Subject:
Please Oppose bills that would define smoke-free vapor products as combustible tobacco

Message:
I am writing to express my deep concern and opposition regarding SB 5 and AB 6, which would recklessly redefine “smoking” and “tobacco product” to include smoke-free, tobacco-free electronic cigarettes and vapor products in existing tobacco regulations. Although I am supportive of prohibiting sales of vapor products to minors, these bills go too far by limiting adult access to and awareness of these products and will put the nearly 1,500 California businesses that exclusively retail or wholesale these new technology products at a competitive disadvantage to existing sellers of combustible tobacco products. The state should not misrepresent the risks of these smoke-free and often nicotine-free alternatives, as doing so will effectively discourage current adult smokers from making the switch and improving their health. Other governments are taking exactly the opposite tact; Public Health England (the government public health agency) recently explicitly endorsed a policy of encouraging smokers to switch to e-cigarettes and vapor products (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/e-cigarettes-an-evidence-update).

While there may be merit in providing for better enforcement of California’s existing ban on sales of vapor products to minors, SB 5/AB 6 do so in an overly simplistic fashion. By redefining the phrase “tobacco product” to include these tobacco-free devices, these bills pull vapor product retailers into a host of other laws that aren’t even listed in the bill. The California vapor industry is growing and consumers are benefitting from this. Rather than try to fit a square peg in a round hole (regulating products that don’t even contain nicotine or tobacco, like devices, as “tobacco”), the State should separately regulate these technology products.

There is no evidence-based reason to prohibit the use of vapor products where smoking is not permitted. Smoking laws are ostensibly enacted to protect the public from the harm of secondhand smoke, but smoke-free e-cigarettes have not been shown to cause harm to bystanders. In fact, all evidence to date shows that the low health risks associated with e-cigarettes are comparable to other smokeless nicotine products. A comprehensive review conducted by Dr. Igor Burstyn of Drexel University School of Public Health (and published in a peer-reviewed journal earlier this year - http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/14/18/abstract ) examined over 9,000 observations of e-cigarette liquid and vapor and found "no apparent concern" for bystanders exposed to e-cigarette vapor, even under "worst case" assumptions about exposure.

There is clear evidence of a phenomenon called “accidental quitting,” wherein many of the smokers who initially choose e-cigarettes to use just where smoking is prohibited go on to quit smoking conventional cigarettes completely. Prohibiting the use of e-cigarettes in public spaces completely eliminates that incentive to even try e-cigarettes. Unfortunately, the health risks of every one smoker who doesn’t quit because e-cigarette use is prohibited (and the risks to the children and others who live with them) cumulatively outweigh any good done by eliminating the minuscule exposures to even hundreds of bystanders in public spaces.

Clearly, the benefits of allowing smokers to use e-cigarettes in public--and thereby increasing the likelihood of “accidental quitting” and reducing the known, extremely high health risks of smoking--outweigh the very low risks of insignificant exposures to bystanders. So not only is there no genuine public health reason to prohibit e-cigarette use in public spaces, but, in fact, allowing e-cigarettes to be used in public spaces will actually improve public health by inspiring other smokers to switch and reduce their health risks by an estimated 99%. Besides, with many California cities and counties having already taken control of this issue, why is a state law necessary?

While I understand some have expressed a fear about these products acting as a “gateway” to traditional cigarettes for youth, there is no evidence to suggest this is really happening, and research actually shows it is unlikely to happen to any substantial extent. Teen smoking rates are at their lowest point since smoking became popular and continue to drop, but there are adults who will continue to smoke until they die unless we provide effective alternatives that they can enjoy.

I urge you to oppose these bills and any legislation that would limit where smoke-free products like e-cigarettes can be used. It is imperative that existing adult smokers become aware of all the alternatives currently available and that access to these products remains unimpeded.

I look forward to your response on this issue. I, along with my fellow members of CASAA (Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association), thank you for considering my comments and hope you will oppose misguided attempts to limit adult use of smoke-free e-cigarettes.