citylog
The E-
Edition:
CW
page
by page

Tumblr.jpg Google_Plus.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Home / Articles / News / Letters /  Smoke Vapor Ciggies, Not Tobacco
Letters

Smoke Vapor Ciggies, Not Tobacco

By City Weekly Readers
Posted // August 22,2012 -

“Utah Man Causes Fire While Smoking, Suffers Injuries”; “24-Year-Old Willard Man Critically Injured After Cigarette Sparks Fire”

These are real headlines I see on a weekly basis when researching the costs associated with smoking. We hear health agencies talk endlessly about the harm that smoking causes. We hear the anti-smoking groups talk about the associated costs to our medical systems due to cancer, emphysema and asthma. What I don’t hear are the costs from cigarette-related fires.

Why are our health agencies, fire departments and land-management agencies not raising concern over this and thinking outside the box? Why are they not fighting for smoke-free alternatives?

To quote one of my favorite movies, “Only at the precipice do we evolve.” Our society is at the precipice, and it is time to evolve tobacco-control strategy into that of tobacco-harm reduction to save lives. Innovative steps are needed to further reduce the smoking rates, not waste taxpayer money on decades-old programs that are failing.

It’s time for a change in approach and to stop ignoring the facts. Failure to evolve and recognize tobacco-harm reduction as a method to reduce the smoking rates is nothing short of planned genocide of 62 million American smokers and those directly and indirectly tied to the deadly habit. There are hundreds if not thousands of U.S. and international studies spread across decades of global history that prove tobacco-harm reduction works, yet agencies do nothing.

I call on our lawmakers, health-care and government agencies to open their eyes and realize that we are at the precipice. I urge them to take innovative measures to protect the lives of residents across the state of Utah.

Aaron Frazier
Director, Utah Vapers

 
  • Currently 3.5/5 Stars.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Post a comment
REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Posted // August 28,2012 at 18:36

Mikee I like Treece will ask that you cease the accusations when you have zero evidence to the contrary.  I don't know how many ways to say this but I nor my organizaiton receive any public or private money either from donations, taxes or otherwise.  I have no inventory. I make no commission. I have NO financial interest in the work I do what so ever.

 

Regarding the exploding battery, have you bothered to research the number of exploding electronics batteries in the world occur each year?  This happens on average of 40 times each year and in some cases severely injures the owner.  This is not from electronic cigarettes but from cell phones, laptops and other electronics we all use on a daily basis.  

 

You are also incorrect stating that only e-cigarette companies are the only ones doing studies.  The latest one as an example was carried out by a Greek cardiologist and recently presented to the European world congress of cardiologists. It was one of 40 featured studies out of over 20,000 due to the positive results.  http://www. noodls. com/viewNoodl/15626744/esc---european-society-of-cardiology/electronic-cigarettes-do-not-damage-the-heart

 

Mikee we will have to agree to disagree on this subject.  There are common substances that millions of people in this world are addicted to something.  Food, sex, soda, coffee, legal & illegal drugs.  Some have known addictive properties, others are not addictive.  What you have to realize is that there is a strong psychological side to addiction that is largely ignored by most health professionals.  This is something that is just starting to be studied by mental health professionals which does back up my statement.

 

I commend you Mikee for being mentally stronger than the 1. 1 billion smokers and the other untold billions of other addicts around the world.  For those that are not as strong, there ARE methods to reduce the harm while they work towards full cessation.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Posted // August 27,2012 at 12:55

Mikee - I'm not attacking you other than to indicate you are incorrect.  I already mentioned that Crossroads Vapor Supply is a non-existant business and is a dead website for a dead idea.  I have no employees.  I don't make one single red cent.  I am fortunately employed by a multi-billion dollar international corporation and through that I have the ability to pay my rediculous house payment, 3 car payments and mountains of other debt with the hopes that I will have a bit left over so I can enjoy fishing and camping in our beautiful Utah landscape.

 

I will admit to being a shill for the concept of tobacco harm reduction no differrent than the Utah health department is a shill for the concept of tobacco cessation.  Unlike the health agencies however, I (any the others whom posted here) receive zero financial or product compensation for my "shilling" whereas the agencies receive millions of dollars along with free cessation products from the pharmaceutical AND tobacco industries.  

Unlike the health agencies, I have reviewed most scientific studies done on the products I speak of.  The same studies they try and hide so they do not lose their funding.  Understand that nothing in life comes without some level of risk.  Nothing.  It's about taking steps to remove as much harm possible to protect ones self and those around you.  Sometimes, cessation of risk is possible.  BUT it's not possible for everyone.  However, if you can reduce the harms for those who cannot totally remove the risk, then it is a step in the right direction.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Posted // August 24,2012 at 18:05

Why the attacks on someone who is simply trying to show people that they have a choice if the "approved" methods of quitting cigarettes doesn't work? I tried the patch, Wellbutrin, cold turkey. My doctor would not prescribe Chantix due to it's side effects and my medical history. Dental problems kept me from trying the gum. As for the nicotine--the user controls how much or little they use and many people are at the point where they use an electronic cigarette with NO nicotine in them at all. I myself have cut my nicotine intake in half at my own pace not one dictated to me.

I would also like to point out that nicotine is being studied to help Parkinsons and Alhemziers.

I think the real reason some of these agencies are agaisnt electronic cigarettes is the fact that the states will lose tobacco tax dollars and the Pharmacuetial companies will lose profits.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Posted // August 24,2012 at 17:33

Accusing harm-reduction activists of being "shills" is a common, tired tactic used by those in the tobacco control industry when they are unable to make a legitimate argument. They appear unable to fathom people working for anything but money. How very jaded.

The American Association of Public Health Physicians has estimated that e-cigarettes have the potential to save 4 million lives in the U. S. over the course of the next 20 years--lives that would otherwise be cut short due to smoking-related illnesses. %u2028%u2028

Four million lives. To remain silent in the face of that kind of information should weigh heavily on anyone with a conscience. But the FDA and the tobacco control industry have been far worse than silent. They've actively opposed the role of e-cigarettes in reducing the harm caused by smoking.

That's a hard trick to pull off with any credibility, since science, truth, and ethics come unquestionably down on harm reduction's side. It's much easier to accuse people of being shills.

But hey, if we're going to talk about "shills," it's well worth noting that every anti-smoker group that opposes e-cigarettes is funded by pharmaceutical companies, whose multi-million dollar smoking-cessation industry faces its first real threat with e-cigarettes--a product that, unlike the patches, the gum, and the Chantix, actually helps smokers to quit.

 

Posted // August 28,2012 at 17:38 - Here are the levels cancer-causing agents (i. e. , TSNAs) in a typical e-cigarette, compared with those found in a nicotine patch and a traditional cigarette. The levels are measured in nanograms (parts per billion): E-cigarette: 8 Nicotine patch: 8 A single Marlboro cigarette: 11,190 O_o Furthermore, e-cigarettes contain no tar. No carbon monoxide. None of the thousands of byproducts of combustion. No flame, no ash, no smoke, no butts. Would it be better for our lungs if we inhaled nothing but pure, clean, fresh air all the time? Sure thing (and good luck with that)! Here's the reality: We aren't choosing between electronic cigarettes and pure, clean, fresh air. We're choosing between electronic cigarettes and (hello!!) *cigarettes*. Since everything we know about human nature renders the notion of abstinence for everyone utterly delusional, perhaps we can opt for the compassionate choice of supporting innovations (like condoms, seat belts, and e-cigarettes) that make life much, much better for a great many people and accept that those people aren't going to achieve perfection any time soon? And Mikee, I'm going to respectfully ask you to stop calling me a shill. I lost my mom to a long and brutal death from small cell lung cancer--a type of lung cancer with a suspected genetic component. I tried time and again to quit smoking and nothing--NOTHING--helped me until I got an e-cigarette in March 2009. I understand that you don't approve of my choice. It's time for you to understand that I don't need your approval.

 

Posted // August 28,2012 at 13:18 - Treece, you're partaking in the same propaganda you accuse the government of doing. American Association for Cancer Research did a study in which 100% of rats given (S)-N%u2019-nitrosonornicotine developed cancerous cells. Health Canada said, "Although these electronic smoking products may be marketed as a safer alternative to conventional tobacco products and, in some cases, as an aid to quitting smoking, electronic smoking products may pose risks such as nicotine poisoning and addiction. " In March of this year a man in Florida lost most of his mouth when an e-cigarette exploded in his mouth. So much for reducing harm, eh? The choice is between getting cancer from a cigarette, or an e-cigarette. The choice is down to burning the house down, or having an e-cigarette explode in ones mouth. This is why I'm against any and all laws that force e-cigarettes onto the public, or subsidize a business like Utah Vapers, by using tax dollars to get people to quit smoking using products sold by Utah Vapers. Get people to quit smoking, that's fine, but asking for government intervention to financially benefit your own business is disgustingly wrong on so many levels. "since science, truth, and ethics come unquestionably down on harm reduction's side. " Only in studies funded by companies that make e-cigarettes. In truly neutral studies there is no difference between the dangers of e-cigarettes and regular cigarettes, hence, Aaron, Utah Vapers, Crossroads Vapor Supply, and the rest of you are SHILLS. You can claim the high ground of having science on your side, but that's just an opinion that isn't actually based in reality. You're picking and choosing which studies to promote, because they reinforce your predetermined outcome, and ignoring studies that show your preferred studies to be bullplop. Does it make more sense now, Shill, or shall I find a turnip to explain it to you in terms you'll understand?

 

Posted // August 24,2012 at 17:45 - Correction Treece, smoking cessation drugs are a multi-BILLION dollar industry (around 2. 3b); but alas that was back in '09. Fast forward 4 years and I would bet it's close to double that.

 

REPLY TO THIS COMMENT
Posted // August 24,2012 at 12:42

"Harm reduction is better than people quitting smoking? Only for your companies bottom line. "

But people are not quitting smoking.  Cessation rates hit a plateau 10 years ago according to the CDC.  

It's a bit like your clean needle programs.  Not shooting up heroin would be better, sure, but people are still shooting up heroin.  Clean needles prevent the spread of HepB and Aids, and promote programs to get heroin users on Methadone.  

And Methadone itself is harm reduction.  It's ised in Utah's "Project Reality".  Utah accepts lifetime Methadone use with it's risks, but this mitigates a heroin habit.  The cost of these programs saves soceity money on heroin related crime, and saves lives.

Nicotine has a much better safety profile than methadone, but somehow you accept only harm reduction for heroin, and not smoking?  

 

Posted // August 27,2012 at 11:07 - Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of your shilling for your employer.

 

 
 
Close
Close
Close