3/23/09 | Senator seeks to halt sales of 'e-cigarettes'

[nicosnack]

Dear Senator,

It has recently been reported that you are moving against the easy availability of "electronic cigarettes." I beg you not to do this. Senator, I have been tobacco-free for the past four months since using this device after almost 30 years of smoking. Granted, this is a new technology, and is unfamiliar to most at this time. But please, do not act in a hasty manner to ban, prohibit, or restrict this device that offers so much promise to deliver smokers from the already-documented ill health effects of tobacco. It seems to me that would be imprudent. Please first recognize and support the positives of this new smoking alternative-- thus supporting freedom-- before advocating for restrictions on a new technology that promises better health for millions. Thank you.

 

[jamie]

the propaganda machine.....YouTube - The Obama Deception

This is about what this is about and it's not Obama. As others have said and I repeat and concur... enough with looking for excuses to dump personal political dog whistles into ecig threads, it's not appropriate.

Here is another article listing some of the known Congressman using e-cigarettes: TheHill.com - Sen. Lautenberg wants to snuff out electronic cigarettes

Thanks, great find! Here are pertinent folks mentioned in the article:

Reps. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) and Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) have all been spotted using the device on Capitol Hill.

Stearns has sent electronic cigarettes to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and President Obama to help them quit smoking.​

 

[nicosnack]

Lautenberg wrote to this guy, everyone here should too. It doesn't have to be profound, just that you disagree.... here is Lautenberg's letter:

The Honorable Frank M. Torti
Acting Commissioner
Food and Drug Administration
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20903

Dear Acting Commissioner Torti:

I am writing to request that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) take immediate enforcement action against manufacturers of “electronic cigarettes” and take these products off the market until they are proven safe. In numerous media reports, the FDA has indicated that these products are considered drug-device combinations under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and therefore require prior approval by the FDA before being sold in the United States. However, e-cigarettes are currently being sold in mall kiosks across the country and on the Internet.

Electronic cigarettes are being marketed as alternatives to cigarettes and other tobacco products. They are usually battery-powered devices that use a vapor to deliver nicotine to the smoker. When the smoker inhales through the device, air flow is detected by a sensor, which activates a heating element that vaporizes a nicotine solution stored in the mouthpiece. This vapor may also be flavored and provide a physical sensation similar to that of inhaling tobacco smoke.

Manufacturers and retailers of these products claim that e-cigarettes are safe, and even that these products can help smokers quit traditional cigarettes. However, there have been no clinical studies to prove these products are effective at helping smokers quit, nor have any studies verified the safety of these products or their long-term health effects. The World Health Organization (WHO), in a release dated September 19, 2008, stated that, “WHO has no scientific evidence to confirm the product’s safety and efficacy.”

For these reasons, I believe the FDA must take immediate action to take these products off the market. Thank you for your consideration of this request, and I look forward to hearing from you.


Sincerely,

Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ)

 

[outofstep]

Could someone do some research to see who his top campaign contributors are?

I'm wondering if he's getting money from big tobacco or big pharma.

I got 3 exams tomorrow, but if I got time later I'll check.

If he's getting money from them then we should coordinate an assault on his credibility.

 

[Oliver]

I'm deleting all posts I consider to be off topic or political in nature. This is a very important issue and I want the thread to stay focused on people producing the best possible responses to the Senator.

All posts that detract from this will be deleted.

Thanks,
SJ

 

[schnauzer4me]

Not sure how much impact letters/calls/emails will have but I am 100% certain doing nothing will....well it will do nothing for sure.........

 

[jamie]

Could someone do some research to see who his top campaign contributors are? I'm wondering if he's getting money from big tobacco or big pharma.

Done and posted in the thread by strayling.

 

[outofstep]

Thanks Jamie

Too ...... too study at the moment, but I found a list of contributions categorized by Committee.

FEC Disclosure Report Search Results

Notable contributors:

Johnson and Johnson, manufactures Nicorette
Pfizer: manufactures Chantix and Nicotrol
Glaxo Smith Kline manufactures Zyban and Commit Nicotine Lozanges
Novartis: manufactures Habitrol Nicotine Patch

Looks like Pharma is quite fond of Mr. Lautenburg

 

[TropicalBob]

Be realistic (that was an excellent letter, BTW) and don't expect the New Jersey senator to have an instant change of heart. Not realistic at all. Instead, focus on this from Jamie:

Reps. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.), Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) and Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) have all been spotted using the device on Capitol Hill.

Stearns has sent electronic cigarettes to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and President Obama to help them quit smoking.

Of those politicians, aside from an ex-smoking President, far and away the most important is John Boehner. He's the Republican party leader in the House, a hardcore cigarette smoker, and you see him on CNN daily as spokesman for the minority party. I'd suggest reasonable letters be sent to him, as well as the other two Representatives known to e-smoke. Ask their support to continue the product availability until some kind of known damage is reported.

We've used these devices more than a year, thousands of us, without incident. We've recorded success stories here. Capitalize on those.

I cannot, however, refute one sentence in the New Jersey senator's letter. His facts are correct. Our position shouldn't be to argue against his facts, but to argue for what we do know: We have been willing guinea pigs for this nicotine delivery system and we're fat and happy on e-cigs, no longer inhaling the carcinogens in tobacco smoke. What's the problem?

 

[DaveB]

For those of us who do not feel comfrontable writing, a phone call will be the next best thing. Congressmen and Senators all have staffers ready to register opinions called in by phone.

 

[BrandonBlue]

I sent comments to the FDA explaining my positive experience with e-cigs and requesting that they not to take any actions against electronic cigarettes unless they are shown to be more harmful than burning and smoking tobacco products.

I used this form on the FDA's web site:

1. go to f d a . g o v
2. Select the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of the page

I don't know if they will read or respond to my comments. But they might.

Brandon

 

[Dude]

I agree with TropicalBob. Although there are a few folks on the Hill that know of/use these, I think most of their energies are being spent on other tasks at hand.

Those congressman that do know of these may not even be aware of the letter that was sent to the FDA today. Letting THOSE folks know may provide the most direct route of letting Senator Lautenberg know of some first-hand "user" knowledge from fellow Congressman.

 

[Kamanjah]

I still believe a petition is in order. Someone who is a better writer than myself to draw up a precise description of what we're taking a stand for. Lets see how many signatures we can amass and send it to all of them. It would be relatively simple and pack a powerful punch!

Petition here.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

I agree with TropicalBob. Although there are a few folks on the Hill that know of/use these, I think most of their energies are being spent on other tasks at hand.

Those congressman that do know of these may not even be aware of the letter that was sent to the FDA today. Letting THOSE folks know may provide the most direct route of letting Senator Lautenberg know of some first-hand "user" knowledge from fellow Congressman.

They do according to the link you posted TheHill.com - Sen. Lautenberg wants to snuff out electronic cigarettes

 

[DisMan]

I used this form on the FDA's web site:

1. go to f d a . g o v
2. Select the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of the page

I don't know if they will read or respond to my comments. But they might.

The FDA does respond. They have responded to me. They were quite snippy and have piss-poor customer service skills...but they still responded. (I was actually nice, letting them know that only the liquid was under their regulation...they disagreed...even though it is clearly written that nicotine regulation is the only true jurisdiction they have here.)

 

[Dude]

Yes, that's true.

My point was simply that, in addition to perhaps contacting our respective representatives, we also make those specific congressman aware of the letter Senator Lautenberg sent (which they may or may not be aware of).

I would suspect that the folks on the Hill talking to one another about a particular topic holds their attention more than our letters may (as much as I would like to think that the thoughts of their constituents would reign supreme

 

[MonkeyMonk]

You can find out who your congressmen are at this link:
Contacting the Congress
It's as easy as entering your zipcode

(BTW. I'll make a new thread in the general e-cigarette part of the forum so this info won't be skipped if the thread gets long and pages are skipped)

 

[chokmah]

Petition here.

Petition signed.. Thanks for posting this..

 

[DJGoogone]

Petition signed!

Emails sent..
FDA, Congresswoman Kosmas (My local rep), Frank M. Torti (FDA), and Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg.

Grr...

Dj

 

[outofstep]

I cannot, however, refute one sentence in the New Jersey senator's letter. His facts are correct. Our position shouldn't be to argue against his facts, but to argue for what we do know: We have been willing guinea pigs for this nicotine delivery system and we're fat and happy on e-cigs, no longer inhaling the carcinogens in tobacco smoke. What's the problem?

I don't agree with him that its not a safer alternative. How much evidence will be needed to prove this? How do you compare two completely unrelated health problems from two separate sources and say which one is worse?

The act of not smoking tobacco ergo no health affects associated with smoke is enough for me to label it as safer than cigarettes. Here is one of just a few facts associated with smoking and cancer: Cancer Statistics Smoking and Cancer Statistics

"Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death, and cigarette smoking causes most cases."

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death followed by cancer. You think if I were tell Mr. Laudenberg this that he or anyone else would want to ban anything associated with increased cardiovascular risk?

i.e. caffiene, Adderall, any nicotine product, junk food(ad infinitum)

All we have to do is compare the health affects from the act of smoking with the health affects associated with not smoking. Its not like we are smoking some new synthetic drug made in a home chem lab.

Bob, you are dead on when you said focus on what we know, and these are some we questions we must have a clear understanding of:

1. What do we know about nicotine?
2. What do we know about PG and other non-nicotine chemicals?
3. What makes e-smoking different from smoking analogs and what health problems associated with the effects of smoking are not found in e-cigarettes?

Don't you find it the least bit suspicious that he is jumping the gun by saying:

1. e-cig suppliers are marketing it as a safe alternative
2. we don't know enough about e-cigs to make that claim
Therefore, e-cigs should be banned when the more rational and logical conclusion would be

Therefore, any e-cig that is marketed as a healthier alternative should be banned.


We can't say for certain what's driving Mr. Laudenberg, but I came up with 3 likely explanations:

1. He is focusing on the uncertainties of cigarettes, and does not know enough of the uncertainties.

He is open to changing his mind if he he gains more information.
or
His mind has been made up because he's overprotective or he wants the glory and recognition for protecting Americans.

2. He is focusing on the uncertainties, knows what is known and still thinks it should be banned.

His mind has been made up.

3. He is bought and paid for by Big Pharmaceutical companies.

His mind has been made up.

All 3 are possible, but given that he's a politician I think 1 and 3 are more likely and he will not change his mind.

We can contact Mr. Laudenberg, but I think our efforts are best place somewhere or on someone else. Anyone for or against this?

I',m sorry if its tldrl;