Ash has written to 49 State AGs...
- Thread starter ladyraj
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
You letter sounds good. If I had to add anything it would be in the themes of the letter. If you've seen some of my posts on writing you'll hear me say "pathos, logos, ethos". Some may know what they mean but for those that don't it pertains to the direction of an argument/writing in terms of modes of persuasion. What does a writing use as fuel.
Pathos - Emotion. Using emotional imagery to sway a reader. (you use this in terms like "we can save millions")
Logos - Logic. Using facts, hard numbers, etc. to bring the reader to a logical conclusion to an argument, hopefully the same conclusion you have. (this is your main focus and always a good method for politicians)
Ethos - Ethics. The moral center. The hardest to write in my opinion and double that when you're focusing on a politician (lil joke there). I don't see much if any of this in the letter, and that is fine, but I always try to add some personally to cover all bases, since you never know the character of the person reading it and which points will be taken the easiest.
An ethical argument would be "is it 'justifiable' to ban a product that has made thousands of former tobacco smokers healthier?"
Again, like i said, your letter is good, this is just my 2 cents. Adding too much to the letter may dilute its impact and the ethical argument is a tough one to get through.
Pathos - Emotion. Using emotional imagery to sway a reader. (you use this in terms like "we can save millions")
Logos - Logic. Using facts, hard numbers, etc. to bring the reader to a logical conclusion to an argument, hopefully the same conclusion you have. (this is your main focus and always a good method for politicians)
Ethos - Ethics. The moral center. The hardest to write in my opinion and double that when you're focusing on a politician (lil joke there). I don't see much if any of this in the letter, and that is fine, but I always try to add some personally to cover all bases, since you never know the character of the person reading it and which points will be taken the easiest.
An ethical argument would be "is it 'justifiable' to ban a product that has made thousands of former tobacco smokers healthier?"
Again, like i said, your letter is good, this is just my 2 cents. Adding too much to the letter may dilute its impact and the ethical argument is a tough one to get through.
E-Cigarette Sales Banned by Court Order // More Bans Planned in Oregon and Elsewhere
www.pr-inside.com/e-cigarette-sales-banned-by-court-order-r1418417.htm
And ASH goes on and on and on and on
E-Cigarettes Can Pose Dangers to Users and Those Around Them
2009-08-02 22:21:35 - Two major distributors of e-cigarettes in Oregon, charged with unlawful trade practices, have been forced to agree to court orders which ban the sale of the products, subject to contempt of court proceedings and a $25,000 fine for each violation, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, Executive Director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), which petitioned state attorney generals to crack down on these new products because of potential health dangers. Introduction to Action on Smoking and Health, ASH
"Look for more action soon in Oregon, and for similar legal actions in several other states," says Banzhaf, who, in the past, successfully urged state attorney generals to crack down on the illegal sale of cigarettes over the Internet, and to take action against the illegal use of cartoon characters in cigarette ads. He is also the man behind the
ban on cigarette commercials, bans on smoking in a growing number of places, including homes, and higher health insurance premiums for smokers.
Banzhaf said that ASH, America's first antismoking organization, is providing the attorneys general with background information about the known dangers of e-cigarettes, documentation about the successful legal actions in Oregon, and additional concerns about e-cigarettes not included in the recent FDA report.
Banzhaf's scheduled appearance on NBC-TV Nightly News was a major factor in prompting the FDA's report that e-cigarettes contained detectable levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals to which users could potentially be exposed.
SEE: www.pr-inside.com/fda-ignores-major-dangers-of-e-cigarettes-r140 ..
www.pr-inside.com/e-cigarette-sales-banned-by-court-order-r1418417.htm
And ASH goes on and on and on and on
E-Cigarettes Can Pose Dangers to Users and Those Around Them
2009-08-02 22:21:35 - Two major distributors of e-cigarettes in Oregon, charged with unlawful trade practices, have been forced to agree to court orders which ban the sale of the products, subject to contempt of court proceedings and a $25,000 fine for each violation, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, Executive Director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), which petitioned state attorney generals to crack down on these new products because of potential health dangers. Introduction to Action on Smoking and Health, ASH
"Look for more action soon in Oregon, and for similar legal actions in several other states," says Banzhaf, who, in the past, successfully urged state attorney generals to crack down on the illegal sale of cigarettes over the Internet, and to take action against the illegal use of cartoon characters in cigarette ads. He is also the man behind the
ban on cigarette commercials, bans on smoking in a growing number of places, including homes, and higher health insurance premiums for smokers.
Banzhaf said that ASH, America's first antismoking organization, is providing the attorneys general with background information about the known dangers of e-cigarettes, documentation about the successful legal actions in Oregon, and additional concerns about e-cigarettes not included in the recent FDA report.
Banzhaf's scheduled appearance on NBC-TV Nightly News was a major factor in prompting the FDA's report that e-cigarettes contained detectable levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals to which users could potentially be exposed.
SEE: www.pr-inside.com/fda-ignores-major-dangers-of-e-cigarettes-r140 ..
Unfortunately Sheri, as we have witnessed before this is the start of the fall. Ash and it's director, Banzhaf, will attack on all sides. While we worry about the FDA, he's a step ahead of us with the AGs. I hate being in a spot where all of my resources are geared to reacting and defense but I will do what I can and write my missives to the AG. I would love to have the insight to know how to head this off and turn it around. Unfortunately, I fear the future is grim and small battles are being fought while the war machine marches on. 
If you can, please post your letter on here, I want some Idea's when I write mine.
Thanks!
Sherid...thanks for letting us use your letter template. I think part of the reason why this is being so heavily pursued by ASH is because of the mentioning of this being used to get around the anti-smoking laws. While, it is true that this can be used, would NOT mentioning that part prolong this process? I know that hindsight is 20/20 but just my thoughts.
The thing that I cannot understand is that while quitting IS the best alternative, what about those that DON'T want to quit but DO want something that appears to be quite a bit healthier? While I do understand that the FDA and ASH are doing their job, why doesn't ASH just go and attempt to outright ban analogs? I mean, they could be considered just as bad or worse than e-cigs, yet the ban is for e-cigs and not the 40 or so carcinagens and other toxic chemicals? I mean, if there is arsenic and formaldehyde in analogs, why doesn't ASH attack PM and whatnot over those "ingredients"? Last I checked, arsenic wasn't considered something that was healthy.
The thing that I cannot understand is that while quitting IS the best alternative, what about those that DON'T want to quit but DO want something that appears to be quite a bit healthier? While I do understand that the FDA and ASH are doing their job, why doesn't ASH just go and attempt to outright ban analogs? I mean, they could be considered just as bad or worse than e-cigs, yet the ban is for e-cigs and not the 40 or so carcinagens and other toxic chemicals? I mean, if there is arsenic and formaldehyde in analogs, why doesn't ASH attack PM and whatnot over those "ingredients"? Last I checked, arsenic wasn't considered something that was healthy.
It seems that ASH and this John Banzhaf guy do not believe in personal responsibility. They would rather have everyone live a bland tasteless life where there is absolutely no risk. Having a lot of extra money in his pocket, plus the great PR for being such a great "humanitarian" are an added bonus.
Sorry for ranting, but I don't look forward to a future where the only thing I am allowed to do is work and watch paint peel from the walls. You ever see demolition man? Yeah.. I got some major boggle going on now
Last edited:
It seems that ASH and this John Banzhaf guy do not believe in personal responsibility. They would rather have everyone live a bland tasteless life where there is absolutely no risk. Having a lot of extra money in his pocket, plus the great PR for being such a great "humanitarian" are an added bonus.
Sorry for ranting, but I don't look forward to a future where the only thing I am allowed to do is work and watch paint peel from the walls. You ever see demolition man? Yeah.. I got some major boggle going on now
This guy has made a fortune off of blaming others for his and other's mistakes. HE IS THE SOLE REASON THAT THIS COUNTRY HAS BECOME A BUNCH OF IRRESPONSIBLE DIMWITS (ALL present company excluded of course
)HE is one of the reasons why we now live in the socialist country we call USA...
Come on...seriously??? Suing big tobacco? "They didn't tell us it was bad?" Hmmmm...you wouldn't stand next to a burning building and inhale would you???
sorry....stepping down now! Just makes me enraged!
Well...the FDA is being rather restrained in their pursuit of e-cigs... I think they will let the AGs handle the ban aspect with proper new laws adding the appropriate terminology. It makes sense when you think about it...the e-cig was not submitted to the FDA for premarket approval. The FDA, at ASH's urging, used a relatively inexpensive method of analysis on a handful of cartridges that no one has refuted with a seperate analysis. Thus, the FDA did it's job by checking out a formal complaint.
Was it over the top...yes but a similar complaint was filed about hand-sanitizer: *please note that often PG is in the sanitizer*
US Marshals seize sanitizer for bacteria problems
Officers with the U.S. Marshals Service have seized all skin sanitizers and skin protectants, including ingredients and components, at Clarcon Biological Chemistry Laboratory's facility in Roy, Utah, the Food and Drug Administration said.
The FDA also warned the public Saturday not to use any Clarcon products because they contain harmful bacteria and are promoted as antimicrobial agents that claim to treat open wounds, damaged skin, and protect against various infectious diseases. No cases have been reported to the FDA.
Clarcon voluntarily recalled the affected products, marketed under several different brand names, in June 2009, following an FDA inspection that revealed high levels of potentially disease-causing bacteria in the products.
The inspection also uncovered serious deviations from the FDA's regulations, including poor practices that permitted the contamination. The FDA's seizure of these products, along with their ingredients, occurred after Clarcon did not agree to promptly destroy them. The FDA said it is protecting the public by preventing these products from entering the marketplace.
"The FDA is committed to taking enforcement action against firms that do not manufacture drugs in accordance with our current good manufacturing practice requirements," said Deborah M. Autor, director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Office of Compliance.
US Marshals seize sanitizer for bacteria problems - Road Runner
So the FDA has the power to go after a "named" source of contaminant...the e-cigs are currently undefined. I do suspect the reason they tested so many no nic carts is to hamper the future sales of PVs with mere flavorings in them.8-o Hand sanitizer with a PG base that can grow bacteria in it may be the next association that our enemies proclaim is a danger to us all.
Was it over the top...yes but a similar complaint was filed about hand-sanitizer: *please note that often PG is in the sanitizer*
US Marshals seize sanitizer for bacteria problems
Officers with the U.S. Marshals Service have seized all skin sanitizers and skin protectants, including ingredients and components, at Clarcon Biological Chemistry Laboratory's facility in Roy, Utah, the Food and Drug Administration said.
The FDA also warned the public Saturday not to use any Clarcon products because they contain harmful bacteria and are promoted as antimicrobial agents that claim to treat open wounds, damaged skin, and protect against various infectious diseases. No cases have been reported to the FDA.
Clarcon voluntarily recalled the affected products, marketed under several different brand names, in June 2009, following an FDA inspection that revealed high levels of potentially disease-causing bacteria in the products.
The inspection also uncovered serious deviations from the FDA's regulations, including poor practices that permitted the contamination. The FDA's seizure of these products, along with their ingredients, occurred after Clarcon did not agree to promptly destroy them. The FDA said it is protecting the public by preventing these products from entering the marketplace.
"The FDA is committed to taking enforcement action against firms that do not manufacture drugs in accordance with our current good manufacturing practice requirements," said Deborah M. Autor, director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Office of Compliance.
US Marshals seize sanitizer for bacteria problems - Road Runner
So the FDA has the power to go after a "named" source of contaminant...the e-cigs are currently undefined. I do suspect the reason they tested so many no nic carts is to hamper the future sales of PVs with mere flavorings in them.
8-o Hand sanitizer with a PG base that can grow bacteria in it may be the next association that our enemies proclaim is a danger to us all.
ASH should be sued into oblivion for causing a health risk to vapers with the intent to get us back on analogs.
Sue them for intent to put our kids at risk for forcing us to expose them to second-hand smoke.
Turn the tables on these jackasses.
Sue them for intent to put our kids at risk for forcing us to expose them to second-hand smoke.
Turn the tables on these jackasses.
Banzhaf has been trying to get rid of cigarettes for a very, very long time. This is just another frontier for him, a way to keep the bread buttered now that smoking is banned practically everywhere and his fast-food tax crusade probably isn't gonna pan out.
These press releases coming from ASH never omit the phrase "propylene glycol, used in antifreeze." This is something that needs to be addressed; it raises an indelible image of the Dog Licks Puddle Of Antifreeze And Dies.
http://www.arkanimals.com/2009/03/12/propylene-glycol-anti-freeze-pet-safety/
Not a fabulous article, but does put the PG/antifreeze issue in some perspective, not to mention that the puddle of used antifreeze that dogs lick up is more toxic than straight out of the bottle because of the metals it picks up.
Talk about fog machines and asthma inhalers. Those are the two inhalables I can think of, but PG is used in probably more products than we could ever track down. Personal care products, cleaning products, and food. Look at your LorAnn's bottles; you'll find PG listed on nearly every single one.
These press releases coming from ASH never omit the phrase "propylene glycol, used in antifreeze." This is something that needs to be addressed; it raises an indelible image of the Dog Licks Puddle Of Antifreeze And Dies.
http://www.arkanimals.com/2009/03/12/propylene-glycol-anti-freeze-pet-safety/
Not a fabulous article, but does put the PG/antifreeze issue in some perspective, not to mention that the puddle of used antifreeze that dogs lick up is more toxic than straight out of the bottle because of the metals it picks up.
Talk about fog machines and asthma inhalers. Those are the two inhalables I can think of, but PG is used in probably more products than we could ever track down. Personal care products, cleaning products, and food. Look at your LorAnn's bottles; you'll find PG listed on nearly every single one.
According to Wiki the PG is used as a safer alternative in anti-freeze to prevent accidental poisoning.
Amen! Count me in.
They have the audacity to admit that the first reason they want them banned is that smokers might actually switch to them and might reduce their overall health risks. Not good enough for them. Only they are wise enough to make decisions about our health, and their decision is that it's all or nothing.
They also complain that "e-cigarettes may be less likely to reduce nicotine dependence." So? Their name is not Action on Nicotine and Health. But perhaps it should be.
What they are unwittingly admitting is that e-cigarettes provide ADEQUATE nicotine to keep us from smoking tobacco.
I highly resent the fact that they would rather see me dead or incapacitated than to be a former tobacco smoker who still uses nicotine.
Here is the guy at ASH... I just called and left him a message at the 202 #.... I just said for him to get the facts straight.... I dont expect to hear back from him... but if EVERYONE calls... maybe we can at least piss him off....lol
PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF III
Professor of Public Interest Law and Executive Director
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
2013 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006, USA
(202) 659-4310 // (703) 527-8418 // ash.org/
PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF III
Professor of Public Interest Law and Executive Director
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
2013 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006, USA
(202) 659-4310 // (703) 527-8418 // ash.org/
Its great to see everybody writing letters! Are you all emailing them? Let me make a suggestion, i love email also but hand written letter are WAY WAY better. Ask any groups like green organizations its like air(email) to lead(snail mail, hand written) in terms of weight to senators, representatives, etc. Just a suggestion, keep up the good work. I've written several here in Ohio, and i mean actually hand wrote them.
Last edited:
Do some research on Banzhaf. His nickname is John, sue the .......s, Banzhaf. He is not only a despicable excuse for humanity; he is also extremely powerful. Hopefully, he will be dethroned eventually. John F. Banzhaf III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The killjoys' next target
Prof. John F. Banzhaf III of George Washington University Law School and Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
Most meglamaniacs are eventually. Take a look at this guy, Anti-Tobacco Lawyer Pleads Guilty To Mail Fraud - The Philadelphia Bulletin Archives
They always make a fatal error. Hopefully, ASH will soon do that also. This case may eventually serve to help that along.
I have read about some of the crap he has done...I did not know about the mail fraud thing... hmmmm... do we have any lawyers out there on the boards?????
Could be interesting!!!!!!!
Thanks Sherid
Could be interesting!!!!!!!
Thanks Sherid
Unfortunately, the mail fraud case was not Banzhaf. It was Dickie Scruggs, a Mississippi lawyer who led the fight against tobacco. He was the one who went to prison for bribing a judge. As I said, they do eventually make a fatal error when they become as powerful as these two.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
