Page 1 of 1

Template Letter - Nip it in the Bud?

PostPosted: Sat Mar 17, 2012 9:44 am
by TeaRowz
It occurred to me that, given my situation, it may be more effective to enlighten the people who have the most immediate influence over how I live about electronic cigarettes before having to take action when a ban is being considered.

Yesterday I emailed a letter to my state's housing authority, and department of human services. I offer a copy of that letter here as a template for others to edit and use.

________________________________________________


A Life-Saving Consideration

If you aren't now, you might soon be involved in a decision regarding the use of electronic cigarettes in public housing. Given the plethora of misinformation about these devices, it is crucial to bring the facts to light. It isn't overly dramatic to say that decisions made about electronic cigarette use could literally mean the difference between life and death.

I'm confident that no one would want to inadvertently be responsible for loss of life as a result of a decision made based on lack of information, or misinformation.

Please consider the following...

Let's say that a new kind of alcoholic drink was developed that would give the user the desired effects like relaxation, but that wasn't harmful to one's health, and didn't impair judgment or motor coordination. This new development would have the potential to prevent tens of thousands of medically- and vehicular-caused deaths per year. Who wouldn't approve of such an alcoholic drink? The alcohol industry, that's who.

This is a similar, but real situation with electronic cigarettes. The tobacco, and pharmaceutical (smoking cessation products) industries stand to lose a lot of money because of this relatively new invention. It's impossible to know how much money and power these industries are wielding in their fight against electronic cigarettes, but it's a safe bet that it's a lot. And in that fight, the propagation of misinformation about the harm of electronic cigarettes is their best weapon.

When the the science and facts are understood about electronic cigarettes, none of the arguments against them by any money interested/invested groups hold up. These devices have been on the market since 2004, and there has yet to be any evidence showing they are any more harmful than the nicotine patches, inhalers and gums on the market.

In 2010, the Hon. Judge Richard J. Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia stated that the FDA has failed to produce any evidence that electronic cigarettes have harmed anyone (and this includes the bystander/'second-hand smoke' issue).

William T. Godshall, the executive director of SmokeFree Pennsylvania, has stated, “E-cigarettes could replace much or most of cigarette consumption in the U.S. in the next decade.” His group has previously campaigned for higher cigarette taxes, smoke-free public places and graphic warnings on cigarette packs, but he now finds himself at odds with many of his former allies over the question of e-cigarettes. “There is no evidence that e-cigarettes have ever harmed anyone, or that youths or nonsmokers have begun using the products,” Mr. Godshall said. On a scale of harm from 1 to 100, where nicotine gums and lozenges are 1 and cigarettes are 100, he estimated that e-cigarettes are no higher than 2.

In 2010, there were an estimated one million people in the U.S. who used e-cigarettes. There can be found online innumerable accounts of those whose physical health has improved drastically with the use of e-cigarettes (including mine).

To ban them would probably lead people to go back to smoking tobacco cigarettes which would be a guaranteed death sentence for many. (Also, such bans would more than likely create a black market for electronic cigarettes creating yet another problem for the state and federal governments.)

And I ask you to ponder how banning electronic cigarettes can possibly be justified when tobacco cigarettes, which kill 443,000 people annually (including deaths from secondhand smoke) are still legal? The only reason this can happen is money. Again, this shows an unconscionable disregard for human life when a lot of money is involved.

I am a fifty-seven year old woman who, because I already had a very poor quality of life, nearly committed suicide when tobacco cigarettes were banned at my Maine apartment complex. If not for the option of e-cigarettes, I wouldn't be here to write this today. While mine was an extreme situation, it's demonstrates one of the many personal situations that would be adversely affected if electronic cigarettes are banned.

If/when you are faced with the decision of whether or not to ban the use of electronic cigarettes, you may hear many emotional pleas not to ban them. Life and death are emotional issues. The problem remains that the interests of "Big Money" almost always trump the emotions, the health, and even the lives of the common people.

I am appealing to your own emotions, and to your consciences, to make the right decision that would help save the health and lives of so many of your fellow citizens. If emotional appeals aren't enough, please fully understand the facts about electronic cigarettes before making your decision.

A good place to start is by reading "E-cigarettes and Smoke-free Policies" at: http://casaa.org/uploads/Ecigarettes...e_policies.pdf.