York Housing Authority
31 South Broad Street
York, PA 17403
31 South Broad Street
York, PA 17403
Members of York Housing
Authority:
The Consumer
Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) urges you to not
include smoke-free electronic cigarettes in your proposed Smoke Free
Housing Policy. CASAA is a non-profit organization that works to
ensure the availability of reduced harm alternatives to smoking tobacco
products and to provide the public with truthful information about such
alternatives. Electronic cigarettes do not emit smoke and pose no
known health risks to users or nonusers.
Smoking bans
were enacted for the purpose of protecting non-smokers from the
potentially harmful effects of second-hand smoke. But electronic
cigarettes have not been shown to harm bystanders or users. FDA testing of
e-cigarette vapor did not find any toxic or cancer-causing substances. In fact,
all evidence to date shows that the low health risks associated with electronic
cigarettes are comparable to other smokeless tobacco products and to the risks
of using nicotine gum, lozenges, patch, and inhalers.
There are
enormous differences between smoke and
vapor. Smoke is created by the process of combustion. Setting
tobacco on fire creates tar, carbon monoxide, airborne particulates, dozens of
carcinogens and thousands of other hazardous chemicals. Inhaling these
substances in smoke is the cause of 99% of tobacco-related diseases and
deaths.
Vapor from an
electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) does not contain any of these substances.
Vapor, while resembling smoke, is not a product of combustion but rather
the product of the process of condensation. Vapor is created by heating a
liquid to the point of evaporation.
Dr. Murray
Laugesen of Health New Zealand tested e-cigarette vapor for over 50
cigarette smoke toxicants. No such toxicants were found. Dr. Laugesen
stated, “Relative to lethal tobacco smoke emissions, e-cigarette emissions
appear to be several magnitudes safer. E-cigarettes are akin to a medicinal
nicotine inhalator in safety, dose, and addiction potential.” [1]
Dr. Michael
Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health reviewed the available
evidence on the safety and effectiveness of e-cigarettes—including the testing
conducted by the FDA in 2009—and concluded, “A preponderance of the available
evidence shows them to be much safer than tobacco cigarettes and comparable in
toxicity to conventional nicotine replacement products.” Dr. Siegel states that
there is no justification for banning the indoor use of e-cigarettes based on
potential harm to bystanders. [2]
The majority of
consumers use e-cigarettes as a complete replacement for all their tobacco
cigarettes, and most of the rest use e-cigarettes to reduce the number of
cigarettes per day they smoke. These products are improving the
health of their users, and could save the lives of many
more smokers—provided their use is not discouraged. [3, 4]
Many e-cigarette
users first discover the safer devices when they see them used where smoking isn't
allowed. Banning indoor use and forcing e-cigarette users outside removes
an incentive for smokers to switch to an alternative that could very
well reduce their risks of smoking-related disease.
Notably,
government officials in both Alameda, California and Seattle, Washington
recently removed e-cigarettes from recently passed apartment smoking bans. In both instances, officials recognized that
bans on the use of smoke-free products cannot be enforced, especially in the privacy
of one’s home.
Again, in light
of the clear evidence that e-cigarettes do not pose a threat to bystanders,
please remove e-cigarettes from the proposed lease addendum.
Very truly
yours,
_____________________
Gregory Conley J.D./MBA
CASAA Director
References:
1. Laugesen
M. Health New Zealand. Poster Presentation at the Society for Research on
Nicotine and Tobacco conference, Dublin, April 30, 2009. http://www.healthnz.co.nz/DublinEcigBenchtopHandout.pdf
2. Cahn
and Siegel. Electronic cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy for
tobacco control. Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 0197-5897 Journal of Public Health
Policy 1–16. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-institutes/population-development/files/article.jphp.pdf
3. Heavner K, Dunworth J, Bergen P, Nissen C, Phillips CV. Electronic
cigarettes (e-cigarettes) as potential tobacco harm reduction products: Results
of an online survey of e-cigarette users. Tobacco Harm Reduction 2010 Yearbook,
Chapter 19.http://tobaccoharmreduction.org/wpapers/011v1.pdf
4. Etter
JF, Bullen C. Electronic cigarette : users profile, utilization, satisfaction
and perceived efficacy. Addiction 2011 DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03505.x.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03505.x/abstract (accessed
June 2011) Full Text: http://www.scribd.com/doc/61623650/Electronic-Cigarettes%E2%80%94Users-Profile-Utilization-Satisfaction-and-Perceived-Efficiacy

Good job!! Well said! And, Kudos to Alameda, Calif. for proactive thinking.
ReplyDelete