Cancer Groups Urge More Regulation of E-Cigarettes

[Painter_]

http://www.webmd. com/smoking-cessation/news/20150108/cancer-groups-urge-more-regulation-of-e-cigarettes

The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) together issued a list of recommendations on Thursday aimed at bringing e-cigarette regulations more in line with those of traditional cigarettes.

Why would that be... Answer below

They called on the FDA to regulate all types of e-cigarette products that also meet the standard definition of tobacco products. Those that do not meet that standard should be regulated by whichever means the FDA feels appropriate, the cancer groups added.

If it looks like a duck or acts like a duck regulate it. Even if it does not look like nor act like a duck regulate it.

ASCO and AACR further urged that some of the tax monies levied on both traditional and e-cigarette products be used for research into whether or not e-cigarettes have any real value as a smoking-cessation tool, or contain any health hazards.

Ah, Here is why. We need more funding since cigarette taxes are declining tax the replacements. Just provide us with funding.

"We are concerned that e-cigarettes may encourage nonsmokers, particularly children, to start smoking ...

For the children

"While e-cigarettes may reduce smoking rates and attendant adverse health risks, we will not know for sure until these products are researched and regulated."

Smoking rates are down, there is little health risk but we just don't know but if you regulate them and provide more funding we will research them, but right now we just don;t know what is in them e-cigarettes.

 

[granolaboy]

Why don't we see these so-called "anti-cancer" pundits lobbying for more regulation of things like tar sands, fracking, and mining operations which are responsible for giving cancer to countless people all day long?

Oh. Right. Money.

I'm so sick of capitalists trying to justify their greed through false concerns for my health.

 

[Augmented Dog]

Follow the money.

 

[Kent C]

Why don't we see these so-called "anti-cancer" pundits lobbying for more regulation of things like tar sands, fracking, and mining operations which are responsible for giving cancer to countless people all day long?

Oh. Right. Money.

I'm so sick of capitalists trying to justify their greed through false concerns for my health.

You might re-read the article. This is about two rather Progressive organizations - The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) that are trying to justify their existence through false concerns for your health. It isn't capitalists who are claiming 'concern or false concern about health' - it is the socialists and progressives, as we've seen from almost all articles posted here. The "pro-capitalist" Reason, Forbes, Fox, articles are all pro-vapers. Capitalist don't feel they have to 'justify' what you call greed and what they call hard work and profit.

The 'cancer groups':

They called on the FDA to regulate all types of e-cigarette products that also meet the standard definition of tobacco products.

Those that do not meet that standard should be regulated by whichever means the FDA feels appropriate, the cancer groups added.

ASCO and AACR further urged that some of the tax monies levied on both traditional and e-cigarette products be used for research into whether or not e-cigarettes have any real value as a smoking-cessation tool, or contain any health hazards.

"We are concerned that e-cigarettes may encourage nonsmokers, particularly children, to start smoking and develop nicotine addiction.

 

[Signmaker]

ASCO and AACR further urged that some of the tax monies levied on both traditional and e-cigarette products be used for research into whether or not e-cigarettes have any real value as a smoking-cessation tool, or contain any health hazards.

They are also requesting funding to research if water is wet, if flour can be used as an ingredient in making bread, and whether or not the sun will reliably rise the next morning.

 

[HMav]

I think this really needs to be said, and I hope that some with more political clout than I will stand up and say it as well. I quit smoking, vapor helped me do it, and helps keep me from going back to it. I don't give a rat's ... if anyone else thinks it has any real value as a smoking cessation tool, and I sure as hell don't want to give them any money to find out what they think.

 

[TyPie]

I submit that PG, VG, nicotine, and even food flavorings are fairly well understood at this stage of the game, even if inhaled. I propose that so-called representatives of health organizations (or any orgnization with alphabetic initials in their name) have solid scientific proof of their claims, fears and /or wild speculations PRIOR to opening their pie-holes.

ENOUGH nonsense already!

 

[Anjaffm]

Why don't we see these so-called "anti-cancer" pundits lobbying for more regulation of things like tar sands, fracking, and mining operations which are responsible for giving cancer to countless people all day long?
......

Because that is not in their interest at all.
You see, they are NOT "anti-cancer organizations". Far from it.
They are, in fact, PRO-cancer organizations. Because their funding depends on a high incidence of cancer. The higher the incidence of cancer, the higher the reputation - and funding - of a so-called cancer organization. Thus, naturally, these organizations want the incidence of cancer to remain high. So that their funding remains high. All this '"anti-cancer" talk is just a veneer. Just lip-service to fool the gullible public.

And this is the reason why they are desperately fighting against e-cigs. Which have the potential to replace carcinogenic tobacco cigs.
Now, if more people switch to e-cigs and leave behind the carcinogenic tobacco cigs, the incidence of cancer just might decline. And where does that leave those cancer organizations?


Compare Tobacco Control. Same thing.

 

[PepperMonkey]

To expand on Kent's comments, the "Capitalists" are the ones who provide us with our gear and juice on the basis of a voluntary transaction. Many of us are positively enamored with their products, so we gladly purchase them. They MUST make a profit, or else they wouldn't be able to provide us with the products we desire and will happily pay for.

None of us would rather have government vape. The fealty of government vape would not be to the preferences of the market ( my and your individual preferences ), but to the preferences of those in political authority.

It isn't the capitalists who have false concerns for health, it's those who wield political power, and in this case who have the most to lose.

To paraphrase Bastiat, when looking at any economic arrangement, always look at it from the point of view of the consumer.

 

[caramel]

With less cancers they would be out of a job.

 

[skoony]

Because that is not in their interest at all.
You see, they are NOT "anti-cancer organizations". Far from it.
They are, in fact, PRO-cancer organizations. Because their funding depends on a high incidence of cancer. The higher the incidence of cancer, the higher the reputation - and funding - of a so-called cancer organization. Thus, naturally, these organizations want the incidence of cancer to remain high. So that their funding remains high. All this '"anti-cancer" talk is just a veneer. Just lip-service to fool the gullible public.

And this is the reason why they are desperately fighting against e-cigs. Which have the potential to replace carcinogenic tobacco cigs.
Now, if more people switch to e-cigs and leave behind the carcinogenic tobacco cigs, the incidence of cancer just might decline. And where does that leave those cancer organizations?


Compare Tobacco Control. Same thing.

i see your point but,wouldn't they be better off trying to
get something that actually causes cancer banned?
oh,i get it.

regards
mike