So how does this affect the physicians who use ecigs? I know I've read on the forums about vapers who have a doctor who vapes. Do they get de-membered?
American Medical Association (AMA): Electronic Cigarettes Are Drug Delivery Devices
- Thread starter Tom09
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
The comments are not displayed on that page the same way they appear on your Wall. All comments for each article on the page are hidden until you click on "View Feedback" under each article. The number of comments for an item is shown in parentheses after "View Feedback". If there are no comments, there is no "View Feedback" link at all.
I don't think they have the ability to hold and censor comments. Comments appeasr to be stored as soon as they are entered. But they (AMA) do seem to have the ability (I'm juding by reading their rules about comments) to delete ones they don't like, after the fact.
Last edited:
I clicked the view feedback link associated with the post; I like your feedback. Then, I clicked the share link associated with the post, typed my comments, and shared with Everyone. My comments made it to my wall (both times), but not to their wall?
Maybe I just don’t understand how it works? Admittedly, I'm no FaceBook guru!
Last edited:
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
It appears that several extremist members of the AMA House of Delegates have hijicked and sabotaged AAPHP's Joel Nitzkin's resolution (that was approved by the AMA House of Delegates last year) for the AMA to study e-cigarettes and to issue an objective evidence based report on the products.
This newly adopted AMA HOD resolution not only urges the FDA to regulate e-cigarettes as drug devices (in an attempt to ban the products) instead of as tobacco products, but also urges state legislatures to ban the sale of e-cigarettes, and also urges state (and local) legislatures to ban the use of e-cigarettes wherever smoking is banned (but to not define e-cigarettes as tobacco products). Seems like the e-cigarette prohibitoinists withing the AMA HOD were following the exact recommendations delineated in the CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA memo from April.
But please note that the AMA is distinctly different from the AMA House of Delegates, and that the AMA may or may not support (and may publicly oppose) various resolutions adopted by the AMA HOD.
Back in 1996 and again in 1997, the AMA HOD adopted a resolution opposing any legislation that gave cigarette companies protection from litigation. Meanwhile, the AMA was actively collaborating with cigarette, drug and insurance companies (and Chambers of Commerce) to lobby state legislatures to enact tort reform laws that protected cigarette and other hazardous product manufacturers from lawsuits filed by victims.
And in 1997/98, AMA past president Lonnie Bristow publicly endorsed (on AMA letterhead and at AMA press conferences) federal legislation (proposed by State AGs, cigarette companies and Sen. John McCain) that would have protected cigarette companies from lawsuits filed by injured smokers.
I strongly doubt that the AMA will do anything to actually urge state legislatures to take these actions (beyond issuing that inaccurate press release stating that the AMA approved the e-cigarette policy instead of the AMA HOD, which was likely done at the request of AMA board member and AMA HOD member Edward Langston who wanted to see his name in the news).
The AMA hasn't done any tobacco policy advocacy since its multimillion dollar RWJF Smokeless States grant expired back in 2002 or 2003.
Rather, since then the AMA has simply jumped on the CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA bandwagon to endorse or oppose whatever Matt Myers asks them to sign on to.
Several weeks ago, the AMA was one of many organizations that signed onto CTFK's amicus brief in support of FDA in the SE v FDA lawsuit, and ever since 2004 the AMA endorsed the FDA tobacco legislation. Yet, I suspect that nobody at the AMA ever read any of the briefs filed in the SE v FDA case, and that nobody at the AMA ever read the FDA tobacco legislation.
This newly adopted AMA HOD resolution not only urges the FDA to regulate e-cigarettes as drug devices (in an attempt to ban the products) instead of as tobacco products, but also urges state legislatures to ban the sale of e-cigarettes, and also urges state (and local) legislatures to ban the use of e-cigarettes wherever smoking is banned (but to not define e-cigarettes as tobacco products). Seems like the e-cigarette prohibitoinists withing the AMA HOD were following the exact recommendations delineated in the CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA memo from April.
But please note that the AMA is distinctly different from the AMA House of Delegates, and that the AMA may or may not support (and may publicly oppose) various resolutions adopted by the AMA HOD.
Back in 1996 and again in 1997, the AMA HOD adopted a resolution opposing any legislation that gave cigarette companies protection from litigation. Meanwhile, the AMA was actively collaborating with cigarette, drug and insurance companies (and Chambers of Commerce) to lobby state legislatures to enact tort reform laws that protected cigarette and other hazardous product manufacturers from lawsuits filed by victims.
And in 1997/98, AMA past president Lonnie Bristow publicly endorsed (on AMA letterhead and at AMA press conferences) federal legislation (proposed by State AGs, cigarette companies and Sen. John McCain) that would have protected cigarette companies from lawsuits filed by injured smokers.
I strongly doubt that the AMA will do anything to actually urge state legislatures to take these actions (beyond issuing that inaccurate press release stating that the AMA approved the e-cigarette policy instead of the AMA HOD, which was likely done at the request of AMA board member and AMA HOD member Edward Langston who wanted to see his name in the news).
The AMA hasn't done any tobacco policy advocacy since its multimillion dollar RWJF Smokeless States grant expired back in 2002 or 2003.
Rather, since then the AMA has simply jumped on the CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA bandwagon to endorse or oppose whatever Matt Myers asks them to sign on to.
Several weeks ago, the AMA was one of many organizations that signed onto CTFK's amicus brief in support of FDA in the SE v FDA lawsuit, and ever since 2004 the AMA endorsed the FDA tobacco legislation. Yet, I suspect that nobody at the AMA ever read any of the briefs filed in the SE v FDA case, and that nobody at the AMA ever read the FDA tobacco legislation.
Aha, I had to "Like" the AMA FaceBook page to get the comments feature to display. Now my entered comments appear (for now). Seems I was going through the wrong door (the share door) to comment. I really didn't want to invest in FaceBook; I'm no fan of social networking sites. Now I’m stuck with no friends and “Liking” the AMA FaceBook page! But, if it advances the Save E Cigarettes cause in some small way, I suppose it's not too big a sacrifice to make! lol
Last edited:
*snicker* Yup, I too lamented that particular Facebook quirk and commented on my Facebook page:
The press release is reprinted here and this page allows comments to be left:
Opposing Views: AMA: Electronic Cigarettes Should Be Subject to FDA Regulations
Opposing Views: AMA: Electronic Cigarettes Should Be Subject to FDA Regulations
I have read that currently the AMA represents only 29% of doctors.
I wonder how many doctors who are members have the stones to speak out against the AMA House of Delegates resolution.
Opposing view posted.
VocalEK. I am so slow! I gave up wondering what you're handle meant a long time ago. Now I get it. Sort of....it's either that you're a vocal champion for vaping liberation or a truly dangerous individual to contend with in the local karaoke bar scene or perhaps something more professional?
Sorry. Off topic again.
Sorry to get political but I believe most of the MDs with any huevos bailed after the AMA came out in support of Obamacare.
VocalEK. I am so slow! I gave up wondering what you're handle meant a long time ago. Now I get it. Sort of....it's either that you're a vocal champion for vaping liberation or a truly dangerous individual to contend with in the local karaoke bar scene or perhaps something more professional?
Sorry. Off topic again.
Sorry to get political but I believe most of the MDs with any huevos bailed after the AMA came out in support of Obamacare.
Last edited:
You got it! When I moved to VA, I couldn't find another group of guys like the band I worked with in MN. A couple years later when Pioneer came out with the Laser Karaoke machines, I bought one and started a Karaoke DJ Business that I called "Vocal E". It's a pun. I do it "vocally.'
When the internet came along and I needed an email name, I tried "vocale" but it was already taken. So I added the initial of my last name. I pronounce it "Voh kul EEE kay".
--EK
Darn Elaine, you burst my guess. I just figured it was "vocal" plus your initials, which pretty much describes who you are on this topic. Nah, if I was right, it would be I'mrightEK.
Darn Elaine, you burst my guess. I just figured it was "vocal" plus your initials, which pretty much describes who you are on this topic. Nah, if I was right, it would be I'mrightEK.
OK, you're right. I keep giving them my
worth, don't I?
Come to think of it.. So is my mouth and my veins. #$&* What if they show up to take those away from me? Should I hide?
You are leaving out your eyes, skin and ummm..nether parts.
I'm going to rub the sleep out of my eyes and go post before I have to go to work.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
