The costs of running this huge site are paid for by ads. Please consider registering and becoming a Supporting Member for an ad-free experience. Thanks, ECF team.

American Lung Association

Discussion in 'Organizations with the Ability to Listen' started by autumnbreeze, Apr 16, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
  1. $hua

    $hua Super Member ECF Veteran

    Wow, you ladies and gentlemen are simply fantastic.... Thank you so much.
    As i mentioned i want to give fair and accurate data, and as i also mentioned its been a terrible amount to absorb within the past 9 days.

    **Kristin and Vocalek specifically thank you for the ammendments you have provided me. Im making the corrects to the body of my speech and re recording it now. Kristin if alright with you, im going to use your corrects specifically as seen in the post #60.

    Im going to set a my droid to audio record while i deliver my speech and ill see if my professor can give me access to the video recording as well.

    Again thank you very much,

    Humble and Grateful,
  2. kristin

    kristin Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Certainly - but don't forget to make/add the edits from Yvilla's comments on post 50 and my comments on post 59!
  3. Tom09

    Tom09 Super Member ECF Veteran

    Feb 22, 2009
    Great text! I just wouldn’t say „less than 1%“ DEG in liquid of one cart, since Westenberger‘s report was specific in stating „approximately 1%“.
  4. kristin

    kristin Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Here - I think this has all of the changes:

  5. kristin

    kristin Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Not trying to be cute, but how is stating "approximately" being specific at all? You only use "approximately" when you are trying to make a number look bigger by using the higher amount.

    Based on their actions, one could safely assume it was close to but slightly under 1% or else they would have said "over" 1% for more shock value. :rolleyes:

    Funny how they had no exact measurements - exactly why peer review ripped the testing to shreds.
  6. $hua

    $hua Super Member ECF Veteran

    Again thank you everyone for the input, here is the adjusted speech i will deliver at ~6pm in Augusta Ga, if your local.. Pm and ill give you the loc.

    Ive moved a couple things kristin to keep them relevant to the research and citations they belong with. If any of my facts are still inaccurate please let me know. If the flow of the read through is "uncomfortable" please let me know... at this point all of your help has been invaluable.

    Thank You,


    Blueprint: April 29th 2010 New York state senate proposed a bill to ban the sale and distribution of a device known as an electronic cigarette.
    FIRST I’m going to discuss what an electronic cigarette is and how it works, SECOND I’m going to address who is behind the ban and the reasons for the ban, and FINALLY im going to discuss the potential impact to both smokers and non smokers.

    (above is the blueprint statement, im choosing the april 29th event because it is most relevant (current event speech)

    Introduction: Welcome friends and colleges, for the visiting press allow me to introduce myself. My name is Joshua ****, I am a member of an independent board that has been asked to access a growing trend in a small section of the population that is seeking tobacco replacement and or substitution options. The latest event in this trend is the actions of the New York State Legislation on April 29th 2010.

    On April 29th 2010 New York State Senate (is that how I want to say that?) proposed a bill to ban the sale and distribution of a device known as an electronic cigarette.
    Again I’m going to discuss what an electronic cigarette is and how it works, then I’m going to address who is behind the ban and the reasons for the ban, and finally I will address the potential impact to both smokers and non smokers.

    First, an electronic cigarette , also known as a “e-cigarette” , is a device that is used as a substitution to a traditional cigarette. It is important for me to point out that it is marketed as a substitute to the cigarette and not a smoking cessation device like the patch or gum; the users of this device acknowledge that it is used in place of a traditional cigarette and not as a means to prevent or end the use of traditional cigarettes. (i want to change this, this is not correct, thats exactly why im using my eGo) The electronic cigarette delivers nicotine to the user by vaporizing a propylene or vegetable glycol based nicotine solution. It works by using a rechargeable battery to heat an atomizer; this atomizer contains a coil that heats up enough to turn a liquid to a vapor. The user inhales this vapor, which contains the nicotine solution and in many cases it satisfies the desire to smoke a cigarette. I could spend several hours talking about the anatomy of these devices and their uses but let’s move on to why New York wants to ban this device…

    On April 29th, New York state legislation lead by Senator Jeffrey Klein proposed a bill that would ban the sale and distribution of the electronic cigarette. Senator Klein’s reasons for the ban are largely based on a 2009 press release by the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA’s test included 18 electronic cigarette cartridges and of the 18, only 1 cartridge was found to contain less than 1% of a chemical known as diethylene glycol, which is sometimes found in anti freeze. Subsequent testing by several independent labs has found no diethylene glycol in any cartridges. The FDA also announced it found trace amounts of tobacco-specific chemicals, which at high levels, may be carcinogenic. Now I think it's important to point out that these same chemicals are found to be at comparable levels in several FDA approved nicotine cessation products such as the patch and an inhaler made by the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. They are also found in traditional cigarettes at over 1,300 times those amounts! (Additionally, what the FDA did NOT find is of significance. It did not find the 4,000 toxic ingredients nor the 50 to 60 human carcinogens that can be found in traditional cigarettes. Keeping these facts at the bottom relevant to the WHO research and usage.) The FDA as well as the American Lung Association are concerned about the potential risk of marketing to minors, they claim that the flavored nicotine solutions such as “cherry” “chocolate” or “banana” are too easily marketed to children as well as the concern that the electronic cigarette is misrepresented as a stop smoking device. However, as I mentioned before, electronic cigarettes are largely marketed as smoking alternatives. Additionally, surveys of electronic cigarette users show that 77.7% of users are former smokers over the age of 30 and not minors. Ladies and Gentlemen I ask you, how likely are you to start smoking because a cigarette now because it tastes like thin mint cookies? These are the primary reasons that New York legislation has chosen to ban the electronic cigarette. Aside from Senator Kleins stated reasons, I also think its fair to inform you that Pfizer a leading producer of smoking cessation devices such as a nicotine therapy patch and a pill called wellbutrin, listed on a 2009 political contributions report as having contributed money to many of New York State representatives, specifically on page 27 of this report the name Jefferry Klein and a dollar amount can be found, in addition to this report on a 4th quarter 2009 Medical organization contribution report, the American Lung Association can be found listed as a recipient of grants in various amounts totally nearly 1 million dollars. Again both of these reports can be found on Pfizers own website. After significant research by my committee, motivation for these bans is still unclear.

    Last I want to discuss what this means for the people of New York and potentially people worldwide. Most immediately the impact this will have upon the citizens of New York is most evident with a simple search of an internet forum know as, upon browsing this site you find testimonies of those who live in new York and are faced with returning to a smoking cigarettes, a product that is destroying their health, and the health of everyone in the immediate contact with them, not to mention the countless “inconveniences” that accompany cigarette smoking. Like one woman who’s 80 year old mother depends on her to go about daily life, and without the use of an electronic cigarette in place of a traditional cigarette faces impending health issues herself. Or We could take a look at the World Health Organizations web site as see statics regarding the impact of smoking on the world. For example according to the WHO website as of May 2009, worldwide, every 8 seconds someone dies because of cigarette smoking. You will also find that there are more than 4,000 chemicals in a cigarette most of those are carcinogenic,(cutting this bit, contrasting statement not needed at this point) (in most cases there are 3-4 ingredients in the liquid solution used by an electronic cigarette). Additionally smoking related diseases cost the US more than 150 million dollars annually, again these facts can be found on the World Health Organization’s website. Regardless if you are a smoker, or have a family member that is a smoker, regardless if you have a dire concern for your health or the public health, the fact remains that with such high costs related to cancer causing cigarettes everyone is paying a tax for their use. And The truth of the matter is that there has not been conclusive testing to determine that the e-cigarette is detrimental to anyone’s health. However in the 5 years that they have been on the world market there have been no reports of illness or injury due to electronic cigarette use. But the facts are overwhelming regarding the use of traditional cigarettes.

    Friend and colleges, these are the findings of my committee regarding the current state of affairs in terms of the trend to ban the product known as the electronic cigarette. We will make these findings available in both written and electronic form. If any of you have additional questions or comments, we will have a booth set up in the lobby, please feel free to stop by and speak to one of our representatives. Thank you and please drive home safe.

    Edited to fix paragraphs
  7. Tom09

    Tom09 Super Member ECF Veteran

    Feb 22, 2009
    Regarding DEG, Westenberger 2009 applied qualitative and quantitative analytical methods. The quantitative part is in this statement in the methods section “Quantitation was performed using an external standard.” A result reported as “approximately 1 %” is just that. This number is not overly precise, as it comes without fractional digits. Westenberger told nothing about the resolution of his method and nothing about the error attached to this number (which he might have assessed or not). The true value might well be found at 0.5 % or 1.4%, for instance, but this information is not available. Therefore, stating DEG was lower 1 % misrepresents the reported data. It does not strengthen the argument when you insert a precision that does not exist.
  8. kristin

    kristin Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    I understand your point, however I still would argue that if it was over 1%, they would have said that. They were looking to make ecigs look as bad as possible.

    Note that the FDA press release didn't bother to note that it was only "approximately 1%" and left the public to believe that it was a significant amount by calling it "toxic" when "approximately 1%" is not toxic. They also said "toxic chemicals" in the plural. What other chemicals were found?

    Two can play that game.
  9. D103

    D103 Super Member ECF Veteran

    Mar 18, 2010
    cedar rapids, iowa
    I totally agree Kristin "approximately 1%" is NOT toxic. Also, you are so correct in pointing out the FDA's obvious lack of 'exactitude' when reporting on their supposed findings and the subsequent criticisms from peer reviews (which unfortunately are probably lost, in terms of significance, on the general public). I also really liked your suggested "add on" - the significance of what the FDA did NOT find........" as well as mentioning that in five years of being on the world market not one documented fatality nor ANY documented cases of serious injury or illness attributed to the use of electronic cigarettes versus the current death toll in excess of 400,000 American Lives annually directly attributable to tobacco smoking-related illnesses.
  10. kristin

    kristin Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    The FDA also failed to mention in their statement that the DEG was only found in one cartridge, leading the public to believe that DEG was a standard ingredient in ALL e-cigs!
  11. $hua

    $hua Super Member ECF Veteran

    Misinformation is a popular form of propaganda, Hitler was famous for this tactic. Now im not trying to parallel our gov institutes to the Third Reich, but ummm... it is what it is.
  12. thephoenix

    thephoenix Unregistered Supplier ECF Veteran

    May 23, 2010
    Albuquerque, NM
    ASH, THE ALA & The FDA are on the wrong side of history on this one...

    I was a 2 pack a day smoker...and the patch/gums couldn't even phase my habit no matter how committed to quitting I was...

    Once I received my 510 i haven't touched an analog cig since...50 days clean...and it wasn't even challenging...

    The most infuriating thing about finding the anti-freeze chemical in the one cartridge is the percentage found wouldn't harm anyone...And can they truly look us with a straight face when comparing against the toxic substances in a single cigarette?

    i guess they can. the entire argument is dishonest from the get-go.

    if they want to regulate e-liquid that's fine, but to try and ban the device is purely political, rooted deeply in the pockets of big tobacco...

    i'll take a fraction of a percent of anti-freeze any day over tar! at least I can breathe and taste my food again...
  13. Vocalek

    Vocalek CASAA Activist ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Apr 7, 2009
    Springfield, VA
    And the good news is that you aren't even being exposed to that fraction of a percent of anti-freeze--unless you drink the liquid. And if you drank the liquid, the DEG would be the least of your worries.

    The vaporization point of DEG is higher than the operating temperature of the devices, which explains why FDA didn't find any DEG in the vapor.
  14. thephoenix

    thephoenix Unregistered Supplier ECF Veteran

    May 23, 2010
    Albuquerque, NM
    it's so frustrating, I have a hard time believing it's reality!
  15. Drakos

    Drakos Full Member

    Jun 23, 2010
    I applaud the compassion and stance towards the use of e-cigs but there are issues that will come to bite us. We can all agree about how much safer e-cigs are bit since I have converted from analogs 3 months ago, there are concerns I have for safety. What if a small child got a hold of the e-liquid and drank it? What would be the result? What about a large quantity of e-liquid in contact with skin or eyes? It is great that we are all attempting to make a stance on the benefits of e-cigs but I think the safety concers I have are valid and real. It would take only 1 incident of ingestion by a child that results in hospitalization or death to destroy everything we are fighting for. Improvements for starters is to impement tamper proof bottles. I would pay an extra $1.00 just to have that piece of mind. When a bottle is labeled "Bananas" or "Rootbeer", do you not think a child would have an urge to consume it? Just food for thought.

  16. thephoenix

    thephoenix Unregistered Supplier ECF Veteran

    May 23, 2010
    Albuquerque, NM
    i hear you, Drakos.

    check out DEKANG ejuice - comes with child-proof caps...

    it's a start anyway.
  17. autumnbreeze

    autumnbreeze Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 24, 2010
    Northern Virginia
    You're correct, Allan. The same thing could be said for an infant getting hold of a pack of analogs and eating them. No one's saying that there shouldn't be standards set for the vendors. As vapers, we should ALL want standards. But an outright ban is what we're fighting against. Once we can tackle that problem, then we can fight for standards. And actually, there is an organization that has implemented standards for the vendors. Childproof caps are one of them. Hopefully they'll pave the way for the standards of the community.
  18. KDK

    KDK Senior Member ECF Veteran

    May 27, 2010
    Fresno Ca. USA
    You are right about the safety standards- but it isn't any different from many chemicals that are in use in our homes. We all have things around such as insecticides, cleaning products, and maybe medications that children should not be able to get into. Yes they should be in packaging that makes it difficult for children to get into, but we still have to monitor our kids, and take responsibility for the materials we have in our homes, and keep them locked up! No different than if you have a gun in your home.
  19. letsrock0303

    letsrock0303 Senior Member ECF Veteran

    Jul 20, 2010
    Phoenix, AZ
    KDK I agree completely. It isn't a far reach to put child-proof lids on our juice. At the end of the day though it is up to us to keep an eye on our children.
  20. Vapor Pete

    Vapor Pete The Vapor Pope ECF Veteran

    Mar 14, 2009
    Rochester, NY
    Having not read the entire thread, I may not be asking this question in the right area...

    But last month the company I work for took donations for the American Cancer Society. I, knowing that they are one major group who has voiced their disdain for e-cigs, refused to donate any of my money to them. Some folks I work with where confused as to why I quietly declined. Should I feel bad? Did I do the right thing by rejecting the donation plate? Should I have just given?

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page