Article In This Week's 'Valley Advocate' (Western Massachusetts)
- Thread starter the_larch
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I didn't find the article very well balanced at all. I submitted the following-
I read with dismay your article on electronic cigarettes. Let me make a few points.
The lack of regulation on both the manufacturing and sale of these products has stirred the suspicions of public health officials. Even the FDA seems stymied by this strain of cigarette, as it has yet to deliver any conclusive results regarding the content of the nicotine solution and the potential health hazards it presents.
The FDA has the ability to regulate both the sale and the manufacture of these products, they have just elected not to do so under the tobacco act. This is an important point. They are spending tax payer money to try to prove that they are a drug and drug delivery device. They are trying to turn a commercial product into a nicotine replacement therapy which it isnt. Yes, many people, including myself, have used personal vaporizers (PV for short as in electronic cigarette) to stop smoking without the need to stop using nicotine. Theres no need to unless youre going to argue that no drugs should be sold as consumer products. In that case, I suppose, the Pharmaceutical industry would surely welcome the opportunity to start selling CRT drugs (caffeine replacement therapy). The physiological effects of nicotine and caffeine are very similar.
The term strain of cigarette is so, so misleading. The PV is not a cigarette at all, other than the name. There is no smoke, period. The reason that cigarettes have the great majority of health risks is the smoke. Without it, the risks reduces by 98-99% by most estimates.
Rather than waiting for a verdict from the federal authorities, some local boards of health have chosen to "exercise precaution," drafting ordinances to regulate the purchase and public use of e-cigs. Failure to do so, according to Northampton Department of Health Director Ben Wood, would signal that the organization has reneged in the mission against smoking: "We would be undermining our cigarette laws. In effect, we would be reversing social and cultural norms." He fears the youth would be most vulnerable to the shift in the tobacco trendthat they would be swept away on the wave of e-cig excitement.
This attitude is directly out of the ?non-profit?health association playbook. Many years ago I respected the work of organizations such as the ALA, ACS, AHA and such. Unfortunately, at one point, it has become a matter of keeping the cash cow working for them rather than the health of the citizenry. At one time the devil was smoking, now its tobacco and nicotine. They forget, conveniently, where this war started. Why? Their main receivables come from both tobacco and Big Pharma. If smoking disappeared, much of their income would also. Money is laundered to them via the tobacco MSA agreement, through state governments and into their coffers. Contributions come from Big Pharma, the suppliers of NRT products. No need for NRT, no need for Pharma to donate, pretty straight forward.,
Do a little research. Look at North Dakota who back in 2003 was proposing a total smoking ban in the state. One week the Finance Committee of the state voted overwhelmingly to pass the legislation. One week later when the vote was put to the House, the legislation was voted down. Six of the nine members of the Finance Committee who voted for the ban changed their votes one week later. Why? According to Rep. Wes Belter, chairman of the Finance and Taxation Committee, committee members were frustrated with the testimony from anti-tobacco groups that testified against the tobacco ban, including the North Dakota Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, North Dakota Public Health Association and North Dakota Nurses Association.
NORTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE: Tobacco ban gets lit up in House
Using minors as an excuse is a smokescreen. Cigarettes are easy. You buy a pack you get a match or lighter and youre good to go. In the case of PVs, they are expensive, they are inconvenient with charging batteries and maintenance and they are un-cool.
Even getting young adults to buy into PVs is difficult. Ive personally introduced a couple dozen twenty something smokers into trying them and not one has totally quit smoking. Many just give up due to the lack of dedication that it takes to taking care of the equipment.
The Board of Health's concerns aren't entirely unsubstantiated; in a laboratory analysis the FDA found trace amounts of carcinogens and toxins like diethylene glycol, a chemical found in antifreeze. The FDA has yet to determine if these particulates pose health risks or if they're really negligible in such small doses. But in this current climate of uncertainty, critics contend, lawmakers shouldn't be passing any definitive legislation.
This is part of the FDA smokescreen. They had a dog and pony show that was well publicized. However, if you read the actual report, you get a much better picture. The carcinogens found in PV liquid are at the same levels found in NRT products. The diethylene glycol was found in one of the almost 20 cartridges and at a safe level according to their own standards. It also was only found in the liquid, not in the vapor. They also brought up flavors and the supposed marketing to children. There again, nicotine gums and lozenges also come in the same type of flavors. There presentation was clearly disinformation to influence the public against the two companies that brought suit against them.
Wood insists that the real impetus of the laws stems from the Board's concern about protecting minors from a potentially addictive, harmful substance. Plastered with colorful packaging and offered in fun flavors like Coca-Cola and chocolate, e-cigs are tricked out with a marketing strategy that could leave an impression on children. And as obesity has superseded smoking as the prevention priority in schools, the thrust of the anti-tobacco movement has waned. Smoking rates are still declining, but the trend has stagnated.
Wood only insists this because that was what he was told by the ?non-profit?health associations. Its in their playbook. Rather than running around, spending their money on attacking a product that will indeed help both smokers that are looking for a safer alternative to combustible tobacco and non-smokers who do not like the smell of smoke, they should be running education programs for the underage youth that they say they are trying to protect.
As long as there are cigarettes, there will be youth smoking them. Thats a fact. The harder you make it to get them, the more they will work to get them. Just look at the illicit drug market, they have no problem getting whatever they want. I personally believe most long term smokers are stronger advocates for not smoking than the ?non-profit?health organizations.
There are benefits to using both nicotine and tobacco for a part of the population. There are also much safer alternatives than smoking available. If the government and the ?non-profit?health organizations want to truly and dramatically reduce the harm associated with smoking, they will establish an honest continuum of risk and sell that to the public rather than this abolitionist approach that they refuse give up.
I read with dismay your article on electronic cigarettes. Let me make a few points.
The lack of regulation on both the manufacturing and sale of these products has stirred the suspicions of public health officials. Even the FDA seems stymied by this strain of cigarette, as it has yet to deliver any conclusive results regarding the content of the nicotine solution and the potential health hazards it presents.
The FDA has the ability to regulate both the sale and the manufacture of these products, they have just elected not to do so under the tobacco act. This is an important point. They are spending tax payer money to try to prove that they are a drug and drug delivery device. They are trying to turn a commercial product into a nicotine replacement therapy which it isnt. Yes, many people, including myself, have used personal vaporizers (PV for short as in electronic cigarette) to stop smoking without the need to stop using nicotine. Theres no need to unless youre going to argue that no drugs should be sold as consumer products. In that case, I suppose, the Pharmaceutical industry would surely welcome the opportunity to start selling CRT drugs (caffeine replacement therapy). The physiological effects of nicotine and caffeine are very similar.
The term strain of cigarette is so, so misleading. The PV is not a cigarette at all, other than the name. There is no smoke, period. The reason that cigarettes have the great majority of health risks is the smoke. Without it, the risks reduces by 98-99% by most estimates.
Rather than waiting for a verdict from the federal authorities, some local boards of health have chosen to "exercise precaution," drafting ordinances to regulate the purchase and public use of e-cigs. Failure to do so, according to Northampton Department of Health Director Ben Wood, would signal that the organization has reneged in the mission against smoking: "We would be undermining our cigarette laws. In effect, we would be reversing social and cultural norms." He fears the youth would be most vulnerable to the shift in the tobacco trendthat they would be swept away on the wave of e-cig excitement.
This attitude is directly out of the ?non-profit?health association playbook. Many years ago I respected the work of organizations such as the ALA, ACS, AHA and such. Unfortunately, at one point, it has become a matter of keeping the cash cow working for them rather than the health of the citizenry. At one time the devil was smoking, now its tobacco and nicotine. They forget, conveniently, where this war started. Why? Their main receivables come from both tobacco and Big Pharma. If smoking disappeared, much of their income would also. Money is laundered to them via the tobacco MSA agreement, through state governments and into their coffers. Contributions come from Big Pharma, the suppliers of NRT products. No need for NRT, no need for Pharma to donate, pretty straight forward.,
Do a little research. Look at North Dakota who back in 2003 was proposing a total smoking ban in the state. One week the Finance Committee of the state voted overwhelmingly to pass the legislation. One week later when the vote was put to the House, the legislation was voted down. Six of the nine members of the Finance Committee who voted for the ban changed their votes one week later. Why? According to Rep. Wes Belter, chairman of the Finance and Taxation Committee, committee members were frustrated with the testimony from anti-tobacco groups that testified against the tobacco ban, including the North Dakota Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, North Dakota Public Health Association and North Dakota Nurses Association.
NORTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE: Tobacco ban gets lit up in House
Using minors as an excuse is a smokescreen. Cigarettes are easy. You buy a pack you get a match or lighter and youre good to go. In the case of PVs, they are expensive, they are inconvenient with charging batteries and maintenance and they are un-cool.
Even getting young adults to buy into PVs is difficult. Ive personally introduced a couple dozen twenty something smokers into trying them and not one has totally quit smoking. Many just give up due to the lack of dedication that it takes to taking care of the equipment.
The Board of Health's concerns aren't entirely unsubstantiated; in a laboratory analysis the FDA found trace amounts of carcinogens and toxins like diethylene glycol, a chemical found in antifreeze. The FDA has yet to determine if these particulates pose health risks or if they're really negligible in such small doses. But in this current climate of uncertainty, critics contend, lawmakers shouldn't be passing any definitive legislation.
This is part of the FDA smokescreen. They had a dog and pony show that was well publicized. However, if you read the actual report, you get a much better picture. The carcinogens found in PV liquid are at the same levels found in NRT products. The diethylene glycol was found in one of the almost 20 cartridges and at a safe level according to their own standards. It also was only found in the liquid, not in the vapor. They also brought up flavors and the supposed marketing to children. There again, nicotine gums and lozenges also come in the same type of flavors. There presentation was clearly disinformation to influence the public against the two companies that brought suit against them.
Wood insists that the real impetus of the laws stems from the Board's concern about protecting minors from a potentially addictive, harmful substance. Plastered with colorful packaging and offered in fun flavors like Coca-Cola and chocolate, e-cigs are tricked out with a marketing strategy that could leave an impression on children. And as obesity has superseded smoking as the prevention priority in schools, the thrust of the anti-tobacco movement has waned. Smoking rates are still declining, but the trend has stagnated.
Wood only insists this because that was what he was told by the ?non-profit?health associations. Its in their playbook. Rather than running around, spending their money on attacking a product that will indeed help both smokers that are looking for a safer alternative to combustible tobacco and non-smokers who do not like the smell of smoke, they should be running education programs for the underage youth that they say they are trying to protect.
As long as there are cigarettes, there will be youth smoking them. Thats a fact. The harder you make it to get them, the more they will work to get them. Just look at the illicit drug market, they have no problem getting whatever they want. I personally believe most long term smokers are stronger advocates for not smoking than the ?non-profit?health organizations.
There are benefits to using both nicotine and tobacco for a part of the population. There are also much safer alternatives than smoking available. If the government and the ?non-profit?health organizations want to truly and dramatically reduce the harm associated with smoking, they will establish an honest continuum of risk and sell that to the public rather than this abolitionist approach that they refuse give up.
I agree Jim. Not well balanced at all. Very little was said about the effectiveness and safety of e-cigarettes.
Jim, this is an amazing find! Have you posted this before and I missed it?? I couldn't believe the part you didn't even quote:
This is them admitting that they WANT people to keep buying cigarettes!!!
Rep. Wes Belter & the article author may be someone CASAA will want to talk to some more and find out if the groups said that or if that was just an opinion of the author or Rep. Belter.
This is them admitting that they WANT people to keep buying cigarettes!!!
Rep. Wes Belter & the article author may be someone CASAA will want to talk to some more and find out if the groups said that or if that was just an opinion of the author or Rep. Belter.
Last edited:
Yes Kristin, I found it a couple or three weeks ago and am starting to bring that up whenever appropriate. You are right, it is absolutely amazing and to me, paints a pretty good picture of where they're coming from. Well, just their stance and aggressive approach to PVs pretty much tell me that, but.....
To me, not only hiding the truth but also exaggerating the danger of smokeless tobacco for 25-30 years speaks volumes to how long this disinformation campaign has been going on. I'm embarrassed that I ever contributed a penny to any of these clowns at this point.
He's still in office apparently-
Representative Wesley R. Belter
Address: 819 Birdie Court, Mapleton, ND 58059-4029 Telephone: 701-532-0311 E-mail: wbelter@nd.gov District: 22 Party: Republican
I picked up maine@forces.org as an email for the author shelion Whether you can find the original author of the article from Grand Forks I'm not sure by the name was Xiao Zhang and the questions email is web@grandforks.com <web@grandforks.com>
I had tried to find the original online article, but apparently it has become part of the megabit trash dump.
Last edited:
I just picked up a copy of this paper right here at my town grocer in Western Mass. Yes, I don't find it very balanced at all. But I'm not surprised, as most likely the paper itself, as well as most regional 'advocacy groups' probably receive their funding from large corporate donors and who don't want to rock the boat on the 'traditional' anti-smoking rhetoric that brings in the cash cow. Here is the most telling quote: "We would be reversing social and cultural norms..." Ah, I get it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
