The American Lung Association Loves Me

[Vocalek]

Text of my email to the American Lung Association:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: VocalEK
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 2:17 PM
> To: Carrie Martin
> Subject: American Lung Association Mission
>
> Apparently the American Lung Association has lost sight of
> its real mission in its ill-advised campaign to stamp out
> electronic-cigarettes.
>
> The mission of the American Lung Association is to save
> lives by improving lung health and preventing lung disease.
>
> Nicotine is being studied for use in treating a multitude
> of disorders and prevention of such terrible diseases as
> Parkinson’s. Scientists now suspect that smokers who
> can’t quit require nicotine to keep neurobiological
> problems under control.
>
> Tens of thousands of smokers report being able to reduce or
> completely eliminate their use of smoked tobacco once they
> started using an electronic cigarette. The vast
> majority of these folks state that they are no longer
> coughing, wheezing, and/or hacking up phlegm. That
> sounds like an IMPROVEMENT in lung health to me.
>
> But the ALA wants electronic cigarettes banned.
>
> Most of the electronic cigarette users tried all of the
> FDA-approved nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products,
> but were not able to quit smoking with those products.
> This may be because the NRT products provide sub-therapeutic
> doses of nicotine. Perhaps one reason e-cigarettes
> succeeded where other products failed is because they
> provide enough nicotine to keep such conditions as
> depression, anxiety, and attention deficits under control.
>
> Still, the ALA wants electronic cigarettes banned.
>
> Many, many electronic cigarette users state that they will
> probably return to smoking tobacco if electronic cigarettes
> become unavailable.
>
> Nevertheless, the ALA wants electronic cigarettes banned.
>
> How many lives will be cut short if the ALA gets it
> way? How many more lives might have been saved if
> e-cigarettes remained available and more smokers were able
> to substitute them for their tobacco cigarettes?
>
> Explain to me, please, how the campaign against electronic
> cigarettes helps the ALA fulfill its mission.

THE ALA's RESPONSE

--- On Thu, 7/23/09, Carrie Martin <CMartin@lungusa.org> wrote:
> From: Carrie Martin <CMartin@lungusa.org>
> Subject: RE: American Lung Association Mission
> To: <VocalEK>
> Date: Thursday, July 23, 2009, 2:37 PM

> To clarify, we believe e-cigarettes
> are a "new drug," which require prior approval from the FDA
> before they are allowed to be sold. We are not asking
> that they be banned. For more information:
>
> Lung Association Urges FDA to Immediately Halt the Sale of
> Unapproved Products
>
> Statement of the American Lung Association:
>
> The American Lung Association applauds the Food and Drug
> Administration for its announcement today about
> e-cigarettes. FDA’s preliminary findings show e-cigarettes
> contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals, including
> ingredients found in antifreeze.
>
> For too long, e-cigarette manufacturers have sold these
> nicotine delivery devices – absent FDA review and
> approval. These findings indicate FDA is serious about
> enforcing the law to protect consumers from unapproved
> products.
>
> In light of these initial findings, the American Lung
> Association urges the FDA to act immediately to halt the
> sale and distribution of all e-cigarettes unless the
> products have been reviewed and approved for sale by the
> FDA.
>

 

[iiell]

These findings indicate FDA is serious about enforcing the law to protect consumers from unapproved products.

Did they really just say that? It's more like the FDA is serious about protecting the Federal Tax Money that make off of tobacco. This is such a joke and I hope more Americans wake up an realize that this is NOT America anymore. We've been hijacked by lawmakers, business men and criminals. Soon...it will be illegal to chew gum while walking.

 

[dntbuyblu]

what a joke the ala does not want to loose money and go broke how many fda approved drugs have killed people in last ten years alone i hate big government soon we will all be mindless drones

 

[mcl5000]

edit - double post

 

[TropicalBob]

The FDA does not care one whit about tax money. Not one. It doesn't set it or collect it or demand it. It has a job to do, and it's doing it. We disagree with the conclusion the FDA came up with on e-cigs -- but stop assigning spurious motives to the agency assigned to regulate drugs in America.

There is just massive ignorance being posted all over this forum... get serious, people. Get facts. Fight with your intelligence, not your emotion.

These kinds of flip attacks are easily dismissed by any intelligent person and undermine the case that can be made for e-smoking.

 

[mcl5000]

It's illegal to chew gum at all in Singapore...

Not sure if e-cigs are banned there, but it would sure be funny if they weren't.

If they aren't banned, Singapore would rather their residents vape than chew gum, while the FDA would rather us smoke cigarettes than vape. By using the commutative property (maybe the wrong one..?), does that mean the FDA would rather us smoke cigarettes than chew gum?




edit - just read that they are banned in singapore...boo. would have been quite humorous...

 

[iiell]

The FDA does not care one whit about tax money. Not one. It doesn't set it or collect it or demand it. It has a job to do, and it's doing it. We disagree with the conclusion the FDA came up with on e-cigs -- but stop assigning spurious motives to the agency assigned to regulate drugs in America.


There is just massive ignorance being posted all over this forum... get serious, people. Get facts. Fight with your intelligence, not your emotion.

These kinds of flip attacks are easily dismissed by any intelligent person and undermine the case that can be made for e-smoking.

So..an agency that approves drugs like Oxycodone, Demerol and all those other extremely addictive prescription drugs that kill thousands of people every year...really does care about people they've - in a sense - helped kill?

 

[Vocalek]

To: Carrie Martin
Subject: American Lung Association Mission

Let us assume for a moment, that the e-cigarette's intended use is not to treat any condition or disease, but rather to be used as an alternative to smoking tobacco. [Example: "NJOY products are not a smoking cessation product and have not been tested as such." NJOY Electronic Cigarette Questions]

If that were the case, and tens of thousands of people reported that after trying it out as an alternative, they found themselves no longer interested in inhaling tobacco smoke, would that be a bad thing?

Would the ALA object, on the grounds that it would prefer that people continue to inhale tobacco smoke instead? Would it continue to object, even if thousands of people reported that after switching over to the electronic version that they no longer cough and wheeze?

Apparently, that is the case.

Because, in its own words "the American Lung Association urges the FDA to act immediately to halt the sale and distribution of all e-cigarettes."

Now as I understand it, the ALA doesn't actually want to BAN these devices, it simply wants the FDA to review and aprove them, correct?

Well, let's agree not to hold it against the marketers of the e-cigarettes that their product had the unintended effect of causing smoking cessation. That doesn't make them a drug, or a drug delivery device.

And if they are simply a consumer product, not a drug or medical device, it is not the FDA that should have jurisdiction. Their regulation should properly fall under the authority of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

I have some questions for you Carrie:
1. On average, how many years does it take from submission to approval of a New Drug Application (NDA)?
2. How much lung damage is incurred by smoking 20 tobacco cigarettes a day for one year?
3. On average, what percent of smokers will develop COPD, emphasema, or lung cancer while continuing to use tobacco during the years that it takes the FDA to approve an e-cigarette as a "drug"?
4. Is it in keeping with the ALA's mission statement to take action to prevent people who want to quit smoking tobacco (or stay quit) from doing so? If yes, please explain.

 

[souporvapor]

I Just hung up from a call to the ALA 'help' line.

They are going to have someone call me back to answer my questions.
Should be an interesting conversation since I requested copies or references to the scientific research data which details the specifics of all ingredients and their levels in all ALA 'approved' NRT ingredients including the following:

Nicotine patch
Nicotine gum
Nicotine lozenges
Nicotine inhaler


further questions I will pose when my call is returned are as follows

1. How does a patch, gum or lozenge containing nicotine not contain any of the harmful components of nicotine? Please provide the source, date and complete documention for any and all studies which detail the ingredients of
2. How does it serve my lungs to take a medication which has been associated with depression, emotional and mental anxiety and even suicide?
3.How does the propellant in my asthma inhaler differ from the liquid used in electronic cigarettes?
4. In what way is a candy flavored lozenge specifically unattractive to 'young people'
5. How is my health and that of millions of smokers positively affected by your 'approval' of NRT's containing nicotine and drugs causing sometimes fatal 'side effects' while you aggressively attack a product that has actually been tested and shown to contain such a miniscule amount of the 'ingredients of concern' we know exist in the tobacco cigarette.


That's just for starters....

30 years of smoking....
Vaporized by my Screwdriver!​

 

[DaBrat]

OP great post... I agree that there should be some oversight. I worked with the lead issue in childrens toys. However, this oversight must be within the realm of affordability of the average American in the current economic climate. I don't want a 30 ml bottle of juice to go up to 100.00 due to red tape and politicians.

What bothers me most is that the FDA is insisting that these products are primarily promoted as smoking cessation devices even though the devices they were testing did not make that claim. If they go on the principle that they are cessation devices, the only people able to produce them will be Pfizer and where there's big Pharma, there is lack of accessibility.

 

[iiell]

The FDA does not care one whit about tax money. Not one. It doesn't set it or collect it or demand it. It has a job to do, and it's doing it. We disagree with the conclusion the FDA came up with on e-cigs -- but stop assigning spurious motives to the agency assigned to regulate drugs in America.


There is just massive ignorance being posted all over this forum... get serious, people. Get facts. Fight with your intelligence, not your emotion.

These kinds of flip attacks are easily dismissed by any intelligent person and undermine the case that can be made for e-smoking.

So..an agency that approves drugs like Oxycodone, Demerol and all those other extremely addictive prescription drugs that kill thousands of people every year...really does care about people they've - in a sense - helped kill?

 

[PatriciafromCO]

There is just massive ignorance being posted all over this forum... get serious, people. Get facts. Fight with your intelligence, not your emotion.

Tropical Bob I am trying very hard to find the intelligence in all this....
FDA approved medications have up to two years to disclose that they knew, before, during, and after releaseing a new approved drug for public use that it would kill, harm and alter in harmful life changing ways to people who use it.

But yet it gets FDA approval for release.. and doesn't have to warn or disclose anything for the safety of the public...

 

[souporvapor]

Interesting Conversation
My email box 'will' have copies of any and all relevant studies (as available to ALA) regarding ingredients and levels of 'toxicity'.

Long conversation - and poor guy on the other end zig-zagged from
'the problem is in the method of delivery - inhaling - nic goes to brain - worse for addiction'(not sure what that had to do with delivery)-
to
'the inhaler' - has no propellant and due to size of 'droplets' are tooo large to get to lungs - the nicotine is dispersed only in mouth(and yes I guess a drowning victim couldn't possibly have gotten water in their lungs because the droplets are too large)

to -
he was not interested in the concept of consumer's ability to lower nicotene level (nicotine does not cause cancer or lung problems) yet was still concerned at the toxins that are specifically found in nicotine
.... lozenges, patches, inhaler are 'safer' because of the delivery system

Ahhhh Yes

30 years of smoking
Vaporized by my Screwdriver

 

[Kate51]

Question for ALA:

Lung Association Urges FDA to Immediately Halt the Sale of
> Unapproved Products

So, tell me, are tobacco cigarettes approved, then??????? How did that testing go????? Good example of doublespeak, and biased thinking, ayh?

 

[bewzer]

i'm sure if you have enough money, you can get your product pushed through the FDA testing process faster, hence the black box warnings that show up on some of these drugs years after they are put on the market...a black box warning was put on Chantix, but my ecig wont make me kill myself or go nuts

 

[souporvapor]

The following is excerpted from the PRIVATE email (complete with a non-disclosure stipulation) I received after my conversation.

'Nice Man' - spelled out that it is his job to assist people with medical questions and lung disease as well as provide information about quitting smoking.
Electronic Cigarettes
Smoking Cessation Resource Center: Clinical Studies

He suggested I address my questions to the following email
and signed off as having enjoyed our conversation.

Advocacy/Government Relations or you can phone the Washington office at 202-785-3355.
My Email response was as follows:

Hello (Nice Man)
Thank you for sending the links.

These are studies of documenting the usage of NRT's - not testing to determine ingredients or toxicity levels in those NRT's.

I appreciate that you took the time to send them and understand your job description.

I also trust that some of what I said created questions for you to consider as you counsel others to use products with 'undisclosed' ingredients and known side effects which could render the ALA's concern for lung function and health completely irrelevant..... post mortem.

I wonder at the mindset that allows one to even consider suggesting
an individual to counsel another individual to ingest/inhale/chew/or attach a product to their physical body which contains undisclosed ingredients..I just checked a nicotine patch in my cupboard and other than the warning about being poison to children and pets it gives me no information of any kind on what's in it. How is that possible?

It is my right to choose - but you are being paid to suggest specific products with the intention that I choose those.... and you have no clue what is in them.... nor can you assist me in making an informed decision.

Don't you want the facts as you play such a huge role in the health of those you are trying to help?

I would assume it is acceptable to share the links to those who might actually be able to answer the questions I asked .
Feel free to request actual scientific data ....
I'm going to take a break for the evening and enjoy my new RY4 thank you Mr. Wizard!

30 years of smoking​

​

​

Vaporized by My Screwdriver!​