So I wrote another letter...

Just went out to all members of the Ontario Legislature regarding their proposed anti vaping legislation. It's another long one, but hey! I was sticking up for granny and I got to use the word platypus in a sentence...

Grab a coffee, have a vape, and read on...

Premier Wynne, Associate Health Minister Damerla, MLA’s of Ontario, et al;

My name is MadMeathead and I am at this time an eight week ex-smoker. I switched from a 32 year habit of smoking (a combustion driven nicotine delivery method which has been statistically shown to result in early mortality for 50% of its users), to vaping (which recent studies have shown to be orders of magnitude safer than the combustion process due to the cleaner delivery of nicotine without the tar, carbon monoxide, and 6-7000 other contaminants found in a cigarette).

While I am a resident of Alberta, I do have a considerable stake in Bill 45, Schedule 3 – Electronic Cigarettes Act, 2014. In the eight weeks since I have quit smoking I have been responsible for contributing in excess of $1000 dollars to Ontario small business concerns to source my hardware and e-liquid supplies. I spend on average 40-50 dollars a week on liquids from Ontario liquid manufacturers alone, and because I consolidate my purchases I order my hardware from the same vendors. I also encourage others making the switch to do the same. I recently helped a co-worker to make his initial purchase through an Ontario vendor and his starter kit put 230 Alberta dollars into Ontario small business.

Bill 45, Schedule 3 as it is written will prohibit that money from moving from my wallet to your economy. So I am writing to you to discuss Bill 45, Schedule 3. In particular section 3 as a consumer and section 10 as a former smoker/current vaper.

I chose Ontario because I chose to do business with members of the Electronic Cigarette Trade Association of Canada (www.ectaofcanada.com). Since 2011, ECTA of Canada has done what no Canadian Government has done. They regulated their own organization to ensure standards were in place to make sure their customers are informed and safe. ECTA banned sales to minors from conception; their shops are access restricted by age. ECTA applied existing labeling standards for liquids including contents, poison symbols, warnings, and bilingual print. ECTA mandated child proof caps for all of its liquid manufacturers as well as a liquid testing regimen through a Health Canada accredited laboratory (Enthalpy Labs) to test for accuracy of contents as advertised, known potential hazards, and quality control. No bill put forward in Canada to this point has done that, including yours.

So ECTA members get my consumer respect, and my money. It turns out most of those vendors are in Ontario.

 

On Bill 45 – Schedule 3

 

Section 2 – Banning Sales to Minors

Not a single argument from me, or likely from any vaper/ex-smoker, or vendor.

 

Section 3 – Display etc.

These are not cigarettes where you just declare your brand and then make your purchase. In fact in most cases they do not remotely resemble cigarettes, nor are they as intuitive as cigarettes; they are electric devices with closer relation to cell phones or in some cases computers. New users require instruction on operation and safety. If I passed a “Kanger EVOD” (a common beginner device) around the chamber, fewer than 25% of the seated MLA’s would be able to turn the device on without instruction, never mind load the liquid, change the coil when required, clean the unit, or charge the battery. This will result in smokers continuing to smoke due to steep learning curves and frustration. Remember when you tried to teach grandma how to use the internet in the 90’s? Grandmas buy vaporizers too. A surprising number of them actually.

Further; display and promotion bans will shut down internet websites and folks like me who choose to support the only Canadian trade association that mandates regulation for safety and quality control, would in many cases, be unable to contribute to your economy. A conservative estimate based on my current e-liquid consumption and hardware requirements ($40.00 a week for liquids and 20% for assorted maintenance hardware) would come in at 2,496 dollars a year. This isn’t upgrading to a new 300 dollar device, this is standard consumables; but upgrades definitely happen, and they would happen where I spend the rest of my money.

I am just one consumer from Alberta contributing to your economy. Last week I convinced two others to do the same thing. Next week I have several folks who have asked me to help them make the switch.

Vaping is currently understood to be a 2.5 Billion dollar industry worldwide, is growing at a profound pace, and according to some is expected to outpace tobacco sales sometime in the next decade a smokers who could not or would not escape, transition to harm reduction.

To avoid this language should be introduced to the effect that if a business is;

A)      Dedicated and solely focused on sale of electronic cigarettes, and or any part or liquid used within or in operation of an electronic cigarette; and

B)      Does not sell tobacco products; and

C)      Is age restricted at the door so that minors may not be present within the business; and

D)     Follows Identification legislation where applicable and as Identified in the Bill (Act); then

That business may display and promote e-cigarettes, and associated liquids/hardware within the boundaries of that business or website for the business. To include instruction, consultation, troubleshooting and handling of the device.

 

Section 10 – Prohibition

Let me start with; Vaping is not smoking.

Smoking requires the incomplete combustion of tobacco products. It is the incomplete combustion that creates the harm for users and bystanders. Not the nicotine. We have 50 years of evidence demonstrating harm from both ends of a cigarette.

Vaping has no tobacco, no combustion (incomplete or otherwise) and studies done to this point show it is magnitudes of order safer than a combustible cigarette. Do not legislate based on fear and 20 years of dehumanizing smokers based on plumes and nicotine.

A platypus has a bill. That does not make it a duck no matter how similar the nosepiece.

No vaping in playgrounds, schools, civic buildings, etc. is denormalization. This makes sense as we are not looking to flout an adult product where children are often present.

Sending smokers outside into the weather, removing their heat and shelter (see “Roof” stipulation in Bill 45) is dehumanizing. We have all seen seniors out beside the road in front of a retirement home in the dead of winter. I didn’t like it as a smoker (and still don’t actually) but government and society are convinced that both the senior, and I, deserve (d) to be there. It is/was our penance for our legal action.

Sending vapers out to the same area? You are mandating that a non-smoker, who made a conscious choice to use a safer alternative, must perform that safer alternative in a known hazardous atmosphere.

Beyond the whole “Let’s have an AA meeting at the pub during happy hour” Monty Python skit; you are asking myself and others to knowingly expose ourselves to the very carcinogens we are trying to divorce ourselves from. The same second hand smoke that every government in Canada has touted for over ten years will cause serious harm non-smokers; you are mandating that I, now a non-smoker, who otherwise would not be subjected to the tar, carbon monoxide, and many other known poisons while vaping, must go stand in a cloud of all those poisons.

An order of magnitude safer delivery system for those who are trying to quit smoking; That by law must be performed in a cloud of second hand smoke.

 

Getting back to granny in the vape shop. Teaching granny how to use the device means you have to let granny use the device. Trouble shooting granny’s device means you have to use the device. Granny is also going to have to find a palatable flavour to help her get past her tobacco dependency. At 20 dollars a bottle that’s an expensive trial and error process so shops tend to have sample bars where granny can find something she likes that works for her (let’s just get this out there now, granny has taste buds, and they are probably going to get better, she likes what she likes, even if it is fruit or candy. Granny may just have a bottle of liquor at home that may taste like fruit or candy, which across Canada is perfectly legal. In fact check your own liquor cabinets at home. Unless you are drinking unflavoured grain alcohol, you may be enticing the neighbor children).

As with display within a dedicated vape shop, language should be added so that if a business is

A)      Dedicated and solely focused on sale of electronic cigarettes, and or any part or liquid used within or in operation of an electronic cigarette; and

B)      Does not sell tobacco products; and

C)      Is age restricted at the door so that minors may not be present within the business; and

D)     Follows Identification legislation where applicable and as Identified in the Bill (Act); then

That business may allow the use of those devices within the premises. To include instruction, consultation, troubleshooting, handling and use of the device and or liquid sampling devices.

In fact given that there is no proof of immediate or long term, equal or increased harm compared to smoking in the use of e-cigarettes (in fact current studies show the opposite) and that we are not supposed to be fear based or discriminatory in our legislative proceedings. A privately owned business that through legislation bans minors from the premises should be able to set their own standards regarding vaping until such time that there is factual evidence that supports a safety or health related curtailment.

 

It was a long letter. To sum up;

Your bill in its current form will protect tobacco interests by discouraging those who might otherwise choose a safer direction. Statistics say 50 percent of those who continue with their current tobacco dependency will suffer a premature mortality rate.

Your bill in its current form will stifle small vaping business in Ontario (I can’t find a single vape shop owned either in whole or in part by tobacco interests within your province).

Your bill actually does not speak to packaging, testing, and quality control of these products for consumers and consumer safety, it is focused solely on restrictions. Please visit the www.ectaofcanada.com and read the scientific studies and requirements of membership. Further studies have been compiled at the Tobacco Harm Reduction Association of Canada www.thra.ca.

The best way to protect the children is to age limit the shops, similar to liquor stores and drinking establishments. ECTA and indeed the vast majority of vape shops have already done this.

Allowing vaping rules to be set in adult establishments by establishment owners until such time as there is a factual reason beyond “It looks like smoking”, “I don’t like it”, “Someone told me it has X in it” or my favorite “We just don’t know”, protects the children by keeping us off the sidewalk out of public view and encourages and supports more smokers to try a safer alternative to their current destructive path.

 

Thank you for your time,

MadMeathead

 

(Address Culled)

www.meatheads-madness.blogspot.ca