It is vital that every one of your staff members are aware of the current regulations and actually, the future of your business depends on it!

To Download files, click the Download PDF button on the toolbar at the top of each document.

Fact Sheet – Flavours

Fact Sheet – Nicotine Content and Health Benefit Claims

Fact Sheet – Promotions

Fact Sheet – Youth

Canada Consumer Product Safety Act – Info Sheet

Food and Drugs – Info Sheet

Harm Reduction Journal 2017 14:61

Received: 20 June 2017
Accepted: 29 August 2017
Published: 6 September 2017

Source DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-017-0187-5

Abstract

Background

In December 2016, the Surgeon General published a report that concluded e-cigarette use among youth and young adults is becoming a major public health concern in the United States of America.

Methods

Re-analysis of key data sources on nicotine toxicity and prevalence of youth use of e-cigarettes cited in the Surgeon General report as the basis for its conclusions.

Results

Multiple years of nationally representative surveys indicate the majority of e-cigarette use among US youth is either infrequent or experimental, and negligible among never-smoking youth. The majority of the very small proportion of US youth who use e-cigarettes on a regular basis, consume nicotine-free products. The sharpest declines in US youth smoking rates have occurred as e-cigarettes have become increasingly available. Most of the evidence presented in the Surgeon General’s discussion of nicotine harm is not applicable to e-cigarette use, because it relies almost exclusively on exposure to nicotine in the cigarette smoke and not to nicotine present in e-cigarette aerosol emissions. Moreover, the referenced literature describes effects in adults, not youth, and in animal models that have little relevance to real-world e-cigarette use by youth. The Surgeon General’s report is an excellent reference document for the adverse outcomes due to nicotine in combination with several other toxicants present in tobacco smoke, but fails to address the risks of nicotine decoupled from tobacco smoke constituents. The report exaggerates the toxicity of propylene glycol (PG) and vegetable glycerin (VG) by focusing on experimental conditions that do not reflect use in the real-world and provides little discussion of emerging evidence that e-cigarettes may significantly reduce harm to smokers who have completely switched.

Conclusions

The U.S. Surgeon General’s claim that e-cigarette use among U.S. youth and young adults is an emerging public health concern does not appear to be supported by the best available evidence on the health risks of nicotine use and population survey data on prevalence of frequent e-cigarette use. Nonetheless, patterns of e-cigarettes use in youth must be constantly monitored for early detection of significant changes. The next US Surgeon General should consider the possibility that future generations of young Americans will be less likely to start smoking tobacco because of, not in spite of, the availability of e-cigarettes.

It is a concise and pointed guide that business owners and/or staff can follow to have a positive and poignant meeting with their Member of Parliament.

Do not be discouraged if your MP does not know much (or anything) about Bill S-5. It just might not be on their radar, “yet.” Communication is our best and most readily available weapon to affect positive change in Bill S-5.

Find your MP by Postal Code on this website: CLICK HERE

Version 1.1: 17-03-12 Created by Amelia Howard

Outline

Why you need to meet with your MP

How to get a meeting

Goals of the meeting

What to say to your MP

Stay Focused

What NOT to say to your MP

Know your business and have answers to the following questions (if you are asked)

Resources you could leave with your MP

Following up

Myths about Bill S-5

Myths about the product

Myths about the industry

Is vaping a gateway to smoking?

references:

license

about this document

Licensed for redistribution under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License

The original document can be downloaded from HERE.

DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.02.026

ScienceDirect

University of Buffalo News Center also published an article on this study which included these points of significance:

• those study participants who vape daily reported e-cigarettes as “at least as satisfying” as cigarettes, and that 58 percent said vaping was “much more” satisfying.
• “The results argue that satisfaction, perceived harm or danger and product type seem to all work together to promote use or avoidance,” said Lynn Kozlowski
• “The mistaken belief that e-cigarettes are more harmful than cigarettes can influence some smokers to not use e-cigs. If the type of product they use is less satisfying, this also can influence likelihood of use,” Kozlowski, PhD, added.
• policies that have been implemented based on the belief that e-cigarettes are fundamentally lacking in satisfaction compared to cigarettes
• The concern that vaping acts as a “gateway” to cigarettes is more credible if vaping is less satisfying than smoking. For vaping products that are much more satisfying than cigarettes and also perceived as less dangerous than cigarettes, it is less likely that users would want to switch to cigarettes in the future,
• our findings indicate that that the non-cigalike vaping products can be very satisfying,
• “There is growing evidence that the cigalike products are less effective at delivering nicotine than the newer types of vaping products,” Kozlowski said.
• “Those who try to exaggerate fears of vaping products should consider their role in keeping smokers smoking,” he said. “Telling people only that no product is ‘safe’ is an irresponsible message.”

Abstract

We assessed the roles of perceived satisfaction and perceived danger and vaping-product-type as correlates of more frequent use of vaping products. In a baseline assessment of a longitudinal study of US Army Reserve/National Guard Soldiers and their partners (New York State, USA, 2014–2016), participants were asked about current use of vaping products (e-cigarettes) and perceived satisfaction and danger in comparison to cigarettes as well as type of product used. Fisher-exact tests and multiple ordinal logistic regressions were used. In multivariable and univariate models, more perceived satisfaction, less perceived danger, and use of non-cig-alike products were associated with more frequent use of vaping products (ps < 0.05, two-tailed). For self-selected, more frequent adult users, e-cigs can be at least as satisfying as cigarettes and often more satisfying and are perceived as less dangerous than cigarettes. Non-cig-alike products were more likely in daily users. Some concern that e-cigs are a gateway to cigarettes arises from assuming that e-cigs may not be as reinforcing and pleasurable as cigarettes. These results indicate that accurate perception of comparative risk and use of more effective-nicotine delivery product can produce for some users a highly-satisfying alternative to cigarettes.

Today, the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) released its report “Vaping and the Law,” (shown below) the first ever comprehensive study of e-cigarette regulations in Canada.

In a Press Release today, they state:

New Canadian Constitution Foundation Report Reveals Major Problems with Canadian Vaping Laws

Additionally, they say:

These laws and proposed laws threaten the industry’s ability to grow and maximise the significant public health and financial benefits of encouraging cigarette smokers and would be smokers to switch to less-harmful e-cigarette technologies.

Further, because e-cigarettes are a proven harm-reduction tool and an aid to cigarette smokers trying to break their life-threatening habit, impeding Canadians’ access to e-cigarette technology may violate section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of the person.

Their statement regarding the newly introduced Senate Bill S-5 should be most concerning of all:

Unfortunately, our analysis of Bill S-5 shows that the federal government, while paying lip-service in its communications to the harm-reduction potential of e-cigarettes, is planning to make it much harder for smokers to learn about the benefits of switching to e-cigarette technology or to access and adopt e-cigarette technology.

We are being told by government officials that the bill is flexible enough to “make changes” without much effort. This is true and a less restrictive future is being implied (the aforementioned lip-service?). The risk being that Bill S-5 still has vapor products closely aligned with tobacco products.

Nothing about tobacco product regulation has been, nor will they ever be less restrictive than they are today. This opens the industry to risk of complete eventual prohibition if it were placed in the hands of a puritan or prohibitionist legislator.

Consumers and businesses all know that vapour products are harm reduction products, not tobacco products.

There are many things in this bill that require revision. Not the lease of which, the bill immediately puts a gag on businesses from even telling smokers that the products are 95-97% less harmful based on public, published scientific evidence. Forcing the industry to withhold evidence based truth from their consumers borders criminal.

The Canadian Constitution Foundation is concerned about the topic and issues identified in this report and will continue to monitor and report on any new vaping
legislation enacted within Canada with respect to their impact on the constitutional rights of Canadians.

E-cigarettes present our nation with an enormous health-care opportunity with the potential to save lives and billions of dollars in taxpayer money.

Until the recommendations in this report can be implemented, the Canadian Constitution Foundation asks legislators to educate themselves on the actual evidence about the relative benefits of e-cigarettes over combustible cigarettes, the public-health approach to e-cigarettes adopted in the United Kingdom, and to bear in mind the constitutional issues implicated in regulating healthier alternatives to combustible cigarettes.

To avoid constitutional scrutiny and future litigation, e-cigarette legislation should not erect irrational or arbitrary legal barriers that unnecessarily impede or inhibit
smokers from switching from combustible cigarettes to demonstrably healthier ecigarettes.

Such needless barriers include treating e-cigarettes as if they are traditional combustible tobacco products, banning e-juice flavours, prohibiting access for youth with proper permission, restricting the discretion of vape shop owners to demonstrate products to customers, and failing to educate smokers about the benefits of switching to e-cigarettes or their effectiveness as a harm reduction tool.

Please read the CCF Press Release and their report below. We strongly encourage everyone to schedule a face-to-face meeting with your Federal MP or a Senator to discuss the concerns with this bill. EVERY individual can make a difference in the future of vapour products.

The full report can be downloaded from their website here.

To request a hard-copy of the report or to support the work of the CCF, please go here.

Source Article: Click Here

Though we haven’t always seen eye to eye when it comes to vaping products, it seems we have quite a few common concerns about this bill.

Download this PDF directly from their website: CLICK HERE

In this interview, they discuss the World Health Organization / COP7 Conference this year in Delhi, India which (as was with COP6) closed their sessions to the media when Vaping Products were discussed.

When we saw the title of the episode, we thought we were about to be destroyed by yet “another” media organization because they didn’t take the time to do the research. We (the small vapour product businesses in Canada) are NOT “Big Tobacco” so obviously the title was unnerving.

Were we surprised when not only it was very informative but fact based. There were a few points of contention, but we are extremely pleased to see an investigative media organization take a serious look into what this industry actually is, who its people are and who they are not. We only hope that more, true journalism will follow