senate bill 982: family smoking prevention and tobacco control act

**motorcity57** · 06-02-2009, 05:34 PM

took me 3 hours to read, jesus. i see no way to stop this from passing and being signed into law. if the tobacco companies with all of their power & money could not stop it, i don't see how we as consumers can.
i think we as e-cigarette users must distance ourselves from the tobacco industry, science has proven that cigarette smoking can and probably will kill you and others.
i have seen very little about the effects of e-cig's, probably because it is such a new technology, who knows 10 or 20 years from now after more research it might be found to be more harmful than regular tobacco cigarettes.
i am using the e-cig as a way to get off analogs. by slowly reducing the nicotine levels of the juice i hope to get to zero nicotine and then , hopefully give up the e-cig as well. i'm sure i can find something better to spend my money on.

**ladyraj** · 06-02-2009, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by motorcity57

took me 3 hours to read, jesus. i see no way to stop this from passing and being signed into law. if the tobacco companies with all of their power & money could not stop it, i don't see how we as consumers can.
i think we as e-cigarette users must distance ourselves from the tobacco industry, science has proven that cigarette smoking can and probably will kill you and others.
i have seen very little about the effects of e-cig's, probably because it is such a new technology, who knows 10 or 20 years from now after more research it might be found to be more harmful than regular tobacco cigarettes.
i am using the e-cig as a way to get off analogs. by slowly reducing the nicotine levels of the juice i hope to get to zero nicotine and then , hopefully give up the e-cig as well. i'm sure i can find something better to spend my money on.

Unfortunately, you may be right that we can't prevent this bill but we could fast-track FDA approval for harm reduction reasons via Mr Godshall's help and contacts. He helped fast-track the availability of NRT with-out a prescription using the same methodology. Hopefully, other people will be able to benefit from the e-cig as a means of reducing harm from cigarettes and ultimately to quit if they so desire. Governmental policy changes with the tide. The anti-smoking groups have made such a good case for the taboo of tobacco the groups have inadvertantly also paved the way for harm reduction. An error they are striving to fix, but we won't let them because you can't have it both ways, either tobacco is the deadliest drug addiction requiring suitable intervention to reduce harm, or it is simply...not.

**TropicalBob** · 06-02-2009, 07:17 PM

The anti's have such a simple answer to toss in your face: Quit or die. And smokers have a plethora of FDA-approved methods to quit, they will rush to inform you. Harm reduction is not part of their deal. No use of tobacco or any tobacco derivative product is. So, to them, it is very simple. They will have it both ways. And good luck stopping them.

Everything I've used to stay off cigarettes -- completely -- since July 17, 2007, is at stake here. Snus, dissolvables, nasal snuff and the e-products.

The problem for me is I can avoid relapse only by using these products. I'm a complete failure using Big Pharmaceutical's products. And passage of this bill, with subsequent Presidential approval, marks the beginning of the end of easy availability of all my less harmful alternatives.

**nitewriter** · 06-02-2009, 07:50 PM

TB, I've heard you preach the benefits of the many nicotine alternative you've used. You're so good at stating the facts and how these alternatives have helped you. You're also our resident journalist.

Have you combined the 2 on any articles on e-cigs? I've seen you quoted, but not an entire article. It seems you would be a great one to spread the word and I just wondered if you have and I missed it?

Sorry for going off topic.

**Bill Godshall** · 06-02-2009, 08:03 PM

Jack Calfee at AEI is a tobacco harm reduction advocate who posted this today.

- - -

I Guess They’re Just Not Dangerous Enough . . .

By John E. Calfee
American Enterprise Institute
June 2, 2009, 11:01 am
I Guess They?re Just Not Dangerous Enough . . . The Enterprise Blog

Both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal carried front-page stories today (in the Journal, atop the Marketplace section rather than p. A1) on “e-cigarettes,” something most of us never heard of until the past few weeks or not until today. Most e-cigarettes come from China. They have been around for a couple of years but only recently reached the $100 million mark in annual sales. In a sense, e-cigarettes are the latest chapter in the continuing debate over smokeless tobacco, which deliver nicotine from tobacco but eliminate the smoke, which is the source of practically all the harms from cigarette smoking. E-cigarettes are the ultimate smokeless product because they don’t actually involve tobacco at all. They typically contain nicotine, water, some flavorings and scents, and propylene glycol (which the Times explains is common in hand sanitizers)—plus a battery and a miniature atomizer so that when the user takes a puff, he or she receives a nicotine-laced flavored mist.

The leading public health antismoking organizations like the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (supported by litigation-induced taxes on smokers) are furious about these unregulated products. They want proof of safety and efficacy, and they want the Food and Drug Administration to force e-cigarettes off the market. That is exactly what the FDA is prepared to do, on the grounds that e-cigarettes are obviously designed to help smokers quit, which is a recognized medical use and therefore renders these products subject to FDA rules about the testing and approval of new drugs.

It is hard to believe that e-cigarettes pose even a tiny percentage of the risks of smoking. Remember, there is no smoke, and the dangers of nicotine itself resemble those of caffeine. The antismoking groups are intent upon perpetuating their reckless gamble that smokers can be induced to quit and that in the meantime, virtually harmless substitutes should be kept off the market unless they go through rigorous FDA testing with all its expense and narrow focus on how products are used.

All of which leads to the totally weird observation that e-cigarettes would be free of all this controversy if only they were more dangerous (by putting real smoke in the lungs, for example) and if they didn’t seem to help people quit smoking cigarettes. In today’s strange public health regulatory environment, cigarettes are OK and smokeless substitutes are not.

And now, what about FDA regulation of tobacco products? Well, that’s another story for another time (really soon).

**nitewriter** · 06-02-2009, 08:22 PM

This guy is almost as well informed as you Bill.

This is one of the best articles in our defense I've read.

**ladyraj** · 06-02-2009, 08:25 PM

Originally Posted by TropicalBob

The anti's have such a simple answer to toss in your face: Quit or die. And smokers have a plethora of FDA-approved methods to quit, they will rush to inform you. Harm reduction is not part of their deal. No use of tobacco or any tobacco derivative product is. So, to them, it is very simple. They will have it both ways. And good luck stopping them.

Everything I've used to stay off cigarettes -- completely -- since July 17, 2007, is at stake here. Snus, dissolvables, nasal snuff and the e-products.

The problem for me is I can avoid relapse only by using these products. I'm a complete failure using Big Pharmaceutical's products. And passage of this bill, with subsequent Presidential approval, marks the beginning of the end of easy availability of all my less harmful alternatives.

As you can see from the slow response from our legislators and organizations such as the FDA, that all of this banning fostered by the anti-smoking groups takes time to pass, much longer to enact, and even longer still to address small sellers. The e-cig is not on the FDA bill and I'm hoping that it will remain that way because if it is addressed seperately, that takes longer still and suppliers can fly under the radar. I suspect your other products will be grandfathered in because of the similarity to products already on the market.

I do know that if the worst case scenario occurs and all of your options are taken away you have one heck of a class action suit and can be a shoe in for protection under the ADA with disability claims. I'm awaiting the outcome from this action to recommend to all in my purview to file disability claims... mass filings. These issues are what are giving the legislature pause...it's a can of worms, and they know it. But this gives cold comfort to someone who is facing relapse.

**ladyraj** · 06-02-2009, 08:28 PM

Hey Mr Bill, I like this find...thanks!

**Ivisi** · 06-02-2009, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Godshall

Jack Calfee at AEI is a tobacco harm reduction advocate who posted this today.

- - -

I Guess They’re Just Not Dangerous Enough . . .

By John E. Calfee
American Enterprise Institute
June 2, 2009, 11:01 am
I Guess They?re Just Not Dangerous Enough . . . The Enterprise Blog

..snip..

It is hard to believe that e-cigarettes pose even a tiny percentage of the risks of smoking. Remember, there is no smoke, and the dangers of nicotine itself resemble those of caffeine.

...snip...

That, I think, is the first time I've seen someone in the public eye equate straight nicotine use with caffeine. I don't know why e-cig advocates don't point this out more often.

Tobacco and nicotine are treated as the same thing, and they're not. Nicotine, in and of itself, poses nearly the same threat to the human body (in the doses delivered by cigarettes, e-cigs, patches, gums, etc... when used properly) as that of caffeine. It's the contents of cigarette smoke that is the killer to smokers. Take away the smoke, take away a lot of the dying.

I would wager a bet that a vast majority of anti-tobacco people would be hard pressed to stop caffeine cold turkey. But they get to use their drug everyday. Why can't we choose to use ours in a manner that is safer for everyone involved?

Ivisi