Now is the Time To Act! I am Serious! **updated**

[taleywhacker]

I just want to clarify based on what I have found out being a board member of the association:

Phillip Morris - For the Waxman bill, as is, helped right it, our enemy

R.J. Reynolds - Opposed to the Waxman bill, big supporter of tobacco harm reduction and smokeless tobacco products, our ally

There are many battles that need to be fought, the first is to get an amendment on the Waxman bill protecting eCigarttes, or at the very least not flat out making them illegal. This is an accomplishable task, there are many government and public health officials on our side and they are doing everything they can to get Waxman amended. The association has spoken with some of these people and they have asked us to rally the troops, they need consumers, and lots of them. The government will not have any sympthy for companies, who stand to make a profit, but they will listen to citizens. Time is not on our side, this bill could be infront of the senate in as little as two weeks.

I hope this helps with the debate.

[skex]

Anyone know if these things were being marketed in the United States prior to February 2007?

Also take a look at line 22 of page 10

22

(34) Because the only known safe alternative to

23

smoking is cessation, interventions should target all

24 smokers to help them quit completely.

That's language that's a problem for those of us who are promoting harm reduction and that should be language to be targeted by lobbying efforts.

Looks like page 11 is problematic in it's entirety. Although it could actually play to our favor if the above mentioned section were removed because it is pretty clear that electronic cigarettes do indeed "reduce the risks to the public of tobacco use"

Page 12 is pretty nasty as well for us it makes a number of assertions aimed it appears at "light" cigarettes that could catch e-cigs due to sloppiness in the language.

That's as far as I have time to dig in today.

[MonkeyMonk]

Originally Posted by OutWest

All I know is that apparently the Senate is about to work on their version of the Waxman bill (from what was posted in the first few posts of this thread), that the members of the Senate listed are the ones on the health committee, and that I as a consumer (admittedly as a supplier as well, but for me it's primarily as a consumer and as someone that believes that all persons should be allowed the opportunity to have access to cigarette substitutes), dont want this bill to pass because then FDA has control of nicotine and safer alternatives to cigarettes will be buried and wont see the light of day again for at least 10 years (the time it takes, on average, for the studies to be done, and that's only if a manufacturer has the millions to spend for the studies)

This is what I have been trying to get at... what is our reason for the new letters? What is the objective? Each letter needs a thesis statement. OK, now I understand!

So, our thesis statement is: Please do not approve H.R. 1256 unammended because..... Am I correct here?

Thank you, Kate and others, for posting the examples... but, my real querry was just what OutWest finally defined. We need to make this sentiment heard as our thesis statement.

[yvilla]

According to Dr. Siegel, the Waxman bill would have a devastating impact on harm reduction alternatives to smoking, and that is the concern specific to ecigs.

"The proposed FDA legislation is thus the worst of both worlds. On the one hand, it allows companies to gain a government sanction to market products under the guise of reduced risk by merely calling their product reduced exposure (does the term "lights" ring a bell?). On the other hand, it prevents companies from marketing products that may truly be reduced risk products by putting an impossible regulatory burden in the path of such products".

The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: IN MY VIEW: FDA Tobacco Legislation Would Be Death Knell for Tobacco Harm Reduction

[breakfastchef]

Originally Posted by D_Struct

...consider all of my previous answers null and void due to the apparent lack of Terraphon-like wit and pinash.

You the man. I agree, that panache is difficult to obtain on the open market. Cheers!

[MonkeyMonk]

yvilla, thank you for posting that link so close to OutWest's reply. There is much in that article that will help me with my letters.

[deewal]

Can you retitle this thread to add US Only ?

[keg]

ummm...I believe there was supposed to be a big anouncement from the suppliers? TODAY. Did I miss it?
Seriously if these people and there new found orginizaton is what we are pinning our hope on then we're straight screwed.
Unbelievable. The truest defintion of unbelievable.
Get your crap together before you post stuff like this. You all are begining to sound like the boy who cried wolf and guess what, nobodys listening.
Money hungry and greedy. The american way baby.

Jackasses.

[scintar]

Originally Posted by LaceyUnderall

This is not a scare tactic.

This is essentially a time issue. Yes. More and more suppliers are reporting their items getting stopped. Some of us still are yet to get stuff stopped.

However, what is most important is that it has been stressed to us that time is of the essence due to the fact that the Senate is going to have Kennedy presenting his tobacco bill and it appears since this will be his last time around the bases, they want to give him his final horah.

This is the time to act. We all talk about acting and this is it.

You know me well enough by now, hopefully, to know that this isn't a joke.

I'm In and preparing!

[OutWest]

Some hopeful news from Oklahoma - Visited with Senator Coburn (or Dr Coburn? The Honorable Doctor Coburn? Just what *do* you call a U.S. Senator who is also a doctor?) for a brief moment (caught him walking to his car since I didnt get a chance to ask my question during the townhall meeting). And, he told me that he is firmly against the Waxman/Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control bill. It was unclear as to whether he is against it because of putting the FDA in charge of a cancer causing substance (tobacco) is ludicrious, if it was because it would effectively ban safer alternatives to tobacco, or if it was both. But he said that he was against the bill.

I wish I could have gotten more time with him, but that's better than nothing. And, at least we have one that we now know is against it, regardless of the reason. Also, he's known for using holds to kill bills. Tom Coburn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Hopefully he will do that to this one if it becomes needed.

Despite the relatively good news, I would still write letters to the Senators, the more our voices are heard, the better. It does make me feel better about the whole thing, though.