Wisconsin Senator proposes bill to EXCLUDE e-cigarettes from indoor smoking ban!

[Cyatis]

Ok I recieved this response from Donna Seidel, in the 85th district.

Dear,
Bill

Thank you for contacting me to express your support to a measure that would exempt electronic cigarettes from the statewise smoking ban. I appreciate you taking the time to share your views.

I believe the legislature has a responsibility to consider the public health benefits of all people in Wisconsin. This is why I was a co sponsor of State Representative Wieckert's Senate Bill 150, the statewide smoking ban. The legislation had bi-partisan support, and was passed into law in 2009.

Some citizens argue that electronic cigarettes are a useful smoking cessation product. Many also believe that because e-cigarettes do not contain tobacco, there is no reason they should be covered under a ban that was meant to prevent tobacco smoke from harming non-smokers.

Others, though, point out that e-cigarettes have not proven to be completely safe. The FDA has not approved the use of ecigarettes and there are no controls to monitor the age of purchasers. The FDA has also done some analysis that found that some e-cigarette cartridges contain carcinogens, including nitrosamines, and other toxic chemicals. The cartridges can also contain nicotine.

Please know that I will keep your support of exempting electronic cigarettes in mind. During this legislative session. I invite you to contact my office with any future questions, comments or concerns regarding this or any other state issues.

Sincerely,
Donna Seidel

Donna Siedel
State Representative
85th District

The letter was typed and hand signed. Obviously this going to deserve a nice response, but I thought that those interested might like to see it. It was sent on the 23rd, I received it last night.

 

[JerryRM]

Hmmm.......with that logic a lot of products should be banned. Realistically, can anything be "proven to be completely safe" ?

 

[Vocalek]

As nice as it is that she sent you a personal, typed letter, the last two paragraphs are clear indication that she has been fed false information by the antis and that she is not convinced of the good that e-cigarettes can do. When you take her up on her invitation to contact her again, you might want to share the following information with her.

--------------------------------------

The "Others" who talked to you were relying on the FDA's press release, that does not accurately reflect the information in the lab report. The FDA's lab report states that "tobacco specific nitrosamines and tobacco specific impurities were detected in both products at very low levels." [1] What did the FDA mean by "very low levels"? The tobacco-specific nitrosamines detected in the liquid are equivalent to the type and amount in an FDA-approved nicotine patch. The FDA did not report finding any of these "carcinogens" nor any toxins in the vapor.

Researchers Cahn and Siegel reviewed the FDA's lab report, along with 15 other toxicology reports and concluded, "A preponderance of the available evidence shows them to be much safer than tobacco cigarettes and comparable in toxicity to conventional nicotine replacement products.” [2]

An old, but still humorous, joke ends with the punchline, "I don't have to outrun the bear; I only have to outrun you." Similarly e-cigarettes don't need to be "safe". They only need to be safer than conventional smoked cigarettes. Smoke contains tar, carbon monoxide, particulates, and thousands of chemicals of combustion, none of which are present in vapor.

E-cigarettes are not intended to be a treatment for nicotine addiction. As the Royal College of Physicians stated, “We demonstrate that smokers smoke predominantly for nicotine, that nicotine itself is not especially hazardous, and that if nicotine could be provided in a form that is acceptable and effective as a cigarette substitute, millions of lives could be saved.” [3]

E-cigarettes are that long awaited acceptable and effective cigarette substitute. I hope this additional information helps you to understand why it is so important to avoid discouraging smokers from saving their health, and perhaps their very lives, by switching to this much less harmful alternative.



References:
[1] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Final Report "Evaluation of e-cigarettes". http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ScienceResearch/UCM173250.pdf
[2] Cahn and Siegel. Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for tobacco control. Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 0197-5897 Journal of Public Health Policy 1–16.
[3] Royal College of Physicians. Harm reduction in nicotine addiction: helping people who can’t quit. A report by the Tobacco Advisory Group of the Royal College of Physicians. London: RCP, 2007. http://www.tobaccoprogram.org/pdf/4fc74817-64c5-4105-951e-38239b09c5db.pdf

 

[JerryRM]

Very nice and very truthful, Elaine. The problem is, that's not what the Antz and politicians want to hear, so they ignore it.

 

[Vocalek]

Very nice and very truthful, Elaine. The problem is, that's not what the Antz and politicians want to hear, so they ignore it.

As the story goes, a man in a bar watched his friend go up to a woman, say something to her, and then receive a big slap in the face for his efforts. He watched in awe as his friend repeated this several times. Finally, he could not contain his curiosity any longer. He went over and asked his friend, "What are you saying these women?"

"Simple," his friend replied. "I don't believe in wasting any time. I just ask them straight out, 'Do you want to go to bed with me?'"

"No wonder you're getting smacked in the face! Why are you doing this?"

"Well," said the friend, for every 99 smacks in the face I get, one woman says 'Yes.'"

 

[kristin]

1)Others, though, point out that e-cigarettes have not proven to be completely safe.
2)The FDA has not approved the use of ecigarettes and there are no controls to monitor the age of purchasers.
3)The FDA has also done some analysis that found that some e-cigarette cartridges contain carcinogens, including nitrosamines, and other toxic chemicals.
4)The cartridges can also contain nicotine.

1) Even with smoking, only until there was scientific evidence supporting negative health effects of smoking and public outcry over second-hand exposure, was there any justification for indoor use bans. There have been no signs of negative health effects to users, no scientific evidence of any harm to bystanders nor any public outcry to justify prohibiting the public use of e-cigarettes. The criteria for banning a product is proof of harm, NOT requiring proof of safety (especially absent any evidence of harm) to keep a product from being banned. And at this point, there is far more evidence that e-cigarette vapor is relatively benign for users and bystanders than evidence of potential harm.

2) There are plenty of products, including other smoking alternative products, on the market without FDA approval, not to mention that cigarettes and other tobacco products also do not have FDA approval. If there is a concern about sales to youth, include them in youth sale bans like any other nicotine or tobacco products. The measure of safety should be compared to smoking cigarettes - not to FDA-approved pharmaceuticals, which are by no means "safe." Chantix has been approved by the FDA and that is certainly not "safe" for everyone, but they deem even the higher risks of Chantix use (which have received hundreds of reports of significant,negative health effects) to be preferable over smoking. All experts largely agree or concede now that, even in the absence of a lot of research, e-cigarette use cannot possibly be anywhere near as bad as smoking.

3) If the level of carcinogens the FDA found in their testing is of concern, then nicotine patches should also be banned, as they contain the same miniscule level of the only potential carcinogen - tobacco-specific nitrosamines - ever found in e-cigarettes. (Her comment "including nitrosamines" suggests other carcinogens were found and they only found the barely detectable levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines.)

The FDA did NOT find toxic levels of ANY chemical in their testing. They found a NON-TOXIC amount of diethylene glycol in one cartridge. Diethylene glycol is not toxic at that level and hasn't even been found in any other e-cigarette liquid since the FDA test. Additionally, there have been no OTHER potentially toxic chemicals found in e-cigarettes. So, what the FDA really found was a non-toxic amount of only ONE chemical (not "chemicals" plural, as she says) that could potentially be toxic if consumed in much greater amounts (literally drinking the contents of hundreds of cartridges in one day.) To put it in perspective, a lethal dose of diethylene glycol is 1-2g/kg , but the lethal dose of the fluoride (found in our toothpaste and water) is only 0.005 g/kg. Toothpaste is actually much more toxic than than amount of diethylene glycol the FDA found in that one cartridge. So, the "carcinogens and toxic chemical" the FDA found is not evidence of a significant danger to the public.

4) If they didn't contain nicotine they wouldn't be an effective cigarette substitute. Additionally, because nicotine is not a carcinogen and has very low health risks comparable to caffeine, it still does not pose a health risk to bystanders.

 

[Cyatis]

Thanks all. At home on Friday a snow plow, cut my internet and phone line. We got that fixed today, then my furnace went out and they are fixing it tonight. I left this just to thank you all for taking the time to help out, and the fact I am reading what you said. I hope things are back to normal soon here, and wish you all a great day.

 

[Stubby]

I to received a letter back from my representative. It seems there are more responsive then senators as they have a much smaller base of constituents. I don't have it on hand but the gist of it was that she had gotten feedback that people would have problems telling the difference between cigarettes and e-cigs, which is of course bogus. This is straight out of the form letter the ACS has put out.

I pointed out to her that as far as I know there hasn't been any bar or restaurant owners that have come out against this. I would guess that there are a number or bars that support this bill as it helps them offset the losses that occurred when the smoking ban went into effect last year. A number of them have been big losers with that.

It appears the ANTZ are in full force against this and have the ear of legislators. They are pushing every bit of misdirection and bad information they can to fight it.

 

[kristin]

I haven't been out to bars much since right after the smoking ban took effect, but I can tell you that even back then - when the ban was new and very few people knew about e-cigs - that I never had any objections from bartenders or owners in my small town (even they knew what I was using and said they were fine with it) and not one person ever lit up a cigarette because I was using my e-cig. But a lot of people asked me where they could get one!

I never understood the logic of that argument, either. So what if they confused my e-cigarette with a real cigarette? What would realistically happen? Well, lets think about what would happen if I was really smoking. The staff or a customer would tell me to put it out. Would a bunch of other smokers really light up just because I was smoking, even knowing the law? No. So why would they light up if they saw me using an e-cigarette and somehow thought my black eGo was a real cigarette? That's like suggesting that if people think my non-alcoholic drink had alcohol and thought that I was going to be driving drunk, they will think it's ok for them to break the law and drive drunk, too??

 

[TennDave]

I'm in Tennessee and the only place they don't want me to vape is at my favorite sushi bar. I would boycott it but I like sushi too much and this is the best place. They, of course said, other customers who smoke wouldn't feel right that I could vape and they couldn't smoke- it had nothing to do with vapor and raw fish possibly mixing (something I thought of being their concern at first). My true feelings are that if smokers don't like it, then they can ask me what I'm doing and they could consider switching to an e-cig. So, not being allowed to vape in public places where people will see you and inquire lessens the chance of converting a smoker to vaping and possibly saving their life.

 

[kumquat]

Are they going to ban potatoes, too, if nicotine is so harmful and there's a risk children might eat them?

 

[kristin]

I'm in Tennessee and the only place they don't want me to vape is at my favorite sushi bar. I would boycott it but I like sushi too much and this is the best place. They, of course said, other customers who smoke wouldn't feel right that I could vape and they couldn't smoke- it had nothing to do with vapor and raw fish possibly mixing (something I thought of being their concern at first). My true feelings are that if smokers don't like it, then they can ask me what I'm doing and they could consider switching to an e-cig. So, not being allowed to vape in public places where people will see you and inquire lessens the chance of converting a smoker to vaping and possibly saving their life.

OMG, the logic in that is so CRAZY! It's OK for us to to make smokers feel bad by making them stand out in the cold to smoke, but not OK for you to do something that ISN'T smoking that might make smokers "feel bad?" Seriously? Do they also refuse to serve alcohol because it might make customers who are on the wagon feel bad? How about taking shellfish off the menu, because customers who are allergic wouldn't feel right that other people can eat it and they can't?

Ridiculous.

 

[Cyatis]

Well of course I wasn't satisfied with the response at all, because of the information. To her credit she did send me something though.

Kristin was nice enough to help write a much cleaner letter, and I appreciate it.

 

[kristin]

That is a good draft, but I wouldn't go off on a tangent about internet sales and I really wouldn't use so much vaper slang - ESPECIALLY "e-juice." It sounds so unsavory and illicit to non-vapers.

Here is my recommended response for you if you want to use it:

Dear Representative Seidel,

Thanks for taking my views into consideration.

The legislature does have a responsibility to consider the health benefits of all people in Wisconsin, however, legislation should continue to be based upon actual fact and not conjecture. Wisconsin Senate Bill 150 was based upon accepted scientific literature that showed the risks of smoke exposure to bystanders and overwhelming public support for prohibiting smoking in public. Those wishing to infringe upon the freedoms of others have the burden of proof of harm to prohibit otherwise legal activities. The evidence suggested that smoke was a hazard to bystanders. There is no similar evidence regarding vapor from electronic cigarettes.

To date, all scientific literature about e-cigarette vapor has shown no evidence of any risks to bystanders and in fact, has shown that there is no reason to suspect e-cigarette vapor would present any significant health risks even to users. There has been no public outcry against the use of electronic cigarettes where smoking is prohibited. The fact that e-cigarettes do not contain tobacco is irrelevant. The fact that they do not create smoke - the source of 99% of tobacco-related diseases - is very relevant, considering that the basis of Senate Bill 150 was directly supported by the health effects of smoke and not any other potential pollutant. If someone chose to blow bubbles of an unknown chemical in a bar, SB 150 has no legal relevance, as the bubbles are not smoke. A new law would need to be passed, based upon proof that the bubbles were a public health risk. The same should hold true for e-cigarette vapor, as e-cigarette vapor is not cigarette smoke.

The FDA analysis does not support an argument that e-cigarettes are unsafe. The carcinogens (tobacco-specific nitrosamines) the FDA found in its analysis were at the same harmless levels as those found in FDA-approved nicotine cessation products. Nicotine is not a carcinogen. The FDA did NOT find toxic levels of any chemical in its analysis. The FDA found a non-toxic amount of one chemical in only one of 18 electronic cigarette cartridges analysed. That chemical has not been found at any level in e-cigarettes since that FDA analysis. It would require a massive dose of e-cigarette solution in order for that chemical to become toxic to even a small child. If anything, since the FDA analysis shows that e-cigarettes do not contain toxic levels of any chemical and do not contain hazardous levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines, the FDA analysis supports the claim that e-cigarettes do not appear to be a health concern to users or bystanders.

The burden of proof is not on electronic cigarettes to prove themselves "completely safe." No product, to the best of my knowledge, has ever been required to meet that standard - not even FDA-approved drugs. The burden of proof is on legislators to show evidence that e-cigarettes have harmed or will harm bystanders. In the absence of any real evidence of potential risk to bystanders or overwhelming public objection to the use of electronic cigarettes where smoking is prohibited; and with several analyses finding no harmful levels of chemicals or carcinogens, the legislature simply has no valid argument to include them in regulations specifically intended for cigarette smoke. Therefore, it should be made clear to the public and local governments that e-cigarette use is not in the legal definition of "smoking" per Senate Bill 150.

The FDA has announced its intention to regulate electronic cigarettes as "tobacco products." That would put electronic cigarettes under the same category as any other smokeless tobacco product regarding sales to minors. I completely support prohibiting the sale of electronic cigarettes to minors and encourage you to introduce legislation to that end.

I still support Senator Grothman's bill to exclude e-cigarettes from the smoking ban and you should to. It deserves bi-partisan support and I hope to see that it passes.

Respectfully yours,

Bill Totten

 

[Cyatis]

Thanks Kristin. I will use your version instead, its good.

I do find it very ironic that the government, thinks I'm to stupid to smoke, vape, or handle my kids responsibly. Yet they want to sink a boatload of money into something that punishes inventive people for trying to run a business as responsibly as they can possibly do it under the circumstances. I didn't like the length of that though, in the original at all.

The letter I received has a lot of half-truths in it, which result in an outright lie. I appreciate you taking the time to do that.

 

[kristin]

Thanks Kristin. I will use your version instead, its good.

I do find it very ironic that the government, thinks I'm to stupid to smoke, vape, or handle my kids responsibly. Yet they want to sink a boatload of money into something that punishes inventive people for trying to run a business as responsibly as they can possibly do it under the circumstances. I didn't like the length of that though, in the original at all.

The letter I received has a lot of half-truths in it, which result in an outright lie. I appreciate you taking the time to do that.

I did edit it just now. I added a bit about bubbles that I think is a good, easy to grasp example as to why SB 150 doesn't apply to e-cigarettes!

 

[Cyatis]

Exactly, I think demonstrating the point that vapor does not equal smoke, is extremely relevant. That does a perfect job of that to.

If I'm correct ... this link is the report they are referring to.

FDA and Public Health Experts Warn About Electronic Cigarettes

You realize that at one point I used to work as maintenance technician, for a plastics place. I used to repair and replace chillers there. Guess what they used in those. 55 gallons of Texaco pink antifreeze. I'm still here, go figure.

 

[kristin]

Exactly, I think demonstrating the point that vapor does not equal smoke, is extremely relevant. That does a perfect job of that to.

If I'm correct ... this link is the report they are referring to.

FDA and Public Health Experts Warn About Electronic Cigarettes

You realize that at one point I used to work as maintenance technician, for a plastics place. I used to repair and replace chillers there. Guess what they used in those. 55 gallons of Texaco pink antifreeze. I'm still here, go figure.

That link is actually just the FDA's misleading and deliberately deceptive press release twisting what they found. The actual report on the analysis can be seen here: http://casaa.info/uploads/FDA_Evaluation_e-cigarettes.pdf

What they said in the press statement:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today announced that a laboratory analysis of electronic cigarette samples has found that they contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze.

What the report actually says (actual quotes from report copied and pasted):

Tobacco specific nitrosamines and tobacco specific impurities were detected in both products at very low levels.

Diethylene Glycol was detected in one sample (Smoking Everywhere 555 High cartridge) at approximately 1%.

Note that there aren't any quotes about the other "toxic chemicals" (plural) that the FDA hints at, because the report does not actually list any POTENTIALLY toxic chemical found other than the DEG.

Yeah - they didn't spin that to scare people at all, lol.

 

[Cyatis]

Wouldn't you agree that the misinformation I received was most likely based off of that press release. I'm not saying it is correct, what I'm saying is that it obviously got into the representatives hands from someone.

Nicotine was detected in both products for all cartridges containing low, medium and high levels of nicotine but was not observed in cartridges identified as containing no nicotine. Screening for the possible tobacco specific impurities cotinine, nicotine-N-oxide, nornicotine, anabasine and myosmine was negative.

Therefore doesn't their own study pretty much counter, what they are saying about the process of vaping in itself. If nothing else, all this shows me is that vaping tends to purify the end result. Which certainly isn't true of cigarette smoke.

Followed logically, everyone should be purifying their nicotine this way, it is safer than gum or the patch.

I tend to want to know what they will argue before the ANTZ even show up though, because its easier to prepare for it, and its obvious they are involved. I really expect an uphill battle, though perhaps the other side can give it some fuel to make it easier to get the desired end result.

 

[kristin]

Yes, the ANTZ point to the press statement, give that to legislators and conveniently don't mention the specifics of the actual analysis.

The TSNAs the FDA found were almost identical to the nicotine patch, approximately 8ng/g, but slightly higher than the gums and lozenges (which were approximately 3ng/g - 5ng/g). They found it in the liquid of (if I remember correctly) just the highest nicotine liquids and NOT in any of the vapor tested.

I don't think anything in vapor makes it better/lower than NRT - they pretty much all use the same pharmaceutical-grade nicotine. It just depends upon the amount of nicotine in that batch of liquid. The lower the nicotine %, the less TSNAs they find, since the nicotine is the only possible source of TSNAs.