Page 24 of 56 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 554
Like Tree1935Likes

Thread: Cancer Council wants WA's tobacco laws changed to specifically ban ecigs

  1. #231
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    32
    So the Cancer Council is wasting their time and resources attempting to get a ban on e-cigs..

    What happened to normal cigarettes? they decided to give up because they can't fight the big tobacco companies?

    Logic must be a foreign concept to people these days.
    Bobthebuilder and Christine J like this.

  2. #232
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    808
    Well I had let go of this particular story until today. I didn't send my initial letter directly to Terry Slevin but today I received an email from him anyway, again very similar to the one others received.

    I wasn't going to reply. I was going to go out into the sun and have a nice day. But alas, I am Bloody Mary. I cannot stay silent. And so I sat down and argued my argument. It is my nature to argue. Even if it goes nowhere, at least I spoke my truth.

    The following 3 posts are my reply to Mr Slevin. His words are in black. Mine are in blue. In the end I managed almost 3000 words. Forgive my verbosity. I understand if it's too long for some people to bother with. But if you decide to continue and read what I have written, please make yourself a nice cuppa first. This is bigger than Ben Hur.
    margyb, lozza 82, spud and 3 others like this.

  3. #233
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    808
    Dear Terry,

    Thank you for taking the time to reply to my somewhat volatile letter, which I sent in an angry frame of mind via a web form in the general direction of someone at the Cancer Council of WA on 30/10/13. It is very considerate of you to reply to me personally and politely. This really is such an important issue for us all, and rational discussion is paramount. I wish to address the points raised in your email, hopefully in a less combative tone than in my first email.

    I will begin by pointing out the most curious omission in your response. Not once have you mentioned the word “cancer” in relation to e-cigarettes. Given that the CCWA's own mission statement is “to minimise the incidence and impact of cancer on our community through advocacy, research, education” why would the organisation wish to see any product banned which has not been linked to cancer? Especially a product which is showing such stunning potential as a gateway out of smoking, the biggest single cause of cancer in the world? This fact alone should be enough to steady the hand of any organisation committed to the minimisation of cancer. Nonetheless, I will address your remaining contentions. Let's just say the CCWA would be wise to honour its own commitment to “research” before taking such a reactive leap.

    To continue....


    Dear Mary

    Thank you for taking the time to e-mail me in response to the article published in The West Australian on October 30 concerning e-cigarettes, and for sharing your quit journey with me.

    When we did our review of the literature around e-cigarettes two distinct, but separate issues has arisen that concern us.

    The first of these is the use of e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation tool.

    This is the first common misunderstanding. E-cigarettes are not a smoking cessation tool. They are an alternative to smoking, and a recreational product. Many of us who use them have no intention of giving them up, and given that nicotine has a similar effect on human health as caffeine and has never been linked to cancer, there is no critical need to. It is interesting to note however, the increasing anecdotal evidence that many users find themselves lowering their nicotine over time because they find they are less dependent on it. Perhaps this is because e-cigarettes do not contain the ammonia that tobacco companies add to traditional cigarettes which is believed to potentiate the effects of the nicotine (and other chemicals), making them more addictive.

    Cancer Council WA calls for a continuing ban of e-cigarettes in line with what is currently imposed by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). Please see attached a summary of the issue of e-cigarettes from the TGA website - with information dated 12 March 2013.

    The TGA, according to its own website “is responsible for regulating therapeutic goods including medicines, medical devices, blood and blood products”. It has no mandate to advise on policy regarding recreational products. Caffeine, when sold in coffee or cola does not fall under TGA guidelines, but when it is an ingredient of an item being sold as a therapeutic product (eg. some herbal preparations) it does. Similarly, nicotine when sold in cigarettes is not within the TGA's scope of control, but when sold in therapeutic products which are marketed as quit aids, such as Nicabate patches, it is. E-cigarettes, as I have already stated, are an alternative to cigarettes, not patches (or gum, lozenges etc). Nicotine is not medicine. It doesn't treat or prevent any diseases. Those of us who use it via e-cigarettes are not sick. We enjoy it, just as we may also enjoy wine or coffee. It is worth noting that attempts to regulate e-cigarettes as medicines have failed recently in several European courts, just as the FDA also failed the same attempt in the U.S. Federal Court. The TGA's stance on e-cigarettes is tenuous, to say the least, and of no legal relevance to the recreational use of nicotine.

    While there may be anecdotal evidence that e-cigarettes may have assisted some smokers like you in their smoking cessation endeavours, there is a lack of broad scale, population level data on their efficacy as smoking cessation tools.

    Forgiving the continued wrong assumption that e-cigarettes are smoking cessation tools rather than a safer alternative to smoking, there is in fact plenty of evidence that smokers are making the “switch” (a more appropriate term) to e-cigarettes in their millions and with great enthusiasm across the globe. In the U.K. alone the number of users has swelled to 1.3 million currently, from just a few hundred in 2009. There are presently estimated to be 7 million e-cigarette users across Europe, and over 4 million in the USA. Wells Fargo Securities, has estimated Reynolds (makers of Camel and Pall Mall) will have $4 billion in revenue from e-cigs in 2021 compared with $3.9 billion from conventional cigarettes. The internet is seething with products and information, weblogs, forums, youtube channels and passionate testimonials. Those of us who use these products generally experience a profound gnosis that the era of smoking tobacco is coming to an end. Ecigs are to smoking what the motor car was to the horse and buggy. If I may be a little tongue-in-cheek here, an organisation such as a Cancer Council failing to notice the current storming of the tobacco market by e-cigarettes, is like the Australian Bureau of Meteorology failing to notice the formation of a Category 5 cyclone just off the coast of Queensland.

    I can only assume that your information thus far is limited to the recent study in New Zealand which showed that the ecigs their participants used (now obsolete 1st generation “cigalikes”) were only slightly more effective than nicotine patches. The anecdotal evidence vociferously supports these findings. The batteries of the small cigalikes produce low wattage and therefore only a small amount of vapour. They generate insufficient power to properly replicate the sensation of cigarette smoke, which requires a satisfying “throat hit” as well as “lung fill” to be effective. If I were personally restricted to the use of products such as these I would eventually go back to smoking. I did, however, begin my journey in to “vaping” with a small cigalike. Anecdotal evidence suggests the majority of us do. But like many others I needed a more powerful battery to generate an effective amount of vapour and moved on to the larger 2nd generation ecigs, or “personal vapourisers”. From there it has been plain sailing. I have learned that my own personal ideal level of vapour production and flavour is produced by 10 watts of power. So far, there have been no studies into the efficacy of these remarkable devices, and these are the devices that are enabling smokers to switch to a safer alternative in staggering numbers.


    In the meanwhile there are a range of nicotine replacement options available for smokers wishing to quit. These come with a substantial body of evidence to guide choices about their use, both in terms of benefits and weaknesses.

    This is quite a faux pas, from someone who must be well aware of the ineffectiveness of these products, which have a 95% failure rate. It is somewhat cruel (though I know it is not intentional) to push smokers toward these products, when the evidence shows that overwhelmingly, most will return to smoking. There is no need for the 20th century “quit or die” mentality to persist in the light of this wonderful new technology. Harm minimisation must become the new mantra of the public health establishment. It's the only thing that works. Sweden is a perfect example of this, where the use of snus is prevalent. Sweden, as I'm sure you know, has half the lung cancer rate of the rest of Europe, and the life expectancy of ex-smokers who use snus is virtually the same as of those who quit nicotine entirely.

  4. #234
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    808
    Currently we do not believe there is sufficient evidence on the comparative risks or benefits of e-cigarettes, making it difficult to determine whether they are a safe and effective option in terms of assisting smokers to quit. Of most concern is the inadequate information on the content and emissions of e-cigarettes and their potential adverse impact on health in the long term.

    (As previously noted, no mention of the word “cancer”. Is the CCWA losing its focus on cancer minimisation and taking on the the full spectrum of public health?)

    Certainly there will be no conclusive evidence about the long term impacts on health for at least another 20 years. I, and I'm sure many others, will be happy to present myself for medical testing in 20 years time to help further the cause, provided of course, nobody manages to prevent me from using the products in the meantime. We need sensible regulations of e-cigarettes, and truthful information on the packaging. A simple statement specifying that “the long term impacts on health of these products are still unknown” would be sufficient. To smokers currently inhaling smoke containing 4000 chemicals including over 60 known carcinogens, the risk is obviously substantially less.

    In the interim I invite you to peruse some of the current research:

    The British Medical Journal
    Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes -- Goniewicz et al. -- Tobacco Control

    “The levels of the toxicants were 9–450 times lower than in cigarette smoke and were, in many cases, comparable with trace amounts found in the reference product.”

    Health New Zealand
    http://www.healthnz.co.nz/DublinEcigBenchtopHandout.pdf

    “Absolute safety does not exist for any drug, but relative to lethal tobacco smoke emissions, Ruyan e-cigarette emissions appear to be several magnitudes safer. E-cigarettes are akin to a medicinal nicotine inhalator in safety, dose, and addiction potential.“

    European Society of Cardiology

    ESC | About the ESC | ESC Press Office | ESC Press Releases | Electronic cigarettes do not damage the heart

    “The investigators found significant defects in the diastolic phase of left ventricular function after smoking one cigarette, with four echocardiographic parameters indicating worsening function. In contrast, none of the echocardiographic parameters showed any significant worsening in subjects after using the electronic cigarette.”


    There are many more links to relevant research here: E-cigarette research, studies and papers



    Secondly, there are business interests involved in the sale and promotion of e-cigarettes that Cancer Council WA will steadfastly remain independent from. Our understanding is that the tobacco industry has moved into the market of e-cigarettes, fuelling concerns that smoking behaviour will be once again promoted and normalised through the proliferation of products that in effect promote smoking like behaviour. We are concerned this may allow a resurgence of smoking behaviour in some groups in the community - and this is something we are very keen to avoid for obvious reasons.

    On your first point we are in complete agreement. No group of people is more joyfully and defiantly independent of the tobacco industry than us “vapers”. “Big Tobacco” has not had a cent out of me for the last 18 months. And neither has “Big Pharma”, which is even better news. As I stated in my first email, apart from nicotine, an e-cigarette contains propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin and food flavouring, substances generally regarded as safe. Exactly the same ingredients are to be found in Nicorette QuickMist Spray, except that the latter also contains anhydrous ethanol, trometamol, poloxamer 407, sodium hydrogen carbonate, levomenthol, sucralose, acesulfame potassium and hydrochloric acid. I should add that the dose of nicotine in this nasty product is so low as to be sub-therapeutic. It's a setup for failure.

    Secondly, it must be clearly understood, the tobacco industry has only moved into the arena of small cigalikes. They have shown no interest in the larger personal vaporisers and nor are they likely to. It is not possible for tobacco companies to monopolise the sale of batteries, metal tubes, atomisers, wire and wick, nor propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, nor food flavouring. The real business of enjoyable and safer nicotine consumption is Big Tobacco (and Big Pharma)-proof. And it is predominantly these products which are enabling smokers to make the permanent switch. Big Tobacco has in fact already had its “Kodak moment”. They are simply trying to chase after a horse that has long bolted. Consider this irony: tobacco companies, in a desperate bid for survival have found themselves selling small pre-filled cigalikes, a product that is strongly establishing itself as a gateway out of cigarettes, a product they monopolise, and a gateway into the realm of 2nd generation ecigs and personal vaporisers, products which they do not have a hope of monopolising. With or without the comprehension of the health establishment, Big Tobacco's days are numbered. Isn't this a good thing? Imagine successfully banning e-cigarettes. BT would live to fight another day.

    And thirdly your point about smoking becoming re-normalised by the acceptance of e-cigarettes. This is understandably based on the fact that “vaping” small cigalikes looks like smoking from a distance. I could argue that drinking water looks like drinking vodka, but do I really need to? The reality is that though it may look like smoking, it is not smoking, and does not even closely smell like smoking. In fact it is usually quite pleasant. The fact that it resembles smoking so well is precisely why it works. And because the use of ecigs returns a healthy sense of taste and smell to the user, they very effectively make smoking unappealing. Smoking, directly or passively, is generally not well tolerated by vapers at all. And the overwhelming majority of vapers are ex-smokers. There is no evidence to suggest that non-smokers are taking up vaping to any significant degree. Even school children found to be experimenting with ecigs are predominantly the same kids who are experimenting with cigarettes. A recent study by the American Association of Cancer Research also concluded that ecigs are “not a gateway to anything”. (E-cigarettes:) Vaping doesn't normalise smoking. It normalises vaping. And vaping, thus far, has not been shown to be harmful, to either the user or to bystanders.

  5. #235
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    808
    Until there is more evidence on the safety and efficacy of e-cigarettes, and given the availability of TGA approved nicotine replacement therapy options, Cancer Council WA will not support the use of e-cigarettes.

    I can accept the CCWA not wishing to actively promote e-cigarettes just yet. But to actively lobby the WA Goverment to prohibit their use is astonishingly xenophobic and has no science, logic nor public interest behind it. In the light of all the encouraging research which is proliferating it is really quite a bewildering stance.

    Cancer Council WA has been committed to efforts to reduce smoking rates in our state for many years and we remain so. Tobacco control has saved countless lives and we continue to do, and advocate for, what we know works to reduce the harm tobacco causes. We will remain concerned about new nicotine delivery systems until such times as there is clear evidence that is it safe to do so - and that there is a clear benefit for smokers in using these to successfully quit smoking.

    Tobacco control is one thing. Placing prohibitive taxes on smokers, defacing their packaging with theatrical disease pictures, and concurrently preventing them from accessing a safer alternative does nothing but serve the lust for vengeance of anti-smoking zealots, and drive more and more smokers to the black market. The recent KPMG report shows that illegal tobacco sales have risen from 1.4% share of the overall market to 10.4% in a single year. It's beginning to look as though the “authorities” are actually losing control. As far as I know there is no known case in the world where the prohibition of a popular substance was ever successful. There is already an absurd “grey market” in e-liquid in Australia, which is quite legal to import for personal use. If the WA Parliament votes to place an outright ban on ecigs, it will in that very moment legislate into existence a fully fledged black market in WA, and if other states follow it will be a national market, whose only competition will be the black tobacco market. It will increase the incidence of police corruption as well as corruption within the Bureau of Customs. It will hand the industry to criminal gangs. And people such as myself, who will continue to use ecigs, will be criminalised. How can this possibly be a desirable outcome? I am 52 yo with no criminal record. Please, identify the victims of my future actions. Tell me what penance you would have me pay, for my crime of switching from smoking to a safer alternative!

    Cancer Council Western Australia has a proud history of reducing the incidence and impact of cancer in our community. We strive to ensure all information we provide is based on the best available evidence. We work to encourage current smokers to quit and ex-smokers to remain non-smokers via the range of programs we conduct. The significant reduction in smoking prevalence in Western Australia over the past ten years suggests our efforts have contributed to the advancement of tobacco control in this state.

    You are now down to the hardcore of the remaining 17-20% of smokers. We are the ones who have either repeatedly tried and failed, or defiantly won't quit. For us a new solution has been found: harm minimisation. I am one of thousands of Australians who have chosen this path, in full knowledge that absolute safety is not guaranteed but in full knowledge that the risk is less than smoking by orders of magnitude. We are as a “community” well-informed both about the research, science and technology of ecigs and the power games surrounding them. Many of us are happy to engage publicly and politically to further the cause of helping fellow smokers, but don't want to have to fight a battle with the state, or the corporations that seem to rule them. We would rather see e-cigarettes legalised and regulated sensibly. They need only to be banned for sale to minors. They need child-proof caps, “keep out of reach of children” warnings, correct labeling of nicotine content and other ingredients of e-juice, and to adhere to national food safety standards to ensure quality products. Hardware items (eg. batteries) already have to comply with Australian safety standards.

    Indeed the CCWA can be proud of its history, but can it be proud of its future? “Quit or Die” is a dying meme. It won't work for the remaining 20%. Human beings are not like farm animals. We can not be herded to where we don't wish to go by others who think they know what's best for us. The anti-tobacco establishment is taking the wrong side of history, attempting to go on beating smokers against the anvil of an obsolete ideology, and unwittingly protecting Big Tobacco in the process. It is time for all who profess themselves to be advocates of public health to step back from the e-cigarette hysteria, re-examine the evidence, understand the power of the forces at play, exercise caution but be open to a new paradigm. There is now a new way for smokers to enjoy nicotine, which doesn't involve inhaling smoke. And it's the smoke in cigarettes that causes cancer, not the nicotine.

    I continue to hope that the CCWA will reconsider its stance on ecigs, and change it to at least a neutral one.



    Thank you again for your personal response.

    Yours sincerely

    Mary G
    Last edited by Rose; 06-11-13 at 07:44 PM.
    JWH, Robray, margyb and 36 others like this.

  6. #236
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    3,950
    Wow rose that was awesomeness on a whole new level please post the reply if he sends one
    JWH, margyb, Old Dog and 10 others like this.

  7. #237
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Central Vic,up near the Murray
    Posts
    18,455
    Rose , if one is gonna poke a bear .... thats the BEST, most considerate,fact fuelled,logical , impassioned bear poke imaginable
    Beautifully thought and presented !
    JWH, margyb, Old Dog and 14 others like this.
    EPM V2-18490 (X2 ),GP Spheroid V2.5 and GP Piccolo V2.5 ,BBCB, Provari mini's, REO mini V2.1, 18490 REO , Jazz Carto Pipes ( fitted with GA tank and churchwarden stem Totally Evil!!! ), Meerschaum pipe ,e-holly35W,Phideas, AIOS,Taifun atties, PC Pipe mods.PC Squonker, Svapiamo squonker, GP Paps Heron combo.

    Vaping since 2007 totally smoke free since 2011


    AVF Rules , Read and understand them

  8. #238
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Esperance Western Australia
    Posts
    3,627
    Rose, your reply is quite simply brilliant. Articulate, intelligent, well informed, reasonable, and above all correct in fact and form. Thank you for sending this message. You have my profound respect.
    JWH, margyb, Old Dog and 13 others like this.
    All opinions expressed by me, are my own, I do not represent, or speak for, anyone but myself.






    STOPPED SMOKING 11/08/13 STARTED VAPING 11/08/13

  9. #239
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Bunbury, WA
    Posts
    5,951
    love your work, rose
    JWH, margyb, Old Dog and 9 others like this.

  10. #240
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    NANNY STATE W.A.
    Posts
    1,267
    standing ovation from this old fella .. Rose do you mind if we use this in the future ?
    JWH, margyb, Old Dog and 9 others like this.
    I VAPE = I LIVE

    Started Vaping at 16:00 hrs on 11th April 2013...
    Saved poop loads of $ not buying stinkies since then.
    Spending poop loads of $ on shinies and juice etc since then
    But now I am happy...


 

 
Page 24 of 56 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2017 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 05:20 AM.