ACCforum: WHO & Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS), - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

WHO & Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS), Letter from Public Health & Medical Officers worldwide re e-cigare

#1 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 17 June 2014 - 05:28 PM

Great to see that some in New Zealand have signed this letter regarding e-cigarettes.

129 public health and medical authorities from 31 countries write WHO DG Chan urging evidence-based approach to ecigs

http://tobacco.ucsf....nce-based-appro

Submitted by sglantz on Mon, 2014-06-16 07:50

The following letter, signed by 129 public health and medical experts from 31 countries, representing every WHO region, was delivered to WHO Director General Margaret Chan earlier today. (PDF of letter)

I also submitted the letter to the FDA dockett on e-cigs; the tracking number is 1jy-8cp3-dzmg.

June 16, 2014

Dr. Margaret Chan
Director General
World Health Organization
Geneva


Dear Dr. Chan,


We, the 129 signatories to this letter, are writing to express our support for WHO’s evidence-based approach to determine the best way forward for public health to respond to Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS), as expressed in WHO's June 3, 2014 statement.[1]

Recently, media attention was focused on a statement by a group of “specialists in nicotine science and public health policy.”[2] Unfortunately, the statement makes several assertions about ENDS’ marketing, emissions, harms, and use that are either contradicted by available evidence or for which no evidence is currently available. (Indeed, the statement does not cite a single scientific study.)

The statement also included several policy recommendations, including effectively exempting ENDS from FCTC Articles 8 and 13 and ignoring Article 5.3.

It is fundamental that WHO and other public health authorities not buy into the tobacco industry's well-documented strategy of presenting itself as a "partner."[3] If the tobacco industry was committed to reducing the harm caused by tobacco use, it would announce target dates to stop manufacturing, marketing and selling its "more harmful" products rather than simply adding e-cigarettes to its product mix and rapidly taking over the e-cigarette market.[4]-[5] It would also immediately desist from its aggressive opposition to tobacco control policies such as tax increases, graphic health warnings and plain packaging.

By moving into the e-cigarette market, the tobacco industry is only maintaining its predatory practices and increasing profits. As stated in the guidelines for Article 5.3 of the WHO FCTC, there is a “fundamental and irreconcilable conflict of interest” between the tobacco industry’s interests and public health’s interests.”[6]

Public health embraced cigarette filters and “low tar” cigarettes as harm reduction strategies before manufacturers provided evidence and at a time when the manufacturers were well aware that these technologies did not actually reduce harm but were designed to promote cigarette sales by reassuring a concerned public that the new products were safer.[7]-[8] The negative consequences of these acts remain in cancer and heart disease hospital wards throughout the world. Ignoring the link between ENDS and the tobacco industry is overlooking the WHO FCTC Parties’ legal obligation to protect government policies against tobacco industry interference.

The aggressive marketing and promotion of e-cigarettes to youth is well-documented[9]-[10]-[11]-[12] and evidence from the US[13]-[14] and Korea[15] shows rapid growth in youth e-cigarette use, including disturbing rates among youth who have never smoked a cigarette. One e-cigarette manufacturer warns parents that “kids may be particularly vulnerable” to the flavoring in its products.[16]

Manufacturers of ENDS are making a range of false and unproven claims,[17]-[18]-[19] misleading the public into thinking these products are harmless (they are not) and effective cessation aids (unknown). Most ENDS users are "dual users" who continue to smoke cigarettes.[20] Reviews of evidence about reducing smoking (instead of quitting) show that dual users are unlikely to see any health benefit in terms of cardiovascular disease.[21]-[22] Population studies of all smokers consistently show that smokers who use ENDS are less likely to stop smoking.[23]-[24]-[25]-[26]-[27]-[28]

The evidence is insufficient to accept the assertions that ENDS are effective as a smoking cessation device. There is a single randomized controlled trial of early generation e-cigarettes that found no difference between ENDS delivered directly to experimental subjects compared with mailing subjects a voucher that they could take to a pharmacy to obtain nicotine replacement therapy.[29] One population-based cross-sectional study found that highly motivated smokers using ENDS to quit were less likely to be still smoking than smokers making unassisted quit attempts with over-the-counter NRT.[30] However, this cross-sectional study[31] showed a point prevalence of 80% of smokers using ENDS in a cessation attempt having failed, compared to 84.6% of those who tried to quit unassisted. Significantly, the former study is biased against conventional therapy (because of the additional barrier to getting the NRT) and the latter did not report a comparison with well-supervised approved cessation therapies.

There is already good evidence that ENDS emissions release several toxic substances into the environment that cause harm to health. These substances include ultrafine particles, propylene glycol, tobacco-specific nitrosamines; nicotine; volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and carcinogens and reproductive toxins, including benzene, lead, nickel, and others.[32]-[33]-[34]-[35]-[36]-[37]-[38]-[39]-[40] Proposals to allow ENDS use in indoor spaces like workplaces, bars and transportation could see significant exposure to these substances.

It is important to note that nicotine itself is not harmless, which is why strict regulatory measures are in place to control the marketing of Nicotine Replacement Therapy for smoking cessation. The 2014 U.S. Surgeon General Report includes an extensive review of acute and long-term effects of nicotine exposure. It concludes, among other things, that nicotine exposure has adverse effects on fetal growth and development, including fetal brain development.[41] The manufacturer of one electronic cigarette in the U.S. acknowledges in its product labeling that nicotine is not harmless.[42] Acute poisoning from nicotine is well established, and there has been an increase in documented cases of children being accidentally poisoned by ingesting the liquid content of ENDS cartridges.[43]

Remaining unregulated, risk profiles and potential harms these products may pose to the public are unknown. The absence of detailed evidence on adverse health effects is not evidence that no effect exists. Rather, insufficient time has elapsed to determine what effects exist and their magnitude on a population level.

Manufacturers have not secured regulatory approval for claims that ENDS are effective products for smoking cessation or harm reduction from regulatory authorities in any country. From a population perspective, it is important to know what new risks a consumer product may introduce in the market.

We applaud WHO’s commitment to listen to the experience from Member States that have successfully implemented tobacco control and regulated sales, marketing and use of ENDS. Implementation of the WHO FCTC by its 178 parties demonstrates great progress in decreasing the harm caused by tobacco use and decreasing the burden from NCDs.

There is evidence of success from many countries, including Australia, Brazil and Turkey. The former prohibits import and sales of cartridges containing nicotine, the latter two banned import, sales and marketing of e-cigarettes until, and unless, manufacturers present safety information.

Both scientific evidence and best practices are available to support a regulatory framework that will best prevent initiation of use among youth and other non-tobacco users, protect bystanders in public areas from involuntary exposure, regulate marketing, and prohibit unsubstantiated claims.

Such a regulatory framework would require manufacturers to present safety and efficacy data. In this case, the use of these products as cessation aids (if the evidence supports such use) would operate under the supervision of a health authority that could control manufacturers’ claims, impose health warnings about risks, require disclosure of ingredients and safety data and regulate product engineering as well as mandate surveillance.

This is the path that the WHO has been pursuing and encouraging. We urge you to continue doing so.
0

#2 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 17 June 2014 - 05:30 PM


Doctors urge WHO to rein in e-cigarettes market

More than 100 specialists sign letter calling for tighter controls, after 53 scientists warned that regulation would cost lives
• Read the letter


http://www.theguardi...ighter-controls


Sarah Boseley, health editor
The Guardian, Monday 16 June 2014 16.31 BST



More than 100 leading public health doctors and specialists from around the world have signed a letter to the director general of the World Health Organisation, Margaret Chan, calling for new controls on e-cigarettes and warning that they may be a stalking horse for the tobacco industry.

The experts want the WHO to bring e-cigarettes under the same tight controls as tobacco products, with bans on advertising and promotion. They say there is insufficient evidence so far that e-cigarettes are harmless and can help people to quit smoking.

Their biggest concern is that, if advertising and marketing are allowed, smoking will be "renormalised", undermining public smoking bans and undoing decades of effort to marginalise cigarettes and persuade people of the harm they do.

"By moving into the e-cigarette market, the tobacco industry is only maintaining its predatory practices and increasing profits," says the letter. It says the WHO must not be misled by the industry's efforts to present itself as a partner, as it did with filters and "low-tar" cigarettes in the past before scientists showed that those things did not reduce harm.

"If the tobacco industry were committed to reducing the harm caused by tobacco use, it would announce target dates to stop manufacturing, marketing and selling its more harmful products rather than simply adding e-cigarettes to its product mix and rapidly taking over the e-cigarette market.

"It would also immediately desist from its aggressive opposition to tobacco control policies such as tax increases, graphic health warnings and plain packaging," says the letter, whose signatories include Prof John Ashton, president of the UK Faculty of Public Health (FPH); Prof Rifat Atun, of the Harvard School of Public Health; and Prof Robert Beaglehole, of the University of Auckland.

Supporting the public health doctors are experts in paediatrics and cardiovascular disease, including Dr Hilary Cass, from Guy's and St Thomas' NHS trust in London, and Prof Helmut Gohlke, of the German Cardiac Society. Other signatories include Dr Jay Berkelhamer, of Emory University School of Medicine in the US, and Prof Frank Chaloupka, director of the Health Policy Centre at the University of Illinois.

The issue is controversial even within the public health community. This month, 53 scientists who take a different view wrote to Chan (pdf), saying that regulating e-cigarettes in the same way as tobacco products would cost lives by reducing the number of people using them to quit smoking.

"These products could be among the most significant health innovations of the 21st century – perhaps saving hundreds of millions of lives. The urge to control and suppress them as tobacco products should be resisted," they wrote.

But Simon Capewell, professor of clinical epidemiology at Liverpool University,
speaking on behalf of the FPH, said its members were worried by the boom in e-cigarette use and the possible commercial interests behind it.

"The FPH is deeply concerned about the superficial analysis of e-cigarettes and that the potential harms of e-cigarettes have been systematically underestimated," he said. "The faculty is also concerned that the tobacco industry is cynically using discussions around e-cigarettes to undermine successful tobacco controls."

He said the industry was claiming e-cigarettes were solely a device to help people stop smoking, but the addition of flavours such as strawberry and bubblegum to the nicotine vapour suggested children were being targeted. It was possible that they might help some people to quit, but more evidence was needed, he said. "From the faculty's point of view, that is the single possible value they might have."

Prof Robert West, from University College London
, whose recent study showed e-cigarettes were more effective than nicotine replacement therapy at helping people stop smoking, was a signatory to the earlier letter asking the WHO not to clamp down.

"The reason I was keen to join in with the original letter is that whatever policies are recommended by WHO or anyone else, the crucial thing is they should be based on a dispassionate evaluation of the evidence and what is worrying is that that is not what they are getting," he said.

He felt, however, that concern about the tobacco industry's involvement was valid. "That is a perfectly legitimate argument as long as no one is trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes," he said.
0

#3 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 17 June 2014 - 05:33 PM

One must always remember, like so many other things in life, those that suffer harm from these environmental toxins second hand.
0

#4 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 17 September 2015 - 01:58 PM

Man suffers fractured neck, third degree burns and has hole blown through the roof of his mouth after e-cigarette explodes
The Independent
The Independent
Loulla-Mae Eleftheriou-Smith 10 hrs ago


http://www.msn.com/e...odes/ar-AAeniHt

A 23-year-old man suffered a fractured neck and finger, burns to his hand and eyes and had a hole blown through his palate after an e-cigarette blew up in his face.

James Lauria, 23, of Cobb County in Georgia, US, told FoxNews5 it had been “a normal day” on 29 July when he had stepped away from his work for a few minutes to smoke his e-cigarette.

“The next thing I know, it exploded and I was on my way to a hospital in an ambulance, and that is the last thing I remember,” Lauria told the broadcaster.

YouTube: James Lauria had to be flown to a specialist burns unit in Alabama due to the severity of his injuries© YouTube James Lauria had to be flown to a specialist burns unit in Alabama due to the severity of his injuries

Lauria’s father Ed said his son suffered first degree burns to his face and chest, while the explosion also forced a tooth up into his gum and “out of sight”.

Lauria was airlifted to the University of Alabama burns unit due to the severity of his injuries and is now recuperating at his parent’s house, though he is still on a liquid diet and now speaks with a lisp.

Lauria said he was keen to talk about the incident was keen to talk about the incident to warn others about the apparent dangers of e-cigarettes. The South Fulton Fire and Rescue Department are currently investigating the incident.

This summer a series of “highly disturbing” fires caused by exploding e-cigarette chargers led to a nationwide safety alert in the UK, with more than 100 fires thought to have been caused by the devices in the last two years.
0

#5 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 17 September 2015 - 02:11 PM

The whole world including the WHO http://www.who.int/en/ should be following the lead of Latvia and bring in regulations worldwide to also ensure the protection of all citizens and not just in the workplace, this includes those that are harmed in communal living places like apartment buildings, multi-plexes etc.

Why has the NZ Government not addressed this serious issue?

It's a well known fact there are people who are unfortunate to be suffering second hand smoke respiratory illnesses, cancer etc who do there best and would like to be able to live in as smokefree as possible homes and environs without further harm from neighbours who smoke and don't give a stuff about those they harm.

How will the new laws under Health & Safety Law's, with PCUB's, be addressing this serious issue as many apartment, unit complexes and those subjected to the pending Unitary Plan housing developments are also used as "workplaces" by contractors, tradespeople, Body Corporate people etc, etc?

We should all be doing far more to protect all person's not just selected groups who are in workplaces.




List of smoking bans
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See also: Tobacco control movement
A pictogram often used to denote a smoking ban

This is a list of smoking bans by country. Smoking bans are public policies, including criminal laws and occupational safety and health regulations, which prohibit tobacco smoking in workplaces and/or other public spaces. Legislation may also, in some cases, restrict the carrying or possessing of any lit tobacco product.[1]
https://en.wikipedia...of_smoking_bans

Latvia

As of 1 May 2010, smoking has been completely outlawed in restaurants and bars. Previously non-smoking areas had to be larger than half of the total area of the establishment. In addition, more than half of the summer terraces of bars and restaurants are required to be smoke-free. Smoking is also restricted in parks and for ten metres around entrances of public buildings as well as public transportation stops. Smoking on public transportation, except for ferries, is also forbidden.

In late 2011 some municipalities, for example, Ozolnieku novads, prohibited smoking on balconies and by open windows in apartment blocks and others multi-storey buildings.


In late 2014 amendments to the law considering smoking ban took effect and included whole areas surrounding educational institutions, apartment building balconies, entrances and staircases as prohibited areas where smoking is not allowed. Also additions to law states that every person, located in the vicinity of the smoker, now are given rights to ask the smoker to extinguish the cigarette at once upon request. Smoking in vicinity of underage children is now classified as child abuse, and punished respectively.

Health topics
Tobacco

http://www.who.int/topics/tobacco/en/
0

#6 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 17 September 2015 - 02:13 PM

Why is it also that we repeatedly hear and read of alcohol bans in a wide variety of places but there's a gross lack of smoking bans in the same said places?

Smoking and second hand smoke can and does harm all people as much as, if not more than alcohol causes harm in exactly the same places.

0

#7 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 17 September 2015 - 02:17 PM

Backing for playground smoking ban and beach trial

http://www.westernte...nd_beach_trial/

Cabinet members have backed a ban on smoking in playgrounds, and a 'smoke-free beach' trial.

Joanna Sayers / Wednesday 16 September 2015 / News
Share
9 comments

Want more stories like these direct to your inbox?

A BAN on smoking in playgrounds, and a trial of a ‘smoke-free beach’ in Pembrokeshire, have been agreed by cabinet members.

At a meeting on Monday (September 14), members heard that all other local authorities in Wales had already introduced smoke-free playground schemes, and research had found this to be an ‘effective tool in preventing people smoking in those areas’.

“In addition, it empowers both children and adults in challenging those who attempt to smoke in these spaces as well as providing an opportunity to direct people to cessation support services,” added a report by the director of development.

Councillor Huw George said he was sure that smokers and non-smokers alike would like to see young people given a better example, but said he didn’t like the word ‘ban’.

“This isn’t about stopping people it’s about promoting a healthy option,” he said.

Cllr Sue Perkins said it was the council’s job to protect young people, and this included the long-term damage that passive smoking can cause.

Mark Elliott, head of public protection at Pembrokeshire County Council, said the potential long-term risks of e-cigarettes had also led to their use being included in the ban.
Share article

A beach has not yet been picked for the trial ban, but Cllr Jamie Adams said that, as the trial period would take place over winter, it was important that a ‘well-used’ beach was chosen.

Officers will now decide on a beach, and then all councillors will be able to vote on the proposals.
0

#8 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 17 September 2015 - 02:20 PM

"Smoking in cars poisons everyone in that car as well as those outside it within a reasonable range".

Wales politics
Smoking ban in cars with children campaign launched


14 September 2015

From the section Wales politics



http://www.bbc.com/n...litics-34219546

A campaign to raise awareness of a ban on smoking in cars carrying children has begun, in advance of the law coming into force in Wales on 1 October.

Billboards and posters will highlight the ban, intended to protect under 18-year olds from second-hand smoke.

Health Minister Mark Drakeford said the law was needed because "smoking in cars poisons children".

People breaking the ban, coming into force in England on the same day, will face a £50 on-the-spot fine.

Almost one child in 10 in Wales says smoking is allowed in their family car, according to recent research, although that proportion has halved since 2008.

"Children are particularly at risk from second-hand smoke, which has been linked to a range of health issues, from sudden infant death syndrome, lung and ear infections and asthma," Mr Drakeford said.

"This danger is heightened when they are in the confined space of a car and can't escape the fumes.

"There is evidence that even with windows open, the level of toxic chemicals remains high."

Jamie Matthews from Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) Wales said the ban was popular with the public.

"Together with the forthcoming regulations on standardised packaging these regulations will help to denormalise smoking and discourage children from taking up the deadly habit," he said.

The law does not apply to e-cigarettes or when an under-18-year old is the only person in the car.

It will be enforced by police and local authorities.
0

#9 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 17 September 2015 - 02:27 PM


Anyone who has been exposed to electronic cigarettes, will able to inform others that is it equally as harmful to those around others as well as there users the harm it causes, it's like inhaling butane and household cleaning/ so called air freshener products.

Prevention, and education is far more preferable than been at the bottom of the cliff.



Smoking
Council staff face work-hours smoking ban

Nottinghamshire county council says move would improve workers’ health, cut sick leave and increase time spent working

http://www.theguardi...urs-smoking-ban

Smokers’ group Forest described the council’s proposed ban as an intrusion on personal freedom. Photograph: David Sillitoe for the Guardian



Damien Gayle and agency
@damiengayle

Wednesday 2 September 2015 18.32 BST Last modified on Wednesday 2 September 2015 18.44 BST

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share via Email
Share on Pinterest
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Google+

Shares
64
Comments
22
Save for later

A council has proposed banning staff from smoking during working hours – including on short breaks.

Nottinghamshire county council, which employs 9,000 people, said the move would improve health, reduce sick leave and increase time spent working. Anyone who breaks the rules would face disciplinary action.

The proposed rules would extend to all council buildings, land and vehicles, and would also prohibit the use of e-cigarettes. Unison, the largest public sector union, said the rules could prove to be unenforceable, and the smokers’ group Forest also criticised the plan.

John Tomlinson, the council’s deputy director of public health, said smoking was still “public health’s number one enemy”. He said: “We are trying to be a supportive employer and have a duty of care to protect the health of our employees as part of a wider remit to take a leading role in promoting better health in Nottinghamshire.”

The council said it would encourage staff to use alternatives such as nicotine patches to kick their habit, arguing that the cost to workers would be less than a packet of cigarettes. “If they don’t want to give up smoking they will get withdrawal symptoms at work because of their nicotine addiction,” Tomlinson added.

The UK has had a nationwide ban on smoking in enclosed workplaces since 2007. Motorists and car passengers in England and Wales face a ban on smoking in vehicles carrying children from 1 October, and there are plans to extend bans to outdoor public spaces.

The Ministry of Justice is drawing up plans for a smoking ban in several jails, although there are fears that forcing all to go smoke-free simultaneously could trigger prison riots.

Since the first smoking ban was introduced, smoking prevalence among adults [pdf] has fallen by about three percentage points, from 22% in 2006 to 19% in 2013.

Brian Fitzpatrick, Unison services conditions officer, said the union had no principled opposition to the council’s proposed ban but would ballot members to see whether they backed it.

Employees get a short morning and afternoon break, and during these periods no smoking would be allowed under any ban. Smoking would be permitted during lunch breaks provided the employee takes off their uniform and is far from council property, the union understands. Fitzpatrick said the measures appeared “stringent”.
Public Health England under fire for saying e-cigarettes are 95% safer

Read more

“I don’t see yet how they could enforce it,” he said. “Say you work in highways, if you want to smoke you need to take all your uniform off and go as far away from site as possible and have a cigarette and then come back.”

Ash, the anti-smoking charity, backed the ban but said it went too far in banning e-cigarettes. Deborah Arnott, chief executive of Ash, said: “Employees who want to carry on smoking can still do so, just not during work hours on Nottingham council premises. This will improve productivity, help employees who are trying to quit smoking and provide a cleaner and more pleasant working environment for all staff.

“However, we don’t think it’s appropriate to include electronic cigarettes, as vaping does not cause the damage that smoking does, and the most common reason given by people who use these devices is to help them quit smoking.”

The smokers’ group Forest said the ban was an intrusion on people’s personal freedom. Its director, Simon Clark, said: “A good employer recognises everyone is different and has different ways of coping with the stresses and strains of a working day. Everyone is entitled to a break. How people spend it should be up to them. Some drink coffee, others choose to smoke. Rightly or wrongly, many smokers believe it relaxes them and helps them refocus.”
More news
Topics

Smoking
Local government
Nottingham
Health
0

#10 User is offline   Redsector 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 01-July 07

Posted 17 September 2015 - 02:32 PM

Hey Spida, thanks for bringing out this subject.
However I'm not sure what it has to do with anything, but that's not unusual.
There seems to be a confusing mixture of subject between Tobacco legislation and Vaping which are really quite separate....apart from one can stop the other.
What you have put up is over a year old and old news and not relevant now that there has been many more research projects undertaken.
There are likely to be more people vaping than smoking in less than 20 years. Vaping has been proven now to save millions of dollars and millions of lives.

Be nice to see people actually informed with facts.
0

#11 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 17 September 2015 - 02:41 PM

Stoptober

http://www.stoptober.nz/
0

#12 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 18 September 2015 - 05:44 PM

Last time we looked, the articles and links, bar wikipedia one,of the ones we posted online on 17 September 2015 clearly state September 2015, not 2014...



View PostRedsector, on 17 September 2015 - 02:32 PM, said:

Hey Spida, thanks for bringing out this subject.
However I'm not sure what it has to do with anything, but that's not unusual.
There seems to be a confusing mixture of subject between Tobacco legislation and Vaping which are really quite separate....apart from one can stop the other.
What you have put up is over a year old and old news and not relevant now that there has been many more research projects undertaken.
There are likely to be more people vaping than smoking in less than 20 years. Vaping has been proven now to save millions of dollars and millions of lives.

Be nice to see people actually informed with facts.

0

#13 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 18 September 2015 - 05:47 PM

E-cigs should be regulated

Story
Comments

http://www.advanceti...f2245c0900.html







Posted: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 10:12 pm | Updated: 10:15 pm, Wed Sep 16, 2015.

A-T Staff [email protected] | 0 comments

College students have long had an oral fixation with the various tobacco products that line the shelves of nearly every convenience store. The dangers of traditional smoking are well documented, but the safety debate continues over new technology like e-cigarettes and vapor pens. While it’s fairly obvious students should approach all forms tobacco with caution, e-cigarettes and vapor pens should come under extra scrutiny because there is not yet conclusive evidence of their health effects.

Because of tobacco’s wide availability and effective marketing campaigns that target young adults, it is often a staple on many college campuses. Despite the best efforts of tobacco companies, smoking rates among students are actually declining. In fact, between 2011 and 2014, the amount of high school students who smoked cigarettes decreased from 15.8 percent to 9.2 percent according to the Center for Disease Control. According to the study, cigarettes and cigars may be replaced by a fairly new and potentially harmful product: e-cigarettes or e-cigs.

Unlike traditional smoking rates, e-cig use is on the rise. The CDC study found that e-cig use among high school students jumped from 1.5 percent to 13.4 percent over the same four years.

Because the e-cig business is fairly new, regulations are slow to catch up to the booming industry resulting in a flood of vapor devices and accessories on the market.

Aside from the chemical vapor that they produce, the mechanisms that power e-cigs can also present a risk. Just this summer, a Florida man named James Lauria was severely burned after the e-cig he was smoking exploded in his face and left a hole in his cheek. Of course this isn’t a regular occurrence, but it illustrates the lack of knowledge and regulatory oversight when it comes to vapor products.

Vapor devices remain legal throughout the country, but their health effects are largely unknown. A study conducted by The National Center for Biotechnology Information confirmed that the health effects of e-cigs are largely unknown and their effectiveness as an aid to quit smoking is inconclusive.

“E-cigarettes contain very low levels of multiple toxic substances such as formaldehyde and acrolein, but these levels are many times lower than those found in cigarettes,” the study concluded. “They were found to have effectiveness in aiding smoking cessation to a limited degree. Debate continues regarding regulating their use for cessation versus heavy restrictions to control recreational use on the basis that it perpetuates nicotine addiction.”

There is also the issue of secondhand consumption when e-cigs are used in public. Just as a cloud of cigarette smoke can fill the air with unwanted odors and substances, so can e-cigs and similar devices. While e-cigs don’t create smoke, they do release a chemical vapor into the air, one that many in the student body find unpleasant.

Oshkosh Student Association President , Jordan Schettle said despite the fact he has received complaints about e-cig use on campus, they remain unrestricted in buildings at UWO.

“Due to the issue of e-cigarettes and vaporizer pens not violating the Wisconsin Clean Air Act and the lack of a policy banning such devices, they are currently allowed in buildings on campus,” Schettle said.

Schettle said both OSA and the Faculty Senate attempted to address the issue last year but did not pass any resolutions.

“The Faculty Senate’s resolution promoted the banning of the devices, and OSA’s resolution was a watered-down version of addressing the issue in future years after more medical research has been conducted,” Schettle said.

Even as a smoker of e-cigs himself, UWO student Andrew Lenzner thinks that vapor products should be subject to regulation.

“Whenever you introduce a foreign substance to the body there is a sight risk involved,” Lenzner said. “Until further studies are conducted on second hand exposure, [e-cigs] should be regulated like traditional smoking.”

Although she does not smoke them, senior Shannon Reed said she felt the same way about e-cigs.

“E-cigs should be treated just like normal cigarettes because there have not been enough studies,” Reed said. “I don’t want someone else to make a medical choice for me.”

All students have the right to their personal freedoms, including e-cig use, but no one has the right to put someone else’s health at risk. Indoor e-cig use is potentially harmful and should fall under the same legal category as other tobacco products.

The line between casual use of nicotine and addiction to it can easily become hazy at a time when many students are transitioning into the college lifestyle. With the increased social pressure along and newly found freedom that college offers, it’s easy to get sucked into the trap of addiction. E-cigs are just another pitfall peddled by the tobacco industry and students at UWO would be wise to avoid them.
0

#14 User is offline   Redsector 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 01-July 07

Posted 18 September 2015 - 06:50 PM

View Posthukildaspida, on 18 September 2015 - 05:44 PM, said:

Last time we looked, the articles and links, bar wikipedia one,of the ones we posted online on 17 September 2015 clearly state September 2015, not 2014...



When I first posted there was only your first two posts actually showing -which were old articals, but did actually reflect your thread heading unlike further posts that were old and not relevant to E-cigs....that you must have been posting while I was posting.

Anyway, can't see the point of putting up tobacco related legislation etc under an electronic/vaping heading?.

Your last posting is just an opinion from some student rag.
This sort of article may explain the opportunity for saving lives and tax/health funds. http://www.theguardi...smoking-experts

I suspect you are one of 9 out of 10 who believe nicotine is bad and can give you cancer.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users