CNN: Don't Let Big Tobacco crush e-cigs (Oped by SJ)
- Thread starter sonicdsl
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Interesting, although I think that the real 'vs.' is 'gov't vs. individuals' because in the end, it will be the consumers who are affected the most.
A good case can be made against the hated Big Tobacco and their support of the FDA certainly appears to be an attempt to wipe out the competition BUT that's what happens when gov't wants to regulate any business - the big money companies prosper. Take away the regulation and those companies have to prosper by their own efforts based on what quality and price they offer, not on some subsidy or advantage given by government.
Another case, just as good, imo, could be made that the tobacco companies could see ecigarettes as a way to avoid or escape the MSA AND also just take advantage of the trend away from cigarettes toward ecigs and actually understand how such a healthy alternative would help them, and their customers. Them supporting gov't help in the matter is no different than non-tobacco ecig companies pleading with gov't not to help - both acting in their own self-interest - which should be a given.
If you take away the built-in demonization of Big Tobacco and realize that the customers who were adversely affected by cigarettes were more responsible for their own conditions by the choices they made, rather than the companies who provided those choices, then the first argument doesn't have the force that is associated with it.
I don't blame SJ for using that argument - it is likely the most popular, but it may not be the most rational.
A good case can be made against the hated Big Tobacco and their support of the FDA certainly appears to be an attempt to wipe out the competition BUT that's what happens when gov't wants to regulate any business - the big money companies prosper. Take away the regulation and those companies have to prosper by their own efforts based on what quality and price they offer, not on some subsidy or advantage given by government.
Another case, just as good, imo, could be made that the tobacco companies could see ecigarettes as a way to avoid or escape the MSA AND also just take advantage of the trend away from cigarettes toward ecigs and actually understand how such a healthy alternative would help them, and their customers. Them supporting gov't help in the matter is no different than non-tobacco ecig companies pleading with gov't not to help - both acting in their own self-interest - which should be a given.
If you take away the built-in demonization of Big Tobacco and realize that the customers who were adversely affected by cigarettes were more responsible for their own conditions by the choices they made, rather than the companies who provided those choices, then the first argument doesn't have the force that is associated with it.
I don't blame SJ for using that argument - it is likely the most popular, but it may not be the most rational.
Kent, I blame myself for trying that first cigarette. And the second. And the third... I started smoking a few years after the "cigarettes may be harmful..." labels first became mandatory, albeit long before tobacco company executives stopped perjuring themselves on that subject.
I blame the tobacco industry for making it harder for me to quit. By adding ingredients to make cigarettes more addictive, those companies were not playing fair. And they, once again, proved that they cannot be trusted to consider the impact on the consumer while making product decisions. If adding arsenic to e-liquid will improve profitability, shortly after they take full control of the industry we'll all be walking around with blue lips.
Agree with the first paragraph and disagree with the substance of the second. I don't disagree that you place the blame - how could one?
I don't agree with the ANTZ propaganda that the tobacco companies added anything to make cigarettes more addictive. They - as a result of gov't standards reduced tar and nicotine at one point, then by the resultant PR used to show there was less tar, etc., they were attacked, again, by the gov't for false advertising - iow, doing what the gov't demanded and then reporting on what they had done to comply. When Lights and Ultralights were banned and the results of gov't's demands to reduce tar and nicotine in cigarettes resulted in people smoking more, then the cigarette companies added nicotine (or actually stopped reducing the natural nicotine in tobacco) that resulted in a more satisfactory smoke and hence less cigarettes smoked vs. what was smoked during the 'light' and 'ultralight' period.
That 'change' was promoted by ANTZ and the gov't as "Tobacco companies adding substances to make them more addicting" rather than telling the truth that the gov'ts attempts to "make cigarettes" less harmful resulted in regulations that actually made people smoke more cigarettes. What made the cigarettes "more addictive" was merely reverting to the levels of nicotine prior to the 'light/unltralight' period - although the tar was still reduced.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
Smokey Joe:
Many thanks for writing and sending this to CNN.
Two clarifications, however, per your op/ed statement:
Although the FDA estimated (in the proposed deeming regulation) that it would take 5,000 hours (or 2.5 FTEs working for one year) and cost $333,554 to prepare each vapor product application (to be submitted to FDA for a new tobacco product approval), the reality is that it will almost certainly take >50,000 hours and cost >$5 million to prepare each new product application.
Also note that the FDA (not CASAA) estimated that 25 new product applications for e-cigs would be submitted annually to (not approved by) the FDA. While I think this latter estimate by the FDA is about right (and the only estimate that FDA's proposed deeming regulation got right), the FDA is not likely to approve the majority of new product applications (and may not accept many/most new product applications that different e-cig manufacturers attempt to submit).
And since the cigarette companies have spent lots of money trying to comply with dozens of different FDA regulations, guidances, draft guidances and staffers since 2009, I strongly suspect that cigarette companies will submit the majority of new product applications for e-cigs to the FDA, and that they will comprise most (perhaps all) of the new product applications that will be approved by FDA (if/when the agency issues a Final Rule for the Deeming Regulation).
Many thanks for writing and sending this to CNN.
Two clarifications, however, per your op/ed statement:
Although the FDA estimated (in the proposed deeming regulation) that it would take 5,000 hours (or 2.5 FTEs working for one year) and cost $333,554 to prepare each vapor product application (to be submitted to FDA for a new tobacco product approval), the reality is that it will almost certainly take >50,000 hours and cost >$5 million to prepare each new product application.
Also note that the FDA (not CASAA) estimated that 25 new product applications for e-cigs would be submitted annually to (not approved by) the FDA. While I think this latter estimate by the FDA is about right (and the only estimate that FDA's proposed deeming regulation got right), the FDA is not likely to approve the majority of new product applications (and may not accept many/most new product applications that different e-cig manufacturers attempt to submit).
And since the cigarette companies have spent lots of money trying to comply with dozens of different FDA regulations, guidances, draft guidances and staffers since 2009, I strongly suspect that cigarette companies will submit the majority of new product applications for e-cigs to the FDA, and that they will comprise most (perhaps all) of the new product applications that will be approved by FDA (if/when the agency issues a Final Rule for the Deeming Regulation).
Last edited:
I just wanna be left the hell alone to do what i want. If i wanna smoke, ill smoke. Fortunately, ive found a better, safer, and much less life intrusive alternative(with the help of the kind people on this forum). And th fda says its not ok. I dont understand what the problem is with vaping. I dont get why a product that gives me the same satisfaction as smoking used to, and is better for the people around me is being attacked. If i have to pay taxes on vaping im fine with that, because in the end, im doing this FOR ME. Just leave it alone, collect your damn taxes, and shut the hell up.
Agree with the first paragraph and disagree with the substance of the second. I don't disagree that you place the blame - how could one?
They - as a result of gov't standards reduced tar and nicotine at one point, then by the resultant PR used to show there was less tar, etc., they were attacked, again, by the gov't for false advertising - iow, doing what the gov't demanded and then reporting on what they had done to comply. When Lights and Ultralights were banned and the results of gov't's demands to reduce tar and nicotine in cigarettes resulted in people smoking more, then the cigarette companies added nicotine (or actually stopped reducing the natural nicotine in tobacco) that resulted in a more satisfactory smoke and hence less cigarettes smoked vs. what was smoked during the 'light' and 'ultralight' period.
That 'change' was promoted by ANTZ and the gov't as "Tobacco companies adding substances to make them more addicting" rather than telling the truth that the gov'ts attempts to "make cigarettes" less harmful resulted in regulations that actually made people smoke more cigarettes. What made the cigarettes "more addictive" was merely reverting to the levels of nicotine prior to the 'light/unltralight' period - although the tar was still reduced.
I don't blame anybody. I enjoyed smoking. We all smoked back then. We knew it was bad for us. I remember my first cigarettes--they tasted awful, they made me cough and they made me sick. But I was determined.
I was young and unafraid.
Nice article, SJ!
Last edited:
I thought this was a great article by Smokey Joe. Great to see it in CNN.
So last night and this morning, after reading the opinion, I did some posting in the "Comments" area and I wondered if there was an ANTZ person throwing down some kind of stupid arguments, she was called Bibelot. SJ I think you responded to her, about the upcoming Cochrane review from Prof. Hajek? I made a somewhat veiled reference to Glantz (not mentioning him by name) and she was all over it, about how much integrity he has and how PubMed is a much better source for truth-in-science than whatever Carl Phillips, Dr Burstyn (et al) say.
Since (I think) ecigs kind of evolved and spread in grass-roots-type way, I wish there was some way we could educate the public on a large scale (in the way that SJ did nicely on CNN) more often, but in an interactive Q&A format. Kind of like.. a friendly debate..
But, I am new here (lurked since 2009 - sorry) so, maybe I am just repeating the same stuff everyone else says all the time. Anyway, I did love seeing the opinion on the CNN home page! It is still there, just one click behind the homepage.
Interesting that so many people think the BT cigalike products and advertising (Blu, Vuse) are cheered on by the refillable Open-Tank Vapor industry players (most of our vendors) which I think is not true, on the whole.
So last night and this morning, after reading the opinion, I did some posting in the "Comments" area and I wondered if there was an ANTZ person throwing down some kind of stupid arguments, she was called Bibelot. SJ I think you responded to her, about the upcoming Cochrane review from Prof. Hajek? I made a somewhat veiled reference to Glantz (not mentioning him by name) and she was all over it, about how much integrity he has and how PubMed is a much better source for truth-in-science than whatever Carl Phillips, Dr Burstyn (et al) say.
Since (I think) ecigs kind of evolved and spread in grass-roots-type way, I wish there was some way we could educate the public on a large scale (in the way that SJ did nicely on CNN) more often, but in an interactive Q&A format. Kind of like.. a friendly debate..
But, I am new here (lurked since 2009 - sorry) so, maybe I am just repeating the same stuff everyone else says all the time. Anyway, I did love seeing the opinion on the CNN home page! It is still there, just one click behind the homepage.
Interesting that so many people think the BT cigalike products and advertising (Blu, Vuse) are cheered on by the refillable Open-Tank Vapor industry players (most of our vendors) which I think is not true, on the whole.
Last edited:
Anyone refuting Glantz and his supposed "integrity" should link to this...
Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger
It shows clearly what his bias is, how long he has had this bias, and the fact that he is a brazen hater dead set on promoting his agenda.
Just search the above document for his name and you will see what I'm talking about.
Satan Glantz is a piece of crap, for all intents and purposes.
Cool, thanks DC2, that's helpful. Here is the exchange I had with her. I wonder if she knows him (and was a lurking ANTZ)
Craig (me talking to her):
...the Cancer Research UK study included over 5000 participants over a 5 year period and was just published this year.
The Burstyn study is at this point, the definitive scientific study from an epidemiological standpoint (epidemiologists are disease-specialists, unlike [initials S.G.] who is an engineer-cum-antismoking activist whose main practice is mis-use of data to fear-monger. It's well established.).
Look them up.
Bibelot (her responding to me):
Epidemiologists are not disease specialists. They are statisticians of sorts.
Dr. Glantz has his Ph.D. in engineering and economics. He completed postdoctoral programs in cardiovascular research. He's a very bright fellow with a ton of integrity. I don't know why you cast aspersions on him, other than you reject the message from the messenger.
Craig:
epidemiology
[ep-i-dee-mee-ol-uh-jee, -dem-ee-]
noun
1. the branch of medicine dealing with the incidence and prevalence of disease in large populations and with detection of the source and cause of epidemics of infectious disease.
S.G.'s "peer reviewed" studies are rife with flaws, misplaced and improperly drawn conclusions, and blatant fear-mongering. His antismoking activism is misplaced in the area of Vapor use, where solid science supports the notion that THR (Tobacco Harm Reduction) should drive Public Policy (and the place of Vapor within it). Really, his efforts are only going to benefit Big Tobacco in the end. The Opinion written herein makes a clear case for that.
Bibelot:
Indeed, epidemiologists focus on the incidence and prevalence of diseases, which are statistical concepts. They are not usually experts in disease mechanisms.
Regarding Dr. Glantz: Yes, go ahead and shoot the messenger. That makes total sense.
Craig:
Not shooting the messenger. However, it's a substantiable fact that many of the conclusions contained within the *message* are simply founded in junk science.
Google "Anti-THR Lies - hardly a fair fight" and you will see what I'm referring to.
Bibelot:
Why don't you try using more reputable and credible sources such as PubMed?
Last edited:
Thanks DrMa!
Question: I was reviewing Bonnie Herzog's powerpoint for "U.S. Tobacco Trends: Disruptive Innovation Should Drive Outsized Growth" and I really liked how she calls APVs "Vapor Products" as opposed to "ecigs." (It is a pretty interesting read: www.ecigarette-politics.com/files/WF-DallasMarch2014.ppt )
Because tobacco companies are now very publicly pushing "e-cigarettes," has anyone discussed moving our THR and deeming reg efforts further away from "e-cigarettes" or "ecigs" and instead referring to PV's and the like as "Vapor Products?" This, in order to clearly differentiate our message/goals from those of BT and their ecig offerings?
It seems that the average jane public would really think they are one and the same, particularly if we refer to them by using most of the same words. (Not suggesting calling anything ECF is a problem though )
Not to mention, "Vapor Products" by this time seems like a more accurately descriptive name than "ecigs," etc. Or maybe that's already been brought up. Like I said, I am new..
So you'd have "ecigarettes/ecigs/cigalikes" = BT
and "Vapor products" = more advanced and efficient PVs/systems we at ECF recognize as being more effective for most purposes
Question: I was reviewing Bonnie Herzog's powerpoint for "U.S. Tobacco Trends: Disruptive Innovation Should Drive Outsized Growth" and I really liked how she calls APVs "Vapor Products" as opposed to "ecigs." (It is a pretty interesting read: www.ecigarette-politics.com/files/WF-DallasMarch2014.ppt )
Because tobacco companies are now very publicly pushing "e-cigarettes," has anyone discussed moving our THR and deeming reg efforts further away from "e-cigarettes" or "ecigs" and instead referring to PV's and the like as "Vapor Products?" This, in order to clearly differentiate our message/goals from those of BT and their ecig offerings?
It seems that the average jane public would really think they are one and the same, particularly if we refer to them by using most of the same words. (Not suggesting calling anything ECF is a problem though
) Not to mention, "Vapor Products" by this time seems like a more accurately descriptive name than "ecigs," etc. Or maybe that's already been brought up. Like I said, I am new..
So you'd have "ecigarettes/ecigs/cigalikes" = BT
and "Vapor products" = more advanced and efficient PVs/systems we at ECF recognize as being more effective for most purposes
Last edited:
ha ha, Bibelot wants Pubmed -- she should read this - the link is in the 1st post: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...an-smokers-who-havent-vaped.html#post14373520
Read thru some of the comments on the CNN article and I'm very pleased to see overwhelming support. Over 1730 comments now...
I'm also very encouraged by SJ's announcement that a Cochrane review is in the works by ethical researchers at UCL.
I'm also very encouraged by SJ's announcement that a Cochrane review is in the works by ethical researchers at UCL.
Last edited:
I don't know if BT added stuff to make smoking more addictive or not, but it seems logical, given my own experience. Yeah, it was dumb to smoke that first cigarette, and the 2nd and so on, but we are all vulnerable to advertising - each and every one of us falls victim to it in some way or another every single day. I smoked lights, and then ultra lights from the time they were available, and after 47 years I was as addicted as anyone else. As I stated in a much earlier post, BT did everything possible to get people to smoke and not stop, even after it was common knowledge that smoking was likely to harm one's health....IMO, there is something really messed up about governments that continue to allow known carcinogenic substances that steal people's willpower, and then ban products that do not. But - there is a lot of money to be had catering to both people's self-destructive bents/addictive genetics, and again in "treating" same.
It's life, I guess.
It's life, I guess.
Thanks DrMa!
Question: I was reviewing Bonnie Herzog's powerpoint for "U.S. Tobacco Trends: Disruptive Innovation Should Drive Outsized Growth" and I really liked how she calls APVs "Vapor Products" as opposed to "ecigs." (It is a pretty interesting read: www.ecigarette-politics.com/files/WF-DallasMarch2014.ppt )
Because tobacco companies are now very publicly pushing "e-cigarettes," has anyone discussed moving our THR and deeming reg efforts further away from "e-cigarettes" or "ecigs" and instead referring to PV's and the like as "Vapor Products?" This, in order to clearly differentiate our message/goals from those of BT and their ecig offerings?
It seems that the average jane public would really think they are one and the same, particularly if we refer to them by using most of the same words. (Not suggesting calling anything ECF is a problem though
Not to mention, "Vapor Products" by this time seems like a more accurately descriptive name than "ecigs," etc. Or maybe that's already been brought up. Like I said, I am new..
So you'd have "ecigarettes/ecigs/cigalikes" = BT
and "Vapor products" = more advanced and efficient PVs/systems we at ECF recognize as being more effective for most purposes
You might find this interesting: Why It's Called An 'E-Cigarette' And 'E-Smoking'
- Status
Similar threads
