Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-03-2015 PH2 FerrisCOUNCIL MEETING: 103 l S ITEM NO.: -;—? Dear Mayor and Council, Thank you very much for reviewing this material on a -cigs before your March 3 d meeting. Especially, thank you to those who could find the time to speak with us and allow us to present our information. I think you should agree to table this issue for, at least, two years and revisit only when the complete picture emerges. I hope you find my six "Thinking Points" useful or at, at least, informative. The accompanying articles go along with the first batch I dropped off. There can be no doubt that there are many serious health professionals who support vaping and feel, at least, give things more time to develop final products. gg CC.�., EE 6'`i�i.L�a : LD FEB 2 7 2015 CITY ICLERK THINKING POINT #1 #1— Just water vapor and trace nicotine Vs. #2 — A toxic stew of chemicals in the aerosol WHEREIN LAYS THE TRUTH? If you consider any amount of a substance toxic and harmful, then #2. (In toxicology, the poison is in the dose not merely the presence in trace amounts.) If you are measuring in parts per billion, looking for every atom and molecule (which we can now do), and want to list items that are not significant and pose no real health threat, then #2. If you are talking about toxic levels of a substance and are concerned with actual real world consequences, then #1. HOW TO PUT IT INTO PERSPECTIVE? If you have electric central heating and analyze your household air, #2 is also equally true of the air your electric heater puts out. If we looked as closely at your electric heater output, we would find particle matter consisting of nickel, chromium, and probably iron. Just as the nickel chromium heating element in an a -cig gives off trace amounts of nickel, chromium, and tin (from the solder) — (the heavy metal toxic stew they are talking about) — so does your household heater except 1,000 fold more. Every electric heater in America should be banned if the "heavy metals" found in parts per billion in a -cigs are a worry to you. Your gas -fired heater is putting huge amounts (compared to chemicals in a -cigs) of iron particles into your air from its burner. Is this a problem? The same is true of any other chemicals in the "stew." If it's good enough for including in asthma inhalers and the food we eat, it should be presumed harmless not harmful until rp oven otherwise. Water vapor, combusted propylene glycol, flavoring agent, and nicotine are all that are in a -cig vapor — Not a toxic stew at all — Unless you have a spectrograph and care about parts per billion or less. Let the industry mature — Let the technology mature — Let there be an actual problem before you BAN, BAN, BAN THINKING POINT #2 E -cigs in bars trigger the impulse to smoke which is bad Vs. E -cigs in bars trigger the impulse to switch to a -cigs E -cigs in bars trigger the urge to smoke, forcing the smoker to switch to a -cigs in order to get his nicotine. This is good as over 98% of the harm of cigarettes is removed instantly! If the goal is a smoke -free world, the a -cigs are the best (probably the only) way to get there. Preventing 98% of the harm may not be the 100% of the goal of anti - tobacco forces but 98% we can immediately achieve is far better than 100% we can never achieve. Killing the good in pursuit of perfection is always a mistake. Please, even if you ban in restaurants, do not ban in bars and social settings — These are the very venues that encourage a switch from tobacco to a -cigs. E -cigs and vapor devices are a wonderful tool for moving people from tobacco to a nicotine substitute (e -cigs) that should be encouraged rather than stifled. Please don't be fooled by big tobacco and their unwitting allies in the public health field — Truly a case of a regulatory agency "capture." THINKING POINT #3 Nicotine replacement gum, patches, and lozenges = Good Vs. Nicotine replacement a -cig = Bad Why are the big pharmacy nicotine products that work so poorly considered good while a -cigs that do actually work considered bad? Remember, even if still addicted to nicotine, 98% of the harm is gone with a -cigs. When they compare official cessation methods to a -cigs, they always fudge their information. Comparing total quits from a -cig users versus prescription nicotine measures comparing those paying to quit to those wanting only to reduce the harm is mostly meaningless. Pretending that even just switching from tobacco to a -cigs isn't a health victory is callous and inhumane to the smoker who drops tobacco in favor of vaping. A switch from a -cigs to tobacco is a 98% victory! Comparing official quit rates on approved methods to what? It is not legal to market a -cigs to help quit smoking or to advertise health benefits, yet the general public has found out what so much officialdom is in total denial over. E -cigs are a good new technology that need time to mature and develop — It is the biggest breakthrough in harm reduction against smoking ever devised. Let's not ban a -cigs but, instead, embrace them as the greatest weapon in tobacco harm reduction to come along. If nicotine replacement therapy is valid, a -cigs have to work better as they let you keep the habit (vaping /smoking) yet they allow the addict to slowly reduce the nicotine. That the %2 strength e- fluids are best sellers tells you that harm reduction works! Comparing heavily advertised nicotine replacement therapies to a -cigs is unfair since it is illegal to mention any benefit of a -cigs in marketing or advertising — So how can we really know that a -cigs are not the most effective when we refuse to look? THINKING POINT #4 Children, young people, and a -cig facts Vs. Scaremongering 1/ Teen use of a -cigs has finally exceeded teen smoking (yeah) and teen smoking has suddenly fallen by almost the same amount as teen a -cig use. The public health officials seem on drugs — They can't notice that it's after decades of flat no change in smoking rates that suddenly, magically, their message is getting through — Nope, it's the increased use of a -cigs that is responsible! Crying about a -cig usage and backing big tobacco's regulatory play instead of celebrating the decrease in tobacco consumption which is their supposed goal is strange. 2/ More teens are trying a -cigs who do not smoke thereby getting them addicted to tobacco is the half - truth told to deceive. The whole truth is that they are mainly smoking liquids that contain no nicotine Finally — A solution to peer pressure. If some teens smoke or vape with nicotine, it does NOT in any way encourage their nicotine -free vaping friend to add nicotine, yet, it totally removes the peer pressure to use tobacco or nicotine because you can enjoy vaping with neither present. An end to tobacco usage caused by peer pressure —This should be celebrated as a victory. Not one of the staff - referenced studies demonizing youth vaping and a -cigs has acknowledged, understood, or even seemed to be aware of the popularity of no- nicotine vaping among our youth — It is replacing the niche tobacco and nicotine used to fill socially WITHOUT the tobacco OR nicotine related harm. Why would any reasoning person want to interfere with this positive development? Teen smoking down —Teen a -cig use up is a good thing not a bad thing. 3/ Children and calls to poison centers are another red herring thrown at caring people — After all, if it's for the children, who can argue. Stating a rise in calls to emergency rooms for possible a -fluid ingestion has to be true — Starting from a base line of zero (e -fluid didn't exist) and now very popular, of course there will be more dumb moves. It is deceptive and misleading to consider a visit to an emergency room because of a parent's worry of poisoning with actual poisoning — Emergency room visits slightly up but NO cases of actual poisoning and NO children have been seriously harmed. It is very misleading to call a visit the same as an actual poisoning. THINKING POINT #5 Helping to reduce the harm of tobacco Vs. Supporting big tobacco Is it about the health or about the money? All the public health agencies are the beneficiaries of tobacco settlement funds. E -cigs are significantly reducing tobacco sales for the first time in decades yet anti - tobacco forces are anti a -cig — Strange. Who is hurt the most by a -cigs? The tobacco companies. Who benefits the most from strict a -cig rules and regulations? The tobacco companies. Who is also hurt by e -cigs? The large drug companies selling nicotine replacement therapies. Who benefits the most from strict a -cig rules and regulations? The big drug companies. The e -cig /vapor device industry is rapidly improving and developing — It is a huge threat to big tobacco and they are fighting it with the same tactics they used to promote smoking: Lies, distortions, half - truths, and especially, spreading the money around. Big tobacco has tried to get into the a -cig market and has their brands but they are significant only in disposable a -cigs —They are not at all significant in rechargeable /refillable vapor devices which dominate the market among regular users. With the proper government regulation and restrictions on a -cigs, big tobacco feels it can both hold onto real cigarette sales while using size and political connections to ensure harsh regulations will eliminate the small innovative firms who dominate the current market, but would not be able to afford the expenses the Federal authorities would impose. (The public health sector; It used to "advertise" that doctors smoked Camels so their track record is very weak when it comes to Big Tobacco.) Then Big Tobacco will, again, be in control which is their plan and why the demonizing of their competitors has been institutionalized among the very people who constantly deal with them — Tobacco controls, a very perverse outcome — But a typical ploy for big tobacco. Let the independent baby industry grow up so it saves countless lives in the battle against big tobacco Don't become an unwitting ally to big tobacco by banning a -cigs! THINKING POINT #6 To Rule Vs. To Govern Ah, but it's great to be king — Passing laws that we like, improving the world at our will, preempting problems with our superhuman insights — Yes, ruling is a blast. Governing and representing the people is harder. You are supposed to wait until an actual problem emerges before you curtail and direct the activities of others. Just thinking there might be a problem is not enough. Regulating or banning any activity should require solid proof of harm being done versus the current situation with e- cig /vape devices. It should be clear that (in spite of staff reports' one -sided viewpoint) there are two opposite opinions of whether a -cigs are a blessing or yet another curse. It is definitely NOT clear that they are a curse or even a problem. They could well be a blessing according to very serious health advocates and professionals. Unlike banning tobacco products where the harm is clear, with e -cigs the harm seems to be preferences like: Setting bad example / Looks like a real cigarette (usually not true) / Flavors might attract kids / and unproven allegations after unproven assertations. A king may do what he thinks best even against evidence and his people's wishes. Elected representatives should require solid proof beyond a reasonable doubt — Not a one -sided staff report and a predetermined conclusion. I hope we all can live up to the vision and the liberty, justice, and tolerance mentioned on the City plaque by the Clerk's office. Banning a -cigs and vapor devices under the current circumstances would not be honoring any of those ideals to the smokers, "vapers," and general citizens of San Luis Obispo. In conclusion, banning a -cigs and vapor devices now is way premature: Banning a -cigs and vapor devices will harm the public health. Banning a -cigs and vapor devices now is playing into the hands of Big Tobacco and creating a regulatory regime fit only for Big Tobacco. Banning a -cigs and vapor devices now is solving a "problem" before you have any factual evidence that there is a problem. Thank you for taking the time to review this material. I hope I have been of help on this issue. Local E- Liquid Sales September 2014 — February 2015 Zero Nicotine —16.1% of sales 12.5% Nicotine — We do not yet carry 25% Nicotine — 14.24% of sales 50% Nicotine — 30.03% of sales 75% Nicotine — 20.28% of sales Full Strength Nicotine — 19.35% of sales 20.28 % ---' E- Liquid Sales September 2014 - February 2015 16.1% 1 30.03% OMG 6MG --14.24% ,3MG � �eMG ■ 24MG 2/25/2015 W &MD HEALTH A -Z Benefits of E- Cigarettes May Outweigh Harms, Study Finds —WebMD Senrch f cCtor's DRUGS & SUPPLEMENTS Health Care Reforn LIVING HEALTHY FAMILY & PREGNANCY Article Link: http : / /www.webmd.com /srriokin4, l�asr � Smoking Cessation Health Cenfer 14 dips to Stay Off lbbacco Trouble Breathing: is It COPD? .AAT Deficiency, Feel- Better Tips 5 Common Causes of COl= D 13 Best Quit- Smoking Tips Ever Flelp for Dry Mouth Share this: Listen n Benefits of E- Cigarettes May Outweigh Harms: Study Findings rLin a.ou1 ter to recent calls for strilC_t re uhfi r'� WebMD News from HealthDay By Steven Reinberg HealthDay Reporter WEDNESDAY, July 30, 2014 (HealthDay News) -- Strict regulation of electronic: cigarettes isn't warrantef based on current evidence, a team of researchers says. On the contrary, allowing e- cigarettes to compete with regular cigarettes might cut tobacco- related deatl and illness, the researchers concluded after reviewing 81 prior studies on the use and safety of the nicotir emitting devices. "Current evidence suggests that there is a potential for smokers to reduce their health risks if electronic cigarettes are used in place of tobacco cigarettes and are considered a step toward ending all tobacco and nicotine use," said study researcher Thomas Eissenberg, co- director of the Center for the Study of Tobacc Products at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond. The study, partly funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, was published July 30 in the journal http-Hwww.webmd.com/ smoking- cessatiori/news /20140730 /benefits -of -e- cigarettes- may - outweigh harms -study -finds 1/3 2/25/2015 Addiction. Benefits of E- Cigarettes May Outweigh Harms, Study Finds — WebMD Whether e- cigarettes should be regulated, and how strictly, is being debated by regulatory agencies arour the world. Several medical organizations have called for restrictions on use of the increasingly popular devices. Although long -term risks of e- cigarettes remain unknown, the new study concluded the benefits of e- cigarettes as a no- smoking aid outweigh potential harms. "If there are any risks, these will be many times lower than the risks of _`;m, kii +f, tobacco," said senior authc Dr. Hayden McRobbie, from the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine at Queen Mary University of London. "We need to think carefully about how these products are regulated," he said. "What we found is that they is no evidence that these products should be regulated as strictly as tobacco, or even more strictly than tobacco." No evidence has shown that the vapor produced by e- cigarettes is harmful to users or bystanders in contrast to cigarette smoke, he added. It's not the nicotine in cigarettes that kills people, he said. (Nicotin( is the addictive agent in cigarettes). "Use of e- cigarettes by people who don't smoke is very rare," McRobbie said. Furthermore, there is no evidence to support arguments that e- cigarettes are a gateway to smoking tobacco, he added. "There is evidence that e- cigarettes enable some users to nuit -_; okinp or reduce their consumption," McRobbie said. "If there is evidence that e- cigarettes reduce smoking- related harm, then they need to be easily obtainable and not regulated more strongly than tobacco products." Ricks Arc: You At Risk for COPD? Find Out in a5 Questions Are You At frisk for AAT' Defick- ncy:' 10 Worst Cities for Asthrria Natural Remedies for Dry Mouth 7 Tips for Fresl­i, Up- Close Br( ath Bronchitis: See Whet Happens http: / /www.webmd.com/ smoking- cessatiotVnews /20140730 /benefits -of -e- cigarettes- may - outweigh- harms -study -finds �3 2/25/2015 Jane Brody's column spreads poisonous nonsense about e- cigarettes - American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) acsh.org http: / /acsh.org /2015 /02 /jane - brodys - column- spreads - poisonous- nonsense -e- cigarettes/ Jane Brody's column spreads poisonous nonsense about e- cigarettes By admin The well- respected NYTimes columnist Jane Brody has been around a long, long time, and we here at ACSH often use her column for its worthwhile information for our readers. Today's piece, More Worries Rise From the Ashes, is in stark contrast to those, unfortunately. And this topic presented her with a great opportunity to do her readers a major service — instead, she offers irresponsible and harmful information about America's number one problem: smoking. Her jumping -off point is a recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine, which updated some assumptions about diseases linked to cigarette smoking, and proceeded to increase the estimated death rate caused by smoking. But whether 360,000 or 480,000 (the latest official CDC estimate of annual smoking - related deaths) or 500,000 -plus, the number lost to cigarettes in America each year is clearly a national catastrophe, a public health emergency. How does Ms. Brody and her American Cancer Society expert, Brian Carter, purport to deal with this issue, given the new tragic toll? First, she acknowledges that warning smokers about the new illnesses and augmented death toll will do little or nothing to convince smokers to quit: "...chances are [the new data] will do little to persuade any of the 42 million American smokers to quit. If current smokers have not already responded to the well - established links between smoking and 21 diseases that together cause 480,000 deaths each year, adding another five diseases and 60,000 deaths to this grisly total is unlikely to make a difference — at least not by itself." This is surely true. So, what might actually help to get smokers to quit? Here's their idea: They call for "more doctors to aggressively address smoking cessation with their patients," and "[p]erhaps even more important, our elected officials need to add muscle and money to quit- smoking programs..." Oh, so that's The Answer: more money for Quit - lines, NRTs, and the like? How's that been working so far? One thing they do not want, it appears, is any of those new - fangled e- cigarette devices in the "help addicted smokers quit" mix: "Many experts worry that the aggressive marketing of e- cigarettes, the latest gimmick to create and maintain an addiction to nicotine, could ultimately assure a healthy market for real cigarettes decades hence. No data exist to establish the long -term safety of this nicotine delivery system, nor is there convincing evidence that e- cigarettes are helping current smokers abandon tobacco. "Adolescents could be easily enticed by many of the flavors of e- cigarettes, including chocolate, vanilla, banana, cherry and strawberry, which sounds a lot like the menu in my local frozen yogurt store." "Many experts worry"...and "could easily be enticed." Not so easily it seems: neither she nor her cited consultants refer to any evidence of such a trend — that well -known but as -yet unobserved "gateway" effect by which youngsters are lured into trying a -cigs, and then, addicted to its lethal nicotine, become replacement smokers for the dead and dying older generation. In fact, CDC's own data clearly show that smoking rates http: / /acsh.orgl20l5lO2ljane- brodys- column - spreads - poisonous - nonsense -e- cigarettes/ 1/2 21252015 Jane Brody's column spreads poisonous nonsense about e- cigarettes - American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) among teens are plummeting. What about adult smokers? Are they quitting, thanks to the FDA - approved methods so beloved of the public health establishment and Ms. Brody? Here's what she says: "But there has been a decided slowdown in smoking cessation rates in recent years, fueling a belief that getting the remaining hard core of smokers to quit will require new strategies. For example, raising taxes on cigarettes is repeatedly proposed as an effective way to curb smoking, primarily by keeping young people from starting. Yet smoking rates are highest among the poor." Oh, so that's the answer, higher taxes! Let us parse the logic here: adult smoking rates, which declined dramatically between 1964 and a decade ago, have stubbornly plateaued over the past five -+ years (unlike teen rates, remember). So we require "new strategies," she says. Like what? "Raising taxes," it seems. But this is hardly a new strategy, and to the extent it seemingly works, it is likely obviated by the illicit cigarette market provoked by such high taxes, e.g. in New York City. Also, the theory that high taxes reduce smoking is revealed as phony in her own commentary, wherein she notes that poorer smokers keep on smoking despite the high expenses. ACSH's Dr. Gil Ross had this comment: "Her final comment sums up her complete ignorance of this topic, which unfortunately did not prevent her from running with it and thereby helping the cigarette companies keep selling their lethal addictive product: `The F.D.A, now has the authority to regulate tobacco more strenuously, and should be using it to counter the industry's efforts to make its product more palatable and seemingly less dangerous.' "Say what, Ms. Brody? Shame on you! 'The industry' has little or nothing to do with your implied message, that they are in the forefront of making and marketing e- cigarettes to our vulnerable youth. It is rather the hundreds or thousands of small marketers that are supplying the a -cig and vapor markets, now helping millions of smokers switch to low -risk nicotine delivery products. When you say, 'Smoking should be treated as a form of drug addiction,' you have actually, almost by chance, hit the nail on the head: Yes, let's supply the addict with the drug he or she craves, in a milieu of very-low -risk to health. E- cigarettes fill that need, and raising mythical, agenda- and corruption- driven messages that will actually lead to more cigarettes being smoked and more Americans sickened and dead is the opposite of a sound public - health message." And on the same topic, ACSH advisor Dr. Michael B. Siegel recently penned an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal: "The Misbegotten Crusade Against E- Cigarettes." In his piece, Dr. Siegel — who has conducted tobacco research for 25 years — counters a plethora of e- cigarette misconceptions and advocates for vaping technology, which "has the potential to be one of the greatest antismoking breakthroughs." Read the story in full here. COPYRIGHT © 2013 BY THE AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH PRIVACY POLICY I CONTACT ACSH I ADVANCED SEARCH I LOGOUT http: / /acsh.orgt2015tO2tjane- brodys- column- spreads - poisonous - nonsense -e- cigarettes/ 2/2