The email I sent to was found at the fda.gov news events PUBLIC health focus etc here:
Electronic Cigarettes (e-Cigarettes)
I highly recommend using the link to check out WHY they posted a contact!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To
AskCTP@fda.hhs.gov
So their attorney said I am not allowed to send any more emails. I found this address on the Web. I have not experienced adverse effects using an electronic cigarette. In fact, the scientific data supports my decision to use them after 4 months of intense research! I understand that the FDA is a bit upset that they work better than the NRTs you may make money by promoting. I don't agree that is a valid excuse to deny people the right to choose THRs of their choice.
Perhaps, you'd like to share with a person who wants to minimize the effects of COPD so that they will not become disabled and can continue to work and pay their own way any reason that Abilene State Supported Living Center feels they have even more legal authority than the FDA?
I will not shut up and go away because they threaten my job! However, I will seek sources with the ability to discuss the legality of treating a nicotine product so differently than NRTs. Information please?
Sharon
employee at AbSSLC
----- Forwarded Message -----
Ms. Hinshaw, Mr. Goza, and/or Ms. Willis,
So if it isn't about health, apparent by the lack of response, can you please point out where electronic cigarettes are being legally targeted by this agency or any legal authority in Texas? I did a "find search" and electronic cigarettes did not show up on my older home computer. I would hope that you'd share the information, especially if the fault lies within my personal software!
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-08/pdf/2012-31671.pdf
Are there other legal grounds to include e-cigarettes in your local ban perhaps that I have missed? As I pointed out in my second email, the "we've had a long standing policy" information didn't work well for Civil Rights violations in the 60s being legal, nor righteous, for those unwilling to change due to racially based prejudices, so I don't recognize that argument as valid. I do, however, believe the fact that electronic cigarette users choosing to be willing to take it outside with the smokers was polite and fair so not to scare the uninformed, nor show their use to the individuals. Unfortunately, the politeness factor isn't legal grounds to ban their use outside, away from Individuals, nor in our own vehicles. It shows only that those who use e-cigs are willing to work with you.
I did note that when the FDA was illegally confiscating electronic cigarette components, that it was a Federal Judge who let them know it was illegal to do so and put a stop to the illegal theft. I also read they ( the FDA) intended to begin regulating electronic cigarettes in 2011 or so, yet failed to do so. I am fairly good at research, yet have not found where there is supporting legal standing to claim electronic cigarettes are regulated the same as tobacco, at this point, but am certainly willing to read any legal information you provide.
Failing that, perhaps you can put me in touch with someone in Austin or Washington DC who is willing to show me the legal restrictions currently in effect that I am unaware of at this time. There are certainly more current and better science based studies than the FDA, CDC, or Mayo Clinic links previously sent to me, as I have freely provided you with. If you prefer not to deal with these questions or the hard facts involved, I highly recommend that you forward these emails, both this one and the past one, to someone in the agency who is more willing to provide the information I am requesting. As I stated a few times now, I cannot find any reality based reason why AbSSLC would be so supposedly concerned for my adult health, yet ban the Tobacco Harm Reduction product that has the same type of nicotine that the NRTs touted and recommended by the FDA. I notice the gum, patches and lozenges aren't being banned but touted as a good solution to quit smoking. I am sure you do see the disconnect in that by now. Is there a monetary benefit, ie. grants or additional monies, involved for our facility perhaps?
Awaiting a response from someone in the chain of command,
Sharon
employee
From: Laffs
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 11:03 PM
Subject: Arbitrary bans Part 2
Ms. Hinshaw, etal.
I sent you a link to a lot of very informative information which included links to much more current data than the brochure found in the link just below. I found it interesting to note that there was no evidence that electronic cigarettes were anywhere close to as dangerous as smoking cigarettes have proven to be. I agree that the more studies, the better! Page 19 was interesting in case your time for this is limited.
http://www.cprit.state.tx.us/images/uploads/TobaccoPlan08FINAL.pdf
May I inquire how your study has been going? Are you interested in Tobacco Harm Reduction for those who remained addicted despite all other FDA sponsored NRTs but found real help and improved breathing using THRs? Here are but three links, ma'am, that are to the point, because I do truly understand how very busy you must be. You may cut and paste these safely as they have several 1000 interested in THR clicking on them regularly and no reported problems at all.
Clinical Research: Electronic Cigarettes
http://http://casaa.org/Scientific_Opinon.html
casaa.org/legislative_notes.html
I well know that education and dialogue are very important on major issues like this; especially when Texans, who traditionally support limited governmental control in our daily lives, are interested in truth. I extend my hand to try and resolve this issue amicably because I do care very much that I not die of COPD like my parents did. I love working at Abilene State Supported Living Center and am very excited about helping us consistently improve our standard of care. I’d rather not be threatened to be fired for attempting to extend my own life in a legal way so will try to not be so put off at being spoken down to, or even ignored, on this vital issue which so heavily impacts my personal longevity.
I apologize if, in my distress over the attempts to arbitrarily include e-cigs in your tobacco ban, I upset you by sounding rude or overly zealous. Surely if there are grants or profit to be made by AbSSLC becoming a "Tobacco Free facility," those would still apply without unnecessarily, without current evidence including electronic cigarettes?
Shall we try again to come to an understanding that supports the healthier Tobacco Harm Reduction as a common goal? I truly do wish to work with you on this matter.
Sharon
Employee
Here is the study and info that was included last time as well, in case it was misplaced:
http://www.casaa.org/rettes pose minimal health risk
Friday, August 9, 2013
New study confirms that chemicals in electronic cigarettes pose minimal health risk
The study is available at http://publichealth.drexel.edu/SiteData/docs/ms08/f90349264250e603/ms08.pdf
For summary and discussion go to
Breaking News: New study shows no risk from e-cigarette contaminants | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
Contact: Prof. Igor Burstyn Igor.burstyn@drexel.edu
From: "Hinshaw,Linda (DADS)"
To: Laffs
Sent: Saturday, January 4, 2014 2:46 PM
Subject: Automatic reply: Arbitrary bans
I am currently out of the office. I will be checking email periodically. For emergencies please contact Jeff Goza. I will return Monday, January 6.[/QUOTE]
Electronic Cigarettes (e-Cigarettes)
I highly recommend using the link to check out WHY they posted a contact!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To
AskCTP@fda.hhs.gov
So their attorney said I am not allowed to send any more emails. I found this address on the Web. I have not experienced adverse effects using an electronic cigarette. In fact, the scientific data supports my decision to use them after 4 months of intense research! I understand that the FDA is a bit upset that they work better than the NRTs you may make money by promoting. I don't agree that is a valid excuse to deny people the right to choose THRs of their choice.
Perhaps, you'd like to share with a person who wants to minimize the effects of COPD so that they will not become disabled and can continue to work and pay their own way any reason that Abilene State Supported Living Center feels they have even more legal authority than the FDA?
I will not shut up and go away because they threaten my job! However, I will seek sources with the ability to discuss the legality of treating a nicotine product so differently than NRTs. Information please?
Sharon
employee at AbSSLC
----- Forwarded Message -----
Ms. Hinshaw, Mr. Goza, and/or Ms. Willis,
So if it isn't about health, apparent by the lack of response, can you please point out where electronic cigarettes are being legally targeted by this agency or any legal authority in Texas? I did a "find search" and electronic cigarettes did not show up on my older home computer. I would hope that you'd share the information, especially if the fault lies within my personal software!
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-01-08/pdf/2012-31671.pdf
Are there other legal grounds to include e-cigarettes in your local ban perhaps that I have missed? As I pointed out in my second email, the "we've had a long standing policy" information didn't work well for Civil Rights violations in the 60s being legal, nor righteous, for those unwilling to change due to racially based prejudices, so I don't recognize that argument as valid. I do, however, believe the fact that electronic cigarette users choosing to be willing to take it outside with the smokers was polite and fair so not to scare the uninformed, nor show their use to the individuals. Unfortunately, the politeness factor isn't legal grounds to ban their use outside, away from Individuals, nor in our own vehicles. It shows only that those who use e-cigs are willing to work with you.
I did note that when the FDA was illegally confiscating electronic cigarette components, that it was a Federal Judge who let them know it was illegal to do so and put a stop to the illegal theft. I also read they ( the FDA) intended to begin regulating electronic cigarettes in 2011 or so, yet failed to do so. I am fairly good at research, yet have not found where there is supporting legal standing to claim electronic cigarettes are regulated the same as tobacco, at this point, but am certainly willing to read any legal information you provide.
Failing that, perhaps you can put me in touch with someone in Austin or Washington DC who is willing to show me the legal restrictions currently in effect that I am unaware of at this time. There are certainly more current and better science based studies than the FDA, CDC, or Mayo Clinic links previously sent to me, as I have freely provided you with. If you prefer not to deal with these questions or the hard facts involved, I highly recommend that you forward these emails, both this one and the past one, to someone in the agency who is more willing to provide the information I am requesting. As I stated a few times now, I cannot find any reality based reason why AbSSLC would be so supposedly concerned for my adult health, yet ban the Tobacco Harm Reduction product that has the same type of nicotine that the NRTs touted and recommended by the FDA. I notice the gum, patches and lozenges aren't being banned but touted as a good solution to quit smoking. I am sure you do see the disconnect in that by now. Is there a monetary benefit, ie. grants or additional monies, involved for our facility perhaps?
Awaiting a response from someone in the chain of command,
Sharon
employee
From: Laffs
Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2014 11:03 PM
Subject: Arbitrary bans Part 2
Ms. Hinshaw, etal.
I sent you a link to a lot of very informative information which included links to much more current data than the brochure found in the link just below. I found it interesting to note that there was no evidence that electronic cigarettes were anywhere close to as dangerous as smoking cigarettes have proven to be. I agree that the more studies, the better! Page 19 was interesting in case your time for this is limited.
http://www.cprit.state.tx.us/images/uploads/TobaccoPlan08FINAL.pdf
May I inquire how your study has been going? Are you interested in Tobacco Harm Reduction for those who remained addicted despite all other FDA sponsored NRTs but found real help and improved breathing using THRs? Here are but three links, ma'am, that are to the point, because I do truly understand how very busy you must be. You may cut and paste these safely as they have several 1000 interested in THR clicking on them regularly and no reported problems at all.
Clinical Research: Electronic Cigarettes
http://http://casaa.org/Scientific_Opinon.html
casaa.org/legislative_notes.html
I well know that education and dialogue are very important on major issues like this; especially when Texans, who traditionally support limited governmental control in our daily lives, are interested in truth. I extend my hand to try and resolve this issue amicably because I do care very much that I not die of COPD like my parents did. I love working at Abilene State Supported Living Center and am very excited about helping us consistently improve our standard of care. I’d rather not be threatened to be fired for attempting to extend my own life in a legal way so will try to not be so put off at being spoken down to, or even ignored, on this vital issue which so heavily impacts my personal longevity.
I apologize if, in my distress over the attempts to arbitrarily include e-cigs in your tobacco ban, I upset you by sounding rude or overly zealous. Surely if there are grants or profit to be made by AbSSLC becoming a "Tobacco Free facility," those would still apply without unnecessarily, without current evidence including electronic cigarettes?
Shall we try again to come to an understanding that supports the healthier Tobacco Harm Reduction as a common goal? I truly do wish to work with you on this matter.
Sharon
Employee
Here is the study and info that was included last time as well, in case it was misplaced:
http://www.casaa.org/rettes pose minimal health risk
Friday, August 9, 2013
New study confirms that chemicals in electronic cigarettes pose minimal health risk
The study is available at http://publichealth.drexel.edu/SiteData/docs/ms08/f90349264250e603/ms08.pdf
For summary and discussion go to
Breaking News: New study shows no risk from e-cigarette contaminants | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
Contact: Prof. Igor Burstyn Igor.burstyn@drexel.edu
From: "Hinshaw,Linda (DADS)"
To: Laffs
Sent: Saturday, January 4, 2014 2:46 PM
Subject: Automatic reply: Arbitrary bans
I am currently out of the office. I will be checking email periodically. For emergencies please contact Jeff Goza. I will return Monday, January 6.[/QUOTE]
