July 17, 2016

Ontario’s restrictive vaping laws reveal inequality: Harm reduction for IV drug users but not smokers?

Holly NicholasRebel Commentator
 

Why is Ontario’s government treating vaping the same as cigarettes? Bill 45, “Making Healthier Choices Act”, prohibits vaping in public, in work spaces and some outdoor areas as well as testing in stores.

It also puts restrictions on packaging, age requirements, regulates the sale of flavoured vaping liquids and expands where e-cigarettes are prohibited from sale.

Canadian Constitution Foundation’s Derek From says vaping is the healthier choice over cigarette smoking and it’s possible these new laws may violate Section 7 of the Charter.

We see negative headlines in the news, particularly regarding youth, but often statistics are inaccurate as studies show vaping is far less harmful than cigarette smoking and can provide a life saving intervention.

Watch as I provide the other side of the vaping story and show that restricting access to vaping could be restricting access to a healthier alternative.

The Supreme Court ruled the federal government must renew an exemption in the Controlled Drug and Substance Act for Insite based on the argument that it reduced harm and saved lives. From says the same argument could be made about vaping.

In the case of the Ontario government and the Making Healthier Choices Act, it seems some healthier options are more equal than others.

Comments
You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-07-20 16:24:03 -0400
@anonymous Quote: "Here is a better idea than harm reduction or safe injection sites. Maybe all the addicts can go and get treatment, so they can learn to live the rest of their lives without resorting to using substances. "

For 15 years I tried everything on the market to quit smoking including, Pills, gum, Patches, lozenges, Inhalers, support groups, counseling and even laughable hypnotism, absolutely none of those helped me stay off of tobacco, I would relapse time and time again within days.

While vaping may not be the perfect solution for people like you (abstinence only crowd) vaping has given me a new lease on life, my sleep apnea has subsided and no longer need my cpap, I no longer need to take my heart medication since the switch and the two inhalers I was on are no longer needed.

Like most vapers I have reduced my nicotine consumption considerably, I used to smoke 40-60 cigarettes a day at 11mg a cigarette that is 440-660mg a day, I started vaping at 18mg/6ml a day and now I’m down to 1.5mg/6ml a day sometimes 0mg liquid instead of 1.5mg bringing me down to less than one of my old cigarettes in about a year..

You see for people like me and there is millions of us, vaping is by far the best solution to date, it has gotten millions of us off of cancer causing tobacco when all else failed, you may look at it from the addiction point of view but we look at it as something that has increased our quality of life so significantly we see it as something that has saved us from imminent death which is why the term “Vaping saves lives” is so prominent because it does actually save lives of smokers that just can’t get off of tobacco..
commented 2016-07-20 16:01:37 -0400
@anonymous Quote: “Vaping was never created as a means of reducing harm. Rather, it exists to lure new people into buying cigarettes.”

Vaping was created by a pharmacist that wanting to create a better stop smoking aid after watching his father die from smoking related diseases….

The vaping industry is NOT run by the tobacco industry although they do have a stake it in their products are significantly inferior to those produced by companies dedicated to harm reduction…

Quote: Just because you find a way to reduce the harm of your addiction, does not mean you should have more freedom to pursue your addiction.

The problem with smoking tobacco is not the addiction it’s the fact that it actually kills you, nicotine at the levels vapers use it is a stimulant on par with caffeine, when separated from tobacco, all its additives and chemicals produced by combustion such as MAOI’s (which creates the addiction) nicotine isn’t all that addictive..

The toxicity of second hand vapor has been proven to be below most if not all safety standards globally, based on that information banning it in enclosed spaces makes no sense whatsoever. It would be like banning cologne or perfume from workplaces or restaurants… I am however a firm believer owners should be able to reserve the right to whether or not they permit it…

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26243705
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24336346
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25350011
commented 2016-07-19 02:28:48 -0400
I am willing to admit that vaping is a better alternative than tobacco. But I am also saying that vaping exists so that the corporations can make money off its users. Vaping falling under the criteria of harm reduction, does not mean it can not get non smokers to start vaping.

Here is a better idea than harm reduction or safe injection sites. Maybe all the addicts can go and get treatment, so they can learn to live the rest of their lives without resorting to using substances.
commented 2016-07-19 01:30:08 -0400
@anonymous "Just because you find a way to reduce the harm of your addiction, does not mean you should have more freedom to pursue your addiction. "

That entirely depends on the harm of the addiction, no? Caffeine, for instance is very much an addictive substance, yet millions of Canadians partake every day, indeed there are whole chains of restaurants built on the premise. Would you restrict access to Tim’s? Robins? Starbucks?

Would it surprise you to know that nicotine, in and of itself, is about as harmful to a body as caffeine?

Probably.
commented 2016-07-18 10:12:52 -0400
“There is no real reduction in harm. Rather, it perpetuates addiction and causes more harm in the long run. "

Actually, there is. The harm being reduced is not drug use, but rather the associated consequences, primarily related to overdoses and bloodborne diseases. Drug use is treatable (the actual drugs themselves, if clean, are actually not that damaging beyond the addiction itself, which exists whether or not these sites exist). Dead from overdose is not treatable. HIV or Hep C are somewhat treatable, but at outrageous cost to the taxpayer.

The “perpetuates drug use” argument is predicated on the concept that dangerous usage conditions are somehow some sort of deterrent for further use. They are not – after all – the addicts are already using today, despite lack of sites. Ask a smoker – virtually all of them know it’s unhealthy, and substantially increases your risks of a very unpleasant death, but that intangible “deterrent” is minimal relative to the very real and physical urges associated with addiction.

That’s where vaping, as a harm reduction device, does come in – what’s really remarkable is how much lower risk they are relative to smoking. There are some side effects for the nicotine itself, but that’s literally an order of magnitude less harmful, making it safer while you quit.

That being said, safe injection sites are strictly regulated, while most “personal freedom” types would rather be able to vape pretty much anywhere they please, I am not sure this is really a reasonable comparison given the wide grey market availability of the devices.
commented 2016-07-18 09:05:31 -0400
@anonymous: While I agree that heroin “harm reduction” has been expanded to such an extent that it now constitutes the government as dope pusher, to say vaping “…exists to lure new people into buying cigarettes” is grossly inaccurate and patently absurd. You must have skipped over the part where Holly mentions several British gov’t studies which back-up the FACT that vaping truly gives smokers a new lease on life, saving even the most chronic tobacco users from certain early death, all without attracting young people into vaping in any significant numbers.

I should know, I am one of those people who was saved by vaping. I got so good at quitting smoking I did it almost monthly for 40 years, until I found e-ciggs and since January 2012 I have been 100% tobacco free. I rarely even vape now and only do so if I go for a beer or some other trigger activity, but without nicotine as I have no longer any need for it!

If you can come up with a credible study that backs up your wildly misleading statement I will be all ears, but until then quit making such ignorant and absurd statements.
commented 2016-07-18 03:48:24 -0400
Hi Holly. This is probably the first video that you have done that I find myself disagreeing with. You are comparing smoking cigarettes to main lining. Furthermore, safe injection sites are not analogous to vaping.

Vaping was never created as a means of reducing harm. Rather, it exists to lure new people into buying cigarettes. People stepping down from cigarettes to use vaping is just an added bonus. Think of this as an unintended but beneficial move towards harm reduction.

That whole free needle exchange and safe injection site movement has hijacked the harm reduction model. There is no real reduction in harm. Rather, it perpetuates addiction and causes more harm in the long run. On top of that, tax payers end up forking over money to support people in maintaining their addiction.

Just because you find a way to reduce the harm of your addiction, does not mean you should have more freedom to pursue your addiction.
commented 2016-07-17 22:05:45 -0400
This comes as no surprise in Ontaristan. The Liberal government like all liberal governments is all about control of the people. Liberals don’t give a damn about freedom of choice. If you give the people the freedom to choose, they might choose something other than what the government has decided is best for the peasants.
commented 2016-07-17 19:07:59 -0400
Ontario goverment is a vilation of nature, let alone the constitution.

Hypocritical regulating is par for the course from the diseased brains of a degenerate regime.
commented 2016-07-17 18:31:42 -0400
With all the tax money that would be lost if people quit smoking, is it any wonder they are trying to control access to a healthier lifestyle? The liberals are the biggest liars and deceivers on the planet!
commented 2016-07-17 16:38:03 -0400
“Making Healthier Choices Act” is clearly another regressive left misuse of the language since there is no choice for the individual. “Dictating Your Choices Act” sounds like a more honest title, except the liberally corrupt don’t know the virtue of honesty.