Representative Paul Ray
now browsing by tag
Despite our best efforts, the state of Utah would rather destroy than protect the health of our adults and children.
As of July 1 2016, a consumer online sales prohibition goes into effect for all e-cigarette and vapor products; e-liquid, hardware, accessories…all of it. This means that no matter the location of the vendor, any business selling to a Utah resident without being physically face to face with the customer will now be illegal. This is devastating news for the over 35,000 consumers statewide. Around half of these consumers have no access to specialty retailers to purchase quality products due to our draconian zoning regulations which forces them to purchase online. We fear that this will drive these non-smokers to return to smoking combustible tobacco and elevating the states smoking rates after historic declines thanks in part to vapor products.
The prohibition is due to language that was added into 2015 HB415 that was not discussed nor debated and was a DELIBERATE bait and switch tactic by Representative Paul Ray. He knew the language was there yet when the bill was presented to the industry, the public, the legislative committees and his peers he chose NOT disclose the true intent. We find this conduct unbecoming of an elected state representative and is the most unethical action in the 6 years of legislative activity to destroy an industry founded to eradicate combustible tobacco. In the professional world we all live in, this would amount to nothing less than fraud and we would be sued for it.
The online ban was Rep. Ray’s method to control the illegal purchasing by underage youth since there is little that can be done to punish them for their illegal behavior. Unfortunately by taking this path, he has done nothing more than to force ADULT consumers outside the Northern, Central and Southern Wasatch Front back to smoking deadly combustible tobacco since the zoning regulations prohibit the opening of qualified vapor specialty retailers. This is bad for the public health and bad for the consumers, their children and loved ones who will once again be forcibly exposed to second hand tobacco smoke.
The UTSFA has been working on resolving this for a few months but we only received news on Wednesday that there was nothing we can do at this time. We are working on other avenues but it will take time and funding to resolve thus there is nothing that can be done about this in the short term.
If you are a consumer in Utah who will be affected by this, we strongly encourage you to reach out to your representatives and senators and ask that they repeal this ban in the upcoming session. Without a voice, your elected representatives do NOT know that you are affected. You can find your elected reps here: http://le.utah.gov/GIS/findDistrict.jsp
If you would like to help the UTSFA fight this unconstitutional ban, you may donate once or as often as you can afford to help us take the steps to keep vaping available for adult consumers statewide.
The Utah Smoke Free Association is a registered in the state of Utah and federally recognized as a 501(c)4 non-profit trade association. Therefore we are not a charitable organization and donations or pledges are not tax deductible as such.by
“People smoke for the nicotine but die from the tar” ~Michael Russell
Because of comments made by Representative Paul Ray at this week’s Health & Human Services Committee (starts at about 1hr 33min) where he claimed on public record that nicotine was carcinogenic, we felt it necessary to make sure the public was aware of the real truth rather than his desperate rhetoric he pulls from his bag of tricks.
First off, we want to address the comment regarding nicotine being a carcinogen. According to a study ordered by the Division of Lung Diseases of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), nicotine is not a significant risk of causing cancer hence all NRTs on the market today are rated as such by the FDA or other health agencies. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2725009/
“Nicotine by itself does not cause cancer, but dozens of other chemicals found in tobacco products do“, according to researcher Virginia Reichert, NP; http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pulmonology/LungCancer/2039
Next, we want to address the addictive nature of nicotine. According to numerous studies performed, it is the cocktail of ingredients and MAOIs in commercial tobacco which make it highly addictive. It is the substance giving the subjective pleasure of smoking. Smokers smoke for the nicotine, but die from the tar and toxic smoke.
In another study on the long-term effects of inhaled nicotine, the study could not find any increase in mortality, in atherosclerosis or frequency of tumors in the subject rats compared with controls. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8614291
Since so much credence is given to the FDA and their words of wisdom, the FDA has determined that there are no significant safety concerns with respect to long-term nicotine use. More specifically, the agency published a “Notice of Findings” in the Federal Register indicating that the long-term use of the nicotine-containing products was safe and does not appear to have significant potential for abuse or dependence. While this study was targeting Nicotine Replacement Therapy products, the nicotine used in ENDS is the same quality and source that the pharmaceutical giants use in their products. Therefore, just because the private market is using the liquid nicotine, does not change the carcinogenic nature of it.
Another study of Alzheimer’s patients showed that those who used nicotine without smoking were better able to remember and pay attention than those who didn’t. Another study showed that nicotine boosted cognitive function in older people who didn’t have Alzheimer’s, but were showing signs of age-related mental decline.
According to Dr. Paul Newhouse, director of Vanderbilt University’s Center for Cognitive Medicine; “nicotine by itself isn’t very addictive at all and seems to require assistance from other substances found in tobacco to get people hooked. 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.”
We can’t say this loud enough but ask that he and others in public health making any of these claims to actually review ALL research to avoid making public statements that are dangerous to the public you serve. Just one month of continued smoking is more dangerous than a lifetime of ENDS usage.
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.