risk of "annoying" people?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Ask yourself - do the
possible small risks and "annoyance" to non-smokers - by allowing
vaping in some public spaces - outweigh the known, great risks to smokers (and
their families) who don't quit because they lost the incentive of vaping inside
at work? When does the risk to smokers and their families from real smoke exposure outwigh the risks to bystanders from vapor? One smoker dying? Two? A hundred?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">Is the indoor ban going to end up doing more harm than good? Do you
want to be responsible for any smoker who keeps smoking? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">I don't.</span></div>
<hr />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 13.5pt;">This is a picture of myself and my family members - who all vape:<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEge8wZY6XIMV2CDzi6SPHfXJU_tw3o6mDZ7BGNKF4iLKhWIY2dyBXoDhH9Z6Lfa9d94sJlvDtpWc8G4ymDDz8reE83ddWS_gRyyd1qjK4EkdFCJ9xkSgJZH1dUt9EHTkY5PBB0l2pkTP_Bv/s1600/Family+of+vapers+cropped.jpg"><img border="0" height="149" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEge8wZY6XIMV2CDzi6SPHfXJU_tw3o6mDZ7BGNKF4iLKhWIY2dyBXoDhH9Z6Lfa9d94sJlvDtpWc8G4ymDDz8reE83ddWS_gRyyd1qjK4EkdFCJ9xkSgJZH1dUt9EHTkY5PBB0l2pkTP_Bv/s1600/Family+of+vapers+cropped.jpg" width="640" /></a><br />
<br />In 2009, I bought my first e-cigarette because the state was implementing a smoking ban. I wasn't even trying to quit smoking. Since the ban has passed, I don't vape in restaurants or stores, but on the rare nights I get to go out on the town, I will ask the owner if it's OK to vape in their bar. I've never been told no and have convinced many smokers to switch to vaping (when they saw I got to stay inside.)<br />
<br />
If vaping had been included in the state smoking ban, I know I would have kept smoking. Because of that, I never would have introduced my family to vapor products and they'd all still be smoking, too. (Including my mother-in-law, who isn't in the photo.) This is why it's my view that including vapor products in smoking bans will harm far more people than it will ever protect.<br />
<br />
Please help oppose vaping bans. It's the right thing to do.<br />
<br />
<b> Find more information at:</b><br />
<a href="http://casaa.org/">The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association</a><br />
<br />
and<br />
</span></div>
<a href="http://wsac4wi.org/">Wisconsin Smoke-free Alternatives Coalition</a>
<!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEge8wZY6XIMV2CDzi6SPHfXJU_tw3o6mDZ7BGNKF4iLKhWIY2dyBXoDhH9Z6Lfa9d94sJlvDtpWc8G4ymDDz8reE83ddWS_gRyyd1qjK4EkdFCJ9xkSgJZH1dUt9EHTkY5PBB0l2pkTP_Bv/s1600/Family+of+vapers+cropped.jpg" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEge8wZY6XIMV2CDzi6SPHfXJU_tw3o6mDZ7BGNKF4iLKhWIY2dyBXoDhH9Z6Lfa9d94sJlvDtpWc8G4ymDDz8reE83ddWS_gRyyd1qjK4EkdFCJ9xkSgJZH1dUt9EHTkY5PBB0l2pkTP_Bv/s1600/Family+of+vapers+cropped.jpg" --><!-- Blogger automated replacement: "https://images-blogger-opensocial.googleusercontent.com/gadgets/proxy?url=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-Gf9szbdhgoo%2FVNUjBvtB7aI%2FAAAAAAAAIBc%2FumYzYJnFvJU%2Fs1600%2FFamily%252Bof%252Bvapers%252Bcropped.jpg&container=blogger&gadget=a&rewriteMime=image%2F*" with "https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEge8wZY6XIMV2CDzi6SPHfXJU_tw3o6mDZ7BGNKF4iLKhWIY2dyBXoDhH9Z6Lfa9d94sJlvDtpWc8G4ymDDz8reE83ddWS_gRyyd1qjK4EkdFCJ9xkSgJZH1dUt9EHTkY5PBB0l2pkTP_Bv/s1600/Family+of+vapers+cropped.jpg" -->Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-29335211246782117432015-01-22T11:37:00.000-08:002015-01-22T12:30:48.016-08:00Vapor worse than cigarette smoke? Really?<i>"Study Finds E-Cigarettes Can Produce More Formaldehyde Than Regular Cigarettes!" </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>"E-Cigarette Vapor Filled With Cancer-Causing Chemicals, Researchers Say!"</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>"High Levels of Formaldehyde Hidden In E-cigs!"</i><br />
<br />
Sounds pretty scary, doesn't it? If they have studies that found e-cigarettes have more cancer-causing chemicals and formaldehyde than even regular cigarettes, how can anyone argue that vapor products are safe?<br />
<br />
Easily, because it's all BS.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhspwlIMfqQ0gJkKVUPJyBuPY2PFXkwNdHUxuRjpYLq3HqHQdSEn1LYtXKB5m1QSLIkXEKwEd88dtAxU7PYl8XjSnH0KUuvJp9wf14C50I8nMJuu0_anPqa0Kg3TXJFWCu45XvzQ6EKWyfW/s1600/Burned+corn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhspwlIMfqQ0gJkKVUPJyBuPY2PFXkwNdHUxuRjpYLq3HqHQdSEn1LYtXKB5m1QSLIkXEKwEd88dtAxU7PYl8XjSnH0KUuvJp9wf14C50I8nMJuu0_anPqa0Kg3TXJFWCu45XvzQ6EKWyfW/s1600/Burned+corn.jpg" height="195" width="200" /></a></div>
Imagine if researchers took perfectly safe vegetables, grilled them until they were blackened lumps of charcoal and then tested for "cancer-causing chemicals." Do you know what they would find? Yep - cancer-causing chemicals like benzopyrene, which is also found in cigarette smoke! Then imagine if researchers claimed vegetables might be unsafe to eat because of their results? Wouldn't most people wonder who the heck would eat vegetables cooked that way in the first place?<br />
<br />
So, what is the whole story behind the "cancer-causing chemicals" and formaldehyde found in the two recent studies behind the headlines? Well, first of all, the "cancer-causing chemicals" they mention is really one chemical - the formaldehyde. So, the headlines you are seeing are misleading from the get-go.<br />
<br />
It's not "chemicals," it's <u>one</u> chemical.<br />
<br />
OK, well that chemical is still formaldehyde. That's used for embalming dead bodies. Ew!<br />
<br />
Of course, if they really found high levels of formaldehyde in vapor products, that would be pretty awful. Formaldehyde is a known carcinogen, after all. But did they find that the chemical was created during typical use or under special circumstances?<br />
<br />
In the letter published by the New England Journal of Medicine, the researcher admits that "we did not detect the formation of any formaldehyde-releasing agents" when the device was set at typical settings. Only when they cranked up the device to the maximum setting were they able to create the formaldehyde. The problem is, a setting that high on a vapor device is akin to grilling your vegetables into charcoal. No one would like the taste of blackened lumps of veggies and no one would like the taste of the liquid in vapor products heated up to the maximum, either. It produces a harsh, bitter taste that causes the consumer to immediately stop using it.<br />
<br />
So, why didn't the researchers take the taste into account and dismiss the results? Because they didn't use human test subjects. They didn't even talk to any vapor product consumers. They used a machine that has no sense of taste and therefore, would continue to "inhale" a foul-tasting vapor that no human would tolerate.<br />
<br />
If these researchers were testing something with which they were familiar, they would have known that they were looking at something that they would never want to taste - like that lump of charcoal vegetable - and therefore, would have known immediately that it's not really a risk to anyone. Clearly, if you don't eat that foul-tasting burnt veggie, you won't consume any carcinogens. In the same way, if you don't use a vapor product at such high temperatures (because it tastes horrible) you wouldn't be exposed to any formaldehyde.<br />
<br />
Of course, none of the news outlets covering this story have bothered to ask one simple question: Do people really use vapor products at such high temperatures? If they had, they'd know the answer is "no." Unfortunately, they follow the "if it bleeds, it leads" style of journalism and are all too happy to have scary headlines to generate readers and viewers.<br />
<br />
On top of everything else, formaldehyde is only one of the cancer-causing chemicals found in cigarette smoke. Even if vapor products produced 15 times the levels of formaldehyde than cigarette smoke, they might still be far safer for lack of the other 60+ carcinogens found in cigarette smoke. To focus on just one chemical and claim that makes them a greater risk than smoking is bad science and bad for public health.<br />
<br />
Is vapor really worse than cigarette smoke? Apparently, only if you like eating charcoal and ignore the other 59 carcinogens in the cigarette smoke.<br />
<br />
<b>For a more expert analysis of this formaldehyde issue please read:</b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/2015/191-form-nejm" target="_blank">The deception of measuring formaldehyde in e-cigarette aerosol: the difference between laboratory measurements and true exposure</a><br />
"There are many other major issues in that study. The authors fail to realize that voltage levels provide no information about the thermal load of an e-cigarette device. It seems that both the researchers and the reviewers who approved the study for publication missed that energy should be expressed in watts."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/2015/192-form-ver" target="_blank">Verified: formaldehyde levels found in the NEJM study were associated with dry puff conditions. An update</a><br />
"It is more than obvious that the findings of very high levels of formaldehyde are a result of overheating. Lack of experience on e-cigarettes and no contact with vapers can result in such erroneous and unrealistic results, which can create confusion and misinformation both in the scientific community and among users and potential users of e-cigarettes."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/01/new-study-reports-high-levels-of.html" target="_blank">New Study Reports High Levels of Formaldehyde in Electronic Cigarette Aerosols</a><br />
"Essentially, what this study demonstrates is that if you overheat a vaping system, it will produce high levels of formaldehyde. However, such conditions are not realistic, as they could not be tolerated by an actual vaper. Therefore, extrapolating from this study to a lifetime of vaping is meaningless."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.clivebates.com/?p=2706" target="_blank">Spreading fear and confusion with misleading formaldehyde studies</a><br />
"This is a trend that should shame the public health community and the academics that are fuelling consumers’ misunderstanding with misleading studies that misrepresent risk. I am sure it is not your aim to protect the cigarette trade and prolong the epidemic of smoking related disease, but it may well be the effect."<br />
<br />
<a href="http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2015/01/bogus-research-on-formaldehyde-in-e-cig.html" target="_blank">Bogus Research on Formaldehyde in E-Cig Vapor</a><br />
"R. Paul Jensen and colleagues at Portland State University produced the new results by overheating an e-cigarette, a condition (called dry puffing) that is familiar to vapers; the resulting product tastes so bad it cannot be inhaled. In other words, the formaldehyde produced under abusive conditions is not “hidden” at all, because it is in vapor that users find intolerable."Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-42080271513399334602014-12-31T12:53:00.002-08:002015-01-02T10:07:18.878-08:00Why I oppose vapor bans (and why you should, too.)Next week, vapers in Madison, Wisconsin will be fighting a proposed amendment to that city's smoking ordinance, which adds the use of vapor products to the definition of "smoking." This will ban the use of all vapor products anywhere smoking is prohibited.<br />
<br />
On the surface, this may not seem like a big deal to most vapor consumers. Most experienced vapers either don't find it necessary to vape where smoking is prohibited or can easily vape discreetly enough to go unnoticed. However, the reason I oppose these bans has nothing to do with any desire to vape in an Applebee's or at a Home Depot. My concern is the unintended consequences of such bans to overall public health.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<b>Vapor bans send the wrong message to the public - especially smokers.</b><br />
<br />
Ban advocates believe the message vapor bans send is "You should quit smoking." However, the unintended message to smokers and pre-smokers is "Vaping is banned like smoking, therefore, vaping is as bad as smoking. So if you smoke, you may as well keep smoking. If you don't smoke yet and are considering smoking, vaping isn't any safer than smoking."<br />
<br />
This message, as we all know, is patently false. Just about every anti-vapor group has (if even reluctantly) admitted that vaping is safer than smoking, especially when it comes to so-called "second-hand vapor."<br />
<br />
Dr. Thomas Glynn, former director of cancer science and trends and director of international cancer control for the American Cancer Society wrote, <i>"The secondhand vapor, or aerosol, from e-cigarettes is, in general, less harmful than secondhand cigarette smoke."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>"If we do not step forward and consider bold actions such as embracing the potential of e-cigarettes and other harm reduction agents then we, and the next generations, may have to confront the challenge laid down by former World Health Organization Director-General Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland when she said:</i><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"If we do not act decisively today, 100 years from now our grandchildren and their children will look back and seriously question how people claiming to be committed to public health and social justice allowed the tobacco epidemic to unfold unchecked."</i></blockquote>
<br />
Former Surgeon General, Dr. Richard Carmona, who highlighted the possible dangers of secondhand smoke and supported a ban on all tobacco products said, <i>"We still have one out of five people in America smoking ... there's a lot more work to do. To dismiss (e-cigarettes) and not even consider it ... would be a disservice to the public who are looking for alternatives."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Former American Lung Association CEO Chuck Connor said, <i>“Electronic cigarettes provide the only true alternative to traditional tobacco products, offering adult smokers a similar experience without the same consequences.”</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Mitch Zeller, director of the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Tobacco Products said,<i> “If we could get all of those people [who smoke] to completely switch all of their cigarettes to noncombustible cigarettes, it would be good for public health."</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Ban supporters may believe they are helping stop smoking, but really they are eliminating a very important incentive for smokers to switch to a far safer alternative.<br />
<br />
<b>Vapor bans focus on the low risk of an unproven youth "gateway effect," while ignoring high risks to the children exposed to actual smoking.</b><br />
<br />
Ban proponents believe they are protecting all children from possible health risks of second-hand vapor and tobacco control gains in public health by "de-normalizing" smoking behaviors. Unfortunately, such bans do nothing to protect the children of smokers and smoking youth, who are at far greater risk.<br />
<br />
Vapor products do not promote the smoking of traditional cigarettes, nor do they threaten the gains of tobacco control over the past few decades. In fact, by normalizing vapor products over traditional smoking, the efforts of tobacco control are being supported. If anything, vapor products de-normalize conventional smoking by setting the example of smokers choosing a far less harmful alternative to traditional smoking. The CDC youth surveys clearly show that there has been no “gateway effect” causing non-smokers to start smoking. As vapor products have become more popular, all available evidence is showing that more and more smokers are quitting traditional cigarettes, including youth smokers.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUgvz2v2CCJSfPSGSrxJp6fJlrrYhaXTPmlsj3MXmNpss9sEkeTN8MTU2d8DKgcC0mtcuEVf1wy3GmKr0jfP7TPP4IbUVitOVsJSJ6ylayeM5lz8_R-F_C2TeLITHlNGXbJXCR5LJzSpD4/s1600/Smoking+parent.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiUgvz2v2CCJSfPSGSrxJp6fJlrrYhaXTPmlsj3MXmNpss9sEkeTN8MTU2d8DKgcC0mtcuEVf1wy3GmKr0jfP7TPP4IbUVitOVsJSJ6ylayeM5lz8_R-F_C2TeLITHlNGXbJXCR5LJzSpD4/s1600/Smoking+parent.JPG" height="200" width="320" /></a>Studies show that the children of smokers have a significantly higher risk of smoking initiation and the longer their parents smoke, the higher that risk. On the other hand, children of parents who had quit smoking were no more likely to smoke than children of parents who had never smoked. Children of non-smokers are more than 3X less likely to smoke, regardless of their exposure to smoking behaviors seen in public, on television or in advertising. Therefore, vapor bans that purport to protect the low-risk children of non-smoking parents from seeing smoking behaviors completely overlook the unintended consequences of the extremely high risks from continued exposure to smoking behaviors by the children of smokers (who may have otherwise quit if vapor products had not been prohibited in public spaces.)<br />
<br />
<b>Vapor bans propose they "err on the side of caution," but the benefits do not outweigh the risks.</b><br />
<br />
To err on the side of caution, one must also look for unintended consequences. Are you being cautious of the right thing? Do the benefits of a law outweigh the risks?<br />
<br />
Smoking bans propose to protect bystanders from second-hand smoke, which has been established as being a minor health risk, but one far lower than actually smoking. Vapor products reduce the risk of smoking to far lower than even second-hand smoke, so the health risks of second-hand vapor would logically be hundreds of times lower than even second-hand smoke. The only benefit of including vapor products in smoking bans is protecting bystanders from infinitesimal levels of just a tiny fraction of the chemicals found in second-hand smoke. Meaning, vapor bans propose to protect people from very tiny risks.<br />
<hr />
<span style="color: #9fc5e8; font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace; font-size: x-large;"><b>"I didn't want to go outside in the cold to smoke, so I bought an e-cig. Next thing I knew, I wasn't even smoking anymore."</b></span><br />
<span style="color: #9fc5e8; font-family: Courier New, Courier, monospace; font-size: x-large;"><b>- Steve M.</b></span><br />
<hr />
On the other hand, there is a unique phenomenon observed and documented with vapor product consumers called “accidental quitting.” Smokers purchase a vapor product to use where they cannot smoke, to remain indoors during cold weather or because they are less expensive and find, over time, that they prefer the vapor product to their conventional cigarettes. They move from dual use (using both the vapor product and conventional cigarettes) to using just the vapor product alone. This can happen over several months or in just a few days.<br />
<br />
Put simply, laws that result in just one smoker still smoking because an important incentive has been compromised causes far greater harm than hundreds of bystanders exposed to vapor in public spaces.<br />
<br />
<b>Vapor bans affect private businesses already hurting from smoking bans, but also vapor shops.</b><br />
<br />
Smoking bans were not intended for public “comfort.” Smoking bans were intended to protect the public from second-hand smoke, the dangers of which were ostensibly science-based. The science on vapor products overwhelmingly shows they have miniscule risks to bystanders, if any. The comfort of patrons and employees of privately-owned businesses is the responsibility of the owners of that business. If an employer or owner finds that the vapor from vapor consumers is a distraction or discomfort, the decision to prohibit use on their property should be their's alone. Contrarily, if the owner of a bar, tobacco store or e-cigarette store decides he wishes to cater to vapor product consumers that should be his prerogative.<br />
<br />
It should be noted that adult vapor consumers expect to be able to try flavors before purchasing. Prohibiting indoor use would force customers outside to sample vapor products. An additional consideration should be made for businesses that cater to adult smokers. One unintended consequence of smoking bans has been the increase in litter and late-night noise outside of such establishments. Smokers who have switched to e-cigarettes currently remain inside, reducing the noise.<br />
<br />
<b>Vapor bans will expand as smoking bans expand.</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTqfXSgFnTmfo9MsN7etz5x_RCjUg8-7VMTbjSSgvREet9PK7rOy5uoGRfZ8maenqVHU6B91-O-tujWmPdTmkc2YiI1ZRIZzTvqu5rWI-iOPX_cVzeFYDExUDK0lum7xs7AG3SrXxRvfT7/s1600/Elderly+wheelchair+smoking+outside.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjTqfXSgFnTmfo9MsN7etz5x_RCjUg8-7VMTbjSSgvREet9PK7rOy5uoGRfZ8maenqVHU6B91-O-tujWmPdTmkc2YiI1ZRIZzTvqu5rWI-iOPX_cVzeFYDExUDK0lum7xs7AG3SrXxRvfT7/s1600/Elderly+wheelchair+smoking+outside.jpg" /></a></div>
One final unintended consequence to consider. Many smoking bans may now or in the future include residences, such as nursing homes, assisted living apartments, multi-unit dwellings and government housing. Such bans are based on complaints that smoke residue not only ruins the units, but that smoke travels through walls and vents into other units, which may pose a health risk. Vapor would be included in such bans although it does not behave in the same manner.<br />
<br />
Again, this creates a disincentive for elderly and handicapped smokers to switch. Instead, they will continue to go out into the cold, often at night and in high-risk neighborhoods. Some may be forced to walk far from the building, because they are required to leave the property. Additionally, some municipalities are starting to prohibit smoking in outdoor spaces, such as beaches and parks, where vapor wouldn’t be noticeable in any way. It makes no sense to apply these same rules to low-risk vapor products.<br />
<br />
<b>A message to lawmakers: this isn't about me.</b><br />
<br />
Often, when confronted with opposition by vapor advocates, lawmakers assert that the intent is not to ban the products altogether. They try to assure their constituents that they are not banning the sale of vapor products to adult smokers and the devices can still be used in where smoking is allowed.<br />
<br />
However, this misses the point completely. Vapor advocates aren’t there to ensure they can still use their products in a store, office building, restaurant or bar. As I wrote earlier, experienced vapor consumers know that enforcement of the ban is nearly impossible.<br />
<br />
The reason advocates are standing before you and telling their stories about how vapor products have changed their lives is not because they are fighting for themselves. They are fighting for all of the smokers who haven’t yet quit. They want you to know how banning e-cigarette use will deny other smokers of their success story. They are fighting to keep every incentive possible available to encourage smokers to switch. They want you to consider the uninteded consequence of the law. They want you to understand how treating vapor products like conventional cigarettes will just keep smokers smoking and even possibly push those dual users completely back to smoking, by removing their only incentive to quit.<br />
<br />
And that's why I fight vapor bans (and why you should, too.)Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-21802094461616006962014-12-06T08:31:00.000-08:002014-12-07T07:59:28.278-08:00Are e-cigarettes the new condom?<div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">
For anyone who is under the age of 30, you may not remember the
time when condom advertising barely existed, let alone cheeky commercials
playing over and over on late-night television. The understanding we have today
of safe sex practices were actually quite controversial even in an age when HIV/AIDS
was at the height of public fear.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #0b5394;"><b>The debate</b></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
Back in the 1980's, it was the
left-leaning progressives (then called "liberals") who led the
charge for "harm reduction" practices. Supported by Democrat
lawmakers, academics and scientists, the public health groups at the time argued that the public needed to be
educated about using condoms to significantly reduce the risk of HIV and other
STDs. They encouraged Sex Ed teachers to tell high school students that, if
they decided not to remain abstinent, to at least use a condom.</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_7vvFKQDHYEHDvsN7lY4jSX2znRV8v0CY3xbsmiYlcKa_P0DTum9nlMHoMG0MkeJ_2IOuUhAo7D2Ukh6FnsCtqEQC-c3CU8V5z36b3yYnc0wPvSI7n2JLBLEmxHs1_vkyk9Em22g5Vlfp/s1600/Just+Say+No.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg_7vvFKQDHYEHDvsN7lY4jSX2znRV8v0CY3xbsmiYlcKa_P0DTum9nlMHoMG0MkeJ_2IOuUhAo7D2Ukh6FnsCtqEQC-c3CU8V5z36b3yYnc0wPvSI7n2JLBLEmxHs1_vkyk9Em22g5Vlfp/s1600/Just+Say+No.png" height="254" width="320" /></a></div>
However, they were vehemently opposed by
the "religious right," conservative groups and lawmakers, who argued
that public health and educators should be teaching abstinence only. It had
taken 30 years to start turning back sexual morals to those of the
idealistic (and supposedly virginal) 1950's, they argued. Promoting the use of condoms,
especially television commercials featuring celebrities, would only
"renormalize" promiscuous behavior and set back all of the advances that had been made with their chastity campaigns. Besides, they argued, the term "safe sex"
was very misleading. Condoms frequently failed, they said, and with more young people
having sex because they think it is safer with condoms, more young people would actually be
at risk.<br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
Nonsense, argued the pro-condom side. The
risk of failure was tiny. Condoms were up to 99% effective in preventing HIV
transmission. The benefits of protecting sexually active adults (and youth)
from the high risk of unprotected sex far outweighed the small risk from a few
more young people having sex using a condom because they (correctly) believed
it to be safer than unprotected sex. Those on the religious right, they
countered, should stop trying to force their ideology of 100% abstinence on
people and start accepting the fact that people will take risks; and it's the
job of public health to reduce those risks, not to cling to an unrealistic belief
that they can stop all people from having premarital sex.</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br />
<b><span style="color: #0b5394;">My, how times change</span></b></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqHvu6HhLkJ_Ku0SCEDTE-G7cUeHa47HzVwBBiKcj3So55Fm0NuW4dJRHbq7gnNbPkgdIyEJNWDIomlBMPQTMDc6gCt4AkBJdSRz9PhXWeLhH8toS5mBAkvvHOO6Dlpzr4PPq6Jwve6Vwl/s1600/Safe+Sex+PSA.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqHvu6HhLkJ_Ku0SCEDTE-G7cUeHa47HzVwBBiKcj3So55Fm0NuW4dJRHbq7gnNbPkgdIyEJNWDIomlBMPQTMDc6gCt4AkBJdSRz9PhXWeLhH8toS5mBAkvvHOO6Dlpzr4PPq6Jwve6Vwl/s1600/Safe+Sex+PSA.jpg" height="282" width="400" /></a></div>
Fast forward 30 years and the concept of
harm reduction is pretty much accepted as scientifically sound public health
practice. It has been extended to drug use in the form of clean needle
programs, drunk driving in the form of designated drivers, cycling with helmets
and even in the form of car seats for small children. None of these harm reduction practices
reduce the risk of disease or injury by 100% (and some even have their own small
risks,) but nearly all have been universally recognized as having benefits of
reducing greater risks that far outweigh their minor drawbacks.<br />
<br />
Safe sex public
service announcements are done by celebrities and condom companies even sponsor
sporting events and teams. The CDC reports that studies found that harm reduction (also called "prevention") programs had significant impact on reducing sexual risk behaviors and notably, the HIV prevention programs were not shown to hasten initiation of sexual intercourse among adolescents, even when those curricula encouraged sexually active young people to use condoms.</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br />
<b><span style="color: #0b5394;">New kid on the block</span></b></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
So, when a new product came on the market, around 2003, that could significantly reduce the risks of smoking, it seemed a
no-brainer that they'd be embraced by the same folks who promoted condoms.
While e-cigarettes may have some low risks to users and little to no risks to bystanders,
clearly the health benefits of millions of smokers using a safer product far
outweighed those tiny risks. Tobacco harm reduction (THR) experts estimated the
risks to the smoker would be reduced by 99% and to bystanders by nearly 100%. Now those are numbers a safe sex promoter would obviously understand!</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
Today,
after a decade on the market, there are numerous studies showing smokers are taking to
the product better than they ever did to pharmaceutical nicotine products and quitting (or significantly reducing) their smoking. Nearly 100
studies world-wide have found only tiny levels of only a few of the potentially harmful
chemicals in cigarette smoke, which significantly reduces the health risks of smokers who cannot or will not quit nicotine to nearly that of non-smokers. One <a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/18/" target="_blank">comprehensive review</a> of existing e-cigarette studies, done in 2013 by Dr. Igor Burstyn, Drexel University School of Public Health, confirmed that chemicals in e-cigarettes pose no health concern for users or bystanders. Are
they 100% safe because they still contain "addictive" nicotine? Not for everyone, but like
condoms, e-cigarettes are meant to reduce the risks of a potentially dangerous behavior, not eliminate the behavior altogether. Again, a concept that safe sex and condom proponents should be able to easily relate to.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
Of course, it makes perfect sense that it's the Democrat lawmakers,
progressive public health groups and left-leaning academics (all of the same
people who fought for condom use and safe sex campaigns) who are now <u>opposing
e-cigarettes</u> as promising, new, harm reduction products. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
Wait, what?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Yep, you read that correctly. Using nearly
all of the same arguments the conservatives used against condoms and safe sex
education, the folks who advocate all kinds of other harm reduction practices are
now doing everything they can to stop people from using a safer alternative to
smoking.<br />
<br />
Do these points sound familiar?<br />
<ul>
<li>They argue that e-cigarettes shouldn't be used because they still have some risks and "safer doesn't make it safe" (see poster below.) </li>
<li>They fear that
promotion of a safer alternative and permitting use in public places (a huge incentive for smokers to switch) will "renormalize" smoking and set
back all of their efforts promoting 100% abstinence for the past 30 years. </li>
<li>They
ignore that the benefits of millions of smokers quitting far outweigh the miniscule risks
of bystander exposure to a little vapor in public. </li>
<li>They complain that celebrity
endorsements and pleasant, non-tobacco flavors (an important feature that helps smokers move away from the taste of conventional cigarettes) will entice youth use. They argue that young people will try them
because they (correctly) believe them to be safer than smoking. </li>
<li>They point to
scientifically tiny risks compared to smoking as reason to "err on the
side of caution."</li>
</ul>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijSaJbDIzFyXTZki3kcSftPIdq0CZnUgD2dZoN0dWdBgIZxP6Q2wyVbTH7JtCkRo0pY8jTWrmakLd0dHcyLTriW7SQEpoSIekgTSWvo_tXZXbP8OPAG2QLBXluNssIRMqR8yvFaj1WS0ho/s1600/Anti+e-cig+poster.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijSaJbDIzFyXTZki3kcSftPIdq0CZnUgD2dZoN0dWdBgIZxP6Q2wyVbTH7JtCkRo0pY8jTWrmakLd0dHcyLTriW7SQEpoSIekgTSWvo_tXZXbP8OPAG2QLBXluNssIRMqR8yvFaj1WS0ho/s1600/Anti+e-cig+poster.png" height="400" width="308" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
On the other hand, conservative groups and
lawmakers have taken a surprisingly libertarian view of e-cigarettes, argue
for light-touch regulation and call for lawmakers to avoid knee-jerk
legislation that could have unintended consequences.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br />
<span style="color: #0b5394;"><b>When propaganda takes over science</b></span></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
The facts are on the side of e-cigarettes as being a viable harm reduction product for smokers. While the anti e-cigarette crowd are pointing out the tiny, trace chemicals detected in some e-cigarettes, they downplay how low those traces are. This graph shows just how low:</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCf3lH50gTuPUSY8hGa4c9NS0CixVU50xmKr7RBCG-bq9s-Zi8Puys7mOg41xgYW-bajsdoDecuvqBFQsl0QaZpiE_-9ATXJ-HnIToPkRy2n9d9oNp4-RaYyLsxmIC42fyQhGnf0dlvNVb/s1600/Ecigarettes+and+Formaldehyde+Chart.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgCf3lH50gTuPUSY8hGa4c9NS0CixVU50xmKr7RBCG-bq9s-Zi8Puys7mOg41xgYW-bajsdoDecuvqBFQsl0QaZpiE_-9ATXJ-HnIToPkRy2n9d9oNp4-RaYyLsxmIC42fyQhGnf0dlvNVb/s1600/Ecigarettes+and+Formaldehyde+Chart.png" height="172" width="320" /></a></div>
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
They also wring their hands over youth use, worrying loudly that kids will try e-cigarettes and then move on to the more risky behavior of smoking. (Like anti-safe sex folks argued kids learning about safe sex would lead to more un-safe sex, leaving many people scratching their heads with that logic.) However, after 10 years on the market and increased use by (mostly smoking) youth being widely reported, CDC statistics show that youth smoking continues to decline significantly:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3jetMQjR3wevgC4JYpTD_5ug-sHi4ynTXTraZbNz66eIDR59NdzTIMEGVziSsb2tSq2OONWWCcLv5sdZ51BTo4QtF3ptpspslMh1lfe0qgVMwboqB9j8AiF7sayqRmR34Mhk2o-RF25wt/s1600/High+School+Smoking+vs+Ecigs.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3jetMQjR3wevgC4JYpTD_5ug-sHi4ynTXTraZbNz66eIDR59NdzTIMEGVziSsb2tSq2OONWWCcLv5sdZ51BTo4QtF3ptpspslMh1lfe0qgVMwboqB9j8AiF7sayqRmR34Mhk2o-RF25wt/s1600/High+School+Smoking+vs+Ecigs.png" height="231" width="320" /></a></div>
Worrying over increased youth use of e-cigarettes while smoking rates are declining is akin to worrying about more teens having sex using condoms while STD and unwanted pregnancy rates are declining.</div>
<br />
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<span style="color: #0b5394;"><b>It's a mad, mad world</b></span><br />
For those of us who lived through the endless debates on changing attitudes about safe sex education and promoting condom use, we are now living in a bizzaro world that has flipped everything on it's head. The very people we thought would "get it" have become our greatest opposition. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
By "we" I mean supporters of tobacco harm reduction policies. THR proponents believe existing tobacco control policies - such as public smoking bans, high taxes and public education - have mostly reached their limit for preventing and reducing smoking any further. In spite of all of their efforts, there will always be a small (yet very significant) portion of the public who will choose to use tobacco and nicotine products, as long as they remain available for purchase legally or on the black market. THR policies aim to reduce the health risks of those inveterate smokers by offering them safer alternatives:<br />
<ul>
<li>Low risk alternatives significantly reduce the risks of the nearly 14 million U.S. smokers who aren't part of the 70% who say they want to quit. </li>
<li>Low risk alternatives significantly reduce the risks of the 42 million U.S. smokers who say they want to quit, but are still smoking because they are between quit attempts or have given up trying to quit after too many failed attempts. </li>
<li>Low risk alternatives could also significantly reduce the risks of the nearly 800,000 people in the U.S. who become new, daily smokers every year - should they choose e-cigarettes before trying traditional cigarettes.</li>
</ul>
The point is, tobacco harm reduction and low-risk products like e-cigarettes are not intended for those who are trying to quit smoking now or for those who never intend to start. They are for those who cannot or will not quit - maybe not this year, maybe not ever - and as an alternative for someone who would otherwise become a new smoker today. However, the risks of these products are so low that for every smoker who switches it would take hundreds, if not hundreds of thousands, of non-smokers to start using them or bystanders to be heavily exposed to vapor to offset the health gains of just that one smoker quitting smoking. And the head-in-the-sand idea of telling people to "just quit or never start" obviously isn't working.</div>
<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
This is something the people who fought
for harm reduction policies, safe sex education and promoting the use of
condoms should easily understand. Unfortunately, their apparent hatred of
everything tobacco related seems to blind them from seeing the irony and the
unintended consequences of their actions. Actions that are guaranteed to keep
way too many smokers still smoking.<br />
<br />
Maybe they should take the advice they gave to the religious right 30 years ago (and still even today) and stop trying to force their ideology of 100% abstinence on people and start accepting the fact that people will take risks; and it's the job of public health to reduce those risks, not to cling to an unrealistic belief that they can stop all people from <strike>having premarital sex</strike> using tobacco and nicotine.</div>
Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-45602501676529523622014-07-23T17:33:00.001-07:002014-12-07T07:59:48.799-08:00A Five Year JourneyAs of today, I haven't smoked a cigarette in five years.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
But I didn't set out to quit smoking. I became what is known as an "accidental quitter" when I switched to using an electronic cigarette. Before I tried one, I was resigned to being a smoker until I died.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As I reported in my very first article about e-cigarettes in 2009, "<a href="http://voices.yahoo.com/negative-reactions-mystify-electronic-cigarette-owners-4232227.html" target="_blank">Negative Reactions Mystify Electronic Cigarette Owners</a>," my husband and I bought our first electronic cigarettes from a booth at the state fair -- on a lark. The sales pitch that sold us was that the devices were less expensive than conventional cigarettes, didn't contain the tar and smoke that increase the risk of "smoking-related" diseases and could be used where smoking would soon be prohibited in my state. We spent over $200 on two kits. Note that although we'd tried quitting many times before (and I had quit during every pregnancy and while nursing), we did not buy the e-cigarettes to use as an alternative to quitting smoking with gums or patches. We weren't looking for a way to quit smoking. We bought them as a safer, less expensive and more convenient substitute for conventional cigarettes. It's important to understand that e-cigarettes are not for people who are trying to quit smoking -- they are for those who cannot or will not quit, so they need a safer alternative. Like condoms are for safer sex, e-cigarettes are for safer "smoking."</div>
<div>
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9fe1ofFwkeRy6F0S2oRSmKMGNanQSiEIOd_NXqtLqRcB-OZyNAVlHOR9lC7qD_jpwG3uMSYenYoCvipTzRUd76z_cPfvmAXpkSHJbP8xJXFRbnas4NV03uY6MTh4C896UxHTA3dZGAOGn/s1600/Ecig+Types.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj9fe1ofFwkeRy6F0S2oRSmKMGNanQSiEIOd_NXqtLqRcB-OZyNAVlHOR9lC7qD_jpwG3uMSYenYoCvipTzRUd76z_cPfvmAXpkSHJbP8xJXFRbnas4NV03uY6MTh4C896UxHTA3dZGAOGn/s1600/Ecig+Types.jpg" height="273" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">E-cigarettes have changed considerably since 2009</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
The devices we first purchased were "cigarette-like." They were about the same size as a conventional cigarette, white with a tan "filter" cartridge and had an orange LED that lit at the tip. While we were told that a single cartridge of nicotine solution was equivalent to more than a pack of conventional cigarettes, we soon found out that they didn't last long at all and came with all kinds of problems, such as faulty atomizers (heating element) and producing pathetic wisps of vapor. Additionally, the "cigarette flavor" I had expected turned out to be more like a slightly sweet, raw tobacco flavor. It didn't taste like smoking and only made me miss "the real thing." It's like craving your favorite mocha latte from Starbucks and getting a cup of watery instant coffee instead. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Because the tobacco flavoring was artificial, I thought maybe there were other flavors I may like -- flavors that wouldn't cause me to crave smoking. So I went online to see what was available. Apparently, other early adopters were having the same issues. There were forums filled with topics dedicated to improving battery life, improving vapor production and finding more appealing flavors. Members of these forums were nearly all long-time, middle-aged smokers.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Contrary to claims being made in the media by some politicians and health advocates, the so-called "candy flavors" made for e-cigarettes were not developed by tobacco companies to lure and hook youth, but were a response from small, independent e-cigarette companies to requests from mature smokers seeking better flavors and alternatives to "tobacco" and "menthol." I was one of them. The first non-tobacco flavor I bought, about a week after getting my e-cigarette, was peach. Then I bought mocha and French vanilla flavors. I've also tried mint chocolate chip, butterscotch, peanut butter cup and strawberry-peach. I was 41 years old at the time I first switched to an e-cigarette and I am now 46 -- hardly a "youth." It wasn't until I had access to flavors such peach and French vanilla that I lost all desire for regular cigarettes. In fact, that flavor of burning tobacco that I once loved now tastes terrible to me. I cannot imagine how flavors such as strawberry and key lime pie could act as a "gateway" to smoking. It's like claiming that virgin strawberry margaritas could be a gateway to drinking shots of tequila.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
During my time on the forums, I discovered that the FDA was seizing shipments of e-cigarettes coming from overseas and two companies were suing the agency to cease and desist. Articles about e-cigarettes were fairly rare at that time, but those that were published were largely a regurgitation of press releases made by anti-tobacco groups. After the FDA released <a href="http://casaa.org/FAQS_ecig.html" target="_blank">a misleading statement</a> about the results of its own testing of e-cigarettes (exclusively products sold by the two companies involved in the lawsuit) that claimed to have found carcinogens and "an ingredient found in anti freeze," the articles only got worse. It was during that time that I started writing articles about e-cigarettes to counter all of the misinformation and blatant lies being circulated by the FDA and the anti-tobacco groups. None of the e-cigarette consumers at the time could understand why these groups were coming out against a smoke-free product that could help millions of smokers to also "accidentally quit." We naively thought that they just needed to hear our stories and see the potential of these devices. We couldn't have been more wrong.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I had never been politically active. I didn't even always vote during presidential elections. I was raised by left-leaning, Democrat parents and simply voted by party. But after seeing heavy-handed government in action and watching so many Democrat politicians try to ban e-cigarettes or treat them like conventional cigarettes, I started evaluating where I stood politically. I immersed myself in books, articles and studies about tobacco control and everything I ever believed was turned on its head. I learned the opposition wasn't about the health of smokers, but the health of budgets and funding of the government and anti-tobacco organizations. It was also about ideology and controlling behavior. Largely because of my experience fighting special interest groups, politicians, the CDC and the FDA, I'm now a moderate libertarian and I am much more involved in researching politicians before I vote. E-cigarettes not only changed my life, they opened my eyes and changed my politics.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtcQpyvbGtKb0JCtbTH_HX4377trSHdZAjAxx4Uvs2_mRq08HICz2F-J-TUJOTDVJceGjNpDujHM6dbsdTPrRRGClNWoqNSu307RpSbDZ0ZTFZ5PIjtEXfULvNrRcKYBFkd9Of4d253ZCW/s1600/Board+at+Member+Meeting.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtcQpyvbGtKb0JCtbTH_HX4377trSHdZAjAxx4Uvs2_mRq08HICz2F-J-TUJOTDVJceGjNpDujHM6dbsdTPrRRGClNWoqNSu307RpSbDZ0ZTFZ5PIjtEXfULvNrRcKYBFkd9Of4d253ZCW/s1600/Board+at+Member+Meeting.jpg" height="190" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">CASAA board of directors at first live member meeting</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div>
In late 2009, members of one forum decided that there needed to be an organization to fight the misinformation and lies. The "industry" was too competitive to organize and consisted of small online store owners and a few brick-and-mortar shops that lacked the experience, time and funds to form an association. So, several people started the process of forming an organization to be a voice for consumers and a resource of factual information. Members of the forum nominated other members for the first board of directors and I was one of 13 elected to that first board. Ever since that day, I have served as a volunteer director, spending hundreds of hours with my fellow directors, building an organization from the ground up. Today, The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) has over 25,000 registered members, fought e-cigarette use bans and excessive taxes all over the country, met with the FDA and other federal agencies and committees on several occasions and is considered a legitimate voice for consumers by the media. I'm extremely proud of what we've accomplished -- with so little -- in such a short time.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Here I am, five years later, still not smoking and still fighting to see smoke-free alternatives (such as e-cigarettes) accepted and <u>reasonably</u> regulated as the safer, low-risk substitutes for smoking they are. Tobacco harm reduction works and it has changed my life in more ways than I ever imagined! I hope to see the day when CASAA is no longer needed. Until then, I hope every e-cigarette consumer -- and those who love them -- will stand by us and help us in this fight. In the US alone, 45 million lives are at stake.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Please go to <a href="http://casaa.org/">casaa.org</a> for more information about tobacco harm reduction and how you can help.</div>
</div>
Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-83920260769358607352014-04-06T08:44:00.003-07:002021-05-19T10:47:47.580-07:00CASAA is truly grassroots, not a 'front group'I recently came across a <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/08/19/jenny-mccarthy-and-the-selling-of-e-cigarettes/" target="_blank">blog post</a> about e-cigarettes that had this in the comments:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>What strikes me about CASAA is that the board is stacked with power players: lawyers, smokeless tobacco lobbyists and web marketing experts. Not a random assortment of Americans, but exactly what a company would seek out as a PR front.</i></blockquote>
Once I stopped laughing at "stacked with power players" and picked myself up off the floor, I wanted to set the record straight.<br />
<br />
CASAA, The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association, was formed in 2009 on an online e-cigarette enthusiast forum. Here is a thread discussing the creation of the organization, before it even had a name: <a href="http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/casaa/35962-eco-organization-charter-administration.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">ECO - Organization Charter: Administration</a> and <a href="http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/casaa/37395-casaa-consumer-advocates-smokeless-alternatives-association-2.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">here</a> you can see a lot of the democratic process that went into the name and organization. Clearly, CASAA was not formed by e-cigarette or tobacco companies as a "PR front."<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
During that time, members of the forum were becoming increasingly alarmed by the negative publicity being generated by public health groups such as the American Lung Association, American Cancer Society and Campaign for Tobacco-free Kids, and attempts by the FDA to stop shipments of e-cigarette supplies from entering the country. It was a genuine shock to see these groups, which had been pushing for us to quit smoking for decades, come out against e-cigarettes. In our naivety, we thought we just needed to show them how these products were working for us and they would come around. Surely, we thought, once they hear our stories about quitting smoking and improved health, they would support e-cigarettes.<br />
<br />
We soon found out that their objections to e-cigarettes had nothing to do with health and quitting smoking. It didn't matter if the devices worked for adult smokers. It became apparent that they were more concerned about the possibility that some youth may use a low-risk alternative than how that low-risk alternative had the potential to save millions of smokers. In our minds, that was akin to banning seat belts because of the small risk that they could trap a person in a car wreck. Sure there is a small risk of that happening, but it is widely accepted that the benefits of seat belts far outweigh that small risk. Similarly with e-cigarettes, we felt it was clear that the small risks of some kids using them - kids who would have likely been smoking traditional cigarettes anyhow - were far outweighed by the benefits of millions of adult smokers no longer inhaling cigarette smoke. But the fact that e-cigarettes were enjoyable, contained nicotine and<i> looked like smoking</i> was more than the public health groups could tolerate. Their goal is to eliminate all tobacco and nicotine use, so a product that mimics smoking and allows anything but complete abstinence is unacceptable, even if it can save millions of lives. Only their way - quit or die - will be tolerated.<br />
<br />
I found e-cigarettes at a state fair. Typical of most e-cigarette consumers at the time, I wasn't looking to quit smoking. I was pretty sure I'd smoke until I died. However, at 39, my daughter was born and I was concerned about living long enough to see her grow up and have kids some day. When I heard the "pitch" at the e-cigarette booth, I was intrigued by the low cost compared to smoking and fact that they eliminated smoke. I was already aware that it isn't the nicotine that is linked to smoking-related diseases, but the smoke itself, so it was easy to see how eliminating the smoke would be hugely beneficial. Additionally, as a real estate consultant, I liked the idea that the e-cigarettes would not leave an odor on me that my clients would smell. Typically, I was ashamed of smoking and feared I would be judged negatively for being a smoker. A bonus feature was that e-cigarette use was not included in the State's recently passed smoke-free air law. In Wisconsin, it's a definite incentive to not have to step outside to use an e-cigarette in the cold winters. I became part of the e-cigarette phenomenon of "accidental quitters" - smokers who weren't even trying to quit, but still ended up quitting cigarettes by switching exclusively to smoke-free e-cigarettes. (Unlike with FDA-approved gums and patches, which only attract smokers who are actively trying to quit and still fail 97% of the time.)<br />
<br />
But by far the most appealing aspect of e-cigarettes was that I could eliminate nearly all of the health risks without feeling like I was giving up smoking. I wasn't concerned about the addiction aspect of smoking, just the health risks. Like many other e-cigarette consumers, the addiction itself wasn't the issue, so e-cigarettes allowed me to "have my cake and eat it, too." Of course, that is appalling to the ANTZ ("Anti Nicotine and Tobacco Zealots",) who put ideology and their tobacco and nicotine-free dream ahead of the health of 42 million smokers.) How could anyone not care about being addicted to nicotine? Inconceivable! Don't all smokers want to be nicotine free? Apparently not, as e-cigarettes have exploded in popularity with smokers who don't care about "addiction," but don't want to die from smoke, either.<br />
<br />
Also typical of the time, my e-cigarette looked and somewhat tasted like a traditional cigarette. However, the flavor only served to make me want the real thing and the tiny batteries were not dependable. So, I sought out better batteries and flavors, finding myself at the e-cigarette forum. Not only did I find better devices and flavors such as chocolate and peach existed, much to my horror, I found out that health groups and the FDA were trying to ban the devices. All of the coverage in the media was unquestioning of this, so I felt compelled to write my own article about e-cigarettes and let consumers tell their story. That resulted in <a href="http://voices.yahoo.com/negative-reactions-mystify-electronic-cigarette-owners-4232227.html" target="_blank">"Negative Reactions Mystify Electronic Cigarette Users</a>," published on Yahoo! Voices in September of 2009. Shortly afterwards, along with 12 other forum members, I was nominated and elected by members of the e-cigarette forum to be a charter director of the new, as-of-yet-unnamed e-cigarette consumer organization.<br />
<br />
So, how did CASAA become "stacked with power players?"<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgT8bH7bes-OCYClsZFGQQDpWHaD7BCcm1X1nxyN5AxjJ-IH0F-4wPJzdDa8MoOIDtY0Clc0QW32vUh7ICe7SynJn-FdcaDRCvRlm9V1P_zQ2A9t_-SpW-Q5fzw5CxivTLrdkx6DqeaK07/s1600/Board+at+Member+Meeting.jpg" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="190" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgT8bH7bes-OCYClsZFGQQDpWHaD7BCcm1X1nxyN5AxjJ-IH0F-4wPJzdDa8MoOIDtY0Clc0QW32vUh7ICe7SynJn-FdcaDRCvRlm9V1P_zQ2A9t_-SpW-Q5fzw5CxivTLrdkx6DqeaK07/s1600/Board+at+Member+Meeting.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">CASAA "power players" discuss issues at the first<br />
live member meeting at VaperCon in 2012</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Well, e-cigarette consumers may be a little eccentric, but they aren't stupid. Those nominated all had some characteristic that members felt would help the organization succeed. This included doctors, lawyers, previous non-profit experience, web design experience, community involvement and in my case, a previously untapped knack for writing. Because most e-cigarette stores at the time were run by e-cigarette consumers, who became entrepreneurs to help others switch to e-cigarettes, they were allowed to join as members and even serve on the board of directors. In order to remain consumer-focused, however, the organizational bylaws restricted the number directors with financial ties to the "industry." The number of directors with industry ties are kept in the minority and will never be allowed to outnumber the consumer representatives. That way, consumer interests always take priority.<br />
<br />
Even with all of those "power players," CASAA struggled to survive. Several of the elected directors never even made it to the first online Skype meetings. A year after the election, only 5 of the 13 original directors were actively participating. By the end of 2011, the first president had resigned and only 3 of the original board of directors remained. It became a matter of "fake it until you make it."<br />
<br />
Since then, CASAA added and lost a few directors until we came to the board of directors we have at the time of this post. In addition to three of the originally elected directors (myself, a former real estate consultant, now a work-from-home mom; Elaine Keller, a retired vocal coach with a talent for writing and non-profit experience; and Drew Gliem, an e-cigarette retailer and consumer, also with extensive non-profit experience,) the current (2014) board includes Michael Cozzi, an active e-cigarette video blogger and community activist with expert web and computer skills; Karen Carey, an outspoken community member and professional accountant; Julie Woessner, a respected community member and retired attorney; Dr. Carl Phillips, a non-vaping epidemiologist with extensive experience in tobacco harm reduction science and policy (we considered it a real coup when someone of Dr. Phillips' caliber agreed to join us); and Ron Ward, another e-cigarette consumer activist and attorney, who has just opened an e-cigarette store in Maryland. None of us are professional lobbyists, nor are we paid by tobacco or e-cigarette companies to serve as CASAA directors. In fact, we aren't paid at all. CASAA is definitely<u> not</u> an "e-cigarette industry group." We do this because we are passionate about tobacco harm reduction and possibly because we may be a little bit crazy.<br />
<br />
Our dedication has paid off. In the 4 years since our inception, we have grown from a few hundred members to nearly 12,000. We have collected over $100,000 in member donations, our members contributed over $25,000 for a <a href="http://blog.casaa.org/2013/08/new-study-confirms-that-chemicals-in.html" target="_blank"> research grant resulting in a comprehensive study of e-cigarette chemistry</a>, we've met with the FDA and countless other government officials and representatives, networked with the e-cigarette and tobacco industries and the scientific community, developed a reliable and expert reputation, changed the once entirely one-sided dialogue in the media and inspired and assisted dozens of local advocacy groups across the country and around the world.<br />
<br />
To use the old cigarette slogan: "We've come a long way, baby."<br />
<br />
CASAA is also more than just an "e-cigarette advocacy group." From early on, we made the conscious decision to advocate for <u>all</u> smoke-free alternatives, not just e-cigarettes. Much of what we believe is true about the low risks of e-cigarettes is actually based on decades of research on smoke-free tobacco products, such as snus - rhymes with "goose." (Read:<a href="http://casaa.org/Smokefree_Health_Effects.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> Smoke-free Health Effects</a>) CASAA's support of the users of other smoke-free alternatives is very important to me and had a huge impact in my decision to become and stay involved. Unlike my experience, my husband did not immediately quit smoking when he started using e-cigarettes. He found that there was "something missing" with them and couldn't give up those last couple of traditional cigarettes a day. One day he mentioned the possibility of using snus, a product he had used in the past, but I had never heard of.<br />
<br />
Of course, my first reaction was to say "no way," because I worried about oral cancer - the main danger we hear about smokeless tobacco from the health groups. But I did my due diligence and researched it. I found out that, in spite of the required warnings on the labels, decades of research has shown that snus has no increased risk of any cancer or disease. Even the risks of using products like "chew" are extremely low and smokers and heavy drinkers have much higher risk of oral cancer than smokeless tobacco users - and the public health groups have known this and not told smokers the truth!<br />
<br />
These are the same groups misleading the public about e-cigarettes today. Suddenly, I could no longer trust anything I had ever learned as "fact" about tobacco. Everything that came out of the ALA, ACS, CDC and FDA was suspect. And for smokers like my husband, who find "something missing," (I "guess-timate" at least 25% of e-cigarette consumers) it is extremely important they also know about and have access to low-risk, smoke-free alternatives like snus, not just e-cigarettes. Once my husband started using the snus, alternating between it and his e-cigarette, he was able to give up those last few cigarettes a day. For this reason, you will never hear me worry about disassociating e-cigarettes from "tobacco," because I know that low-risk, smoke-free tobacco products are just as important (and safe) as e-cigarettes for tobacco harm reduction. I won't perpetuate the ANTZ lies about tobacco.<br />
<br />
But there is still a long, hard fight ahead of us. The ANTZ still control the dialogue both with lawmakers and the media. We need our 12,000 members to start stepping up more and helping with the tasks that need to be done - tasks that the 8 volunteer members of the board cannot do by themselves. (See: <a href="http://casaa.org/How_You_Can_Help.html" target="_blank">How You Can Help</a>) In true grassroots fashion, it is the regular members who will determine the success of the organization and in the end, whether or not reasonable and intelligent tobacco harm reduction policies will prevail.<br />
<br />
If you think you don't have any power or ability to make a difference, remember this story about CASAA. A ragtag group of inexperienced e-cigarette consumers have built a growing organization of thousands and has become a force to be reckoned with. If we can do it, so can you. And remember - you won't be going it alone.Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-47501434006907048202014-03-08T12:14:00.000-08:002014-12-07T08:00:16.607-08:00It's not "just an addiction"Although my 21 year old son has a mother who advocates smokeless alternatives for smokers, he and his older brother (who was quite anti-smoking when he was younger) both started smoking. My younger son tried e-cigarettes, but didn't really get into them until some of his smoking friends made the switch. My elder son soon followed suit.<br />
<br />
The other day, my younger son posted a photo of his new e-cigarette "wrap" on his Facebook page. His uncle then posted this:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"I just quit outright. Not sought out a surrogate....E-cigs are like giving up sex, but feeling that doing a blow up doll every night is not at all the same. Why waste money? Just live smoke free, and end the social addiction aspects, which keep you in "smokers mode" Just quit the actual habit, and walk away a richer man...Nicotine is neither hallucinogenic, nor pleasing. it merely takes away the craving for more nicotine. That is all it does."</i></blockquote>
<br />
<a name='more'></a>My son then posted:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"Mom, educate this man please. lol"</i></blockquote>
I told him, "It's pointless to try to explain it to some people, sweetie. They'll never understand that vaping is just as "pointless" as coffee. I'm just very happy you and your friends aren't smoking anymore!"<br />
<br />
It was clear that my former brother-in-law has been convinced by the anti-tobacco propaganda and arguing with such people is an exercise in futility. If you have quit smoking and are the better for it, there is no way you'll be convinced that any other course of action many be better for someone else. But I felt his beliefs are shared by so many others that they still needed to be discussed.<br />
<br />
<i>E-cigs are like giving up sex, but feeling that doing a blow up doll every night is not at all the same.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Personally, I feel it's more like giving up a relationship with a destructive partner and finding one that makes me happy and satisfied. Unless you have tried e-cigarettes before quitting smoking, you'll have a hard time understanding this. I don't know any vaper who would compare switching to vaping with giving up sex. For many of us, it's not the same as smoking, but in many ways even better!<br />
<br />
<i>Just live smoke free, and end the social addiction aspects, which keep you in "smokers mode"</i><br />
<i><br /></i>First of all, by vaping, he already does "live smoke free."<br />
<br />
Second, if it was so easy to quit smoking, there wouldn't still be 42 million smokers in the U.S. The "social addiction aspect" is a lot more powerful than given credit. Both of my sons work in the restaurant/bar industry, which is known for a high number of smokers. It's all around them. The alternative to using the e-cigarettes would be smoking. In fact, that is exactly what both of them were doing before vaping. "Just say no" doesn't work so well for underage sex, drinking and drugs and it doesn't work for smoking.<br />
<br />
<i>Just quit the actual habit, and walk away a richer man</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
Taken literally, vaping is far less expensive than smoking. Spiritually, what makes one feel richer in life is different for every person. Not every smoker feels a "slave to addiction." They just don't want to die from it. The idea that one's life will be enriched and improved by giving up a dangerous habit or dependency may be true, but what if the habit or dependency is not dangerous, as with vaping? Would someone happily dependent upon caffeine really feel more "enriched" by giving up their daily coffee and energy drinks? Would anyone even expect them to give it up, especially if it wasn't negatively affecting their well being?<br />
<br />
<i>Nicotine is neither hallucinogenic, nor pleasing. it merely takes away the craving for more nicotine. That is all it does.</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7dVqsmgirErlX5Hvwd3rnjnjQOf7ux6PrHkbd7vYWikswI2b8ECHJ1XmYvSs3cHasvODU74Thd9lDk_EcEBH4_7ewXFQU2MFY8Q82qUrYJhchHP8gKFn2jd0ZZlwW5L61EnLPDk8R7VdQ/s1600/P1100221.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7dVqsmgirErlX5Hvwd3rnjnjQOf7ux6PrHkbd7vYWikswI2b8ECHJ1XmYvSs3cHasvODU74Thd9lDk_EcEBH4_7ewXFQU2MFY8Q82qUrYJhchHP8gKFn2jd0ZZlwW5L61EnLPDk8R7VdQ/s1600/P1100221.JPG" height="240" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">These vapers, at a meet in Virginia, <br />
look pretty darn happy to me.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The idea that nicotine (and smoking) is not pleasing and the only reason one would "need" it is to "feed the addiction" is simply not true. Nicotine, especially in the form of e-cigarettes, has many pleasant effects that are largely ignored and downplayed by the anti-nicotine zealots. Research shows it is a stimulant like caffeine. It also has a calming effect and can improve concentration. There is a reason why so many with brain conditions such as ADD, OCD, depression and mental illness end up smoking.<br />
<br />
So, there is more to the desire for nicotine than just a craving for more nicotine. And if smoking was just about getting the nicotine, then why do nicotine gums and patches fail to satisfy the desire to smoke for 97% of smokers? The nicotine in e-cigarettes is the same as in gums and patches, yet smokers find e-cigarettes to be far more satisfying. Obviously, the act of smoking - the habit, the taste, the feel of vapor in the mouth and lungs - is a significant aspect in smoking. And since none of those things are "addictive," they could only be about the pleasure and enjoyment of the experience. After all, caffeine is available in a pill, yet most people would prefer to get it by enjoying a steaming, venti mocha latte or an icy Coke or Pepsi. The experience matters - a lot. Just because you cannot understand why someone would enjoy something it doesn't mean that it's impossible to enjoy. I think sushi is disgusting, but billions of people love it. Does that mean I'm wrong and they are right?<br />
<br />
The stigma of mental illness (and I dislike that term because of the stigma) has caused many people to avoid seeking treatment. Yet conditions which affect the brain are no different than other genetic diseases such as diabetes, cancer or heart disease. Things like cancer and diabetes don't really run in my family, but a lot of brain conditions do - ADD, OCD, depression, bi-polar disorder and even stuttering. Research is showing that nearly all of these conditions may benefit from the positive effects of nicotine, with very few of the negative side effects suffered by users of prescription drugs. It is no wonder that drug abuse, alcoholism and smoking are also common in suffers of these diseases, because many people are unconsciously self-medicating. Many people don't even realize they have a condition they are "medicating," because it is a mild form.<br />
<br />
Unsurprisingly, alcoholism, drug abuse and smoking have all been a problem in my family. Most people would be ashamed to admit that, but I truly believe that it's the underlying medical conditions that are the cause, not some moral deficiency or weakness. There should be no more shame in admitting a genetic predisposition to mental illness than having other genetic diseases run in the family. Unfortunately, that is not how society treats us. They tell those of us that fall into dependency that we only need the moral fortitude to beat our addiction and our lives will be hunky-dory. Unfortunately, they often ignore the very real diseases that are usually the cause of the "disease of addiction" in the first place. If a little bit of nicotine is helping me get through the day, giving it up isn't going to make me less stressed or less depressed.<br />
<br />
Someone may give up the alcohol or cigarettes, but then live a life of comparable misery on psychoactive drugs that have their own deadly or debilitating side effects - some that include an increased risk of suicide! Quitting smoking doesn't mean instant health and happiness for these folks. It isn't simply a matter of getting through a short time of withdrawal, but rather a lifetime of dealing with the effects of losing their "medication." It's no different than if you took away a patient's Wellbutrin or Adderall, then told them to just "tough it out" and it will get better. No, it won't.<br />
<br />
Of course, for most people, the health risks of smoking far outweigh the benefits of the nicotine and other monoamine oxidase inhibitors (natural anti-depressants) they get from smoking. Yet, no matter how they try to quit, they keep smoking. That is why smoke-free tobacco alternatives, such as e-cigarettes, are such an important breakthrough. They aren't for people who can easily walk away - those who don't smoke because they also suffer from one or more mental diseases, but only because it's become a habit. They are a far safer alternative for people who cannot quit or who unlikely to even try quitting.<br />
<br />
Personally, I suffer from mild depression, anxiety and OCD. I could give up my e-cigarettes (which I do enjoy beyond the effects of the nicotine), but then I would likely become dependent upon pharmaceutical anti-depressants. Honestly, what would be the difference of being dependent on smoke-free nicotine or dependent on some pharmaceutical drug? Would I be anymore "free" by being dependent on a pill? Would taking a pill make me happier than a puff of satisfying and pleasant-tasting vapor? I think not.<br />
<br />
I say, you do what makes you happy and I'll do what makes me happy. If it isn't hurting me or anyone around me, then what is the problem?<br />
<br />
In case you think I'm just giving an opinion about the links between mental disorders and addiction, read "<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181622/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, and mental disorders</a>" by Dr. Marc-Antoine Crocq:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>"People choose to smoke because they appreciate the psychoactive, stimulant effect of nicotine. Smokers report that smoking helps them concentrate, reason, and perform - observations consistent with studies demonstrating that nicotine improves attention, learning, reaction time, and problem solving. For example, studies suggest that nicotine Increases the speed of sensory Information processing In smokers." Smokers also report that smoking helps them relax, particularly In stressful situations, and improves their mood. They report pleasure and reduced anger, tension, depression, and stress. One explanation for the use of nicotine Is that smokers rely on these positive reinforcements to cope with their environment. This hypothesis is borne out by the fact that Individuals with psychiatric or psychological problems characterized by negative affect and difficulty coping are more likely to be smokers than Individuals who are more emotionally stable. The psychological and societal factors that Influence experimentation with tobacco will also Influence the propensity to experiment with other substances and, generally, different patterns of behavior."</i></blockquote>
It's worth noting that the decline in smoking rates mirrors a huge increase in prescriptions for anti-depressants, anti-anxiety and attention deficit drugs since the mid-80's - and a significant increase in obesity. There is no clear evidence for causation, but it is a definitely worth considering.Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-63521324869953339492014-03-07T16:10:00.000-08:002014-12-07T08:00:26.354-08:00My two days in Wisconsin's capitolTuesday and Wednesday this week, I drove to Madison (a total of 708 miles for two round trips) to testify before two legislative committees regarding exempting e-cigarettes from indoor smoking bans. These bills (<a href="http://blog.casaa.org/2014/02/call-to-action-updated-support.html" target="_blank">SB 440 and AB 762</a>) seek to clarify that e-cigarette use is not included in the smoking bans and to preempt smaller municipalities from including e-cigarettes in their bans. Believe it or not, after 4 1/2 years with CASAA, this is the first time I've actually had the opportunity to testify regarding e-cigarettes. Happily, this was a bill that I could support.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
After finding my way through the maze of the capitol square, I finally found parking and received a text from former CASAA director Greg Conley that the hearing was delayed by an hour. The hearing didn't start until 2 PM and was the last bill discussed. The room was small and didn't allow for a lot of spectators, so most of us waited outside for AB 762 to be called. During that time, I had an interview with WPR reporter Shamane Mills, who was clearly opposed to e-cigarettes and didn't bother to use any of her interview with me in her <a href="http://www.wpr.org/should-e-cigarettes-fall-under-wisconsins-smoking-ban" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">article</a>. I also spoke with the three vapers who showed up and representatives from Johnson Creek Smoke Juice and Njoy. Another speaker was Don Muehlbauer, owner of Wisconsin-based Dura Smoke.<br />
<br />
I was second-to-last to speak (it was after 6 PM by then) and the five remaining Assembly members were clearly tired and worn out, so to get their attention, I ditched my prepared statement and spoke from the heart. They didn't ask any questions. Afterwards, Rep. Adam Neylon (R - Pewaukee) approached me in the hall and expressed general support but with some doubts. After we spoke a bit he said, "Ok, I'm sold!" The rest of the committee seemed split on their opinions of the bill. Then I got back in my car and arrived home around 10 PM. As far as I am aware, no vote was taken that evening, but you can follow the CASAA <a href="http://blog.casaa.org/2014/02/call-to-action-updated-support.html" target="_blank">Call to Action page</a> for future updates.<br />
<br />
The next day, I arrived again at the capitol building and after wandering like a rat in a maze for about 15 minutes, found the correct room for the Senate Committee on Judiciary and Labor hearing on SB 440. This time I went second, after Madison conservative radio personality (and vaper) Vicki McKenna gave her testimony.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWeOYBIa1i6RcPAH4nPCtdHIdPEoqhm5f4W8DqT5x82jUWmg-ERKbgRTA7rrqAbVmivamyXf5_uBkqexDEWg96sqMnTKu5kE2nPfQ_q43R11a5wrkq1TXLpnCdcvKCi-GcwIMWAp7hQHU0/s1600/Kristin+at+SB440+Hearing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWeOYBIa1i6RcPAH4nPCtdHIdPEoqhm5f4W8DqT5x82jUWmg-ERKbgRTA7rrqAbVmivamyXf5_uBkqexDEWg96sqMnTKu5kE2nPfQ_q43R11a5wrkq1TXLpnCdcvKCi-GcwIMWAp7hQHU0/s1600/Kristin+at+SB440+Hearing.jpg" height="219" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Speaking before the WI Senate Committee on Judiciary and Labor</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<b>Watch video of Senate hearing:</b> <a href="http://tinyurl.com/k5j5o6d">http://tinyurl.com/k5j5o6d</a> (Click TV icon. E-cigarette testimony starts around 1:15 mark)<br />
<br />
After my Senate testimony, on the video (link above) you can see Rep. Dave Murphy (R - Appleton) sit down next to me. I had given him my CASAA folding card earlier and he thought it was great. He spent the remainder of the hearing sitting by me, politely listening to my ongoing commentary (ie. "ranting") on the other speakers and asking questions I was happy to answer.<br />
<br />
From my understanding, the Senate committee was to vote on this on Thursday, but I haven't heard of the outcome yet. Again, the CASAA Call to Action page will be updated as we find out more.<br />
<br />
The testimony for AB 762 was not recorded, but it was essentially the same as seen in the video for SB 440, with some changes in speakers. The thing that struck me most was the lack of concern for adult smokers. All of the ANTZ focused more on youth use and possible addiction. As typical of these things, lies about e-cigarettes and youth use were flying left and right. It was frustrating to hear the man tell the sad story of his mother's cancer, because he just could not understand that e-cigarettes are what are preventing my kids from having to tell a similar story in 20 years.<br />
<br />
The nice thing about the Senate hearing is that the committee chair, Sen. Glen Grothman, is also the bill sponsor and another committee member, Sen. Leah Vukmir quite clearly supported the bill. I believe she may actually be a vaper and is apparently friends with Vicki McKenna. It was nice to speak to a group that was supportive. Sen.Vukmir clearly wasn't buying what the ANTZ were saying!<br />
<br />
Thank you to all of those who showed up to support these bills!Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-32785220157026274372014-02-15T13:20:00.000-08:002014-12-07T08:00:35.103-08:00On Coffee and (e)CigarettesI believe that there are benefits to smoke-free nicotine use for a lot of people and nicotine itself isn't any more "addictive" than caffeine. That shocks a lot of people to hear, because it goes against everything we've been taught over the past few decades. However, <i>a lot</i> of more recent research backs me up in this. (<i>See <a href="http://nicotinepolicy.net/karl-fagerstrom/520-dependence-on-tobacco-and-nicotine">http://nicotinepolicy.net/karl-fagerstrom/520-dependence-on-tobacco-and-nicotine</a></i>) Of course, if you would tell people to not start using caffeinated products, then the same advice would obviously apply to smoke-free nicotine products. But if you have no objection to people using caffeinated products, that pretty much makes any arguments against smoke-free nicotine products moot.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhc7ENuF95urUmY39fMlLTqNlg-kqb60feEpoksMmTKmSGE_8PWDEH2_QJNuvrD4TPxpLZn5A0hhpzMijOg3VPk7wwZzMjUIp3uThBr05MRU1WaqdwFHjnQ1jPXg0Xzg4wsQtdLuArBL_yp/s1600/Coffee+and+Ecig.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhc7ENuF95urUmY39fMlLTqNlg-kqb60feEpoksMmTKmSGE_8PWDEH2_QJNuvrD4TPxpLZn5A0hhpzMijOg3VPk7wwZzMjUIp3uThBr05MRU1WaqdwFHjnQ1jPXg0Xzg4wsQtdLuArBL_yp/s1600/Coffee+and+Ecig.jpg" height="320" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Is one of these things <u>really</u> not like the other?</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
You often hear people joke about their coffee/caffeine "addictions" all of the time, but many don't even recognize that they actually do have a dependency. People will drink a large latte in the morning and then suck down energy drinks or caffeinated sodas the rest of the day. Not a sign of dependency, right? However, if they are used to that daily routine, they'll suffer symptoms similar to those of nicotine "withdrawal" if they quit, such as headaches, irritability, depression, fatigue and difficulty concentrating. Yet, because their dependency is not as visible as smoking or vaping, people don't seem to notice it as much. Consequently, people believe that smokers/vapers need to "feed an addiction" in a way that caffeine users apparently don't, so the caffeine users aren't "really addicted."<br />
<br />
But there is a reason why nicotine users seem to need a "fix" more often than caffeine users. Consider the fact that a Starbucks latte in the morning and a 5-hour Energy drink after lunch equals about 350 milligrams (mg) of caffeine a day. The half-life of caffeine in the human body is 6 hours (<i>meaning that after 6 hours, only half of the caffeine consumed has left the system</i>), so the effects of caffeine last a fairly long time. Just two strongly caffeinated drinks can last a caffeine junkie all day long!<br />
<br />
Now consider that smokers consume about 200 mg of nicotine a day, but scientists estimate that only about 10% of that (20 mg) is actually delivered/absorbed by the body. (<i>Personally, I use my e-cigarette all day long, but still use only about 3 ml of 12 mg strength liquid which, using the same 10% delivery/absorption rate, would be only 3.6 mg absorbed per day.</i>) The half-life of nicotine is only about 2 hours, so unlike caffeine users, nicotine users have to use it far more frequently to keep getting its benefits. That makes it look like they "can't live without it," but caffeine users just are fortunate that the effects of their "drug of choice" last longer!<br />
<br />
If you consider these facts, smoke-free nicotine users aren't anymore "addicts" than caffeine users. The only differentiating factor is <b>how</b> the nicotine is consumed. When the nicotine is consumed by smoking, that can have serious health consequences for the smoker and negatively impact their life. But it is the <b>inhalation of smoke</b> that is creating the problem, <b>not</b> the nicotine dependency itself.<br />
<br />
So why aren't people who depend on caffeine to get through their day considered "addicts?" Mainly because using it generally doesn't have a negative impact on the user's health and quality of life and people feel they derive a benefit from its effects.<br />
<br />
How is that any different than a smoke-free nicotine dependency? If you know the facts, you know it isn't different at all.Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-70808522866508067372013-09-20T12:47:00.002-07:002014-12-07T08:00:55.385-08:00Wisconsin smokers are quitting. The solution? Tax non-smokers.<span style="font-family: inherit;">In 1999, Wisconsin received $5.9 billion dollars in the national tobacco lawsuit and within 4 years it was all gone. That's because the state, facing the worst fiscal crisis in its history, had sold 25 years of tobacco payments for $1.3 billion to balance a single year's budget.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Since 2003, the percentage of adult smokers in Wisconsin has reduced from 22% to 20.6%. From 2005 to 2010, the net cigarette taxes collected more than doubled from $289 million to $595 million, while the total number of cigarette packs sold dropped from 414 million to 298 million. According to a 2011 <a href="http://www.wicancer.org/uploads/pub_49017.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">report by the University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Control Program</a>, no other source of state revenue has increased at that rate. "Revenue from tobacco (exclusive of revenue from tobacco bonds) is the fourth largest source of state revenue after sales, income and corporate taxes."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">It is clear that to maintain the tax revenue, the state must either increase the taxes on the ever-dwindling population of smokers buying taxed cigarettes or find other sources of revenue. The 2011 UW report showed that taxes on non-cigarette tobacco products have increased by over 350% since 2005. Surveys show that smoke-free tobacco use has increased to 4% in Wisconsin. Clearly, many smokers have turned not only to the cheaper, Native American cigarette stores but also to less expensive, less harmful smoke-free tobacco products. Obviously, the state would want even more from those smoke-free users to compensate for the lost cigarette taxes.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Health organizations and legislators usually justify increasing tobacco taxes by claiming the increased costs reduce smoking rates, thereby improving public health and decreasing health insurance and medical care costs. But the UW report mentioned earlier found that while "increasing taxes may effectively reduce cigarette <i>consumption</i>, it did not cause a significant decline in adult smoking <i>prevalence</i>. The increase in taxes may have contributed to the <b>modest</b> decline in youth smoking, which is consistent with other studies showing that youth are more sensitive to price changes than adults." (<i>Translation</i>: <i>Nearly the same <u>percentage </u>of people are still smoking, they just aren't smoking <u>as many</u> cigarettes as they did before and the decline in youth smoking hasn't exactly been exceptional, either.</i>)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">With that in mind, consider a new bill soon to be introduced by Wisconsin Representative Garey Bies (R-Sister Bay). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The bill, titled the "Backpack Tobacco Act," claims to only be thinking of "saving the children" when proposing to increase the taxes on non-cigarette tobacco products to be as high as current cigarette taxes. The health organizations supporting this Act claim it is to combat the increased use of "little cigars" and smoke-free tobacco products that come in "candy flavors." (Note that the only people calling these "candy" flavors and bringing them to the attention of youth are the health groups themselves.) They claim that increasing the tax on these products will have a significant impact on reducing youth smoking rates.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Let me first say that I strongly support prohibiting the sale of tobacco and nicotine products to minors. However, the proponents of the bill make several claims designed to convince and/or scare people into increasing taxes (mainly affecting the <u>adult</u> consumers of these products) that just don't stand up to the light. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Some of the "facts" stated in a <a href="http://legis.wisconsin.gov/assembly/bies/news/pages/bies-introduces-'backpack-tobacco-act'.aspx" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">joint press release</a> issued by the bill's author and the American Lung Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and Health First Wisconsin were:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="color: #073763; font-family: inherit;">"According to a poll released September 16th, 67% of Wisconsin voters say they support taxing all tobacco products like cigarettes; support that crosses all demographics and party lines."</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">What they don't tell you is that out of 4.4 million adult voters in Wisconsin, this <a href="http://www.news.wisc.edu/system/assets/54/original/UHS_survey.pdf?1379354735" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">poll only spoke to 600 voters</a>. With only 0.0015% of the adult population polled, is that truly representative of 67% of the <i>entire state? </i>Do the 600 people polled know the truth about smoke-free tobacco products - like how snus is proven to not increase the risks of any of the diseases associated with smoking? Or how switching to a smoke-free product can significantly reduce a smoker's health risks - in most cases to that of a non-smoker?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Knowing the facts can change opinion and unfortunately, most people don't know the truth about smoke-free tobacco use compared to smoking.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="color: #073763;"><b>"Wisconsin’s tobacco laws are full of loopholes that are being exploited to lure kids with new, cheap and addictive products....</b></span><b style="color: #073763;">These products are often sold individually on easy-to-access displays well within kids’ reach and budget."</b></span><br />
<b style="color: #073763;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></b>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">It has been illegal in Wisconsin to sell tobacco to minors for decades and April 2012 saw the passage of a law banning the sale of all nicotine products to minors, as well. Just because a tobacco product is "within kids' reach and budget" doesn't mean "kids" are being sold the products. Beer and wine are often sold in convenience store coolers near soda, well within reach of minors, but rather than make beer and wine more expensive to adult consumers (just to reduce incentive for minors buying them,) stores are held accountable for making illegal sales. The same holds true for any tobacco product. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: inherit;">Ultimately, no matter how much it costs or where it is placed in the store, the last defense between a minor purchasing tobacco products or not depends upon <i>enforcement of existing laws prohibiting sales to minors. </i><u>Wisconsin should be enforcing existing laws regarding these products, not penalizing the adult consumers for the failure of retailers to follow the law.</u></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<div class="ms-rteFontFace-3 ms-rteFontSize-3" style="background-color: white;">
<b><span style="color: #073763; font-family: inherit;">"In 2011, for the first time, little cigar use exceeded that of traditional cigarettes among Wisconsin high school students. Nationwide, sales of these products have increased 240% in the last decade due almost entirely to tax discrepancies."</span></b></div>
<div class="ms-rteFontFace-3 ms-rteFontSize-3" style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The best way to illustrate this doozy of a deception is a chart, so I created one for you using the same CDC statistics used for the claim made above. To justify the need for this tax increase, they want the public to only see that little cigar use has exceeded cigarette use for the first time, so they show you this much of the picture:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJBH2J0ALzIO0bKKnGOh-M7ulHFHPu8OikG0NeuUu-PUwgPFi2bXwyW6cNZVNHA1C1LXfhuc3vSPH6fm6qreSfAaO-LR4wffhiOdF-pxYgfQo8c_eR3XYDxqOQZaQxjooYUpfMqGSGWUn7/s1600/Little+Cigar+Chart.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhJBH2J0ALzIO0bKKnGOh-M7ulHFHPu8OikG0NeuUu-PUwgPFi2bXwyW6cNZVNHA1C1LXfhuc3vSPH6fm6qreSfAaO-LR4wffhiOdF-pxYgfQo8c_eR3XYDxqOQZaQxjooYUpfMqGSGWUn7/s1600/Little+Cigar+Chart.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: left;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="text-align: left;">Based on this information, cigar use did indeed slightly exceed cigarette use in 2011. Sorry if that graphic is a little blurry, but that is what happens when you crop out a small part of a larger picture - the facts get a little fuzzy. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: left;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: left;">Now let's look at the </span><u style="font-family: inherit; text-align: left;">entire</u><span style="font-family: inherit; text-align: left;"> chart for that last decade:</span></div>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9URJbohhbS54TjEFAcos-o1S1ix3cYqaBbyMnF1S84cpOeGQIwGdJTZED7wLJQ88yBWzF3wvZKqxDz_mJ0p5wJKM_E093TC1_tdlxfbJizWbAbMjOS8sc9c1_yaPgjOQm6NuOaKy9Seo1/s1600/High+School+Tobacco+Use+Chart.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9URJbohhbS54TjEFAcos-o1S1ix3cYqaBbyMnF1S84cpOeGQIwGdJTZED7wLJQ88yBWzF3wvZKqxDz_mJ0p5wJKM_E093TC1_tdlxfbJizWbAbMjOS8sc9c1_yaPgjOQm6NuOaKy9Seo1/s400/High+School+Tobacco+Use+Chart.jpg" height="238" width="400" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: x-small;">Source: CDC Wisconsin Youth Survey Data (2001, 2005, 2011)</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Again, it's what they <u>don't</u> tell you that changes how most people would view this little cigar "crisis." </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Refer back to the paragraph above regarding the difference between consumption and prevalence. As you can clearly see on the full chart, while <u>sales</u> of little cigars (ie. consumption) may have increased nationwide over the last decade, cigar, cigarello and little cigar <u>use</u> (ie. prevalence) in Wisconsin has actually declined from 17.3% in 2001 to 14.8% in 2011. High school students smoking cigarettes has also declined from a whopping 32.6% a decade earlier to less than half that (14.6%) in 2011. Over all categories, high school student tobacco use has steadily declined in the past decade.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">While proponents of this bill would have people believe that little cigar use is <i>increasing</i> so much that it is exceeding cigarette use, looking at the actual data for the past decade shows us what really happened is the <u>decline</u> in cigarette use has actually outpaced the <u>decline</u> in cigar use. Remember, too, that there isn't any evidence that the cigar smokers and cigarette smokers are different or separate groups. In all likelihood, because adding the cigar and cigarette smokers together actually exceeds the total for overall tobacco use, most of the cigar smokers are also in the cigarette smokers group and/or vise versa.</span></div>
<div class="ms-rteFontFace-3 ms-rteFontSize-3" style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="ms-rteFontFace-3 ms-rteFontSize-3" style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">What they want you to believe (so you support their new tax) is that high school students are increasingly buying flavored little cigars and smoking more than ever, but the truth is that far fewer students are smoking both cigarettes and little cigars (indeed, tobacco use of all forms) than a decade ago. If this is confusing, believe me when I say that it's intentional on the part of those trying to justify tax increase. This is a classic tactic to "blur the facts" to forward their cause.</span></div>
<div class="ms-rteFontFace-3 ms-rteFontSize-3" style="background-color: white;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="ms-rteFontFace-3 ms-rteFontSize-3" style="background-color: white;">
<div class="ms-rteFontFace-3 ms-rteFontSize-3">
<b><span style="color: #073763; font-family: inherit;">"These products, with their candy-like packaging and fruity flavors (wild cherry, grape and chocolate) are able to skirt Wisconsin’s cigarette tax. The products are priced just right for kids on a weekly allowance, earning money from a babysitting job or just scrounging up some spare change. The clever packaging makes it almost effortless for youth to hide possession of these products from their parents."</span></b></div>
<div class="ms-rteFontFace-3 ms-rteFontSize-3">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="ms-rteFontFace-3 ms-rteFontSize-3">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Clearly, this is not describing little cigars. Little cigars leave a tell tale odor just as cigarettes do and would not be any easier to "hide." No, what are described here are OTP (other tobacco products.) This would include chewing tobacco, snus and dissolvable products such as tobacco lozenges, strips and sticks (and possibly electronic cigarettes.) Again, putting aside the fact that no matter how cheaply priced they are it is <u>still illegal to sell tobacco products to minors</u> in Wisconsin, just how many students are using these smoke-free products compared to actually smoking? According to the CDC's 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 23.9% of high school students reported using some kind of tobacco product at least once in the past 30 days (but not necessarily "daily") and only around a third of those (8.4%) used smokeless tobacco in the past 30 days. Is smokeless use on the rise because these so-called "candy" flavors are now available? Not at all. The CDC report from a decade earlier shows us that overall tobacco use is down from 39.5% and smokeless use is down from 9.1% in 2001.</span></div>
<div class="ms-rteFontFace-3 ms-rteFontSize-3">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="ms-rteFontFace-3 ms-rteFontSize-3">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">On the other hand, availability of pleasant-tasting, low-risk, smokeless tobacco products <u>can</u> be a lifesaver for the 20.9% of adult smokers in Wisconsin. As research has shown, health effects of smoking begin appearing in smokers who are usually over 60 years old and it is the smoke exposure - not nicotine or smoke-free tobacco use - that causes nearly all of those deadly, "tobacco-related" (really SMOKING-related) diseases. <u>Smoke-free products eliminate exposure to smoke.</u></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">As mentioned earlier, the CDC says only 4% of Wisconsin adults use a smoke-free product. The decline in the smoking rate in Wisconsin has effectively stalled, so health organizations need to change their hopeless tactics of trying to get those holdouts to become 100% abstinent and should instead urge them to switch to far less risky alternatives. Especially since 100% abstinence is not required to significantly reduce or eliminate smoking-related disease and death. Therefore, products such as snus (and possibly electronic cigarettes), which this bill would like to see cost as much as cigarettes, should instead be made more affordable than cigarettes. If safer alternatives cost the same as smoking, there is little incentive to change products.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;">But let's not forget the accusation that those "candy flavors" are only sold to attract kids. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">If flavored tobacco products are not intended for adult tobacco users (because adult consumers "obviously" have no interest in pleasant or sweet flavors) then why do pharmaceutical companies advertise these to adult smokers?</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvtEu2PJSwaF9dhlAV2sj2y29Bpe2ie9DRTUFmMGa8uNF9EKkiZ8Rl4asBtETputBEyrkT00LjOwKqKkKrm7cQTlM4dWEGgm5z0ZrsEfW9qCD2-A_V_fJWJZ6Fr7TQ9juWQf7_El_alPbw/s1600/Nicorette2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgvtEu2PJSwaF9dhlAV2sj2y29Bpe2ie9DRTUFmMGa8uNF9EKkiZ8Rl4asBtETputBEyrkT00LjOwKqKkKrm7cQTlM4dWEGgm5z0ZrsEfW9qCD2-A_V_fJWJZ6Fr7TQ9juWQf7_El_alPbw/s320/Nicorette2.jpg" height="195" width="320" /></span></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Don't be fooled. This bill is aimed more at exploiting the growing adult smoke-free tobacco and electronic cigarette markets than at "little cigars" supposedly being used by high school students.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Clearly, the pharmaceutical industry recognized that its expensive, peppery and bitter "original flavor" was not an incentive for smokers to switch to its nicotine products, so it began offering "candy flavors" to adult smokers. And the tactic worked - studies found that better flavors increased frequency of use of the gum. They also found that making the alternative more affordable also increased the likelihood that smokers would switch. So, better taste + more affordable than cigarettes = more incentive to switch to a reduced harm nicotine gum or lozenge.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">What this all comes down to is that this bill has more to do with the decline in cigarette sales (due to the combination of people choosing not to smoke at all, smoking less, buying from tax-exempt reservations and switching to lower-risk, less expensive smoke-free alternatives such as smokeless tobacco and electronic cigarettes) severely impacting that $559 million in tax revenues than "saving our children." Clearly, this bill has two major goals: 1) remove the financial incentive for smokers to switch to smoke-free products because switching reduces tax revenue, and 2) exploit non-smokers who are already using a less harmful and more affordable tobacco alternative by making them pay a "sin tax" - regardless of the fact that they are choosing to use a far safer product. The vast majority of people using these alternative tobacco products (and paying taxes on them) are the 9+ MILLION adult tobacco users in Wisconsin, not high school students. This bill is about keeping and increasing tax revenue from <u>adult</u> consumers.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">The American Lung Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and Health First Wisconsin are calling for Wisconsin residents to contact their representatives and urge them sign on as co-sponsors to this bill. These groups are even providing easy-to-use email forms for contacting legislators. I ask my Wisconsin readers, smoke-free tobacco and e-cigarette users alike, to contact their state representatives and urge them to NOT support this bill. As soon as we get a copy of the actual bill text, CASAA will also issue a Call to Action. In the meantime, you can use this link to find out who your state Representatives and Senators are: <a href="http://legis.wisconsin.gov/pages/waml.aspx">http://legis.wisconsin.gov/pages/waml.aspx</a></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">Send them an email or call them and ask them to not co-sponsor Representative Bies' bill. Tell them your story of how using a smoke-free product has changed your life and the financial impact increased taxes would have on your ability to remain smoke-free. Tell them how you would have been less likely to switch if the smoke-free products had been just as expensive as cigarettes. Remind them that laws should be evidence-based and not based on scaremongering. "Sin taxes" on cigarettes are based on evidence of increased health risks that are simply not equaled by smoke-free and e-cigarette use. (Note: Rep. Bies does not mention e-cigarettes in his press release, so we don't know if they are named in the actual bill's language, but possible FDA regulation of e-cigarettes as "tobacco products" could easily move e-cigarettes under the umbrella of the "Backpack Tobacco Act" in the future.*)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">And if you will, please share this important information on your social networks. There is an icon bar below to share this post on your Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and blog. If we do not get the word out, this law will pass and the costs of <u>all</u> low-risk, smoke-free products (including e-cigarettes) are in danger of increasing significantly!</span><br />
<hr />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">*UPDATED: I called Rep. Bies' office and got a copy of the bill text. You can read the bill here: <a href="https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bxpt4byVBHeTdmR0UUljYUJFVkk/edit?usp=sharing" target="_blank">Backpack Tobacco Act</a> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">While the bill doesn't specifically name or define electronic cigarettes, the bill does significantly increase taxes on low-risk products such as Swedish snus, tobacco lozenges, strips and sticks - including internet sales. The new definition of "Tobacco Products" is a possible concern for electronic cigarettes, as it could be argued or interpreted that e-cigarettes fit the definition of "</span>any other product containing, or made or derived from, tobacco that is intended for human consumption, regardless of whether it is chewed, smoked, absorbed, dissolved, inhaled, snorted, sniffed, or ingested by other means." CASAA will review the bill thoroughly, to be sure of the true ramifications and will issue the appropriate Call to Action.</div>
</div>
Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-75836304761775891812013-09-19T11:01:00.001-07:002013-09-19T11:01:49.794-07:00Today is World Vaping Day<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 14px;">E-cigarettes are saving adult smokers' lives. TODAY, 9/19/13, is World Vaping Day. Spread the TRUTH about e-cigarettes in your own way and show your support for fellow vapors around the world! </span><a href="http://www.world-vaping-day.com/" rel="nofollow nofollow" style="background-color: white; color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; line-height: 14px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">http://<wbr></wbr><span class="word_break" style="display: inline-block;"></span>www.world-vaping-day.com/</a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBaIf32JCjZf5rBqPBys56uMnkrTb9fzt_ffZvdYo0v7LJTJNXnZeDekHCG_nqshMePiRDYjMfIfcgSsLHkLZfWcp8j8m4EjK_9eMkDce2WpQ0yXGVLwfBpMH_3meeCxO3VN3hK_8muaUd/s1600/Sweet+Flavors+No+More+Lies.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgBaIf32JCjZf5rBqPBys56uMnkrTb9fzt_ffZvdYo0v7LJTJNXnZeDekHCG_nqshMePiRDYjMfIfcgSsLHkLZfWcp8j8m4EjK_9eMkDce2WpQ0yXGVLwfBpMH_3meeCxO3VN3hK_8muaUd/s640/Sweet+Flavors+No+More+Lies.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-50423134058044424702013-08-08T10:18:00.003-07:002014-12-07T08:01:18.971-08:00CASAA: New study confirms that chemicals in electronic cigarettes pose minimal health risk<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGtHpS3zBp9p4qAVTdsV47ls-M9nW-FMytK0JTwYtRd5GflanhhaUGI3ZvTBZR5P-HXgkSyBogZQwc2HwKy-cU7VzNfEH8rJU1zJAnx6VPDHzK08aIU1irYkD1cPxlSvd4ai4fcpFjgeiA/s1600/Logo_100px.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiGtHpS3zBp9p4qAVTdsV47ls-M9nW-FMytK0JTwYtRd5GflanhhaUGI3ZvTBZR5P-HXgkSyBogZQwc2HwKy-cU7VzNfEH8rJU1zJAnx6VPDHzK08aIU1irYkD1cPxlSvd4ai4fcpFjgeiA/s1600/Logo_100px.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-size: 15px; line-height: 17px; white-space: pre-wrap;">PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 8, 2013/PRNewwire-USNewswire -- E</span></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.15; white-space: pre-wrap;">-cigarette users can breathe a little easier today. A study just released by Professor Igor Burstyn, Drexel University School of Public Health, confirms that chemicals in electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) pose no health concern for users or bystanders. This is the first definitive study of e-cigarette chemistry and finds that there are no health concerns based on generally accepted exposure limits. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">E-cigarettes are devices that heat a nicotine solution to create an aerosol (called “vapor”) that the user inhales, similar to smoking a cigarette. They are used as a low-risk substitute for smoking by millions of former smokers, and their increasing popularity seems to account for the current downward trend in smoking in the U.S. and some other countries. While experts agree that the risks posed by e-cigarettes are significantly less than those posed by smoking, there had been some debate about how much lower the risk was. </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"></b><br />
<a name='more'></a><b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">By reviewing over 9,000 observations about the chemistry of the vapor and the liquid in e-cigarettes, Dr. Burstyn was able to determine that the levels of contaminants e-cigarette users are exposed to are insignificant, far below levels that would pose any health risk. Additionally, there is no health risk to bystanders. Proposals to ban e-cigarettes in places where smoking is banned have been based on concern there is a potential risk to bystanders, but the study shows there is no concern.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">This was the first study funded by the by The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives (CASAA) Research Fund. CASAA, the leading consumer advocacy group promoting the availability and use of low-risk alternatives to smoking, is an all-volunteer, donation-funded organization. CASAA President Elaine Keller said of the study, “Over the years, there have been a lot of small studies of e-cigarette liquid and vapor, but those studies were either ignored or misinterpreted. Those that showed even the slightest contamination were used for propaganda by those who object to e-cigarettes because they look like smoking. We realized that an expert review was needed to give an unbiased explanation of the available scientific evidence for our membership and policy makers. We reached out to our membership and they enthusiastically donated to make it possible.”</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">CASAA Scientific Director, Carl V. Phillips, summarized the importance of the study, saying “It has always been clear that e-cigarettes were much lower risk than smoking, but there was uncertainty about whether continuing to inhale a mix of chemicals posed a measurable risk. Even those of us who have long encouraged smokers to switch are a bit surprised that even the worst-case-scenario risks are so low. This study assures us that e-cigarettes are as low risk as other smoke-free tobacco and nicotine products, like smokeless tobacco and NRT. All of these products are about 99% less harmful than smoking, and so smokers who switch to them gain basically the same health benefits as if they quit tobacco and nicotine entirely.” </span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Dr. Phillips added that “there has been a call for ‘regulatory science’ by the FDA. This is exactly the type of science that is needed to make good regulation and informed individual decisions: it summarizes all of the available knowledge and puts the numbers in a useful perspective.”</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The study did caution that e-cigarette users are inhaling substantial quantities of the main chemicals in e-cigarette liquid (propylene glycol and glycerin). While these chemicals are not considered dangerous and the levels are far below occupational exposure limits, Dr. Burstyn did suggest ongoing monitoring to confirm that there is no risk. The chemical contaminants are of even less concern. While there have been many claims that formaldehyde, acrolein, nitrosamines, metals, and ethylene glycol found in e-cigarette vapor poses a health hazard, the study concluded that all of these have been found only at trivial levels that pose no health concern.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">The study did not address the effects of nicotine because e-cigarette users are consuming it intentionally. Nicotine, when it does not involve smoking, is very low risk and has not been clearly shown to cause any disease. However, like caffeine and other common indulgences, it may cause some tiny risk of heart attack and stroke, and so e-cigarettes, along with other tobacco and nicotine products, are probably not risk-free. If there is any risk from nicotine, however, it is so low that it is similar to everyday hazards like drinking coffee or eating dessert, and is far less than the risk from smoking.</span></div>
<b style="font-weight: normal;"><br /><span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span></b>
<br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px;">The study is available at </span><a href="http://publichealth.drexel.edu/SiteData/docs/ms08/f90349264250e603/ms08.pdf"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://publichealth.drexel.edu/SiteData/docs/ms08/f90349264250e603/ms08.pdf</span></a></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">For summary and discussion go to</span></div>
<a href="http://antithrlies.com/2013/08/08/breaking-news-new-study-shows-no-risk-from-e-cigarette-contaminants/"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">http://antithrlies.com/2013/08/08/breaking-news-new-study-shows-no-risk-from-e-cigarette-contaminants/</span></a><br />
<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.15; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
<span style="background-color: transparent; color: black; font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 15px; vertical-align: baseline; white-space: pre-wrap;">Contact: Prof. Igor Burstyn <a href="mailto:Igor.burstyn@drexel.edu">Igor.burstyn@drexel.edu</a></span>Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-44564286147764321802013-07-25T11:47:00.001-07:002014-12-07T08:01:30.400-08:00Are nicotine e-cigarettes a tobacco product?I frequently see vapers arguing that e-cigarettes are not a "tobacco product," because they do not actually contain tobacco. They argue that nicotine e-cigarettes are not the same as tobacco or smoking cessation products and should have a classification all of their own.<br />
<br />
However, nicotine isn't regulated in the U.S. by what form it takes, but instead by "intended use."<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOnQQD629RNwBlGIWq8hw5xQRjzXrqIX4lRyUYE3mEqB6D-LbXTVhBvpnTzqzpzMLN2a9vb-HTOsvD7XKUQ0KC5euy3IHpDlYdv_j991AB46i2RvJzrIai3dssIc7qoBTb1ZdCF8w_G99l/s1600/Ecig+and+snus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgOnQQD629RNwBlGIWq8hw5xQRjzXrqIX4lRyUYE3mEqB6D-LbXTVhBvpnTzqzpzMLN2a9vb-HTOsvD7XKUQ0KC5euy3IHpDlYdv_j991AB46i2RvJzrIai3dssIc7qoBTb1ZdCF8w_G99l/s200/Ecig+and+snus.jpg" height="200" width="200" /></a></div>
If the nicotine is contained in a product with an "intended use" as a smoking cessation or other treatment, it is then regulated as a "drug" and must go through clinical trials, studies, etc., and the product must meet strict manufacturing protocols before release to the public. If the nicotine is contained in a product with an intended use of "recreational" (ie. intended for human consumption but not as a treatment of any kind) it is regulated as a tobacco product. (A third classification is a pesticide, but that form of nicotine is not allowed for human consumption.)<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
It was this "intended use" criteria which kept the FDA from being able to deem non-therapeutic e-cigarettes as unapproved drugs. Judge Leon gave the opinion in <a href="http://casaa.org/FDA_vs.html" target="_blank">Sottera, Inc vs. FDA</a> that so long as the manufacturer/retailer made no treatment/health/therapeutic claims, they weren't considered a drug. But that meant the only other option was "tobacco product." The FDA <a href="http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/ResourcesforYou/ucm335294.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">defines a "tobacco product"</a> as any product that not only contains tobacco leaf, but also any derivative (ie. "a compound derived or obtained from another and containing essential elements of the parent substance") of tobacco. Nicotine is clearly a "derivative" of tobacco and while it is also a derivative of other plants, the nicotine in e-liquid is currently all derived from tobacco. However, since nicotine is classified by "intended use" and not the source, even nicotine from other plant material could be deemed a substantial equivalent and treated exactly the same as tobacco-derived nicotine, because of it's intended use. It's obvious to everyone that we use e-cigarettes with the same "intended use" as other tobacco products - mainly, the same way we used to use traditional cigarettes. It may be a far safer form of recreational nicotine use than regulators never foresaw, but it is still technically "recreational use" of nicotine derived from tobacco.<br />
<br />
It's important to note that the only "bad" things about being considered a tobacco product is 1) the public perception that all tobacco products are equally harmful and 2) the threat that the FDA will regulate them as if all tobacco is equally harmful. Educating the public and correcting this perception and convincing the FDA and politicians not to regulate low-risk tobacco products identically to high-risk products is the ultimate goal of many smoking alternative advocates. Changing perceptions and exposing the lie that there "is no safe tobacco product" will also go a long way towards gaining social acceptance. Something many vapers often overlook is that if the public still believes that all nicotine use should be discouraged because it's equally dangerous or just socially unacceptable, then it won't matter if e-liquid gets a separate category. They will just regulate that "e-cigarette category" as strictly as tobacco or possibly worse. We could end up with less hoops to jump through than drug products, but far more than if we are a tobacco product. <br />
<br />
Consider the fact that a tobacco product such as snus already has reams of scientific data showing it is an extremely low-risk product. There is far more evidence of relative safety of snus than there is for e-cigarettes, yet the product is still banned in the EU and anti-tobacco zealots in the U.S. continue to attempt to regulate snus as if it was a deadly product. Yes, it is clearly a tobacco product (as it obviously contains actual tobacco leaf) but it just demonstrates the fact that actual public health risks and science is in no way dictating reasonable regulation. Regulation is obviously being pushed by an ideological opposition to recreational tobacco and nicotine use rather than science and reason. There is no reason to believe that separate e-cigarette regulation would be treated any differently by these people. In fact, a brand new category could prove to be a gift to the anti nicotine and tobacco zealots, as it could give them a blank slate for far more restrictive regulation than currently available to them for tobacco products. The point being, tobacco product or not, we would still be in the position of arguing that there is nothing wrong with recreational tobacco and nicotine use either way.<br />
<br />
The chance that the FDA will treat a product that is derived from tobacco and used like tobacco as a whole separate category, with fewer rules and regulations than tobacco, is extremely slim. Especially if the public continues to believe that the ultimate goal in smoking cessation is eliminating the nicotine addiction instead of eliminating exposure to smoke.<br />
<br />
Yes, e-cigarettes are going to be classified as a tobacco product, but the point being missed by many vapers is that there shouldn't be anything wrong with that. What is wrong is how low-risk tobacco products are being irresponsibly regulated with prohibitionist ideology and lies instead of fact, science and reason. If we don't change that, e-cigarettes won't stand a chance no matter how they are categorized.<br />
<br />
<i>(Postscript: It has been brought to my attention that some folks may suspect this post was written in reaction to a recently broadcast, e-cigarette related internet show. The timing of this post is purely coincidental. This blog post was actually inspired by (and largely uses) my <a href="http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/general-e-smoking-discussion/446694-anyone-see-last-nights-nbc-news-story-e-cigs-video-link-5.html#post10199719" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">post on the ECF forum</a>. )</i>Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com22tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-20397458603956951572013-06-27T08:19:00.001-07:002014-12-07T08:01:50.710-08:00Please. Just smoke already and quit lying.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://distilleryimage8.s3.amazonaws.com/138fd20ede0011e29f5422000ae9080d_7.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://distilleryimage8.s3.amazonaws.com/138fd20ede0011e29f5422000ae9080d_7.jpg" height="150" width="150" /></a></div>
Guns & Roses guitarist, DJ Ashba, <a href="http://web.stagram.com/p/486457447282615652_27932024" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">reported to his fans on webstagram</a> that the e-cigarette he bought at a Polish mall, which he reports he used for 9 months, contained "antifreeze which kills people;" and that his doctors told him to start smoking again, because "the nicotine intake that was going into [his] body" from the smoke-free e-cigarettes "was equivalent to smoking 33 packs of cigarettes a day." <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
If this was true (which I'm 99.99% positive it's not), that would be like absorbing 660 mg of nicotine a day for 9 months. Assuming he was actually sleeping 8 hours a night and using his e-cigarette non-stop the other 16 hours, he would have had to have been vaping about 17 ml (approximately 12 typical pre-filled cartridges) of 24 mg nicotine <u>per hour</u> to get that much nicotine in his system! Nicotine stays in the human body 24-48 hours and experts say the potential <u>lethal</u> dose of nicotine for a 150 lb human is 30 - 60 mg. I'm not even sure if it's physically possible to vape that much in 60 minutes. Typical e-cigarette users, even previously very heavy smokers, report they use only 3 - 6 ml <u>per day</u>.<br />
<br />
Dude, you would have been dead the first day if you vaped that much. Unless you were drinking the liquid straight from the cartridges. If that's the case, you weren't doing it right. And the "anti freeze" lie that people keep spreading around is getting old. If you prefer smoking, just say so. But please don't tell lies about a device that is saving millions of lives.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi149XI-5mezrgj3XCSZ3cL_iIikdnm2nZzGjaoPSMH7lI7Y0lBJSV0vnmMMLPOYNjiJ3dwzFmJ-wFqjvBEaAIOZesvZKDPAZnNOTYHM-aHNOq7jiMRfIGHSOncejKZph0aOLGfuYBgZfUn/s404/djashba.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi149XI-5mezrgj3XCSZ3cL_iIikdnm2nZzGjaoPSMH7lI7Y0lBJSV0vnmMMLPOYNjiJ3dwzFmJ-wFqjvBEaAIOZesvZKDPAZnNOTYHM-aHNOq7jiMRfIGHSOncejKZph0aOLGfuYBgZfUn/s320/djashba.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com16tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-32828864262140254492013-06-20T14:39:00.002-07:002014-12-07T08:02:13.315-08:00Is distrusting the MHRA's regulation of e-cigarettes "conspiracy theories?"Recently on a forum for e-cigarette enthusiasts, a commenter said he "saw no harm" in the move to regulate electronic cigarettes as medicine in the U.K., if what the MHRA was saying about just wanting to have e-cigarette companies "apply for licensing and to make sure the nic juices deliver consistent amounts of nicotine as advertised" was true. Apparently expecting doubt from other commenters that the MHRA was being forthright, the commenter said, "Conspiracy theorists have at it."<br />
<br />
How is it a conspiracy theory, I asked? These people have 30 years of lying to the public about tobacco, nicotine and low risk alternatives as evidence they have no interest in telling the truth.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
Back in the late 70's, anti-smokers were pushing for separate smoking sections in restaurants. They claimed that is all they wanted and there was no "slippery slope." People who claimed that it would open the door to draconian measures down the road were called "conspiracy theorists," too. Thirty years later, there are bans on smoking even OUTSIDE. It's bad enough that there is plenty of evidence second-hand smoke poses NO danger to anyone outside, but they have still managed to ban even vaping (and smokeless tobacco use) outdoors without ANY evidence at all.<br />
<br />
The "conspiracy theorists" were right all along.<br />
<br />
And in the UK:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“No one is seriously talking about a complete ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants,” said the director of ASH (UK) in 1998, adding that the suggestion was a “scaremongering story by a tobacco front group.” In June 2005 Britain's public-health minister described talk of such a ban as “false speculation”. Parliament voted it into law just eight months later. <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/13813444">http://www.economist.com/node/13813444</a></i></blockquote>
<br />
The MHRA isn't regulating to help vapers get "better products." It's doing this to open the door to applying whatever regulations they deem fit once the products are "medicines." What people are failing to ask is, where are the complaints? Has the MHRA been deluged with complaints that people's e-cigarettes are failing to work? The MHRA is "fixing" a problem that barely exists...for people who haven't asked for a fix. It is a problem that the market is handling just fine, thank you. If an e-cigarette/liquid sucks, word gets out or they try it and don't buy it again. And what does a license accomplish other than revenue for the government? Do people really think they will be going store to store, site to site to guarantee that the liquid is "good?" How much will non-smokers' taxes be raised to cover all of these "inspections" and reviews of e-liquid? Another question: if most of the products "currently out there [are] of poor quality," as the MHRA claims, then why are there 1.3 million perfectly happy vapers in the UK? (That's 13% of the smokers in the UK who have quit or significantly reduced smoking, by the way.)<br />
<br />
The MHRA says it wants e-cigarettes to be as effective and high quality as other nicotine medicines. Do they mean the ones that succeed only 6.5% of the time to help smokers quit? Because, if that is their idea of "effective," the e-cig industry (and vapers) in the UK are screwed. Remember that just a few months ago the goal was to limit the nicotine strengths to 4 mg - the same as medical NRT. Do people really believe that idea is off the table?<br />
<br />
How will the MHRA "make sure the nic juices deliver consistent amounts of nicotine as advertised?" (And do they assure the same thing for cigarette smokers?) Does that mean the devices must be proven to deliver "consistent amounts?" Or do they just mean that the liquid actually contains what the bottle/cartridge states? Does anyone know a company that charges more for 24 mg than for 18 mg? If a customer doesn't get exactly the level ordered, are they out any money? If a customer orders 6 mg but NEEDS 24 mg to be effective, will that be the fault of the company for selling an "ineffective" product? Who gets to pick what is "effective?" I use a 6 mg liquid on an eGo VV with a drip tip. That is effective for me. Everyone good with that for themselves?<br />
<br />
Most importantly, the reasons they give for wanting medical regulation are illogical. Do e-cigarettes really need to be licensed and regulated as medicines to ensure truthful labeling (which is what it really comes down to?) If an energy drink says it contains 20 mg of caffeine, but really only contains 18 mg, do energy drinks need to be regulated as medicines then? Or are there already truth in advertising laws already in place to handle this issue? Do energy drinks have to prove that they are "effective" for caffeine delivery and energy creation? Or do people try them and decide for themselves whether or not the drink does for them what they expect? How are e-cigarettes any different?<br />
<br />
This ruling is not as black and white as some may think. And every time the ANTZ claim they are doing something to help smokers, it seems they just get screwed over instead. Smoking bans, high taxes, NRT, Chantix - all claimed to be to help people quit yet did absolutely nothing but victimize smokers even more.<br />
<br />
Conspiracy theory? Just because you're paranoid, that doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-56777924314770959282013-06-04T16:54:00.000-07:002014-12-07T08:02:28.533-08:00France: people still smoking, so ban using smoke-free e-cigarettes<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"France will ban electronic cigarette smoking in public places by imposing the same curbs enforced since 2007 to combat tobacco smoking, Health Minister Marisol Touraine said on Friday." (<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/31/us-france-cigarettes-idUSBRE94U0QJ20130531" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Reuters</a>)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Really? The 2007 smoking ban has been able to "combat tobacco smoking?" As usual, I did some research. (Unfortunately, it seemed impossible to find the French adult smoking rates from 2000 - 2012 online, so I went with the number of cigarettes sold as an indicator.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">From 2002 to 2007, the number of cigarettes sold in France declined 37.9%. Since the smoking ban was imposed in 2007, the number of cigarettes sold has declined only 7.5%, as of 2012. For the five years before the ban, the average drop in cigarette sales was 6.3% per year. After the ban, the annual decline has been 1.3% on average. (Source: <a href="http://www.ofdt.fr/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">French Observatory of Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2013 Edition</a>) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2WfIL9w-f0M0LsbUW2EeUoj-xY67v6ovfHA32k4-dSiSPoGUKTl5Rglsf1II9hTK_Snlt49JhD_Zlc2p_yxNZQZIW-RuqJXL78nM-LTkUrDvQNJrpNikpr-cZGrWH_SfQP0s04TvW74j5/s1600/French+graph.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj2WfIL9w-f0M0LsbUW2EeUoj-xY67v6ovfHA32k4-dSiSPoGUKTl5Rglsf1II9hTK_Snlt49JhD_Zlc2p_yxNZQZIW-RuqJXL78nM-LTkUrDvQNJrpNikpr-cZGrWH_SfQP0s04TvW74j5/s400/French+graph.jpg" height="220" width="400" /></span></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="color: #990000; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Not much has changed since France imposed a smoking ban.</span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">According to the facts, has the enforcement of the smoking ban actually contributed anything "to combat tobacco smoking?" Based on the numbers, French smokers were already buying fewer and fewer cigarettes every year and progress actually DECLINED after the smoking ban was passed. (There was actually a 2.6% INCREASE in the number of cigarettes sold from 2008 - 2009!) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, how is banning the use of a smoke-free alternative like e-cigarettes going to accomplish ANYTHING??</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">However, there IS some positive news - the researchers have determined that around 500,000 French smokers have switched to smoke-free e-cigarettes. (Unfortunately, many may return to smoking once they are kicked to the curb again!)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Dr. Michael Siegel also did an interesting commentary on this topic today on his tobacco policy blog at:<span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;"> </span><a href="http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/06/french-health-ministry-to-ban.html" style="background-color: white; color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">http://tobaccoanalysis.<wbr></wbr>blogspot.com/2013/06/french-<wbr></wbr>health-ministry-to-ban.html</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #222222;">.</span></span>Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-57200327189011943312013-05-14T14:40:00.002-07:002014-12-07T08:02:44.096-08:00EU politician shows what governments really fear about e-cigarettesGiancarlo Scottà, a member of the European Parliament from Italy, recently <a href="http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=WQ&reference=E-2013-004672&format=XML&language=EN" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">posted this question</a> to his fellow EU politicians:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #666666;"><i>"T</i><i>he consumption of <b>traditional cigarettes provides</b> the Member States with <b>sizeable revenues</b>, as a result of the <b>substantial taxes</b> to which they are subject. </i></span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="color: #666666;"><i>According to a recent report by ANSA (Italian news agency) of 21 April 2013, in the first two months of 2013 alone, Italy’s coffers registered a loss of EUR 132 million, corresponding to a <b>fall in revenue</b> from duty on tobacco of approximately 7.6%. Of course, this shortfall cannot be completely <b>blamed on the increasing use of electronic cigarettes</b>, but it is certainly partly responsible. </i> </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="color: #666666;">In light of the above, can the Council state <b>what action it intends to take</b> to address the differences in tax revenue materialising in State coffers following the <b>proliferation of electronic cigarettes</b>, which currently appear to be free from any form of duty?"</span></i></blockquote>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfMac7XuTvdKKiqL5Fy4n3EHEsh-_TIwWNCE3KOOIZelQl_XuLW7ukomR1G7wymX92dnYq7XUHS0fMPz_q_eiyJsx3UX6v35x_MaOCZI_vY_13r9TVgvQqlsx2HpGDv5CB3Hsj67tOJd5M/s1600/Tobacco+Tax+Cartoon.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfMac7XuTvdKKiqL5Fy4n3EHEsh-_TIwWNCE3KOOIZelQl_XuLW7ukomR1G7wymX92dnYq7XUHS0fMPz_q_eiyJsx3UX6v35x_MaOCZI_vY_13r9TVgvQqlsx2HpGDv5CB3Hsj67tOJd5M/s320/Tobacco+Tax+Cartoon.gif" height="224" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">E-cigarettes: the bad news is...<br />
people are buying fewer cigarettes.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Mr. Scottà's comment clearly shows a concern that increased e-cigarette use will have a huge impact on tax revenues and he strongly hints that taxes on e-cigarettes will be the solution. There is no doubt that this same concern has been expressed in hushed tones and behind closed doors in the hallowed halls of government all across the U.S., as well.<br />
<br />
The first reaction of the average citizen is to disregard "conspiracy theories" about our great leaders' willingness to put tax revenues before public health, but Mr. Scottà's comment is proof positive that it isn't just a theory that our governments' opposition to electronic cigarettes is likely to be, in large part, financial. It certainly isn't based on scientific evidence of harm or any other justification for excessive "sin taxes" to be applied to electronic cigarettes. It may not be a conspiracy, but our government shouldn't be more concerned about lost revenue than it is about the well-being of 45 million of its citizens.<br />
<br />
The recent attempts by several U.S. states to add sin taxes (different from the sales tax applied to other nicotine products) to electronic cigarette liquid is more evidence that it isn't about our health. Mind you, the ANTZ (Anti Nicotine and Tobacco Zealots) and legislators attempt to justify high sin taxes on cigarettes for two main reasons: 1) the products ostensibly cause health problems for which other taxpayers end up paying and 2) higher taxes means higher cost, which (theoretically) will cause more smokers to quit. However, electronic cigarette use has <u>not</u> been shown to cause health problems and the lower costs associated with vaping actually encourages smokers to quit smoking and switch to a relatively safe product. The <u>only</u> reason legislators have at this time to tax the product differently is to make up future lost cigarette tax revenue, even while doing so would clearly have the opposite effect intended for applying a sin tax to a "harmful" product!<br />
<br />
Obviously, increasing the cost of electronic cigarettes (and other smoke-free alternatives) would eliminate a huge incentive for smokers to switch to e-cigarettes. The only people who would benefit from that are ANTZ, tobacco companies, pharmaceutical companies and politicians. People keep smoking and the sales profits, tax revenues and "research" and "smoking cessation" funding keep rolling in. However, as a product which is not likely to increase health care costs to taxpayers (indeed, it is more likely to reduce such costs) and actually encourages quitting smoking, e-cigarettes should not be subject to anything greater than a standard sales tax - the same as any other nicotine product on the market.<br />
<br />
Clearly, e-cigarettes have thrown a monkey wrench in the tax revenue gears. Although the ANTZ can honestly claim smoking <i>rates</i> are going down, the <i>number</i> of smokers has changed little over the past two decades - 46 million U.S. smokers in 1990 vs. 45 million smokers today - even as cigarette taxes have increased more than 1,000-fold in some areas. Yet, as populations have increased, ANTZ could still claim their "evidence-based" smoking cessation methods were working, ensuring that their future funding would continue. Governments were secure in the knowledge that the numbers weren't really going down and the tax revenue would keep coming in. Pharmaceutical companies could keep selling their snake oil smoking "cures." They never dreamt that something would come along that actually could significantly reduce the number of cigarette packs being sold! Now that there is, they are running scared. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's just simple arithmetic. Smokers switching to e-cigarettes means less tax revenue - good for smokers, bad for governments addicted to their cigarette taxes.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>(Thanks to Dick Puddlecote's <a href="http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/were-losing-revenue-quick-lets-tax-e.html" target="_blank">blog post today</a> for the inspiration.)</i>Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-28265405468104529692013-03-08T10:55:00.000-08:002013-03-08T10:55:13.524-08:00FDA: The hypocrisy continues<br />
<i>Below is an excerpt from a good article by Dr. Michael Siegel whose blog - "<a href="http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">The Rest of the Story, Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary</a>" often covers smoking harm reduction topics.</i><br />
<br />
<hr />
<b><span style="color: #0b5394;">The Rest of the Story</span></b><br />
<br />
Not only is the FDA spouting old tobacco industry propaganda for which the anti-smoking groups and federal government attacked the companies, but it is taking that deception of the American public to an even higher level. While the cigarette companies merely suggested that major changes in their products could make a cigarette safer, the FDA is stating that minuscule changes in a cigarette can make it safer than others on the market.<br />
<br />
The ultimate irony here is that if the cigarette companies made precisely the same claim as the FDA, the agency and anti-smoking groups would be blasting the companies and probably would be preparing a lawsuit against them for racketeering and fraud....<br />
<br />
<a href="http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/03/fda-spouting-old-tobacco-industry.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Read Full Article ></a>Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-54259510513298092962013-02-03T14:23:00.001-08:002014-12-07T08:03:16.186-08:00The ANTZ smoking rate shell game<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1LuEI46rMRvET1XpcmG8zZrbcOwOSSBC4nBa6v0CGzx1z6JT1kpCAH7KF66-guxM7OekamBdUG8xyT-GUU4aHWEiT17hyphenhyphenJ-FKC4acVSg1IdicXHVL9aJXlcBPqdqlo5h0HbidLA-N1cDF/s1600/ANTZ+shell+game+teal.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1LuEI46rMRvET1XpcmG8zZrbcOwOSSBC4nBa6v0CGzx1z6JT1kpCAH7KF66-guxM7OekamBdUG8xyT-GUU4aHWEiT17hyphenhyphenJ-FKC4acVSg1IdicXHVL9aJXlcBPqdqlo5h0HbidLA-N1cDF/s1600/ANTZ+shell+game+teal.jpg" /></a></div>
In 1990, the number of smokers was 45.8 million (25.5%). The Surgeon General announced the goal of reducing the smoking rate to 15% by 2000.<br />
<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00016738.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Cigarette Smoking Among Adults -- United States, 1990</a><br />
<br />
By 2000, the number of smokers was 46.5 million (an<i> increase</i> of 700,000 smokers) but the "prevalence" or "rate" (percentage of adults smoking) was "reduced" to 23.3%. The ANTZ claimed their efforts were working - because the smoking rate was reduced from 25.5% to 23.3% - but they needed billions more in funding because the goal of 15% was still not reached. So a goal of a 12% smoking rate was set for 2010.<br />
<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5129a3.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Cigarette Smoking Among Adults --- United States, 2000</a><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
A decade later, the number of smokers in 2010 was "down" again from 46.5 million (23.3%) to 45.3 million, a smoking rate of 19.3%. The ANTZ could now say their "quit or die" policy and spending billions on getting tax increases, youth education, flavor bans and smoking bans was working, because the 1990 smoking rate of 25.5% was "significantly reduced" to 19.3%. Now they need billions more to reach that convincingly-attainable goal of 12% by 2020.<br />
<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6035a5.htm?s_cid=%20mm6035a5.htm_w" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Vital Signs: Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults Aged ?18 Years --- United States, 2005--2010</a><br />
<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">CDC - Fact Sheet - Adult Cigarette Smoking in the United States - Smoking & Tobacco Use</a><br />
<br />
Of course, they didn't mention that the 25.5% in 1990 and 19.3% in 2010 were virtually the same in the <i>number </i>of smokers - 45.5 million in 1990 and 45.3 million in 2010. That's a reduction of only 200,000 in 20 years! Furthermore, the CDC reported 419,000 deaths attributed to smoking in 1990. In 2010, the number of "smoking-related" deaths was reported as 443,000 (unchanged in reports since 2004,) a 5.4% <i>increase</i> from 1990's smoking-related deaths.<br />
<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00022160.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Mortality Trends for Selected Smoking-Related Cancers and Breast Cancer -- United States, 1950-1990</a><br />
<a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6035a5.htm?s_cid=%20mm6035a5.htm_w" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Vital Signs: Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults Aged ?18 Years --- United States, 2005--2010</a><br />
<br />
There is absolutely no way that the CDC, FDA and ANTZ do not know these facts and are not knowingly deceiving the public about their "proven and effective" policies and medical treatments for smoking; to continue fleecing and ostracizing tobacco-using taxpayers by convincing the public that what they are doing works. In reality, population growth probably contributed more to the reduction in the smoking rate in the past 20 years than anti-smoking efforts. Most of the real drops in smoking rates, due to people actually quitting, happened before most of the draconian policies started in the late 1980's and early 90's.<br />
<br />
The introduction of a product that actually <i>does </i>reduce the smoking rates, such as electronic cigarettes, must horrify them, as it renders their shell game of misdirecting smoking quit rates useless.<br />
<br />Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-62112189050565822972013-01-28T21:19:00.001-08:002014-12-07T08:03:28.814-08:00Hard to stand on that imaginary 'slippery slope'<br />
In 2006, Americans for Non-Smokers' Rights <a href="http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=271" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">published a document</a> titled "What To Expect From The Tobacco Industry." In it, the group claimed a "tactic" of the tobacco industry and it's supporters would be to "introduce other issues in a smoke-free air campaign to imply that the real problem is something other than secondhand smoke, and/or that the creation of smoke-free air is a “slippery slope” of government regulation. Smoke=free opponents will often exclaim, “What’s next? Cheeseburgers?” Cheeseburgers do not cause disease and death in non-cheeseburger eaters. The issue isn't about cheeseburgers, or even about smoking, per se. It’s about smoking in ways that harm other people. It’s about protecting innocent people who are being exposed to a leading cause of preventable death and disease."<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
Stan "The ANTZ" Glantz, founder of that organization, <a href="http://senate.ucsf.edu/townhallmeeting/TobIndFundingColeman7-25-03.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">essentially called the "slippery slope" a tobacco industry myth</a> saying, "The 'slippery slope' argument is one that the tobacco industry has routinely raised to oppose policies against its interests, including smoke-free policies, decisions by arts and cultural organizations not to accept tobacco money, advertising restrictions, and other policies. These predicted subsequent problems simply have not materialized."<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQrW6gisUBgHvqvg6AYFjCX0rZiHa1KpknQjM-ybKaUIQ2hyH5Ey0-_C-6chpSFL3lPlfPBC8rEQxMeEDZhS2pB2Yt0zTBaL1vdO7qemWjEcQgUbAs3Ib4nRUTK_bfi61ffS-JrXNzMg8G/s1600/Falling+skiier.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjQrW6gisUBgHvqvg6AYFjCX0rZiHa1KpknQjM-ybKaUIQ2hyH5Ey0-_C-6chpSFL3lPlfPBC8rEQxMeEDZhS2pB2Yt0zTBaL1vdO7qemWjEcQgUbAs3Ib4nRUTK_bfi61ffS-JrXNzMg8G/s320/Falling+skiier.jpg" height="208" width="320" /></a>John Banzhaf, founder of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) , <a href="http://tobaccodocuments.org/ti/TIILBC0010940.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">said in 1991</a>, "They use the 'slippery slope' argument. 'My God, if they can do this to smokers today they can do this to people who eat Haagen-Dazs ice cream or whatever."<br />
<br />
In other words, there is not nor will there be a "slippery slope" effect, you crazy people!<br />
<br />
For the record, Banzhaf later became a "leader in the obesity-lawsuit movement" against fast food restaurants and yes - in 2003 sent letters to the ice cream makers, including Haagen-Dazs.<br />
<br />
And this past Saturday, Associated Press medical writer Mike Stobbe <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MED_HEALTH_COSTS_REALITY_CHECK?SITE=AP" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">published a piece</a> that seriously considers singling out smokers and overweight people with public shaming campaigns.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Your freedom is likely to be someone else's harm," said Daniel Callahan, senior research scholar at a bioethics think-tank, the Hastings Center. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Public health officials shouldn't shy away from tough anti-obesity efforts, said Callahan, the bioethicist. Callahan caused a public stir this week with a paper that called for a more aggressive public health campaign that tries to shame and stigmatize overeaters the way past public health campaigns have shamed and stigmatized smokers. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
National obesity rates are essentially static, and public health campaigns that gently try to educate people about the benefits of exercise and healthy eating just aren't working, Callahan argued. We need to get obese people to change their behavior. If they are angry or hurt by it, so be it, he said.</blockquote>
<br />
Smoking then smokers. Fast food and big sodas then the obese. Alcoholics then alcohol (again). Watch your back, vapers and smoke-free users. If there is no slippery slope at your feet then it must be an avalanche coming down at you.Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8919556824856527344.post-16535550325065940132013-01-28T13:08:00.000-08:002014-12-07T08:03:42.380-08:00New nicotine product shows ANTZ e-cigarette "hazards" hypocrisyThere are a few countries that have issued warnings or even banned electronic cigarettes for having potential public health hazards in the ingredients. Many use specific reasons as to why e-cigarettes pose such a risk:<br />
<br />
Health Canada <a href="http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_2009/2009_53-eng.php" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">issued a warning</a> about e-cigarettes stating that the device <i>"delivers a liquid chemical mixture that may be composed of various amounts of nicotine, propylene glycol, and other chemicals. Nicotine is a highly addictive and toxic substance, and the inhalation of propylene glycol is a known irritant."</i><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
In the UK, reports state that <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2184014/Ministers-warn-electronic-cigarettes-unsafe-lead-health-problems.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">health minsters claim </a> there is <i>"evidence that certain types of ‘e-cigs’ have high levels of poisonous chemicals. These include ‘tobacco-specific nitrosamines’ - a substance given off by nicotine - which has been shown to cause cancer in rats. Certain brands have also been found to contain Diethylene glycol, a poisonous chemical which is fatal in exceptionally high doses."</i><br />
<br />
Meanwhile, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration <a href="http://www.tga.gov.au/consumers/ecigarettes.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">tells consumers</a> not to purchase the devices online, because they <i>"may be dangerous, delivering unreliable doses of nicotine (above or below the stated quantity), or containing toxic chemicals or carcinogens, or leaking nicotine. Leaked nicotine is a poisoning hazard for the user of electronic cigarettes, as well as others around them, particularly children."</i><br />
<br />
Why specifically mention policies and statements from these particular countries? Because, while all three have banned, blocked or opposed the sale of e-cigarettes, they have subsequently approved sales of a nicotine product from Johnson & Johnson called "Nicorette QuickMist."<br />
<br />
QuickMist is billed as a fine mouth spray that "can help to relieve your nicotine cravings wherever and whenever they strike - whether you’re at home, in the office, out with friends or just walking down the street." The ingredients in the product <a href="http://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/24257/spc" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">are listed as</a>: Propylene glycol, Ethanol, Trometamol, Poloxamer 407, Glycerol, Sodium hydrogen carbonate, Levomenthol, Mint flavour, Cooling flavour, Sucralose Acesulfame potassium, Hydrochloric acid, Purified water and of course, Nicotine. The product directions instruct users to "prime the pump" by pointing the spray "safely away from you and any other adults, children or pets that are near you" and pressing the top "until a fine spray appears."<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPVbdCh2cfRvl8Xmeyx78-n0w6Ka7ObGTkLuz1sF-oG1EiMZwZZoUrHGFZ_nr-l-HFkRZwig5aTRdrDkPzXF6nYP6INFPVhuwCt5xiZXbV4P7YaytRlOdTIycYtGgoNcNJIEISyh8j13uT/s1600/QuickMist_priming.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPVbdCh2cfRvl8Xmeyx78-n0w6Ka7ObGTkLuz1sF-oG1EiMZwZZoUrHGFZ_nr-l-HFkRZwig5aTRdrDkPzXF6nYP6INFPVhuwCt5xiZXbV4P7YaytRlOdTIycYtGgoNcNJIEISyh8j13uT/s320/QuickMist_priming.jpg" height="177" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">QuickMist users spray the room before spraying their mouth.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Here we have a product which is delivering irregular sprays of highly addictive and poisonous nicotine; which likely contains the same tobacco-specific nitrosamines (cancer-causing agents) found in other NRT products. It also contains toxic chemicals such as one that is used as automobile fuel, which the Australian government considers "<a href="http://www.npi.gov.au/substances/ethanol/health.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">harmful by ingestion, inhalation or by skin absorption</a>" and fatal in exceptionally high doses; and it contains a highly corrosive, <a href="http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/hlthef/hydrochl.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">industrial acid</a> that is used in manufacturing rubber products and to remove rust from steel. Prolonged oral exposure may cause corrosion of the mucous membranes, esophagus, and stomach and dermal contact may produce severe burns, ulceration, and scarring in humans. Even low concentrations of this chemical may also cause dental erosion.<br />
<br />
Of course, QuickMist also contains propylene glycol, a known irritant found in e-cigarette liquids which, when sprayed into the mouth, could also get into the eyes, nose and lungs which can (according to the ANTZ) cause "acute respiratory irritation." There is also an ingredient known to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poloxamer_407" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">increase cholesterol levels 10-fold in mice</a>. High cholesterol has been linked to increased risk of heart disease. This product is not only a potential health hazard to the user, but also poses a poisoning risk to children and exposes bystanders to highly addictive, poisonous and toxic ingredients as the user "primes" the spray when circumventing smoking bans "in the office, out with friends or just walking down the street." Watching <a href="http://www.nicorette.ca/stop-smoking/products/quickmist" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">the instruction video</a>, the nicotine solution is clearly shown to be building up around the nozzle, leaking nicotine and creating a poisoning hazard for the user, as well as others around them, particularly children.<br />
<br />
OK, see what I did there? Rampant speculation and deliberate misrepresentation of the facts.<br />
<br />
Regardless, Canada, Australia and the UK are fine with smokers and bystanders being exposed to all of those poisonous, toxic, carcinogenic and addictive chemicals in a Big Pharma spray but e-cigarettes are still considered a public health risk?<br />
<br />
Nope. No hypocrisy here.Kristin Noll-Marshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15805939875041788133noreply@blogger.com12