Need some help on an important issue. (Damaging new eCig bill in Canada)

Lé.Skiing

Active member
I'm calling for help from my Fellow NSers on an fairly imminent issue with regards to the classification of eCigarettes in Canada.

MLA Finder For sending your letter.

Information you should include if you can:

(They need to hear from you the consumer! They need to hear your story!)

Tell them how old you are

Tell them how long you were smoking

Tell them how long you have been vaping

Tell them you how vaping helped you get away from cigarettes!

Tell them how you are feeling better everyday.

Tell them how you are breathing easier....

Tell them how you are able to run that little bit further...

Tell them how vaping has changed you!

Tell them how vaping is nothing like the tobacco products that you are trying to get away from!

Tell them that you agree with the regulation of sales to minors!

If you have lost someone to a tobacco related illness and want something better for yourself tell them that too!

Please don't personally attack them in your letter. This works against the cause. They need to hear how it helped you!

Be diplomatic... be professional and get all your friends to write too!

Peer reviewed data is powerful!

The bill in question link: http://www.leg.bc.ca/40th4th/1st_read/gov14-1.htm

the main arguement we need to be making is that this IS NOT and CAN NOT be in the same category as tobacco. for reasons of taxation, suppliers and consumer rights this well not go well for vendors or consumers.

vaping in public and not selling to kids is the smoke and mirrors to get public approval ignore it and think if you would keep vaping if there was 300% tax on everything that you buy vaping related.

The reason Cigarettes are taxed heavily because of the associated health risks. From the research I've read there aren't enough health risks to warrant an extra tax like there is on cigarettes.

Section 2 of the amendment means vape stores will not be permitted to have any juice on display (including websites, posters, decals, etc), they will be required to be behind sealed curtains at the very minimum, and you are not allowed to name off any brands or flavors - legally customers would be required to ask for the specific juice by name, even if you're not allowed to tell them what new ones are available.(I've also added this into stuff you can include in your letter.

Something else I feel I should add is just in case if anyone has seen the study from japan that says eCigarettes has 10 times the carcinogens than regular cigarettes. The way the study was conducted was without e-liquid or e-juice in it and the guy was just puffing on the ecigarette dry and at a higher temperature than what is recommended.

Links you should take a look at:

Want to see a good place that has great information check out this facebook page.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/VapersNetwork/ (This page has been active for 4 years or so.)

There is a common misconception about nicotine.

http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/13-nicotine-fix

If they are really concerned about Nicotine being present in front of children they would put out a public safety announcement about the nicotine content in these common household vegetables.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199308053290619

Propylene Glycol one of the main ingredients has been used in Asthma inhalers for years. It is also found in a large number of consumable products like Sour cream and Molasses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propylene_glycol

Here's a PDF that All MLA's should take a look at when considering the new bill that lumps ecigarettes and ecigarette users in the same classification as cigarette smokers.

https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fattachment.fbsbx.com%2Ffile_download.php%3Fid%3D653242561488334%26eid%3DAStFkyneBp_GsHNG7MAJhoxwuBoYCJF6h4hJF2tGQlYm4qvu0jKqx3aFs3_Rp5ct26Y%26ext%3D1425677951%26hash%3DAStQ-INZHO5nQ1jS&h=GAQHY2tec

Other things you can include in your letter:

Everyone keeps telling me oh its just not selling to minors but its much more than that it is being brought into the Tobacco Act period.

it's not enforced as strongly for tobacco (finding out what smokes are carried), but you can be damn sure it will be enforced like gangbusters with heavy fines in order to wipe out vaping stores.

the change in Section 2 Subsection 3 [changing cigarettes to tobacco products] is so they don't need to meet the rolled burnable product (because ejuice wouldn't fit the prerequisite).

IF [when] vaping is classified as a tobacco product, all devices and juices can then afterwards be easily amended to require them to fit the same requirements as all other tobacco products)... That can include how the paper or leaves must be wrapped around all vaping devices, what additional chemicals must be added to ejuice for 'safety' reasons [e.g. Salt Peter must be added to ejuice as it's required in tobacco products in order to act as a burn and flame retardant, and you will be required to include a filter like on cigarettes (which just happens to be like the carto system on 1st gen devices owned by.

IF [when] vaping is classified as a tobacco product, all devices and juices can then afterwards be easily amended to require them to fit the same requirements as all other tobacco products)... That can include how the paper or leaves must be wrapped around all vaping devices, what additional chemicals must be added to ejuice for 'safety' reasons [e.g. Salt Peter must be added to ejuice as it's required in tobacco products in order to act as a burn and flame retardant, and you will be required to include a filter like on cigarettes (which just happens to be like the carto system on 1st gen devices owned by tobacco companies.

tobacco flavoring legislation is already in place (and will be taking effect next year) banning all cigarette and tobacco flavoring... If vaping is classified under tobacco regulations, then that will be applicable as well (no need to pass it since it has already been passed, and now vaping would be required to meet all current regulations regarding cigarettes and tobacco as well)

Section 2 of the amendment means vape stores will not be permitted to have any juice on display (including websites, posters, decals, etc), they will be required to be behind sealed curtains at the very minimum, and you are not allowed to name off any brands or flavors - legally customers would be required to ask for the specific juice by name, even if you're not allowed to tell them what new ones are available.

you'll also have to shut down all vape store websites under Section 2.4 (1) (b)

Under Section 2.4 (1) (a), if vaping products are classified as Tobacco products, then you would also not be allowed to display mods, tanks, batteries, juice, or any other vaping related item in the store.

Section 11 Power To Make Regulations (too long to copy) it says they can change regulations as they want regarding display, promotion, packaging, testing requirements, submitting products for random demand sampling to the govt, product seizures and forfeitures, minimum number of bottles that must be sold per sale in order to be legal, requiring all bottles to be of a specific size/type, adding warning labels (and you know current cig packs are about 50% label size with warnings), content requirements, disclosure of ALL "health hazards and effects which arise or may arise from exposure by any means, whether voluntary or not, to tobacco or the emissions of tobacco", changing word and phrase definitions and restrictions, inclusion of restricted use in both public and private places, and [under Section 11 (4)] allows them to place different regulations and requirements for different "things" [i.e. they can make 1st gen cartomizer based tobacco companies exempt from individual requirements while making all other types non-compliant]

____________________________________________________________

If I have forgotten anything feel free to post about it. I strongly suggest people get their letters out as soon as possible. Seeing as today is friday and their office will be closed all weekend. We need to bring this to their attention as soon as possible.
 
essentially what this bill is doing is disallowing the use of e-cigs in schools and hospitals and making it more difficult for minors to get them.

what's the problem here?
 
So all 15 year olds are annoyed that they're trying to make e cigs like regular cigs and they won't be able to buy them anymore?
 
13360059:VinnieF said:
essentially what this bill is doing is disallowing the use of e-cigs in schools and hospitals and making it more difficult for minors to get them.

what's the problem here?

13360064:DrZoidberg said:
So all 15 year olds are annoyed that they're trying to make e cigs like regular cigs and they won't be able to buy them anymore?

Read the breakdown I posted. It basically prevents shop owners from telling people new product and putting products on display. There is a lot more than what meets the eye. Read the full thing I posted after "Other things you can include in your letter."

The age restriction is just to gain backers of the bill they have more plans than what appears to be their only motive.

Also if you want I just found this. Might be easier for people to sign. If a mod can add the following to original post at the end that would be awesome!

You can sign the petition here:

https://www.change.org/p/the-bc-government-stop-overreaching-regulations-on-e-cigarettes-and-prevent-the-ban-on-flavored-e-liquid
 
13360059:VinnieF said:
essentially what this bill is doing is disallowing the use of e-cigs in schools and hospitals and making it more difficult for minors to get them.

what's the problem here?

This and at least everyone is voluntarily testing the effects of inhaling propylene glycol a few times a day. that'll be interesting to see.
 
13360075:hotdog. said:
You could just quit smoking... now there is a novel idea.

It would be easier for people to quit if tobacco companies stopped engineering cigarettes to be the most addictive thing on earth.

Did you even read any of the information I posted, or did you just form an opinion on the knowledge you already have.
 
13360091:Lé.Skiing said:
It would be easier for people to quit if tobacco companies stopped engineering cigarettes to be the most addictive thing on earth.

E-cigs contain the same extremely addictive compound.
 
13360087:a_pla5tic_bag said:
This and at least everyone is voluntarily testing the effects of inhaling propylene glycol a few times a day. that'll be interesting to see.

Propaylene Glycol has been used in asthma inhalers for however long they have been around for. Where are the adverse effects from inhaling propaylene glycol?

13360094:Cirillo said:
E-cigs contain the same extremely addictive compound.

What's the addictive compound that you're referring to? Becasue there are thousands of chemicals in Cigarettes and over 150 known carcinogens.

Look at the main ingredients of ecigarettes: Propaylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, Nicotine, and Flavoring which is normally only like a few chemical mixtures.

All of the negative articles against ecigarettes are being challenged in courts because they go against actual scientific studies.
 
13360097:Lé.Skiing said:
Propaylene Glycol has been used in asthma inhalers for however long they have been around for. Where are the adverse effects from inhaling propaylene glycol?

I know, I'm a biochemist. I just want to see if using it in this manner has any effects cause I'm thinking people smoke way more times a day than people use an inhaler. If it's not nitrogen or oxygen, you're probably better off not inhaling it. inb4 pure nitrogen or oxygen is bad, that's a pop sci fact.
 
Looks like someone beat me to it.

Anyway I think you should be able to inhale whatever you want and some of the restrictions on this bill contains are ridiculous. I just think it's kind of dumb to view e-cigs as a completely safe alternative to cigarettes.
 
13360095:hotdog. said:
I already had all of the information that you posted, so no, I didnt read much of it.

Maybe you could have used the few brain cells you have to make the logical decision not to smoke. Its not like there hasn't been thousands of pages of research explaining the cancer causing effects of ciggarettes available to the general public for 30+ years. And the addictive properties...

So yea, I really dont have any sympathy for those who are addicted, or those who complain about rules related to any sort of smoking. You made a dumb decision, now use your will power (we all have it, quit being a bitch) and quit smoking. Its that simple. If you're weak minded enough to "need" cigarettes I feel bad for you.

On a different note, I have nothing against those who smoke, but please dont complain about "how hard it is to quit" or how much of a "hassle" it is to comply with laws. Stop smoking if it effects you that much. Its that simple.

I'm not even going to reply to people who say stuff like this(After this post) because you don't get that ecigarettes aren't dangerous and shouldn't be lumped into the same category as tobacco. There is a product that Saves peoples lives and they are trying to restrict the access people have to it. They are Demonizing an entire industry off of no grounds. I work for an eCigarette store and I don't care who knows it. We don't sell to kids underage. Want to know how many people have come in and quit smoking tobacco(think what you want to think about ecigs but it's not swapping one addiction for another. It would be like switching from Waffles with arsenic to waffles made from flour) within the same day? I can tell you it's a lot more than the people who use the patch or any other help quit smoking aid.

Also on the other quit smoking aids The Nicorette inhaler uses propaylene glycol.

You want to judge me? People end up with stressful shit in their life they have to deal with. Cigarettes have anti-depressants in them did you know that? That's how some people physically feel like they need a cigarette when stressed out.

Want to judge me because I smoke Well Maybe I'm going to judge you as a stupid child who lacks empathy. Grow the fuck up there are bigger problems at hand than why a smoker shouldn't have started in the first place.

Maybe some people started smoking before they fully understood the risks associated with it? Ever think of that? Now I have a Government trying to tell me what is ok and what is not. These eCigarettes follow the same guides as the nicorette inhaler and the reason people see them as just as bad as smoking is because they can actually see vapor. If a nicorette inhaler wasn't safe do you think you would see doctors prescribing it?
 
13360059:VinnieF said:
essentially what this bill is doing is disallowing the use of e-cigs in schools and hospitals and making it more difficult for minors to get them.

what's the problem here?

13360075:hotdog. said:
You could just quit smoking... now there is a novel idea.

/thread
 
13360098:hotdog. said:
There is nicotine in E-ciggs. Therefore, they contain the same extremely addictive substance, nicotine.

If you didn't know, nicotine is the main addictive compound found in cigarettes.

For someone who smokes you are seriously misinformed.

you are stupid. I already posted that nicotine isn't the addictive part of cigarettes. Looks like the tobacco companies have done a good job at telling lies because you actually believe them.

Read up on nicotine.
http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/13-nicotine-fix

I'm probably the most informed about ecigarettes because I know facts that aren't common misconceptions.
 
13360103:Cirillo said:
Looks like someone beat me to it.

Anyway I think you should be able to inhale whatever you want and some of the restrictions on this bill contains are ridiculous. I just think it's kind of dumb to view e-cigs as a completely safe alternative to cigarettes.

I'm not saying it's completely safe, but it's definitely safer than sitting in rush hour traffic and people do that every day.
 
13360127:Lé.Skiing said:
I'm not saying it's completely safe, but it's definitely safer than sitting in rush hour traffic and people do that every day.

i think its important people know that it isnt perfectly safe. Although it is much much better than smoking cigarettes.. most of these bills are setup by tobacco companies because the private vaping industry is hurting them really bad and they want people to only be able to buy their really shitty ecigs they sell at gas stations.
 
Sorry if I seem like I have blown up on anyone. I'm just passionate about this seeing as my job is kind of on the line here.

Here's a little PDF booklet some people might want to read up on.
http://online.pubhtml5.com/iqrs/prpb/#p=1

Also The whole nicotine being addictive is BS because People can't get addicted to tomatoes, potatoes or cauliflower. Those are some of the Common vegetables that contain nicotine. Nicotine isn't found in just tobacco. It's found in a lot of different things.

*************Off Topic alert*******************

When the Government wants to ban something they don't always give accurate results. Look at Marijuana it's a Schedule one narcotic in the US. That means they classify it as not having any medical use whatsoever. We all know that is complete BS because of all the studies that have proven time and time again that it does have medical properties.
 
Dude you are out of touch. While you accuse people of being brainwashed by big tobacco companies you don't consider, even for a minute, that you may have been brainwashed by the eciggarette industry. Hell, you admitted that you work in an ecig store.

Did you read any of those links you posted? I read one and you take everything so far out of context. You are comparing the nictine in vegetables to the nicotine in cigarettes/ecigs? Sorry I can't embed table 1 from this article because it is a flash format or something:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199308053290619

Let's use the eggplant as an example becuase that is the vegetable with the MOST nicotine (by far). You would have to eat 10 eggplants to have a comparable amount of nicotine that you would inhale if you sat in a room with minimal smoke for 3 hours. Translation: you would have to eat hundreds or thousands of eggplants to compare to the nicotine you inhale from one cig or ecig.

But that is irrelevant anyways because you said nicotine isn't bad. In fact, it is a miracle drug. So why even compare to the nicotine in vegetables? Your arguement is so riddled with flaws in your logic it makes my head hurt.

I haven't read the full bill you posted, what's the problem with it? You can't buy ecigs if you are under 18? You can't smoke them in certain places? They are going to be required to have similar health warnings on them as cigarettes? I still fail to see what the problem is.

PS: no one is reading your original post because you suck at writing. Condense your arguement down and figure out what your actual points are if you want anyone to have a valid response.
 
13360156:jensen said:
Dude you are out of touch. While you accuse people of being brainwashed by big tobacco companies you don't consider, even for a minute, that you may have been brainwashed by the eciggarette industry. Hell, you admitted that you work in an ecig store.

Did you read any of those links you posted? I read one and you take everything so far out of context. You are comparing the nictine in vegetables to the nicotine in cigarettes/ecigs? Sorry I can't embed table 1 from this article because it is a flash format or something:

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199308053290619

Let's use the eggplant as an example becuase that is the vegetable with the MOST nicotine (by far). You would have to eat 10 eggplants to have a comparable amount of nicotine that you would inhale if you sat in a room with minimal smoke for 3 hours. Translation: you would have to eat hundreds or thousands of eggplants to compare to the nicotine you inhale from one cig or ecig.

But that is irrelevant anyways because you said nicotine isn't bad. In fact, it is a miracle drug. So why even compare to the nicotine in vegetables? Your arguement is so riddled with flaws in your logic it makes my head hurt.

I haven't read the full bill you posted, what's the problem with it? You can't buy ecigs if you are under 18? You can't smoke them in certain places? They are going to be required to have similar health warnings on them as cigarettes? I still fail to see what the problem is.

PS: no one is reading your original post because you suck at writing. Condense your arguement down and figure out what your actual points are if you want anyone to have a valid response.

I have a lot of points to make about the common misleading information that anti-smoking companies(Which by the way are owned by people who have a special interest in tobacco companies) put out information on.

Look up Philip Morris. He is one of the main guys in the FDA and he owns a major tobacco company. This is so much bigger than anyone can really think and I am trying so hard not to sound like a conspiracy theorist by providing links and people still don't get it. You know how much money the anti-smoking lobbyists make every year? A lot! Now think if there's something that makes those people jobs obsolete are they just going to sit back and watch their jobs float away? no they are going to try and fight it to the bitter end. The thing is they put out a lot of misleading articles. There is actually a company fighting all these negative articles based on little to no evidence.

Take into account I have ADD and keep getting distracted while writing points.
 
13360156:jensen said:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199308053290619

Let's use the eggplant as an example becuase that is the vegetable with the MOST nicotine (by far). You would have to eat 10 eggplants to have a comparable amount of nicotine that you would inhale if you sat in a room with minimal smoke for 3 hours. Translation: you would have to eat hundreds or thousands of eggplants to compare to the nicotine you inhale from one cig or ecig.

Let me correct my own error in this post. It is 10 grams, not 10 eggplants. That translates to about 1/7 of an eggplant to ingest as much nicotine as sitting a room with MINIMAL smoke for three hours. I still assume you can make the comparison of sitting in a room with minimal smoke compared to actually smoking. I think it is safe to say that you get 100x more smoke by actually smoking than second hand in a room with minimal smoke. With that assumption, you would have to eat 70 eggplants to compare to one cigarette? How many eggplants do most peole eat in a day? How many cigarettes/ecigs do smokers smoke in a day?

Same argument for your point about prolyene glycol. Yes some food has it, but it is no where near what you get by smoking.
 
13360162:jensen said:
Come on man. I read the first paragraph of the second link you had posted, "While it is true that people smoke mostly because of nicotine"

You're own link is going against what you are saying. Nicotine is addictive.

That's what people think, they are smoking because that is what tobacco companies they have been telling people for years.

Magnesium in traditional cigarettes spikes the nicotine content in the blood stream(up to 10 times higher than smoking a cigarette without all the addetives). There are anti depressants in cigarettes to make people happy when they light up. There are so many chemicals in a cigarette and you don't think that maybe, just maybe those are all in there to keep people smoking?

Think about it, There are over 4,000 chemicals in a cigarette and you are 100% sure that nicotine is the only thing that keeps people smoking. There was a movie even made about how Cigarettes are a nicotine delivery device. The other chemicals they put in there are to keep people smoking. The movie is called "the insider", watch it.

There were scientist's that have tired to get mice addicted to nicotine but were having trouble getting the mice addicted to it because nicotine by itself isn't addictive.
 
13360059:VinnieF said:
essentially what this bill is doing is disallowing the use of e-cigs in schools and hospitals and making it more difficult for minors to get them.

what's the problem here?

I'm 10 years old and I wanna make sick vape edits that's the problem here
 
13360178:Lé.Skiing said:
That's what people think, they are smoking because that is what tobacco companies they have been telling people for years.

Magnesium in traditional cigarettes spikes the nicotine content in the blood stream(up to 10 times higher than smoking a cigarette without all the addetives). There are anti depressants in cigarettes to make people happy when they light up. There are so many chemicals in a cigarette and you don't think that maybe, just maybe those are all in there to keep people smoking?

Think about it, There are over 4,000 chemicals in a cigarette and you are 100% sure that nicotine is the only thing that keeps people smoking. There was a movie even made about how Cigarettes are a nicotine delivery device. The other chemicals they put in there are to keep people smoking. The movie is called "the insider", watch it.

There were scientist's that have tired to get mice addicted to nicotine but were having trouble getting the mice addicted to it because nicotine by itself isn't addictive.

Why would a cigarette by a "nicotine delivery device" if there is no point in having nicotine in a cigarette since it isn't addictive. It sounds to me like this is all....

Yeah-well-thats-just-like-your-opinion-man.jpg


Regardless, one of my main points here is that you are using facts (like there is nicotine in vegetables) to support your claim that there is nothing wrong with nicotine, when in reality those facts are completely irrelevent. The fact that you think the since there are traces of nicotine or propylene glycol in food that it is ok or comparable to cigarettes discredits your entire arguement (for reasons I have already stated above).
 
13360171:jensen said:
Are you even regulated by the FDA in Canada?

FDA is everywhere. The liquid we get is actually tested by the FDA. A lot of countries use the FDA, or have their own version of what the FDA is.

13360176:Cirillo said:
Philip Morris has been dead for over a hundred years.

yah, but he helped write the laws for the FDA. To me it just seems to much of a conflict of interest.

Again I feel I have to say I'm not trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist. I was just having to explain to people earlier on facebook that Nicotine isn't even a carcinogen.
 
13360185:Lé.Skiing said:
yah, but he helped write the laws for the FDA. To me it just seems to much of a conflict of interest.

Dude, he died in 1873 in Britian. The FDA wasn't founded until 1906.
 
So you missed dropping some sparknotes at the top mentioning what the bill is about and why we should care.

Honestly don't really give a fuck.
 
I'm done. I have said all I need to. If people still want to argue about it be my guest, but I'm going home so I can relax. If people want to support ecigs then support it. If you want to continue believing false information then go right ahead I don't think any amount of evidence will change your mind. I guess that smoking 4,000+ chemicals are better than vaping about 4-6. Sorry for trying to inform people.

Not everyone is going to agree with evidence even if it stares at them right in the face.

I have Homework for anyone that wants to learn about the tobacco industry. Watch the movie "The Insider" with Russell Crowe.

I'm done posting in this thread for the night.
 
13360185:Lé.Skiing said:
I was just having to explain to people earlier on facebook that Nicotine isn't even a carcinogen.

Man, don't use facebook as a soapbox for something that you 1. have a huge conflict of interest in and 2. is wrong. I said I was a biochemist before, I used to work in cancer research up until a couple months ago. I don't know that nicotine 'causes cancer' but I'm sure as hell that you shouldn't be going around on facebook telling people it's not a carcinogen. I think it's on very good authority that it promotes vascular growth and I'm sure it messes with loads of enzyme pathways that help already damaged cell populations reach full cancer status.

I mean here, a nature article, and look at the conclusion of this one, it's just like I thought - probably isn't the sole contributing factor to cancer but it helps cell populations that are a few steps away from being 'cancerous' become 'cancer'.

Leave the science to the scientists.
 
While your original topic post is diplomatic and professional, despite being incredibly biased, you're just spewing bullshit now. You are really, really cocky, and the fact is inhaling anything that isn't plain, unpolluted air into your body is most likely pretty bad for it (please don't post another article written by some opinionated college kid in favor of your argument against that statement)

Don't bullshit us saying that inhaling vaporized kurvkuyrsrga that I can't even pronounce, into your lungs constantly isn't bad for you. There are so many studies out there but 19/20 of them are performed by people who are already on a side and are willing to twist words and evidence just to support what they want.

I don't give a fuck what you think unless you are a nazi, obama, or someone who has power over me, but I'm sure as hell not cool with people like you shoving what your argument is down other peoples throats like the world will end over it.
 
Back
Top