4/20-22/14 - BREAKING: Victory buys VIP, Sing. crackdown, TX town bans sales; Aus.; Sg.; Dk; UK; Ca.; US: NY,NJ,MD,PA,VA,FL,TX,IL,MI,WI,MO,ND,CA

Not open for further replies.
Jan 19, 2014
Moved On
    [ Just paste broken links shown in purple directly into your browser - the extra line doesn't matter. Pls. PM me if you have more recent info. about proposed/actual legislation, if you think I've missed an important story, or if you want more tweaks to the formatting program. ]

    4/20/14 - 4/22/14 Media Roundup

    1) Watauga, Texas has Banned Sale of E-Cigarettes:
    CASAA: Local Alert! Watauga, Texas has Banned Sale of E-Cigarettes.

    2) Dr. Farsalinos survey of vaping is finally published.

    3) US-based Victory buys UK-based VIP for £30 million ($50M US).

    4) Denmark's Health Minister calls for regulations on nic-free PVs (PVs with nicotine are only available by prescription).

    5) vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor bans proposed in: Caerphilly WLS; Shasta co. CA; Hewitt TX; Glen Cove NY. Plus vapers who life in any cities in Denton and Collin co. TX should beware (see first story in Texas section).

    6) vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor bans passed in: Miramar FL (apparently to keep children from becoming tobacco cigarette smokers); and Ann Arbor MI (this was part of a general tobacco smoking ban, vaping was evidently included as a matter of course with no comment or discussion by city officials).

    7) FL house modifies its simple minor sales/possession ban (HB 169) to allow local jurisdictions to pass harsher restrictions and/or more stringent display/marketing requirements.

    8) Singapore cracks down on vaping sales.

    9) Altria (formerly PMI) earnings not expected to improve in the near future.

    Coverage: Australia; Singapore; Denmark; UK (nat'l/WLS); Canada; US States: NY, NJ, MD, PA, VA, FL, TX, IL, MI, WI, MO, ND, CA

    Also: More on FDA regulation w/ C.V.; Interview w/ Prof. Gerry Stimson; Dr. Siegel on the ACS' hypocrisy re: Walgreens; Gary Cox on the Australia situation; D!ck Puddlecote reacts to the world's first apartment vaping ban.



    Title: Characteristics, Perceived Side Effects and Benefits of Electronic Cigarette Use: A Worldwide Survey of More than 19,000 Consumers [Dr. Farsalinos study]
    (Int'l Journal of Env. Research and Pub. Health)
    IJERPH | Free Full-Text | Characteristics, Perceived Side Effects and Benefits of Electronic Cigarette Use: A Worldwide Survey of More than 19,000 Consumers
    Yes, this is the Dr. F. survey that we've all heard about. Also discussed in this ECF thread: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...02-results-study-19000-e-cigarette-users.html

    Title: FDA reveals its views on ecigs in new publication (part 3), and some thoughts on their new deadlines
    (C.V. Phillips' blog)
    FDA reveals its views on ecigs in new publication (part 3), and some thoughts on their new deadlines | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
    Much of this is fairly technical, but what caught my eye were the FDA's own promises on its delay times for reviewing of MRTP (Modified Risk Tobacco Product) and SE (Substantial Equivalence) applications. This is one of the more salient aspects of FDA regulation that could effectively shut down the vaping industry as we know it today (but there are others, as noted in the series of blogs).

    Title: Interview with professor Gerry Stimson about the Global Forum on Nicotine.
    (Industry-sponsored site)
    Interview with professor Gerry Stimson about the Global Forum on Nicotine. | Save e-cigs
    I don't usually post industry-sponsored sites' links, but this one is worth a read for anyone who's concerned about the anti-vaping impact of both the EU's TPD (Tobacco Products Directive), and the WHO's proposed extensions to the FCTC (framework Convention on Tobacco Control). In both of these cases, as well as the Singapore-sponsored "Tobacaco-Free Generation" project, there is real potential for world-wide impact on the cause of vaping: in all of these cases, vaping is being treated and regarded as indistinguishable from tobacco cigarette smoking. (As readers of this space know, the 4/16 media roundup reported that 11 Asian countries had signed on to Singapore's initiative which calls for measures to be taken that will ensure that no one born after 2000 uses any form of tobacco-related product: it's a cinch that such legislation will have an impact on every adult who currently vapes, since "protection of children" is well known to be both the first and last refuge of prohibitionists.) This interview also contains some interesting observations about the upcoming Global Forum on Nicotine, to be held in Warsaw on June 27-8.

    Title: What’s goin’ down down under?
    (ECF's InfoZone)
    What's goin' down down under? - ECF InfoZone
    Gary Cox looks closely at the recent decision by a WA court that would effectively ban the sale of e-liquid.

    Title: The World's First E-Cig Ban In Private Homes?
    (D!ck Puddlecote's blog)
    Reacting to the decision by the city of Corte Madera's decision to ban vaping in apartment buildings - reported in this space's last news summary.

    Title: American Cancer Society Sells Out Its Principles for Money
    (Dr. Siegel's blog)
    Dr. Siegel looks at the ACS' two-faced perspective on Walgreens' decision to continue to sell tobacco cigarettes.

    Title: New Article Argues that Hospitals Denying Employment to Smokers is Not Consistent with Principles of Medicine
    (Dr. Siegel's blog)
    About the moralization of health care. And although Dr. S. doesn't mention it, there are government agencies in the US that are refusing to hire anyone who fails a cotine test, even if they're NRT users.

    Title: LA public vaping ban may benefit vaping lounges
    (ECF's InfoZone)
    LA public vaping ban may benefit vaping lounges - ECF InfoZone
    Vape lounges are the new "speak-easies" of Los Angeles.

    Title: The poisonous "juice" in e-cigarettes
    (British Med. Jrnl which specializes in anti-vaping studies/letters/etc.)
    Re: The poisonous
    Excellent response to fear-mongering junk science letter. I'm astonished that it was actually published.

    Title: E-Cig Wars
    (ECF's InfoZone)
    E-Cig Wars - ECF InfoZone
    Gary Cox muses about the patent wars and soap operas in the cigAlike industry.

    Title: Bill Godshall Update 2014-04-22
    (Bill Godshall's blog)
    Bill Godshall Update 2014-04-22
    Bill's updates for 4/18 - 4/22

    Title: Anti-Smoking Groups and Policy Makers Attack Big Pharma for Targeting Kids with Flavored Nicotine Replacement Products
    (Dr. Siegel's blog)
    A little fun. Enjoy :)



    Title: Victory Electronic Cigarettes Corporation Closes VIP(R) Acquisition Expanding European Platform for Growth [Press Release]
    (US Nat'l business) http://online.wsj

    Title: VIP Electronic Cigarette, based in Radcliffe, was today bought by American firm Victory Electronic Cigarettes Corporation
    (Manchester MCH UK local paper) http://www.manchestereveningnews

    Price is £30 million ($50M US). Note that Victory Pres. Michael Clapper is the new Chair of ECITA. Manchester-based VIP was the firm behind the now-infamous UK "I want to put it in my mouth" ad campaign.

    Title: The E-Cig Market Is Still Smokin' [by Rich Duprey]
    (US investor site) http://www.fool

    Finally, Motley Fool publishes another article by Rich Duprey, who is (as far as I can tell) their only writer who actually knows anything about vaping and/or the market, and who ranks with Melissa Vonder Haar of CSPNet as one of the only quasi-mainstream reporters who can be trusted to write something sensible about vaping and/or the industry. Although factual and incisive, this one won't tell knowledgeable vapers very much which wasn't already said by Wells Fargo analyst Bonnie Herzog in a recent WSJ piece - namely, that cigAlikes are still booming, but are quite likely to become yesterday's news within the near future. However there's no attempt to explain why the writer believes that the FDA will be unsuccessful when it "undoubtedly tr[ies] to snuff out the emerging electronic cigarette market when it reveals its soon-to-be-released regulations ..." other than to point to the rapid rate of evolution in the area of VTMs (personal vaporizers, tanks, and mods), viz. non-cigAlikes.

    Title: Will Altria (MO) Disappoint This Earnings Season? - Analyst Blog
    (Stock exchange blog site) http://www.nasdaq

    This analyst's report is skeptical about near-term Altria (formerly PMI) earnings. No surprise that cigarette revenues are dropping, but vaping is also under siege from regulation:
    "Altria has been witnessing declining volumes for the past few quarters due to growing awareness against tobacco products. Worldwide anti-tobacco campaigns and consciousness among people against the harmful effects of tobacco are shifting consumer preference away from cigarettes and other traditional tobacco products. [...] Accordingly, the company has been reporting soft top lines in both the smokeable and smokeless segments for the past few quarters because of the ongoing industrial headwinds discussed above. We do not expect these conditions to improve in the quarter. Earnings of the company have been growing regularly only due to tailwinds from lower excise tax and share buybacks - suggesting lack of significant growth in the core business. Moreover, e-cigarettes are now being considered by both the French and EU governments as tobacco products which face the same restrictions as other such products. These developments are expected to further hurt volumes of the tobacco companies. [boldface added]"
    No mention of OTP (other tobacco products) or the changing nature of the vaping market (growth of non-cigAlikes, which PMI has apparently not yet considered relevant).



    Title: E-cigarettes' case goes up in smoke following landmark ruling in WA court
    (Sydney MSW Aus.) http://www.smh

    More coverage of the case out of WA (Western Australia) - NWS Health Ministry is "monitoring the case," and evidently preparing to go after vape outlets if the ruling is upheld. Also see:
    What's goin' down down under? - ECF InfoZone



    Title: Three prosecuted for online sales of e-cigarettes
    (Singapore nat'l paper) http://www.todayonline

    Is Singapore's health ministry ready to crack down on vaping sales? It seems so. Three sellers were fined an average of S$32,000 each (about US$25,000), with the highest fine being over US$50,000.



    {Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
    Title: Tobacco giants muscle in on e-cigarette market
    (Eurowide TV) http://www.euronews

    This very brief report notes that BT has invested heaviliy in vaping, and that there's no current quality control regimine imposed on PVs which are mostly (the report indicates) made in China. Unless one's following the market, one wouldn't have caught this one-sentence reference to what I'm calling the "herb cooker" technology:
    "But the tobacco companies [sic] new products use a solid form of tobacco which some doctors say will be just as dangerous [as tobacco cigarettes."
    The 187 words in this piece come to an end with no mention of cessation or harm reduction, merely this fairly typical ominous warning:
    "However more and more production is coming to Europe and the USA, and slick marketing, say anti-smoking campaigners, is trying to make lighting up fashionable again. With the health implications still little-understood and the deep pockets of big tobacco hard to counter, many people are concerned."



    Title: Health minister no fan of electronic cigarettes
    (Copenhagen Dk local paper) http://cphpost.dk/news/health-minister-no-fan-of-electronic-cigarettes

    Like health ministers and health department officials everywhere, Nick Hækkerup might like nothing other than a full-fledged ban on vaping products, based on CWUFs (concerns, worries, fears and unknowns) regarding both children and adults. This is true even though Denmark prohibits over-the-counter sale of vaping products that contain nicotine.
    But he'll will have to settle for regulation (at least for the moment):
    "'It concerns me that children are using strawberry and licorice flavoured e-cigarettes,' Hækkerup wrote in a statement to parliament's committee on health. 'It doesn't matter whether or not they contain nicotine, it is still a concern.' Hækkerup called on parliament to begin discussing possible regulation of the use of electronic cigarettes. [para break omitted, boldface added]"
    This report stops short of the full-fledged fear-mongering that we've come to expect in the states:
    "Studies have shown that e-cigarettes can cause damage to the respiratory tract and that they do contain small amounts of carcinogens. The research is however preliminary and Socialdemokraterne health spokesperson Flemming Møller Mortensen said that it is too soon to sound the alarm. 'It is hard to regulate when we know as little as we do now,' he told DR Nyheder. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
    And naturally the local ANTZ orgs are just itching to see vaping restricted. (It used to be tobacco cigarettes, then it was nicotine, and now it's ... ?):
    "Niels Them Kjær, spokesperson for Kræftens Bekæmpelse, the cancer society, welcomed Hækkerup's suggestion. 'It has been a grey area for a while, so it is a positive sign that the minister is looking to regulate it in some way,' Kjær told DR Nyheder. [para break omitted]"



    {Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
    Title: Follow the science over e-cigarettes [Editorial]
    (Int'l bus. mag.) http://www.ft

    Excellent editorial dismisses the "gateway to tobacco" argument and the "nanny" argument (nicotine is an addictive stimulent, therefore the gov't has a role in keeping us from using it). Conclusion:
    "The aim of health regulation must always be to reduce harm. E-cigarettes should therefore be embraced as part of the solution to the growth of cancer worldwide. Regulators should not take narrow-minded decisions to occupy an invented moral high ground. Instead, they should follow the science. This provides overwhelming evidence that electronic cigarettes are a benefit." (Unfortunately, no similarly-respected voice of rationality within the press seems to exist outside the UK.)

    Title: E-cigarettes and the vape debate
    (BBC) http://www.bbc

    This is a pointless story which seems to have been created by a combination of Googling and cutting-and-pasting variegated opinions. Although it does link to the despicable Scientific American piece (reviewed in the last news roundup), but ultimately concludes that there are no "verified risks" other than "injury by explosion" (sadly, it doesn't mention that any battery can explode).



    {Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
    Title: E-cigarette ban planned by Caerphilly (Wales) council
    Council considering banning vaping on all municipal property because the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board has done so, and allowing vaping would "[re]normalise smoking" and "undermine the smoking ban."

    Title: Significant public support for ban on smoking in cars carrying children
    (Wales UK newspaper amalgam site) http://www.walesonline

    Poll shows that 81% of the Welsh public support a ban on tobacco cigarette smoking in cars containing minors. Vapers will immediately wonder whether there may also be a danger of this dovetailing Health Min. Drakeford's proposal to ban vaping in public places (including private business and public parks, etc.). However the same poll showed that 45% of the public opposes such a ban. So for now, it appears that the Welsh public do not support the idea that adults should be prohibited from vaping in cars that contain minors. Drakeford's proposal to ban vaping in private businesses open to the public is currently under consideration, and an announcement is expected in mid-May.



    Title: Vaping: The battle for acceptance is rising
    (Toronto ON Ca. local paper) http://www.thestar

    Title: ‘Vaping’ loyalists battle for e-cigarette acceptance
    (Waterloo ON Ca. local paper) http://www.therecord

    Title: E-cigarettes are odourless, so can you use them anywhere? [alternate title]
    (Waterloo ON Ca. local paper) http://www.therecord

    Title: ‘Vaping’ loyalists battle for e-cigarette acceptance
    (London ON Ca. local paper) http://www.londoncommunitynews

    Title: E-cigarettes are odourless, so can you use them anywhere?
    (Cambridge ON Ca. local paper) http://www.cambridgetimes

    Spotlight on vape shop owner, a vaper, and Dr. Gopal Bhatnagar - a Toronto-area physician who has started his own cigAlike company (which currently only offers nic-free options). The good thing about this piece is that the writer provides an opportunity to vapers and the Dr. to refute all the anti-vaping falsehoods that generally pass for "scientific truth," in most articles, as well as the CWUFs (concerns, worries, fears, and unknowns).

    Title: E-cigarettes in regulatory grey zone: Are they banned or aren't they?
    (Nat'l news network) http://toronto.ctvnews

    General summary of the situation in Canada, little of which will be novel to Canadian readers. In a nutshell, Health Canada has declared the sale of any e-liquid that contains nicotine to be "unauthorized," but the ban is effectively unenforced (except occasionally and inconsistently, through border seizures). The result is that no one really knows what's going on. The first province which appears to be ready to take some action is Nova Scotia, which is looking into a province-wide vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor clean air act extension and a ban on flavors.
    There's some bias and junk in the article - for ex.:
    "[Melodie Tilson, policy dir. for Canada's Non-Smoker's Rights Assn] says her group is concerned about e-cigarettes in large part because they worry they could become a 'gateway' for young non-smokers to tobacco smoking. 'If they are being widely promoted like they are now and being promoted the way cigarettes were, and if they're being widely used in public places and workplaces where smoking used to be permitted, we could re-normalize the act of smoking for a new generation,' she said. [para break omitted, boldface added]"
    (Vapers were never given a chance to respond to this, although members of the Electronic Cigarette Trade Assn of Canada were apparently interviewed.)
    "Health Canada says propylene glycol is a known irritant and there are concerns might contain their own dangers. The effects of inhaling nicotine-laced vapour is even less well-understood."
    "So do e-cigarettes help smokers kick their habit, or re-enforce it? Again, there have not been enough high-quality research to say for sure."
    (This is the usual "no information exists whatever" misleading stance.)
    All of that said, Canada (like the UK) lacks the well-funded messianic puritanical and mendacious American Tobacco Control Industry, so we hear things that are often said in the UK:
    "Tilson's group, like many anti-smoking advocates, believe e-cigarettes could be helpful to smokers, pointing to two high quality studies that found that e-cigarettes can be as effective as nicotine patches in helping smokers quit. "
    "Last year, the Canadian Lung Association issued a policy statement to say vaping was 'potentially harmful' to lungs and called for an all-out ban on the sale of e-cigarettes until their safety could be properly researched. But the group is currently re-evaluating its stance, as it investigates the devices' use as a quit-smoking aid."



    Title: FDA reveals its views on ecigs in new publication (part 3), and some thoughts on their new deadlines
    (C.V. Phillips' blog)
    FDA reveals its views on ecigs in new publication (part 3), and some thoughts on their new deadlines | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
    Much of this is fairly technical, but what caught my eye were the FDA's own promises on its delay times for reviewing of MRTP (Modified Risk Tobacco Product) and SE (Substantial Equivalence) applications. This is one of the more salient aspects of FDA regulation that could effectively shut down the vaping industry as we know it today (but there are others, as noted in the series of blogs).

    Title: E-cigarette Industry Awaits Looming Federal Regulation
    (AP) http://www.boston

    This article by AP tobacco reporter Nichael Felberbaum has been excerpted or syndicated in scores if not hundreds of US media outlets. It's also being discussed in this ECF thread: http://www.e-cigarette-forum

    Usually AP reporters are fairly careful about slanting stories, and this one contains relatively little in the way of subtle bias. Although it's certainly not free from it:
    i) "Some smokers use e-cigarettes as a way to quit smoking tobacco, or to cut down."
    Taken literally, this is true. There are at least two smokers on planet earth who have used vaping as smoking cessation or reduction.
    But of course it implies that there are a significant proportion of vapers who have never been smokers, which (as we all know) is misleading at best.
    ii) "There’s not much scientific evidence showing e-cigarettes help smokers quit or smoke less, and it’s unclear how safe they are."
    Again, if we carefully qualify this statement, it's true. There are no long-term peer-reviewed studies of cessation, nor are there long-term peer-reviewed studies that precisely measure where on the scale vaping may be, as between:
    a) a completely "safe" activity such as drinking a nanoliter of room temperature sterilized distilled water and
    b) sitting atop a detonating 50-megaton thermonuclear bomb. In other words, "harm reduction" is a nonextant notion, which is exactly what anti-vaping advocates want the public and policymakers to believe.
    That said, there are "takeaways" from this piece that appear plausible:
    1) Ban sale to minors. (What's unclear is whether this will track the current regulation of tobacco cigarettes, by requiring a F2F sales requirement for e-liquid and perhaps special licenses for the purchase of high concentration water-soluable nicotine - which would essentially end vaping as we know it.)
    2) "Federal regulators also are expected to set product standards and require companies to disclose their ingredients and place health warning labels on packages and other advertising." Again, the devil is in the details. Depending on how these regulations are crafted and implemented, they could result in the demise of the non-cigAlike parts of the industry.
    3) The status of e-luquid flavors is unknown. (Although the story doesn't mention it, non-tobacco flavors are still permitted in "cigars" and also in pipe tobacco.)
    4) Marketing and advertising restrictions are a big question mark.
    5) What about equipment? Will the current fear-mongering over e-liquid poison control center calls result in a general ban on e-liquid, or perhaps a prohibition on the sale of any container that can be refilled by the vaper? This appears to be where the EU is moving, with its TPD. It's also interesting to observe that the CDC released its poison control call center data (and issued a press release) on the very same day that FDA Commissioner Hamburg was testifying in front of a congressional committee.
    6) "The FDA also will decide the grandfather date that would allow electronic cigarette products to remain on the market without getting prior approval from regulators - a ruling that could force some, if not all, e-cigarettes to be pulled from store shelves while they are evaluated by the agency." This caught my eye, because I'm not sure that the FDA has the authority to change the date range for the substantial equivalence test. If not, then FDA regulation will mean exactly what the quoted sentence says: a complete ban on the sales of all e-liquid and cigAlikes (if not vaping equipment).
    7) "The regulations will be a step in a long process that many believe will ultimately end up being challenged in court." (Can't argue with that.). Here's a helpful description from CSPNet:
    and this chart:

    Title: Coming soon: FDA to announce e-cig regulations proposal
    (BT-sponsored [?] site) http://www.tobaccoreporter

    I have no idea where they get their info. from, but I thought this was quoteable:
    "It is quite literally 'any day now' that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says it will release its proposal for the regulation of e-cigarettes, according to a spokesperson for the FDA. The rules could change the landscape of the tobacco and vapor industries. [boldface added]"
    The short piece also contains this summary:
    "The FDA will most likely ban sales to those under 18, set product standards, require companies to disclose e-juice ingredients and place health warnings on packaging and advertisements. The FDA will also decide whether there will be a grandfather date for products that are currently on the market and what it might be, in addition to proposing rules on advertising, sponsorships, Internet sales limitations and child-proof packaging requirements. [boldface added]"
    (Hmm. If you DIY w/ nic., now might not be a bad time to order more high-concentration liquid.)



    {Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
    Title: Can e-cigarettes help you stop smoking?
    (US Consumer-oriented science site) http://health.howstuffworks

    The title for this piece should probably be something like: Is vaping safer than smoking, is it safe, and should you try it for cessation?.
    1) This article contains no junk other than the implication that some vaping opponents think that vapers who have quit smoking tobacco cigarettes are somehow exposing themselves to no less danger than they were when they were still smoking. This is nonsense - only the most irresponsible vaping opponents such as Stanton Glantz make that claim. But the author of this piece isn't quite sure how to separate those who do say this, and those who agree that vaping can be harm reduction - so she goes back and forth between the two positions (she may not even be aware of the difference, because she may never have heard of harm reduction).
    2) Is vaping "safe," according to vaping opponents? The answer is that they have no evidence, but have "concerns" about nicotine (it's "addictive," the "long term effects aren't known," and vapers may "overconsume"). Plus opponents "worry" that vaping may lead to smokers not quitting in the "safe and effective" way, and/or continuing to smoke (more?) tobacco cigarettes. We've heard this all before, and we all know that every survey article about vaping has to "CWUF" multiple times (i.e. use concern/worry/fear/unknown over and over again).
    3) Should the reader consider vaping as cessation? No: there are too many CWUFs (concerns, worries, unknowns and fears). Yes: many people have used it and feel a great deal better.
    As general survey articles written by authors who almost certainly had no knowledge of vaping prior to getting their assignment, this isn't so terrible. But clearly the writer's only goal was to summarize anti-vaping CWUFs (concerns, worries, fears and unknowns), and report the anectdotal experiene of vapers. Your Correspondent is actually not certain that she even knows what she herself thinks. But in a world of "accidental hit jobs," a neutral piece like this beats a laundry list consisting of references to FDA '09, CDC statistics on minor vaping and poison control center call statistics, Dutra & Glantz (minor-gateway-to-smoking), and Grana et al. ("doesn't help smokers quit").

    {Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
    Title: How Nicotine Works
    (US Consumer-oriented science site) http://science.howstuffworks

    [This piece is by two authors, neither of whom wrote the one above that's also from "How Stuff Works."]
    Although this article doesn't mention vaping, it's got a lot of junk ammo. for vaping opponents:
    1) Context-free presentation of nicotine's properties as a stimulent, which are similar to caffiene.
    2) No mention whatsoever of vaping as a possible cessation tool (or anything else).
    3) Conflates harms from tobacco cigarette use with smokeless tobacco and vaping (in other words "nicotine = cigarettes").
    4) Uses discredited information about toxicity and compares nic. to sarin gas (which is a well-known tactic among anti-vapers). 5) Mentions NRT as a cessation tool, but apparently the authors suffered from cognitive dissonance when they wrote the sections on nicotine's dangers.

    Title: Are E-Cigarettes Really Safe?
    (US nat'l fashion mag) http://www.cosmopolitan

    This is actually not bad:
    1) No they aren't safe but less dangerous than tobacco smoking says an MD.
    2) Minors are using them, we're very concerned (context-free presentation of CDC minor data ignores fact that teen smoking is way down).
    3) Lancet survey cited - they're as good as the patch.
    4) "Ask your doctor" (who will probably tell you that s/he can't possibly recommend anything that's not FDA-approved because the malpractice ins. co. will object and the state licensing board might use any such recommendation against him or her).

    Title: Opposing view: E-cigarettes can help end smoking
    (Melbourne FL US local paper) http://www.floridatoday
    Title: E-cigarettes can help end smoking: Opposing view
    (US nat'l paper) http://www.usatoday

    Letter from Craig Weiss, Pres/founder of NJOY.

    Posted in two media summaries because they keep putting a new date on it
    {Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
    Title: Smokescreen: Are E-Cigarettes Safe? - Even without tobacco, the poorly regulated devices may pose unique dangers
    (US national science mag. aimed at general public) http://www.scientificamerican

    As one might anticipate from the title, this is a laundry list of all the reasons why the harshest imagineable taxation and regulation are needed ASAP. There is one tiny nod to cessation: "Unfettered access could leave people vulnerable to unknown health hazards, but there is also the chance that greater restrictions might hurt folks who are trying to forgo conventional - and more dangerous - tobacco products."
    But after that, we get into all the reasons why vaping is public health menace - every fear, concern or unknown that the author can dredge up in order to convince the reader that this is another plot by Big Tobacco to hook children on tobacco cigarettes, poison existing smokers who turn to vaping as a form of cessation, and (of course) cause untold cancer carnage among bystanders. In short, it's a brazen "hit job" that any professional ANTZ would admire, couched in careful, measured, pseudo-scientific language. That said, it doesn't contain any outright lies, although the author is careful to coax as much fear of vaping products out of the reader's emotions, without doing so with the kind of incendiary language that a professional ANTZ might prefer.
    1) "The primary established danger of nicotine is that the stimulant is highly addictive, although emerging science also links it to an impaired immune system. [boldface added]"
    2) "'We have little information about what happens to propylene glycol in the air,' the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry says on its Web site. An assessment from the agency, issued in 2008, references only a couple of studies that cover inhalation exposures--all with laboratory animals rather than people. "
    3) "Beyond the three main ingredients, [evidently the author has never heard of VG, nor the existence of VG-based e-liquid, or even 0% nic.] some researchers worry about by-products from heating electronic cigarettes and the solution inside them. Various studies suggest the vapors from e-cigarettes contain several cancer-causing substances, as well as incredibly tiny particles of tin, chromium, nickel and other heavy metals, which, in large enough concentrations, can damage the lungs [rather like nic. inhalers, right?]. [boldface added]"
    4) "Yet another analysis [Dutra and Glantz, undoubtedly] linked e-cig use with greater odds of trying tobacco. They come in kid-friendly flavors, including chocolate, bubble gum and gummy bear. [boldface added]"
    5) "As the debate blazes, deep-pocketed big tobacco investors are buying up e-cig companies, injecting millions of dollars into the market and banking on a bright future for the devices. [Ah ha. Big Tobacco is being vaping. Another reason why it's a "smokescreen," right?, boldface added]"
    6) "The success of all these enterprises hinges on the claim that e-cigarettes are healthier than traditional cigarettes."
    And as we've discovered, there's absolutely no reason to think that vaping is any safer than smoking tobacco cigarettes. Plus it hooks minors on tobacco cigarettes. (Which is probably a good thing because we know that tobacco cigarettes may not be as dangerous as vaping.)

    Title: Can We Really Trust E-Cigarettes? The Good, The Bad and the Ugly
    (Some US foodie site aimed towards organic food, etc.) http://ecosalon

    When I saw the heading, I immediately assumed that I was going to read another pathetic hit job. Actually this is more like an advertisement, since the "expert" is David Goerlitz, who used to be the photogenic model for Winston cigarettes (and who later became an anti-tobacco activist, and then subsequently turned against the hypocrisy of the anti-smoking movement without taking the side of BT). However he's now on the board of American Heritage, and is identified as such. Anyway it's nice to read a pro-vaping article that breezily dismisses all the garbage thrown at vapers. (For more on Goerlitz, you might want to have a look here, at Christopher Snowdon's site): http://www.velvetgloveironfist

    {Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
    Title: E-Cigarette The Latest SCAM
    (Some MD's blog) http://pediatric-house-calls.djmed

    This guy buys into every single piece of junk science that Glantz puts out. No hypothesis is too ridiculous for him to embrace, and no "study" too junky for him to quote. This piece is not only dripping with lies, it exudes hatred and loathing for vapers and smokers. At the bottom of the page, we see this:
    "[ JAMA Intern Med. Published online March 24, 2014. ]" which - as near as I can tell - is a reference to the the Grana et al. letter regarding the junk cessation "study" (the one that the media picked up under the most popular title: "E-cigs don't help smokers quit.")



    Title: L.I. City [Glen Cove] Looks To Add E-Cigarettes To Anti-Smoking Laws Already On The Books
    (NYC US CBS affiliate) http://newyork.cbslocal

    Title: Call to amend law to include e-cigarettes
    (Long Island NY US local paper) http://www.newsday

    Glen Cove Mayor Reginald Spinello wants a vaping=smoking extension to the city's clean air act:
    "'There's been lots of reports, negative reports about abuse of e-cigarettes and some of the little cartridges, flavorings and there's some carcinogens in them,' said Spinello. 'We'd like to keep as much of smoke-free environment as we can and e-cigarettes, we believe, are a part of the smoking problem.' 'This is certainly a health issue,' said Spinello. 'It's a problem that continues to grow and we're gonna be at the forefront of this.' [para break omitted, boldface added - from the CBS story]"
    CBS Story also mentions CDC poison center control calls press release (as if this is somehow relevant. Long Island Newsday also contains this quote from the mayor:
    "'The hope is that when we talk about ‘no smoking' they should say that includes e-cigarettes, too,' he said. Spinello said he wanted the city to follow examples of other municipalities that have enacted similar prohibitions. [para break omitted, boldface added]"
    Long Island Newsday also mentions the CDC poison center calls, and note that city atty has been asked to draft a proposal for the council.

    {Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
    Title: Tell Us: Should Glen Cove Ban E-cigarettes in No-smoking areas?
    (AOL's 'zine) http://glencove.patch

    Report briefly summarizes above stories and asks for comments. It appears that they want remarks in the comments section.

    {Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
    Title: Syracuse hospital bans e-cigarettes after patient on oxygen catches fire while using one
    (Syracuse NY US local paper) http://www.syracuse

    Hospital VP says "there's no doubt" that the PV caused the fire. Fire dep't is still investigating. (However the patient was hooked up to oxygen, and burned on her face.) Instead of noting that any battery-operated device is a potential danger in an oxygen-rich environment, the hospital decided to ban vaping everywhere in the hospital, both indoors and outdoors. Of course the writer of the article decided to mention the CDC poison control center calls, the exploding charger story from England, and exploding PVs - presumably on the grounds that these are other bad things about vaping that everyone needs to know.
    Note: knock-offs and summaries of this piece are appearing en masse, as I write this, and I won't be listing any that appear to be unremarkable.

    Title: NY hospital bans e-cigarettes after fire, injury
    (AP) http://bostonherald

    Much shorter than the above, and avoids the gratuitous "other bad things you need to know about vaping" factoids added to the previous article.

    Title: E-Cigarette Users Urged To Charge Device Carefully
    (Some UK-based general news site) http://www.thenewsreports

    This was clearly written with the Syracuse hospital fire in mind, but makes the larger point that charger fires (etc.) are a result of user error, and can occur with many battery-operated devices. For some reason, the author chose not to mention any extraneous negative factoids about vaping. Although the article does refer to "the UK fire dep't."



    Title: Raising taxes on e-cigarettes makes no sense: Letter
    (Newark NJ US local paper)
    Excellent junk-free letter.



    Title: Electronic cigarettes spur local businesses
    (U MD College Park MD US student paper) http://www.diamondbackonline

    Two vape stores opening. Not one word of junk. Amazingly, designated smoking areas still exist at U MD.



    {Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
    Title: Everything You Need To Know About E-Cigarettes: Are They Really A Healthier Alternative To Smoking?
    (Pittsburgh PA US local weekly) http://newpittsburghcourieronline
    (Detroit MI US local weekly) http://michronicleonline

    The content of this despicable piece (which has been effectively turned over to Tobacco Control scientists) has nothing at all to do with its deceptive title. The title should be: Why we don't know enough about vaping to classify it as 'safe and effective' FDA-approved therapy, and why we should be supportive of anything and everything that anti-vaping opponents propose, in order to avoid renormalizing smoking in the eyes of children.
    This piece begins with a discussion with a Philadelphia vape store owner, and I was actually fairly optimistic when I read this (which is about the best one can expect from a non-vaper/non-smoker in the US press):
    "So if there’s no data that proves second-hand vapor is harmful, no evidence that concludes it causes cancer, and users claim it helps smokers quit, then what’s all the fuss about?"
    Well, the answer is that every single piece of random speculation and conjecture from Tobacco Control Industry scientists is what the fuss is all about, and why the author believes (but won't say) that no smoker should even consider vaping. It's the old "Well, we don't know whether vaping is more dangerous than being next to a detonating thermonuclear bomb, because there haven't been enough studies. And until we can prove that it's as safe as drinking a nanoliter of sterilized distilled room-temperature water, don't try it."
    For example: "[From Elizabeth Klein, a professor in the Center of Excellence in Regulatory Tobacco Science:] 'We don't have good data as far as the risks applying those chemicals that are in e-liquids into the lungs,' she explained. 'A lot of the pulmonary tests done on the e-liquids products have suggested that there're pretty poor control on what's contained in these e-liquids. For instance, when the FDA conducted some of these studies they found that some of the e-liquids that claimed not to contain nicotine actually contained nicotine.' [boldface added]"
    [Uh, that's FDA '09, which the FDA has itself repudiated. Never mind. She's a scientist, right?] And again:
    "Dr. Frank T. Leone, the director of the Comprehensive Smoking Treatment Program at the University of Pennsylvania, says 'this degree of variability in itself is a risk, given that the public has no assurance from the manufacturers regarding the constituents.' In his opinion, the idea that e-cigarettes are safe is the inevitable conclusion from marketing aimed at smoker's vulnerabilities. While there appear to be very few short-term health risks, Leone said the 'products haven't been available long enough (or studied carefully enough) to know for sure that there are no long-term effects.' [boldface added]"
    There's more garbage in there about PG, and a particularly illuminating couple of paragraphs in which indoor bans are justified based on the bogus minor gateway-to-tobacco argument and "renormalizing smoking."
    In a nutshell, vaping isn't known to be absolutely safe, and could be as dangerous as blowing your brains out. And we should also be supportive of indoor and outdoor vaping bans, because these protect children from the renormalization of smoking. (Or taxing vaping like cigarettes. Or just banning it entirely.)
    In short: that's "Everything you need to know about e-cigarettes"



    Title: Virginia bans sale of e-cigarettes to minors
    (Hampton Roads VA US ABC affiliate) http://www.wvec

    Brief junk-free note - VA's simple minor ban, H241 which bans minor purchase or possession of "alternative nicotine/vapor products" signed by Gov. McAuliffe two weeks ago. VA legislature is out of session for the year as of tomorrow, and won't be back until 2015.



    {Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
    Title: Miramar Bans Sales Of E-Cigarettes To Minors [and indoor/outdoor vaping by adults, too - in order to prevent vaping from becoming a gateway to tobacco cigarette smoking for minors]
    (Miami FL US CBS affiliate) http://miami.cbslocal

    It would be bad enough if the city of Miramar's officials merely accepted the ANTZ and Durbin Report's allegations as the absolute truth:
    "'It is imperative to protect our youth from products like e-cigarettes. Deceptive marketing practices that prey on our minors has no place in Miramar and I am pleased to have my proposed ordinance adopted by the city commission,' said Commissioner Wayne Messam. [...] 'E-Cigarettes are often marketed to minors and come in flavors like bubble gum, cotton candy and chocolate,' said Commissioner Messam. 'We are doing what we can to protect the health of Miramar's youth by being a responsible city and taking action against the sale of electronic cigarettes to children.' [boldface added]"
    Hooray for protecting children against the evil tobacco companies. Oh, and BTW, we also need to stop adults from vaping indoors and outdoors, because vaping is a gateway-to-tobacco-cigarette smoking for minors:
    "The ordinance also promotes a ban on the use of e-cigarette devices in places where traditional tobacco is currently banned under the Florida State Statute 386.[para break omitted, boldface added]"
    So-o why the ban on indoor/outdoor vaping by adults?:
    "'Teens are getting their first taste of nicotine through e-cigarettes. We want to prevent it from becoming a gateway to traditional cigarettes,' said Assistant Chief Dexter Williams who presented the ordinance to the commission. [para break omitted, boldface added]"
    If Stanton Glantz isn't happy living in San Francisco, perhaps he might consider moving to Miramar.

    Title: Bipartisan House vote restores local control of e-cigarette regulations
    (Tampa Bay FL US local paper) http://www.tampabay

    Under pressure from ANTZ orgs, the FL house ammended HB 169 (their version of SB 224) remove the "pre-emption" provision to this simple minor sales/possession ban. SB 224 already passed by the sen., and so presumably this will have to go to conference.

    {Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
    Title: Cigarette sales go down, but cigar sales grow
    (Tampa FL US local paper)
    What's irritating about this piece is that it begins with minor use of little cigars and argues that the flavorings put in them by BT appeal to kids, and then it seamlessly transitions to vaping - leaving the reader with the impressions that:
    (1) vaping and smoking tobacco are the same thing; and/or
    (2) if they're different, then BT is hooking kids on vaping as a way to get them into smoking tobacco; and/orthat
    (3) vaping products are primarily made by BT.
    The writer clearly believes that all "smoking" is identical. So all of it gets thrown in the same piece, and the paragraphs move back and forth between vaping and tobacco smoking. It does quote a pediatrician who is a board member of the Tobacco Prevention Network of FL who's paraphrased as saying that vaping "may" help adult smokers quit. As an aside it mentions that teen smoking is way down, but the premise of the piece is that both flavored cigar use and vaping among teens are going up (i.e. they have flavors and BT in common). Typical maddening ignorance.



    Title: Cities weigh regulating e-cigarettes [Denton Co. area]
    (Denton TX US local paper) http://www.dentonrc

    Survey article covers recent anti-vaping legislation passed in an area of TX which has become a hotbed for same: Lewsville, Flour Mound, Cross Roads, The Colony and Pilot Point (Frisco isn't mentioned, but it should be). Of course the writer had to throw in anti-vaping junk such as the poison control center calls. Vapers in the region (Denton and Collin co.s) should pay close attention, although no specific city was mentioned as being next. Readers of this space know that these ord.s have been driven in part by a particularly active local ALA group, supported by local health dep't officials.

    {Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
    Title: Hewitt weighs merits of e-cigarette ban for minors [except Health Dist. reco.s are yet to be considered]
    (Waco TX US local paper) http://www.wacotrib

    At first, this appears to be a relatively innocuous proposal for a simple minor sales/possession ban:
    "Hewitt Police Chief Jim Devlin raised the issue with Hewitt City Council after the department began receiving phone calls from residents about teens using the nicotine vaporizers and electronic hookahs. [...] Devlin said he is waiting on guidance from the Waco-McLennan County Public Health District, which has concerns about the safety of e-cigarettes, before making a formal policy recommendation to the council. 'We know that this is on their radar, so I don't want us to come up with something and then have to change it later because it conflicts with what they've proposed,' Devlin said. [para break omitted, boldface added]"
    Whoa ... the Health Dep't? Are we supposed to believe that all they want is a simple minor sales/possession prohibition? Well, it looks as if that's not what everyone thinks:
    "But Councilman James Vidrine said he was concerned that such an ordinance would create a 'nanny state' situation in which the city closely regulated residents' personal lifestyle choices. He likened it to failed efforts by former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to ban sales of large sodas in an effort to address obesity rates in children and adults. [para break omitted, boldface added]"
    (Hmm, wasn't Bloomberg's proposal aimed against adults, as well as minors?) Anyway, is there a problem?
    "Devlin said Hewitt hasn't had many calls about juveniles using the nicotine vaporizers, but said the city should be prepared to address the issue as more national groups raise questions about the safety of the devices. [...] The health district also has expressed concerns that e-cigarettes may lead to a nicotine addition or serve as a gateway to illegal substances. 'On the good side for us, it's not a problem, it's not an epidemic, it's not something that we're having to combat everyday,' Devlin said. 'We may run across it every now and again. It's like kids with (regular) cigarettes, we run across it occasionally, and we handle it appropriately.' [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
    Funny how these simple minor sales/possession bans so often seem to morph into prohibitions on adult use. (See story above on Miramar FL). Can you say: "renormalizing smoking?")

    Title: Lack of e-cig policy frustrating, unjust
    (Tarrant County College, Ft. Worth TX US student paper) http://collegian.tccd

    In a nutshell: PVs contain nicotine, there are no long-term studies on their use, "some studies" have shown that they contain "ultrafine particles" and "there's not enough data to show that they are a safer alternative." So until they've been studied for decades, they should be assumed to be just as dangerous as tobacco cigarettes for both users and bystanders. Case closed. This isn't too different from what we hear from mainstream media outlets. Besides, it's "unfair" to tobacco cigarette smokers (a rather disingenous argument, since it's evident from the language of the article that that author(s) loathe anything that looks like smoking). That said, there's a minimum of the usual junk (poison control center calls, "renormalizing smoking," etc.) It's also surprising that TX is one of the few US states that still contain educational institutions in which all non-therapeutic tobacco and vapor products are banned both indoors and outdoors, regardless of whether they contain nicotine.



    [Reposted due to resyndication]
    Title: E-cigarettes can help smokers quit, but they are not without risks
    (Lafayette IN US local paper) http://www.jconline

    Title: E-cigarettes can help smokers quit, but they are not without risks
    (Vineland NJ US local paper) http://www.dailyrecord
    (Monmouth/Ocean Co. NJ US local paper) http://www.app

    Relatively junk-free, and contains a rather mild statement about nicotine from Dr.Robert Lahita, chairman of medicine and vice president of Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, a Barnabas Health facility:
    "... use/overuse of nicotine can cause high blood pressure, irregular heartbeat, back pain, depression, anxiety, nausea and sleep disturbances - all reasons why the FDA considers nicotine a drug and potential poison and regulates the sale of tobacco products."
    Followed by this rather surprising apparent endorsement:
    "In addition to offering a design that satisfies those with an oral fixation or the need to hold something, which nicotine patches and gum products may not completely fulfill, 'e-cigarettes are a cleaner delivery system for nicotine,' he said, 'and may be among the best options out there for mature adults who are trying to wean themselves off of nicotine and quit smoking.' [boldface added]"



    {Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
    Title: Quitting smoking through e-cigarettes may not be effective
    (McLatchey) http://thesouthern.com/print-specific/shorts/need-to-know/quitting-smoking-through-e-cigarettes-may-not-be-effective/article_9b653f26-9adc-5070-8944-b64f952bf02f

    Junky article cites the Grana et al. "vaping doesn't help smokers quit" junk JAMA letter, without mentioning that the study is garbage because none of the smokers who had supposedly tried vaping did so for cessation (they might be "once users" who had a puff off of someone else's PV), nor that the numbers were so tiny that the results would've been changed had a mere extra handful of the 88 (who had taken at least one puff) had quit. Another brazen attempt to spread anti-vaping propaganda.

    Title: E-cigarette store opens second location in Algonquin
    (Arlington Heights IL US local paper) http://www.dailyherald

    New vape store opening announcement. For some interesting reason, the owner refers to e-liquid as "oils." Not one little teeny-tiny itty-bitty nanosyllable of junk. Store owner says that: "... because he's helped them get the right product, Angiulo estimates between 3,000 and 4,000 people from ages 18 to 90 have quit smoking." Interesting.



    Title: [Ann Arbor] City Council ordinance bans smoking [and vaping] in [outdoor] public areas
    (U MI Ann Arbor MI US student paper) http://www.michigandaily

    Ann Arbor city council bans "smoking" in parks, rec., areas, and w/i 20 ft. of doorways and 10 ft. of bus stops. The article says nothing about vaping, and it seems that the issue never came up: the discussion seemed to be exclusively about the dangers of cigarette smoke/smoking. An earlier article indicates that the ordinance had been ammended to include vaping but says nothing more: http://www.michigandaily

    {Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
    Title: Letter: We must do more to keep e-cigarettes from youth
    (Lansing MI US local paper) http://www.lansingstatejournal

    Letter writer argues that vaping products must be classified as tobacco products in order to protect minors, and therefore urges changes to MI's pending simple minor sales/possession bans.



    {Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
    Title: Senator Harris: Advocating for Healthy Youth [i.e. pass a vaping=smoking ban to protect children]
    (Milwaukee WI US local paper) http://milwaukeecourieronline.com/index

    Article by state sen. dumps out every possible piece of anti-vaping junk imagineable, including FDA '09, minor poisonings, teen gateway-to-tobacco, don't-help-smokers-quit, and of course they're a plot by BT. The sen. wants WI to pass a vaping=smoking indoor ban, in order to protect children (and presumably adults). Although I saw no mention of "secondhand vapor" on a quick first read).



    Title: E-cigarette sham
    (KC MO US local paper) http://www.kansascity

    Writer of letter inveighs against the explicit tobacco excise tax exemption for vaping in MO's SB 841 = HB 1690 simple minor bans. Quite likely she's a professional ANTZ, beacause she uses language such as "tobacco-control legislation," and smears the vaping industry by association the tobacco industry (this is a classic ANTZ line, of course: vaping is a BT plot). Because PVs contain nicotine, and "may" contain some of the same toxins as tobacco cigarettes, vaping products should be treated as tobacco products until more research is done (i.e. forever), since we currently know absolutely nothing about vaping.



    Title: Letter: Balance the debate over e-cigarettes
    (Fargo ND US local paper) http://www.inforum
    Response to the 4/12 despicable editorial in the Fargo ND local paper covered in this space on 4/13. Perhaps the most irritating part of it was the assertion that ND voters voted to ban indoor vaping - when the vaping ban was simply included in a general indoor smoking ban. It's good to see that the writer jumped all over that one.

    {Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
    Title: AROUND TOWN: Stores enter e-cig biz
    (Grand Forks ND US) http://www.grandforksherald

    New vape store in Grand Forks, and that makes two so far. Both owners are quoted. The local health dep't official refuses to say that vaping is a "safer alternative" (i.e. it may be just as dangerous as tobacco cigarettes). How predictable. Story also cites CDC minor stats and poison control center calls junk with no context, but only in passing. Still, a letter to the editor with some context (teen smoking is way down according to the CDC which means vaping isn't a gateway for minors to tobacco cigarette use, and toothpaste poison control center calls outnumber those regarding vaping by a margin of at least 10-to-1. Besides calls are just that.



    {Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
    Title: SF schools seek to extinguish e-cigarette use on campuses
    (SF CA US local paper) http://www.sfexaminer

    As you might expect from the SF Examiner, this one is chock-full o' junk and bias:
    "Students also reportedly said e-cigarettes help people quit smoking and don't cause secondhand smoke. Those statements are far from true, however, and the SFUSD is seeking to stamp out e-cigarette use ... [para break omitted, boldface added]"
    Note how the reporter decides to abandon all objectivity here. But it gets worse:
    "E-cigarettes reportedly produce a number of harmful effects, including airborne pollution containing nicotine, heavy metals and carcinogens, said Derek Smith, director of the Department of Public Health's Tobacco Free Project. They also give false hope to smokers about quitting, and because they have only existed in the U.S. for a few years, no long-term studies have been done, according to Smith. [para break omitted, boldface added]"
    Okay, so it looks like there's a huge problem here, right?
    " 'Because they are flavorful, kids are enticed by them,' [district student health supervisor] Blanchard said. 'This is something that we're seeing more and more. Teachers and administrators are coming to us saying, ‘What do we do?'' [boldface added]"
    So-o how big is the problem?
    "Ellen Wong, principal at Downtown High School, said this school year marked the first time students were caught with e-cigarettes on her campus. In one instance, a student reportedly set off a fire alarm by lighting an e-cigarette in a bathroom. In other case, a student puffed on an e-cigarette in a classroom while a teacher's back was turned, according to Wong. [School nurse Lynda] Boyer-Chu, a 25-year veteran of the SFUSD, said she's seen fewer than a handful of students with e-cigarettes, but those who are caught echo the misconception that e-cigarettes are harmless. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
    Um, wait a second. A fire alarm? Hard to believe. And how is it that the nurse has only seen a "handful" of students who were caught vaping? Apparently she does see all of them:
    "Per school district policy, when students are caught with e-cigarettes, they are sent to the school nurse, who explains the harmful effects of smoking. [boldface added]"
    Oh, right. We're talking about the 400,000 Americans who die every year of "smoking related illnesses." (So-o, um ... what's the connection between tobacco cigarette smoking, and vaping? Or does it even matter, since the two are one and the same?) It's one thing for the school to prohibit vaping - but quite another for them to conflate the two. Do they genuinely believe that such falsehoods will help to discourage kids from smoking tobacco cigarettes?

    Title: No ban on e-cigarettes in Shasta County, yet
    (Chico CA US ABC affiliate) http://www.krcrtv

    This is the first time Your Correspondent has heard of a Health Dep't official who is speculating about "growing a movement." "Jessica Duckett with Shasta County Public Health and Human Services Community Education Specialist says there is still much to be learned about the mostly unregulated industry. 'It's pretty early on, I know there's some concern out there,' Ducket said. 'We've certainly had a lot of questions come through our office to try to get some presentations done.' Because the fledgling industry is becoming so popular with little studies and information out on their health impact, the county health department is gathering all they can to get the public informed. 'And that's what we're doing right now, is trying to educate organizations and get the word out that there are health concerns related to e-cigarettes.' As more about the affects of e-cigarettes gets in people's hands, Duckett says it could grow a movement to ban them in public places too. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
    (Inquiring minds might wish to know how long it will take before the Health Dep't feels forced by a "growing movement" to propose an indoor/outdoor vaping=smoking ban.)

    {Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
    Title: Editorial: E-cigarette regulation update on old crusade
    (Santa Ana CA US local paper) http://www.ocregister

    Pro-vaping editorial contains no junk. The editors s/b congratulated, IMO.

    Title: Vaping lounges offer refuge from LA's new e-cigarette ban
    (Pasadena CA US NPR affiliate) http://www.scpr

    As soon as I saw that this was from public radio, I assumed that I was going to see the usual litany of anti-vaping garbage, buttressed with junk science quotes from local health officials, MDs, ALA rep.s, etc., and probably the other crud to boot (children are poisened, teens become cigarette smokers, adults don't quit, ad nauseum). I was astonished to find no junk in the piece - even when the number of adult vapers was mentioned, the writer managed to avoid citing the CDC minor use stats. Wow - the reporter actually kept to the topic, instead of of using it as an excuse to spew anti-vaping propaganda. That's very rare indeed. Also see Gary Cox's blog on ECF's InfoZone:
    LA public vaping ban may benefit vaping lounges - ECF InfoZone



    To see whether there are bad things happening where you live, try this Google search (example for Rhode Island) -
    rhode site:casaa.org
    (Replace rhode with a single word that describes your city, county, or state. For ex., if you live in Eau Claire, WI - you might use "Claire" to see if something is being proposed at the city level. Don't forget the : (colon), and be sure that there's nothing before or after the colon (not even spaces or tabs.)

    You can also try replacing site:casaa.org with e-cigarette to find out what the media is reporting in your area. This is usually most helpful if you use the search tools to search by date. (CASAA doesn't generally issue calls or alerts until a bill is out of a state legislative committee, or is scheduled for a local city or county hearing.)


    Moved On
    Apr 24, 2014
    Corona, Ca, USA
    • Deleted by Unforeseen
    • Reason: Unregistered Supplier
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread