19 Aug 14 - Bill Godshall - Another View: The Pros of Electronic Cigarettes

[Anjaffm]

19 Aug 14 - Bill Godshall - Another View: The Pros of Electronic Cigarettes
in Physicians News Digest

Another View: The Pros of Electronic Cigarettes


- This is the great text by Bill Godshall (advocate of tobacco harm reduction) that we have been reading as a comment in several publications. Now we can link to it

The growing mountain of scientific and empirical evidence consistently indicates that electronic cigarettes (e-cigs):
- are 99% (+/-1%) less hazardous than cigarettes,
- are consumed almost exclusively (i.e. >99%) by smokers and exsmokers who quit by switching to e-cigs,
- have helped several million smokers quit and/or sharply reduce cigarette consumption,
- have replaced about 1 Billion packs of cigarettes in the US in the past five years,
- are more effective than FDA approved nicotine gums, lozenges, patches and inhalers for smoking cessation and reducing cigarette consumption,
- pose fewer risks than FDA approved Verenicline (Chantix),
- pose no risks to nonusers,
- have further denormalized cigarette smoking,
- have never been found to create nicotine dependence in any nonsmoker, and
- have never been found to precede cigarette smoking in any daily smoker.

Instead of protecting cigarettes (under the deceitful guise of protecting children), public health officials have an ethical duty to truthfully inform smokers and vapers that e-cigs are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, and to keep them legal and affordable.

All real public health advocates support smokers switching to e-cigs, and keeping e-cigs legal.

Bill, you rock!

 

[rolygate]

An excellent appraisal by Bill, both factual and honest.

It points out the fundamental dishonesty of the current regulatory approach and how it is approved at the top. Unfortunately we cannot do much about dishonest governments, apparently.

 

[Kent C]

I was hoping some of that material would get published elsewhere!! Thanks for posting. @Bill

 

[Rossum]

Agreed, it's excellent, but Bill should stop making these things politically personal with phases like "Obama’s FDA" and "Obama appointee". I don't care for BHO at all myself, but there are clearly those who do. This is evidenced by the fact that they elected him to the highest office in the land, not just once, but twice. Making it personal in this manner will cause at least a fraction of the intended audience to dismiss the entire article as the rant of right-wing nut (and whether he actually is one or not is irrelevant). Moreover, since BHO is a lame duck, there's nothing to be gained by it; it's not like anyone can be persuaded to vote for his opponent the next time around.

 

[Kent C]

Agreed, it's excellent, but Bill should stop making these things politically personal with phases like "Obama’s FDA" and "Obama appointee". I don't care for BHO at all myself, but there are clearly those who do. This is evidenced by the fact that they elected him to the highest office in the land, not just once, but twice. Making it personal in this manner will cause at least a fraction of the intended audience to dismiss the entire article as the rant of right-wing nut (and whether he actually is one or not is irrelevant). Moreover, since BHO is a lame duck, there's nothing to be gained by it; it's not like anyone can be persuaded to vote for his opponent the next time around.

Perhaps he could be more precise by stating Obama's FDA's Center for tobacco Products. Because:

wiki:
The Center for Tobacco Products (CTP) was established by the Food and Drug Administration as a result of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act signed by President Obama in June 2009.

IOW, it didn't exist in "Bush's FDA" or "Clinton's FDA" (although, again wiki: "In 1996, the FDA issued the "FDA Rule," which asserted its authority over tobacco products and issued a rule intending to prevent and reduce tobacco use by children." Before that tobacco control was outside of the FDA's reach.)

The CTP is special to Obama.

 

[Rossum]

Sure, BHO signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. But it originated in the legislative branch of government. Does signing a piece of legislation rather than vetoing make it "his"?

I know it sounds like I'm defending BHO. I'm not. I'm just saying that there's nothing to be gained here by blaming him personally; in fact, I believe the opposite is true; something to be lost be lost by doing that.

 

[AndriaD]

Can someone explain "BHO"? I'm usually good with these things, but that one just flat escapes me.

Andria

 

[Kent C]

Sure, BHO signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. But it originated in the legislative branch of government. Does signing a piece of legislation rather than vetoing make it "his"?

I know it sounds like I'm defending BHO. I'm not. I'm just saying that there's nothing to be gained here by blaming him personally; in fact, I believe the opposite is true; something to be lost be lost by doing that.

I suppose you could say the same about ObamaCare - Dem majority in both Houses and Obama. How about 'theirs'

Also Dem majority in both Houses during the 2008 crash - "theirs" too??

 

[Kent C]

Can someone explain "BHO"? I'm usually good with these things, but that one just flat escapes me.

Andria

The President's initials.

 

[sonicdsl]

The President's initials



ETA: Jinx, Kent

 

[Kent C]

The President's initials

Damn, I forgot the smiley!

 

[FlamingoTutu]

Barack Hussein Obama

He posted that as a comment to an article I saw yesterday, and then lost. It is excellent but political stuff really needs to go. Many people find it offensive, doesn't matter which side it's aimed at, and can turn off potential supporters. This is a life and death keep-your-filthy-paws-off-our-vaping-stuff fight, not a political battle.

Sorry, rant over.

 

[Rossum]

I suppose you could say the same about ObamaCare - Dem majority in both Houses and Obama.

I see that one differently, as something Barry campaigned on and personally pushed very hard. So yes, that one is "his".

If he did that for the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, I didn't notice.

How about 'theirs'

If you include just about all politicians in that, then I'm good to go with it.

Left vs. Right, donkeys versus elephants, it's all a distraction, a side show at best.

 

[Kent C]

Barack Hussein Obama

He posted that as a comment to an article I saw yesterday, and then lost. It is excellent but political stuff really needs to go. Many people find it offensive, doesn't matter which side it's aimed at, and can turn off potential supporters. This is a life and death keep-your-filthy-paws-off-our-vaping-stuff fight, not a political battle.
Sorry, rant over.

How about 'keep-your-filthy-paws-off-our- guns? uteruses? drugs? rights?... political or no?? Rhetorical... I have no intention of arguing the points. I only answered the person who brought up the political aspect the best I could surmise.....

The best answer here would to have Bill explain why he worded it so.

 

[Kent C]

I see that one differently, as something Barry campaigned on and personally pushed very hard. So yes, that one is "his".

If he did that for the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, I didn't notice.


If you include just about all politicians in that, then I'm good to go with it.

Left vs. Right, donkeys versus elephants, it's all a distraction, a side show at best.

This isn't the place but I wouldn't include Sen. Burr on ecigs.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

How about 'keep-your-filthy-paws-off-our- guns? uteruses? drugs? rights?... political or no?? Rhetorical... I have no intention of arguing the points. I only answered the person who brought up the political aspect the best I could surmise.....

The best answer here would to have Bill explain why he worded it so.

Sorry, I wasn't arguing about it. They need to keep their paws off a lot of stuff. As awesome as Bill is, he does go off a lot on Democrats and many people have expressed their displeasure with it. I think he'd get the same reactions if he constantly targeted Republicans. Better to target the individuals causing the problems rather than half the population. just my spare change.

 

[Kent C]

Sorry, I wasn't arguing about it. They need to keep their paws off a lot of stuff. As awesome as Bill is, he does go off a lot on Democrats and many people have expressed their displeasure with it. I think he'd get the same reactions if he constantly targeted Republicans. Better to target the individuals causing the problems rather than half the population. just my spare change.

He 'goes off' on Republicans too - usually at state and local levels, since the anti-ecig feds are almost all Dems. This IS a political issue because it deals with our rights as individuals - something that is under the subject of politics. It isn't necessarily a 'partisan' issue, although there is a certain party that tends to violate rights by justifying that it is 'for the public good' - which, as this particular government was created, isn't and shouldn't be the standard, and even if it were, their actions/policies many times fail that "public good" standard, and e-cigarette regulation is just another example of that.

 

[dragonpuff]

I do love Bill's posts, but I agree that the partisan rhetoric has got to go. All is does is alienate people who still support Obama, and it does not help our cause to alienate anyone.

Furthermore, I hardly think that all of this nonsense with the FDA is entirely because of the president. We all know that there are many powers at play here. Yes, recent events with the FDA attempting to ban e-cigs occurred during the Obama era, but that also happens to be the time that e-cigs started getting popular.

The FDA pushed to ban nic water and succeeded, and that happened during the Bush administration. Not to mention the 30+ year history of suppressing information on harm reduction, which has occurred through multiple presidential terms. We can't really pin the tail on the donkey or the elephant in this case.

 

[Kent C]

I do love Bill's posts, but I agree that the partisan rhetoric has got to go. All is does is alienate people who still support Obama, and it does not help our cause to alienate anyone.

Furthermore, I hardly think that all of this nonsense with the FDA is entirely because of the president. We all know that there are many powers at play here. Yes, recent events with the FDA attempting to ban e-cigs occurred during the Obama era, but that also happens to be the time that e-cigs started getting popular.

The FDA pushed to ban nic water and succeeded, and that happened during the Bush administration. Not to mention the 30+ year history of suppressing information on harm reduction, which has occurred through multiple presidential terms. We can't really pin the tail on the donkey or the elephant in this case.

I think we can - Dem majorities in both houses passing the bill for tobacco control by the FDA, Dem president signed it. Waxman staring it in the House. Harkin, Rockefeller, Durbin, Merkely, Markey, Boxer, Feinstein, Sherrod Brown, Reed, Blumenthal, all Dems pushing in the committees and all signing the letter to the FDA with no Republicans signatures. Republicans Burr and Alexander giving the hard questions to Zeller at the HELP committee hearings.

Even at the state and local level, the Republican support has been for banning for minors and many times the Dems not supporting that 'because it didn't go far enough'. This last, there are many examples of that in the 'legislative' forum.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

Kent, I know how feel about it and that you are passionate about it. I admire your dedication and tenacity in fighting the bans so let's just agree to disagree on this. Pretty please.