Campaigning

[Oliver]

Hello all,

Clearly the e-cig is being attacked on many fronts by many organisations with a whole host of interests and ideologies.

The FDA's report was a body-blow to the future of e-smoking, giving these groups the leverage they needed to push their view to an uneducated public.

But the fightback is on, and I know that many individuals at ECF and elsewhere are doing what they can. A number of interest groups have arisen, and are making progress, but I'd like to canvas your views on how best to arrange the campaigning section here at ECF in order to form an even more effective campaigning community.

Please, if you have any ideas, post them in this thread.

For starters, it seems to me that California and Kentucky might want their own subforums - we can add more individual states as and when we need to.

National campaigning would still remain the priority, with the public and health organisations forming two prongs of an educational campaign.

Certain individual organisations should also receive extra scrutiny - although how best to do this, I'm not sure.

Anyway, please let me know if you have any ideas, and I will incorporate them as soon as I can.

Many thanks,

SmokeyJoe

 

[Webby]

SJ,

Within the next few days, the general membership will have chosen a name for the new user's group. We have a MBA/CFO in the way of a former IRS auditor and CFO of a telecom who is going to be writing the NPO paperwork for us, so it appears the group is gathering steam.

Once we have done this, I would like to respectfully request to have an area (root or under campaigning, wherever you see it fits best) for the group. That way there aren't multiple threads pertaining to the group's activities watering down the messages under the Campaigning sub folder.

As one of the web site's functions will be to house permanent documents and articles, I'd also like your permission to store PDF versions of some of the lists and forum consensus views with links back to the ECF for current updates and continued debate.

This new organization was born in the ECF and is inexplicitly tied to the free form discussion and debates that fill this forum. What the new group will do is create a web based repository and reference point for users, the media and opportunities for action.

I know this may come off as an ECO commercial, but I wanted to make clear what our goals are so they can be considered an companion resource and not a duplication of efforts.

 

[residualgenius]

Personally I sent my senator an email regarding the issues with lots of details on the chemicals in ecigs and traditional cigarettes and my view point on the issue. I would recommend everyone do the same

 

[mtndude]

Media Contacts List?

I realize the problems that could arise from posting email addresses and the like, but if it's publicly available, such as advertised on a television or radio programs, that's an invitation.

 

[Vocalek]

Database of published relevant medical journal articles?

Example:

Tob Control. 2003 Jun;12(2):124-32.

Estimating the health consequences of replacing cigarettes with nicotine inhalers.Sumner W 2nd.
Department of Medicine, Division of General Medical Sciences, Box 8005, 660 South Euclid Avenue, St Louis, MO 63110, USA. wsumner@im.wustl.edu

BACKGROUND: A fast acting, clean nicotine delivery system might substantially displace cigarettes. Public health consequences would depend on the subsequent prevalence of nicotine use, hazards of delivery systems, and intrinsic hazards of nicotine. METHODS: A spreadsheet program, DEMANDS, estimates differences in expected mortality, adjusted for nicotine delivery system features and prevalence of nicotine use, by extending the data and methods of the SAMMEC 3 software from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The user estimates disease risks attributable to nicotine, other smoke components, and risk factors that coexist with smoking. The public health consequences of a widely used clean nicotine inhaler replacing cigarettes were compared to historical observations and public health goals, using four different risk attribution scenarios and nicotine use prevalence from 0-100%. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in years of potential life before age 85 (YPL85). RESULTS: If nicotine accounts for less than a third of smokers' excess risk of SAMMEC diseases, as it most likely does, then even with very widespread use of clean nicotine DEMANDS predicts public health gains, relative to current tobacco use. Public health benefits accruing from a widely used clean nicotine inhaler probably equal or exceed the benefits of achieving Healthy People 2010 goals. CONCLUSIONS: Clean nicotine inhalers might improve public health as much as any feasible tobacco control effort. Although the relevant risk estimates are somewhat uncertain, partial nicotine deregulation deserves consideration as part of a broad tobacco control policy

 

[RooksGambit]

Ooops, wrong thread!

-Rook