spreading the word and emailing to our state
I'm just curious here, but what do these law makers have against their own people? Honestly, if I could no longer get E-cigs I would go back to analog cigarettes. Which means I would still be getting nicotine.... nicotine that I now get from my E-cig. Not to mention all the other crap I get from analogs.
I'm just curious here, but what do these law makers have against their own people? Honestly, if I could no longer get E-cigs I would go back to analog cigarettes. Which means I would still be getting nicotine.... nicotine that I now get from my E-cig. Not to mention all the other crap I get from analogs.
http://www.lungusa.org/associations/states/new-york/publicpolicy/assets/memo9529.pdfStatement of support: E‐cigarettes are battery‐powered nicotine inhalation devices made in China. The manufacturers claim to deliver nicotine to the user through a propylene glycol solution. E‐cigarettes are available in bubble gum and fruit flavors as well as more traditional tobacco‐flavors. Currently, they are being sold at retail outlets including kiosks at malls across New York, as well as online. Most experts agree that these products have their greatest appeal to new smokers, 90% of whom are teens or younger. Established smokers are unlikely to give up their favorite brands for these new products.
The makers and retailers of these products have been making unproven health claims about their products, claiming that they are safe or safer than traditional cigarettes and asserting that they can help people to quit smoking. In one press release, an e‐cigarette company claimed their products were doctor recommended for pregnant women.
There is no scientific evidence that e‐cigarettes are safer for consumers than regular tobacco products. In fact, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted one initial and limited study into the products in July of 2009, which confirmed that concern about the safety of the products is valid. FDA scientists found that the products contained carcinogens and toxic chemicals, including the ingredients found in anti‐freeze.
Like the light and low tar cigarettes that tobacco companies claimed were healthier for consumers, there is no evidence to back up the claims made by e‐cigarette makers. In September of 2008, the World Health Organization stated that they have no evidence to confirm the products safety or efficacy. There is also no scientific evidence that these products can help smokers quit. The U.S. Public Health Service cessation guidelines state very clearly that smokers who want to quit should use FDA‐approved cessation medications in conjunction with either individual or group counseling.
We agree with the initial FDA determination that these products should be regulated as drug‐delivery devices and as such, should not be sold until the FDA has determined their safety and efficacy. The Lung Association has called for the removal of all e‐cigarettes from the marketplace until they have been determined to be safe.
For these reasons, the American Lung Association in New York, supports this legislation and urges its enactment.
Agreed. This would be a good start!!spreading the word and emailing to our state
I guess i will just keep my mouth shut.......sit on the sidelines and watch.....I get the impression that what I did is seen as bad.
I spent most of the afternoon gathering good info and sources found here and passed along what I found. This just fires me up due to the injustice of it.
I wont do any more......
I had sent links to info gleaned from here. Harvard study and such. They do not want to look at any new info. Their study is outdated. Basically I got a form letter back. I did not use my own words except to state that my health has improved since i started using a PV and that they should be looked at as a healthy alternative to smoking not as a smoking cessation device. They treat us as if we know nothing and only they know what is good for us!
I have a ? and I really don't know where to ask it. Didn't the Appellate court rule that the e-cig can be regulated as a tobacco product? If so then that changes the whole NY ban proposal I would think.
If the court ruled that they are tobacco products and can be regulated as such, wouldn't that make this null and void?