VAPING IN CANADA - WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

Every Canadian interested in vaping should be reading this document: 

 

What Does The Law Say?

A Canadian Guide to Electronic Cigarettes and Related Canadian Law

SAVE THE E-CIGARETTE FROM EXTINCTION

Corporate interests are seriously threatening what some people call the best invention ever to help them quit smoking.  The following video from a concerned UK citizen  is a call to action to stop the e-cigarette from being medicalized.  As far as Canada goes, e-cigarettes containing nicotine have been banned.  Read the four letter correspondence C.A.G.E. exchanged with Health Canada on this issue starting here:  http://cagecanada.blogspot.ca/2009/05/e-cigarettes-letter-to-health-canada.html

E-Cigarette

ENGLISH WILL FOLLOW

La conclusion d'un papier très exhaustif que le professeur Robert Molimard a livré sur la cigarette électronique que vous pouvez lire ici:  http://www.formindep.org/Avec-la-cigarette-electronique-est.html   

La cigarette électronique est toujours un gadget. Mais sans publicité tapageuse, uniquement par le bouche à oreille et les forums spontanés, elle est en passe de supplanter tous les autres moyens d’arrêter le tabac, sans faire courir de risque évident. Ce n’en fait pas pour autant un médicament, pas plus que des antidépresseurs comme le chocolat ou le café. Ses possibles propriétés antibactériennes et antivirales pourraient être étudiées et exploitées. Les inconvénients sont mineurs, se bornant à une irritation des voies respiratoires loin d’atteindre celle de la fumée de tabac, et à des problèmes de fuites de liquides ou de problèmes de batteries qu’une progression technique croissante devrait rendre exceptionnels. Le prix est déjà tout à fait compétitif par rapport aux cigarettes de tabac et devrait baisser, la concurrence aidant si le marché continue à croître. Il est peu probable que le combat d’arrière-garde que livrent ses détracteurs, puritains ou lobbyistes au service d’intérêts financiers arrive à bloquer son développement. Une liste des critères de qualité des composants et des ingrédients dangereux paraît nécessaire, avec un contrôle des services de répression des fraudes, sans pour autant passer par une médicalisation. La cigarette électronique a un bel avenir, et je le crois heureux pour la santé publique.

The English translation of the conclusion of a very technical paper Pr. Robert Molimard published on e-cigarettes that you can read here in French:  http://www.formindep.org/Avec-la-cigarette-electronique-est.html

The electronic cigarette is still a gadget. But with no fancy ads, mostly made popular only through word of mouth and spontaneous forums,  it is about to supplant all other smoking cessation means and with no evident risk. This however does not make it a drug nor an antidepressant such as chocolate or coffee. Its antibacterial and antiviral properties could be possibly explored and exploited. The disadvantages are minor, mere  irritation of the respiratory tract far from that of tobacco smoke and some problems due to leakage of liquids or problems with batteries which should be mostly corrected with the growing future technology. The price is already quite competitive compared to tobacco cigarettes and is expected to decrease, thanks to increasing market competition. It is unlikely that the fighting rearguard action that deliver its detractors, puritans or lobbyists serving financial interests, will succeed to block its development. A list of the criteria for quality of components and hazardous ingredients does seem necessary, as well as fraud prevention services but without necessarily going through the  medicalization of the product. The electronic cigarette has a bright future, and I believe that this is fortunate for public health.

LETTER OF APPEAL TO THE WHO FROM CLIVE BATES: FIRST DO NO HARM

Clive Bates , a public policy adviser to the Welsh Government,  is a former  director of ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) .

Contrary to many, perhaps even most anti-smoker advocates who abide by the ''quit or die'' philosophy, he firmly believes  that  harm reduced products such as  smokeless tobacco and/or e-cigarettes are a much less risky alternative to those who refuse or cannot totally give up tobacco. 

This link  http://www.clivebates.com/?p=674 will take you to an open letter he has addressed to the delegates of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, COP-5, who are meeting in Seoul this week to discuss future global tobacco policy.   

A few  well known anti-tobacco advocates have also echoed his opinion in the comment section that the ''quit or die'' WHO policy is  counter-productive and seemingly motivated by interests other than the smoker's health.  

Hopefully, a majority of the delegates at the COP-5 convention will be governed by reason and evidence ( or lack thereof)  and vote down future policies that are designed to serve the interests of corporate funders of anti-tobacco and die-hard ideologists,  at the detriment of the people's health. 

Related reading on the COP-5 convention:  

How ignorant are powerful anti-THR people?

Big pharma cos behind campaign against tobacco: ITGA

World Health Agency Evicts Press, Public From Talks on Global Tobacco Tax

NICOTINE IS NOT NECESSARILY WHAT KEEPS PEOPLE SMOKING, SO WHY KEEP THE NICOTINE ADDICTION MYTH ALIVE?

 

Pr. Robert Molimard has been saying it for decades. Now Dr. Michael Siegel finally acknowledges it. Nicotine is not necessarily the sole reason or even the reason people smoke.

Excerpts from: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/11/obsession-with-nicotine-as-sole.html

''The tobacco control movement's obsession with nicotine as the sole factor in smoking addiction has contributed to its missing a golden opportunity to save lives: the development of electronic cigarettes. ''

''The tobacco control movement's pre-occupation with smoking cessation drugs that target nicotine receptors is not a coincidence. The movement is heavily funded by Big Pharma and has followed the money, rather than the best interests of the nation's smokers in finding ways to help them.''

And here is precisely what Pr. Molimard has been saying for as long as he studied tobacco:

''Since no formal evidence of dependence to pure nicotine has yet to be produced, the conclusion that nicotine alone is addictive is not a syllogism, but rather, pure sophistry.''

''And yet, against all scientific rigor, this fallacy was implanted through repetition, hammered in as an unassailable truth, all with the support of health authorities and politicians.''

 

'' Because having arbitrarily decided that nicotine alone explains tobacco dependence and having it engrained in the minds of doctors, the authorities and the public, any research on the other possible factors of this dependency is now excluded in advance and a vast new market is made available for commercial exploitation by the pharmaceutical industry. ''

http://cagecanada.blogspot.ca/2010/12/beliefs-manipulation-and-lies-in.html

ENFIN LES MÉDIAS QUÉBÉCOIS ET CANADIENS PARLENT DE LA CIGARETTE ÉLECTRONIQUE

Les médias québécois et canadiens parlent enfin de la cigarette électronique. Il n’est décidément pas trop tôt.

Analysons un article parue dans La Presse du 4 janvier 2012 portant le titre : Faut-il légaliser la cigarette électronique?

Quoi que le ton général de l’article est juste, il contient deux faussetés.

L’auteur nous relate que ‘’ La Food and Drug Administration, qui n'a pas juridiction sur les produits du tabac, a publié un communiqué soulignant que les cigarettes électroniques contiennent «des éléments cancérigènes comme le propylène de glycol, un ingrédient qu'on trouve dans l'antigel’’.

Contrairement à ce que le journaliste nous rapporte, La Food and Drug Administration a pleine juridiction sur les produits du tabac depuis 2009. Elle a perdue une bataille légale lorsqu’elle a tenté d’interdire les cigarettes électroniques sous le prétexte qu’elles étaient un produit pharmaceutique qui devait être réglementé comme tel. La cour a statué que c’était un produit du tabac. Puisque le tabac est une substance légale, les cigarettes électroniques ne peuvent conséquemment être bannies en attendant des études scientifiques plus approfondies qui impliquent des centaines de milliers de dollars et plusieurs années d’attente. Lire notre lettre à Santé Canada et leur réponse à cet effet : http://www.cagecanada.blogspot.com/2011/04/e-cigarettes-letter-to-health-canada-re.html

Aussi, il ne faut pas confondre l’ethylène glycol avec le propylène glycol. Ce dernier n’est pas reconnu pour être cancérigène. Il est approuvé par Santé Canada pour des usages multiples y compris en tant qu'additif dans les aliments. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/cps-spc/pest/part/consultations/_prvd2008-17/index-fra.php et http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/addit/diction/dict_food-alim_add-fra.php .  En plus des études démontrent qu'il est sans danger lorsqu’on l’inhale. Preclinical safety evaluation of inhaled cyclosporine in propylene glycol.

Maintenant que les langues des journalistes se sont déliées sur ce sujet (voir aussi un article anglais à cet effet au http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/02/jesse-kline-e-smoke-em-if-you-got-em/ , espérons que nous obtiendrons non seulement de l’information plus précise par rapport à cette merveilleuse invention au fur et à mesure que les journalistes s’instruisent davantage, mais que Santé Canada cessera de protéger les intérêts de l’industrie pharmaceutique (qui voit les profits de ses produits nicotiniques fondre au même rythme que la e-cigarette gagne en popularité) et suivra l’exemple de la plupart des pays occidentaux qui permettent sa vente et utilisation.

LES PROFITS DES GÉANTS PHARMACEUTIQUES SONT MENACÉS

Nous vous dirigeons vers deux articles (au bas de la page) d’un très grand intérêt, publiés dans le site http://www.unairneuf.org . 

Le premier rapporte les résultats d’une étude récente sur le Champix, médicament prescrit pour la cessation du tabagisme.  L’étude ( PLoS ONE: Suicidal Behavior and Depression in Smoking Cessation Treatments ) conclut que les risques pour des problèmes d’ordre psychiatrique chez les utilisateurs sont beaucoup plus élevés que pour le médicament Zyban et les produits nicotiniques qu’on trouve en vente libre dans les pharmacies.  Sans grande surprise, Pfizer dément ces allégations et conduit sa propre étude avec une date projetée pour la publication des résultats en 2017. Study Links Chantix to Suicide Risk, but FDA Disagrees

Encore cinq ans à profiter des revenus que Champix rapporte est certes très intéressant pour Pfizer, mais qu’en est-il des fumeurs à qui on continuera de prescrire ce médicament susceptible à mener jusqu’au suicide? 

     

Le deuxième article expose les craintes de l’industrie pharmaceutique en rapport avec la menace que la cigarette électronique présente pour leurs profits.  Rappelons-nous que la cigarette électronique est bannie au Canada mais est légale en France et dans la grande majorité des autres pays occidentaux  y compris les États-Unis.  Lire ici (en anglais) la correspondance de C.A.G.E. avec Santé Canada :  http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2009/05/e-cigarettes-letter-to-health-canada.html 

Pfizer conteste la majoration des risques par Champix (varénicline)

La cigarette électronique menace le business des anti-tabac, sérieusement

PLAYING WITH WORDS - HEALTH CANADA'S REPLY TO OUR LATEST APPEAL TO RECONSIDER THEIR STAND ON E-CIGARETTES

Here is Health Canada’s reply to our latest appeal to them to reconsider their stand on electronic cigarettes. 

Health Products and Food Branch 

Inspectorate

Graham Spry Building, 3rd Floor

250 Lanark Avenue

Address Locator #2003C

Ottawa, Ontario

K1A 0K9

July 11, 2011

Thank you for your correspondence dated April 30, 2011 and your request that Health Canada reconsiders its controversial stand on banning the import and marketing of electronic nicotine delivery devices commonly known as e-cigarettes.  We apologize for the delay in our response. 

 

The recent U.S. FDA announcement about its intent to regulate electronic cigarettes as tobacco products when not associated with therapeutic claims will not change the regulation of electronic cigarette products in Canada.  Analysis of the US decision indicate that it is based on very different wording found in the United States Tobacco Act compared to the Canadian Tobacco Act.

Electronic cigarettes will continue to fall within the scope of the Food and Drugs Act because they deliver nicotine, a drug, to a consumer.  All other nicotine containing products, other than naturally sourced nicotine in cigarettes, cigars, etc, have been assessed under the Food and Drug Regulations.  Currently since all approved nicotine products are now non-prescription drugs they fall under the Natural Health Products Regulations.   However, nicotine intended for an electronic cigarette is not exempted from prescription status.  Accordingly, market authorization must be granted by Health Canada prior to the importation and sale of these products in Canada.  In this regard, Health Canada’s approach is in line with the recommendations of the World Health Organisation. 

Yours Truly,

Diana Dowthwaite

Director General 

It is quite clear that according to Health Canada the health of an individual is at the mercy of ‘’different wording’’ and ‘’different acts’’ and that all that matters is that a substance contained in a product occurs naturally as opposed to being extracted from the plant and added to a delivery device.   Little does it matter to Health Canada that that is precisely the process the pharmaceutical industry uses to manufacture different nicotine delivery devices such as inhalers, patches, gums and lozenges and it matters even less to them that the tobacco industry has been (rightly or wrongly) under attack for years for free-basing nicotine to give it a more potent ‘’hit’’ and that there is nothing ‘’natural’’ about that process.  Irrelevant to them that thousands if not millions of smokers throughout the world who wanted to quit have successfully managed to do so with a device that has so far not only proven to be many times more effective than pharmaceutical overpriced nicotine replacement therapy but that has also no documented case of harm since its approximately 7-year existence. 

Dear fellow citizens, the next time your father, aunt, uncle, or grandmother complain that smoking conventional cigarettes worsens their emphysema symptoms yet they find it impossible to renew their supply of nicotine for their e-cigarette because Health Canada does not approve of harm reduction, please set them straight immediately and stress to them that ‘’emphysema’’ is now called COPD and that wording is of utmost importance when one wants to improve their health.