Senate Democrats Introduce Bill to Stifle eCig Marketing
- Thread starter ctkid57
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Man O Man, they really are running scared, aren't they!
(BTW, Ed Markey is 5th or 6th biggest congressional beneficiary of Big Pharma contributions. Sorry I didn't bookmark the link; it could have been WethePeople.)
ETA: Found it: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=H04
Scroll down to "Top Repipients, 2013-2014." He's #3...
(BTW, Ed Markey is 5th or 6th biggest congressional beneficiary of Big Pharma contributions. Sorry I didn't bookmark the link; it could have been WethePeople.)
ETA: Found it: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=H04
Scroll down to "Top Repipients, 2013-2014." He's #3...
Last edited:
Time to write PA senator P. Toomey and ask why legislation is being proposed based on data that does not demonstrate the reasons for this legislation.
Did I miss the part of my life where entering adulthood was supposed to mean I no longer liked fruit flavors and candy? Or maybe my husband and I both missed the part of aging that makes sexy celebrities unattractive?
And I clearly have been parenting my children ALL wrong by teaching them right from wrong, good from bad etc throughout their lives and trusting those lessons to serve them as young adults. I missed the memo that I was supposed to let the government do that for me. Dang, woulda saved me YEARS of heartache and hard work!
And I clearly have been parenting my children ALL wrong by teaching them right from wrong, good from bad etc throughout their lives and trusting those lessons to serve them as young adults. I missed the memo that I was supposed to let the government do that for me. Dang, woulda saved me YEARS of heartache and hard work!
sounds to me like we need to run some short infomercial on tv to expose these reps that would rather see the public die smoking to get our tax money than to see us live vaping , i say fight propaganda with truth
Can we get a list of all the members of this committee? They are simply dying to get an email from several thousand vapers.
CASAA tries, but it needs members to sign up so that they can say, "this many people have stopped...". Also, a monthly donation would be helpful.
I've been donating for years now. When you consider how much you've saved not smoking, it's easy to give a little for the cause.
I think every single paragraph in the linked piece of OP made me roll my eyes and cringe at the tactics employed.
All I really saw was:
Chillun'
Chillun'
Chillun'
It's not really about the
Chillun'
Chillun'
Chillun'
But BP told us to make it about the
Chillun'
Chillun'
Chillun'
We are convinced adults hate flavors, so we gonna act like
Chillun'
Chillun'
Chillun'
All I really saw was:
Chillun'
Chillun'
Chillun'
It's not really about the
Chillun'
Chillun'
Chillun'
But BP told us to make it about the
Chillun'
Chillun'
Chillun'
We are convinced adults hate flavors, so we gonna act like
Chillun'
Chillun'
Chillun'
Targeting children with fruity and cany flavors? You mean like liquor companies do with say Apple Martinis? Whipped Cream Vodka? Strawberry Daiquiris?
Poll those same kids and ask how many have tried real cigerettes or alcohol? {OTHER STUFF} even since states are now begining to legalize that so they can tax it. Yet ecigs are the bad one.
Sent from my One using Tapatalk
Poll those same kids and ask how many have tried real cigerettes or alcohol? {OTHER STUFF} even since states are now begining to legalize that so they can tax it. Yet ecigs are the bad one.
Sent from my One using Tapatalk
Last edited by a moderator:
How come they are not up in arms about the mint and fruit flavored nicotine gum?? And how come a certain, select group of politicians with a specific political philosophy are always the ones leading the hypocritical crusade against vaping? I guess the answer (hypocritical) is in the question.
My letter to congress,
I am writing today to encourage you to stand up against the recent Protecting Children from Electronic Cigarette Advertising Act proposed by Markey and others. This act purports to have saving lives as its main goal. However, the effects would be the exact opposite.
Numerous studies since 2009 have shown that Electronic Nicotine Delivery Devices have a cigarette cessation rate equal to or higher than pharmaceutical methods. In some studies the rate of significantly decreased cigarette consumption at 24 months was over 50%. In multiple studies it was found that the common e-cigarette was more pleasant to use than currently marketed inhilators from pharmaceutical companies. Yet, the e-cigarette's pharmacological profile was far more like the inhalator than a classic cigarette. A study published in Food and Chemical Toxicology vol. 50 issue 10 also shows that second hand vapor from an Electronic Nicotine Delivery Device has none of the negative effects on complete blood count or inflammation that a classic cigarette has.
The Protecting Children From Electronic Cigarette Advertising Act is a misplaced bill based on fear instead of science. It is based on an idea that adults don't like sweet flavored things or find beautiful models attractive in advertising. Millions of adults indulge in e-cigarettes and other forms of vaping on a regular basis. Many of them opt for flavors such as caramel macchiato, blue berry muffin, and chocolate orange. Many former classic cigarette smokers, that now use electronic devices, will openly admit that the fruit and desert flavors are what allowed them to quit. It isn't about attracting children. It is about getting adults away from the close enough, but not exactly feeling of synthetic tobacco that causes many to relapse.
What we have in the PCFECAA is a misguided attempt at legislation that ignores science, and the health of millions. I understand the desire to save children from bad outcomes. However, when it means killing other people, is it worth it? Even the Royal College of Physicians of London has stated, This RCP report makes the case for harm reduction strategies to protect smokers. The report demonstrates that smokers smoke predominantly for nicotine, that nicotine itself is not especially hazardous, and that if nicotine could be provided in a form that is acceptable and effective as a cigarette substitute, millions of lives could be saved. The report also argues that the regulatory systems that currently govern nicotine products in most countries, including the UK, actively discourage the development, marketing and promotion of significantly safer nicotine products to smokers."
I encourage you to stand up for the lives of millions of smokers that could be saved.
I am writing today to encourage you to stand up against the recent Protecting Children from Electronic Cigarette Advertising Act proposed by Markey and others. This act purports to have saving lives as its main goal. However, the effects would be the exact opposite.
Numerous studies since 2009 have shown that Electronic Nicotine Delivery Devices have a cigarette cessation rate equal to or higher than pharmaceutical methods. In some studies the rate of significantly decreased cigarette consumption at 24 months was over 50%. In multiple studies it was found that the common e-cigarette was more pleasant to use than currently marketed inhilators from pharmaceutical companies. Yet, the e-cigarette's pharmacological profile was far more like the inhalator than a classic cigarette. A study published in Food and Chemical Toxicology vol. 50 issue 10 also shows that second hand vapor from an Electronic Nicotine Delivery Device has none of the negative effects on complete blood count or inflammation that a classic cigarette has.
The Protecting Children From Electronic Cigarette Advertising Act is a misplaced bill based on fear instead of science. It is based on an idea that adults don't like sweet flavored things or find beautiful models attractive in advertising. Millions of adults indulge in e-cigarettes and other forms of vaping on a regular basis. Many of them opt for flavors such as caramel macchiato, blue berry muffin, and chocolate orange. Many former classic cigarette smokers, that now use electronic devices, will openly admit that the fruit and desert flavors are what allowed them to quit. It isn't about attracting children. It is about getting adults away from the close enough, but not exactly feeling of synthetic tobacco that causes many to relapse.
What we have in the PCFECAA is a misguided attempt at legislation that ignores science, and the health of millions. I understand the desire to save children from bad outcomes. However, when it means killing other people, is it worth it? Even the Royal College of Physicians of London has stated, This RCP report makes the case for harm reduction strategies to protect smokers. The report demonstrates that smokers smoke predominantly for nicotine, that nicotine itself is not especially hazardous, and that if nicotine could be provided in a form that is acceptable and effective as a cigarette substitute, millions of lives could be saved. The report also argues that the regulatory systems that currently govern nicotine products in most countries, including the UK, actively discourage the development, marketing and promotion of significantly safer nicotine products to smokers."
I encourage you to stand up for the lives of millions of smokers that could be saved.
I'd like one of these politicians to tell me how many smokers lives are worth the wellbeing of one child.
Seriously. How many smokers have to die before what a child *might* do becomes a secondary concern?
100? 10,000? 1,000,000? How many children are our lives worth?
And what is it exactly about a child that makes their life more valuable than an adult? Because some of us are parents?
What happens when that child becomes an adult? Does their life no longer matter?
Seriously. How many smokers have to die before what a child *might* do becomes a secondary concern?
100? 10,000? 1,000,000? How many children are our lives worth?
And what is it exactly about a child that makes their life more valuable than an adult? Because some of us are parents?
What happens when that child becomes an adult? Does their life no longer matter?
Last edited:
I wish to commend you on a well written, prompt and reasoned letter to Congress.
I'm thinking the more communications like this, the better.
But I gotta be honest that my current approach to such a bill, based on wording of linked piece in OP, would be more of a rant. Every single paragraph is perpetuating a deception and then attempting to use that as justification for an overreaching policy decision.
I want to write the rant letter, but feel it would be ignored as too vitriolic. I wonder if that is ever an appropriate way to respond, especially given the vitriol that is clearly on display in the linked piece?
Emotional letters to regulators can be powerful, but not the kind of rant I think you had in mind. Keep it civil, do not insult them, do not speculate about their motives, and do not tell them what to do. Instead write about your experiences, and ASK them (as opposed to demand) to take a particular action.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
