now browsing by month
Sometimes I’m amazed at people. Oftentimes it’s for the amazing talents or feats of a particular individual. Unfortunately, mostly it’s due to the amazing ability some people have to ignore fact and never move outside their mind filled with lies and prejudice; even at possible great harm to others. Case in point, read this recent post about the recent groundbreaking study out of the UK (go ahead, I’ll wait).
Now, imagine an individual in a position of influence at the state level. Someone who has the power to create and pass laws at will. Got him pictured? Good. *Note* it’s probably not who you are thinking. Now imagine him sitting behind his computer or smart phone and receiving an email with details of the new study. No embellishment. No commentary. Just actual information directly from the report. Not hard to imagine, right? One would think that someone intelligent enough to get himself elected, go through medical school and be a highly respected member of society would mean they actually take the time to educate himself and has an open enough mind to recognize that science can change and, well, facts are facts. Well…..a man much wiser than I once said “People don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed“.
So with that said, allow me to post some of his response to me and his capitol peers (in red italics) regarding this groundbreaking study he was essentially hand delivered but refused to read prior to responding. If you ask me who it was, I won’t tell you. I’m not the type of person to put an elected leader on blast publicly or hit “Reply to All” and make him appear foolish. That behavior in politics is foolish in it’s own right and simply is not productive. I just want to show my readers his foolishness so hopefully, maybe, he or one of his peers will see this and open their eyes to the truth. [edit – I’ve now received two responses so will try and address both at the same time]
- I notice that you choose your terms carefully to avoid using the word Nicotine.
- Actually sir, none of the words are mine nor did I carefully choose anything nor avoid using any term. These are the words of the MOST RESPECTED MEDICAL ORGANIZATION IN THE BLOODY WORLD! Look em up. The Royal College of Physicians has over 35,000 doctors in it’s ranks and has been around longer than any and has influenced more groundbreaking health policy than any other.
- Anyone who uses nicotine for any length of time whether vaping, smoking, chewing, or in patches or gums, will have a prolonged and difficult period of withdrawal if and when they try to break free of it.
- According to the FDA, you know, those guys out East who YOU want to regulate our industry; well, they claim completely the opposite. The actually published a Notice of Findings in the Federal Register indicating that the “long-term use of the nicotine was safe and does not appear to have significant potential for abuse or dependence.”
- Big Pharma uses study data from smokeless tobacco use in Sweden (Snus) as their basis for Nicotine Replacement Therapy. They claim, and the FDA supports the fact that “long-term nicotine consumption without smoke has no clinical significance.”
- Lastly, according to Dr. Paul Newhouse, the director of Vanderbilt University’s Center for Cognitive Medicine (who has done extensive research into beneficial effects of nicotine on the brain); “Nicotine by itself isn’t very addictive at all. Nicotine seems to require assistance from other substances found in tobacco to get people hooked.”
- Nicotine is the second most addicting substance that we know of (second only to heroin and the opioids). And it is addicting in whatever form you take it.
- While I’ll concede that nicotine creates a dependence, not addiction (there is a monumental difference and terminology is important), in those who use it; I bring you back to Dr Newhouse’s research above. His research, and that of virtually every producer of NRT products shows that “It seems very safe even in nonsmokers. In our studies we find it actually reduces blood pressure chronically. And there were no addiction or withdrawal problems, and nobody started smoking cigarettes. The risk of addiction to nicotine alone is virtually nil.”
- Independent of the form it is taken in has been shown to cause cancers in intestines, lung, pancreas and breast. It accelerates macular degeneration which causes blindness, and worsens emphysema and raises blood pressure.
- I’m beginning to see something here now. When you think of vapor products, you must be able to cognitively separate nicotine from smoking. They are two separate subjects here. When nicotine is combine with tobacco smoke, you are 100% correct in that. However, nicotine by itself has never been shown to cause any cancers or the other issues you mention. Never. Ever. In fact, even the FDA, NIH and virtually every cancer center study in the world shows this.
- Your industry continues to be dependent, as it has for many decades now, on getting yet another generation of the young addicted to nicotine
- From second responder: We have a whole new group of people working for the tobacco companies that are simply not going to give up the billions of dollars generated from their addicted clients
- Ahhh even more is clear. For reference, I do not work for nor does this organization receive funding from Big Tobacco. This industry is NOT Big Tobacco. This industry was NOT founded by Big Tobacco. The small business owners have zero financial ties to Big Tobacco. This industry, was founded by a…wait for it…MEDICAL DOCTOR! The over 15,000 small business owners and over 10 million adult consumers in the US are all ex-smokers who have a single goal, to eradicate combustible tobacco and Big Tobacco globally.
- For a great history lesson (if you are even still reading at this point), here is a fantastic timeline of the industry.
I could continue but this post is already very long and frankly, I have more important things to work on than to respond to rhetoric that is spewed forth by someone who is too narrow minded to open their mind to the fact that science changes. Scientific study after study is proving that a prohibitionist approach is killing people. Claiming that we don’t know enough or there are not enough studies is doing nothing but proving ignorance or incompetence and I honestly have done everything possible to educate you. If your public that you represent along with over 300 scientific studies AND the largest, most respected and most prestigious medical organization in the world cannot convince you; then I wish you all the best in your career and I’ll pray for your patients.
I close by reminding you of an oath you took when you started your profession so very many years ago. Primum non nocere, which for those not speaking Latin is a phrase that means “first, do no harm; one of the core principals of the Hippocratic Oath. An oath YOU had to take in order to get through your prestigious university to get that fancy piece of paper on your office wall. This oath requires that you maintain an open mind and treat patients with the latest information available; not shove your head in the sand (or in other dark places) and ignore the facts.
Doing nothing or ignoring the facts is no different than doing actual harm to those you have pledged to care for. Doing nothing is tantamount to medical malpractice and the 1200 lives you allow to die because of your chosen ignorance is nothing short of genocide. But if you don’t believe in scientific advances don’t worry, it’s only A Billion dirty smokers Lives on the line….Nobody loves them, right?
The Society For The Study Of Addiction has released a study titled “A framework for evaluating the public health impact of e-cigarettes and other vaporized nicotine products” which contains the following conclusions:
- In the US, increasing e-cigarette use has been accompanied by an unusually large reduction in adult and youth smoking prevalence.
- These products expose users to substantially lower levels of toxicants than combustible cigarettes.
- A multi-criteria decision analysis estimated that exclusive VNP use is associated with 5% of the mortality risks of smoking. This is comparable to the estimated risks of low-nitrosamine smokeless tobacco.
- Studies using major biomarkers of cancer and other chemicals in e-cigarettes indicate substantially lower (e.g. 9–450 times) levels compared to cigarette smoke.
- For dual users, VNP use may translate to a lower quantity and duration of cigarettes smoked. Both may decrease lung cancer and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) risk.
- The potential to reduce risk is likely to depend upon the age of initial dual use. Although much use now begins at later ages, VNP use is likely to occur at earlier ages in more recent cohorts of smokers, and thereby provide a greater reduction in cigarette use and toxic exposures over longer periods of use.
- Initiating VNP use before cigarette smoking may delay or prevent smoking initiation and thereby reduce smoking risks.
- The population health impact depends critically upon whether the never smoker who tries VNPs would have smoked cigarettes in the absence of VNPs.
- Studies of youth and young adult use from the United States and other countries using different use measures have found current smokers to be at least 15 times more likely to use VNPs than never smokers.
- Adolescents and young adults who use VNPs are most likely to be those at higher risk of initiating cigarette smoking.
- Young VNP experimenters are more likely to engage in other risky behaviors and have executive function deficits like those found in cigarette smokers. These findings suggest that a common liability model is more plausible than a gateway from VNP use to cigarette smoking.
- Because VNPs are more widely available and often more appealing to smokers than conventional NRT, they have the potential for having a larger impact on the rate of smoking cessation in the population.
- Concerns have been raised that cigarette smoking will be re-normalized by VNP use. This issue can be addressed by the media and public health campaigns that encourage norms that are hostile to cigarette smoking and at the same time distinguishing clearly between VNP and cigarette risks, discouraging dual use and encouraging exclusive VNP use.
- The availability of VNPs may provide a justification for stronger policies to discourage cigarette smoking because smokers, particularly those of lower socio-economic status and with mental health issues, are given a less risky and potentially less costly alternative way to service their need for nicotine.
- Cigarette companies that have entered the smokeless tobacco market have encouraged dual rather than exclusive use, and are likely to do the same with VNPs. By contrast, VNP companies that are unaffiliated with cigarette manufacturers want smokers to switch completely from cigarettes to VNPs.
- Product content regulations that create regulatory hurdles that only large firms can surmount are likely to favor the cigarette industry and discourage innovation by firms outside the cigarette industry.
- Cigarette companies do not control VNPs as they do the rest of the tobacco business; many manufacturers of e-cigarettes such as NJOY do not sell cigarettes, and there are thousands of vape shops that are independent of the cigarette industry
- Retailer point-of-sale restrictions, which limit subsidies by cigarette manufacturers to provide shelf space and price promotions, can reduce price discounting and discourage advertisement displays. This could provide greater shelf space for VNP products to be sold by independent firms.
- From a public health perspective, VNP policies should aim to discourage experimental and regular use of VNPs by never smokers who would not have smoked otherwise while encouraging innovations in VNP products that promote smoking cessation. The evidence suggests a strong potential for VNP use to improve population health by reducing or displacing cigarette use in countries where cigarette prevalence is high and smokers are interested in quitting.
- The primary aim of tobacco control policy should therefore be to discourage cigarette use while providing the means for smokers to more easily quit smoking, even if that means switching for some time to VNPs rather than quitting all nicotine use.
The use of vaporized nicotine products (VNPs), especially e-cigarettes and, to a lesser extent, pressurized aerosol nicotine products and heat-not-burn tobacco products, are being adopted increasingly as an alternative to smoking combusted products, primarily cigarettes. Considerable controversy has accompanied their marketing and use. We propose a framework that describes and incorporates patterns of VNP and combustible cigarette use in determining the total amount of toxic exposure effects on population health. We begin by considering toxicity and the outcomes relevant to population health. We then present the framework and define different measures of VNP use; namely, trial and long-term use for exclusive cigarette smokers, exclusive VNP and dual (cigarette and VNP) use. Using a systems thinking framework and decision theory we considered potential pathways for current, former and never users of VNPs. We then consider the evidence to date and the probable impacts of VNP use on public health, the potential effects of different policy approaches and the possible influence of the tobacco industry on VNP and cigarette use.
– Content courtesy of No More Casualties and the Society For The Study Of Addictionby
Today the Royal College of Physicians, the world’s oldest and most respected medical organization, has released a new 200 page report titled “Nicotine without smoke: Tobacco Harm Reduction” which concludes, among other things:
- Smokers can be reassured and ENCOURAGED to use e-cigs, and the public can be reassured that e-cig are MUCH SAFER than smoking.
- E-cigs are NOT a gateway to smoking.
- E-cigs do NOT result in normalization of smoking.
- Regulation should NOT be allowed to significantly inhibit the development and use of harm-reduction products by smokers.
- E-cigs appear to be EFFECTIVE when used by smokers as an aid to QUITTING SMOKING.
- E-cigs are marketed as consumer products and are proving MUCH MORE POPULAR than NRT as a substitute and COMPETITOR for tobacco cigarettes.
- The hazard to health arising from long-term vapor inhalation is UNLIKELY TO EXCEED 5 PERCENT of the harm from smoking tobacco.
- Evidence indicates that e-cigs are being used almost exclusively as SAFER ALTERNATIVES to smoked tobacco, by confirmed smokers who are trying to REDUCE HARM to themselves OR OTHERS from smoking, or to quit smoking completely.
- In the interests of public health it is important to PROMOTE THE USE of e-cigs, NRT and other non-tobacco nicotine products as WIDELY as possible as a SUBSTITUTE for smoking in the UK.
This report aims to provide a fresh update on the use of harm reduction in tobacco smoking, in relation to all non-tobacco nicotine products but particularly e-cigarettes. It concludes that, for all the potential risks involved, harm reduction has huge potential to prevent death and disability from tobacco use, and to hasten our progress to a tobacco-free society.
A copy of the report can be downloaded here: Nicotine without smoke
Should you wish to discuss the report, the Utah Smoke Free Association is happy to discuss the findings at a time of your choosing. For any questions or concerns about any of the specific findings, we encourage you to reach out directly to the Royal College of Physicians or the UK Centre for Tobacco & Alcohol Studies which is funded by the UK Clinical Research Collaboration who were the authors of the report.
We encourage all readers of this to forward this information to your legislators, mayors, city councils and health departments for their review and education.
Many times throughout the year, the Utah Smoke Free Association (UTSFA) is asked for specific information relating to the Utah vapor industry. In response to this and to prepare for the upcoming legislative session along with other needs, we need to urgently gather information on all Utah vapor businesses.
This information is being gathered from Utah vapor specialty businesses only so if you are not in Utah, please do not respond. We are asking all industry business owners complete this survey regardless of membership status with the organization. Business specific information collected in this survey will be kept strictly confidential and will only be viewable by the organization Executive Director.
For Immediate Release
April 19, 2016
UTAH SMOKE FREE ASSOCIATION ON THE PASSAGE OF AMENDMENT PRESENTED BY REP. COLE & REP. BISHOP WHICH CHANGES THE FDA PREDICATE DATE FOR VAPOR PRODUCTS
SALT LAKE CITY, UT – Today, the Utah Smoke Free Association (UTSFA) praises the U.S. House Appropriations Committee for their noble decision and decisive vote to approve an amendment that will, if passed by both House and Senate, prevents the Food and Drug Association (FDA) from applying a predicate date of February 2007 to vapor products thereby decimating over 99% of the 10’s of thousands of vapor businesses in operation today. Representative Tom Cole (R-OK) and Representative Sanford Bishop (D-GA) offered this amendment which passed with a vote of 31 to 19.
The UTSFA offers the following statement regarding the passage of the amendment. “This is an industry founded on the principles of harm reduction and it’s apparent that the committee understands the vital role vapor products play and will continue to play in preserving the health of Americans, especially that of smokers,” said Aaron Frazier, UTSFA’s Executive Director. “This is a disruptive technology that offers the best chance in history to help Utah’s 225,000 smokers take a life changing step away from combustible tobacco. We also commend Utah’s Representative Chris Stewart (R-UT) who sits on the committee for his vote on the amendment protecting the over 75 Utah industry small business owners and over 30,000 adult consumers.”
There have been mountains of misleading information released by the very agencies tasked with protecting public health. It is our hope that today’s action will provide these agencies with a wake up call that the current methods of cessation supported by them are ineffective with the over 40 million Americans who still choose to smoke combustible cigarettes.
The Utah Smoke Free Association fights for the rights of all Utah residents wishing to reduce the harms resulting from combustible tobacco. We urge all Utah’s smokers to try any method available to remove combustible tobacco from your life and the lives of your children, family members and friends. When traditional methods do not work, we recommend adult smokers visit a Vapor Specialty Retailer to discuss alternative options to combustible tobacco.
For accurate information on vapor products or for UTSFA membership information, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org
The Utah industry retail sales and manufacturing regulations are now final and available for all Utah retailers and all manufacturers who distribute through Utah retail operations. These regulations apply regardless of point of sale (C-Stores, Vape Shops, Smoke Shops, etc) and enforcement on them will begin on July 1st 2016. There are NO exceptions to the rules where refillable e-liquid is sold in bottle format. The only exception is for cartridges which are filled and pre-sealed at the manufacturing level (such as Blu, NJoy, etc).
Due to rumors and mis-information being spread around with the Utah industry, we want to specifically address a few points to ensure everyone understands fact from fiction:
- There are NO requirements to use a specific type of bottle or banning the use of certain types of bottles.
- The Nicotine Warning label is required on EVERY bottle of e-liquid regardless of point of sale. The label size must be at least 20% of the largest panel of the bottle which means; if the bottle is round the label must be 20% of the entire surface area of the bottle. There are also specific fonts, colors and a VERY specific statement that must be on this 20% space. No other language is allowed in this space. After-market labels are allowed and will be provided to members at no cost. Additional labels for non-members will be available for sale in June.
- A tamper-evident warning must be included on the label or as an after-market label and cannot be removed by removing the tamper-evident seal.
- Batch/Lot numbers must be either on the label or laser etched into the bottle.
The UTSFA will be providing after-market labels for the nicotine warning and tamper-evident warning to all members at no cost as part of your membership into the organization (up to 50,000 total). Additional labels will be available for purchase for all current and non-members through VC Wholesale in June (link to be published soon).
All details of the final regulations can be found by clicking on the PDF image below.