Contact US Today Editors

[LaceyUnderall]

One of the best ways to get good articles into mainstream papers, is to react by writing a well thought out comment to the editor. When editors see a lot of comment regarding one particular topic, they assume it is newsworthy and do more investigation. After all, they want to produce articles that people will read to boost their on and offline readership.

This is also a way to provide some of these journalists with the other side of the story, and for some, the other side is just too hard to research. So help them!

Here are some of the recent USA Today Articles:

WHO: Electronic cigarette not anti-smoking therapy - USATODAY.com An old one but a good one. August 2008

FDA considers ways to short-circuit electronic cigarettes - USATODAY.com July 2009

Firestorm over smokeless cigarette - USATODAY.com October 2009

Letters: Place restrictions on e-cigarettes - Opinion - USATODAY.com An opinion blog post October 2009

Debate on public health - Our opinion: E-cigarettes pose risks - Opinion - USATODAY.com An opinion blog post November 2009

Opposing view: A much-needed alternative - Opinion - USATODAY.com Matt Salmon, ECA President's response to the November 2009 blog post posted just above.

If you are interested, Contact Us: Feedback, Comments & Suggestions - USATODAY.com is the place to post your letter to the editor in 250 words or less. So, as it needs to be a small post, can you sum up your thoughts in that?

Some talking points:

• Combustion vs. Vaporization
  
• Specifically in response to the USA Today article (about China): Making the suggestion that e-cigarettes need oversight simply because they are manufactured in China is a logical fallacy. How many other products a year does the United States have made in China? Furthermore, the United States has its own manufacturing scares, such as in the case of tainted peanuts earlier this year.
  

• Approximately 440,000 people die every year from combustible tobacco smoking, yet in the five years that electronic cigarettes have been on the market, there have been no known adverse health effects. The FDA’s warning against electronic cigarettes has no scientific backing and is based on unfounded fears and untested assumptions.

• Studies show that there are no grounds to suspect any long-term adverse health effects from the long-term use of nicotine when inhaled in its pure form.

• To say that propylene glycol (PG) is in antifreeze and leave out the fact that it’s also found in a number of items we come in contact with daily is just bad journalism. PG has been designated by the FDA as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for use as a direct food additive. It is also in toothpaste, hand creams, and food coloring. The EPA has also found it safe for inhaled products that are used commonly throughout highly populated areas such as hospitals and doctors offices.

• Electronic cigarettes provide adult Americans an alternative to combustible tobacco cigarettes. A ban on electronic cigarettes forces the public to give up its right to choose, restricting their options to known deadly combustible tobacco cigarettes or smoking cessation products that fail 95 percent of the time.

• Why is it that the FDA, through their Big Pharm- and Big Tobacco-backed affiliates and partners, is trying to ban electronic cigarettes, when traditional combustible tobacco cigarettes are approved for adult use? Electronic cigarettes offer the consumer the same experience but without the deadly toxins, and the only option the FDA wants to give consumers is the one that is a known killer.

PS: And for heaven's sakes: Suppliers: Please do not put advertising links to your website with your comments. If you have a well written and focused blog... that's one thing... but please post a link to the relevant information that you would like to share ie: That particular blog post. And not to your sales portion of your site. Information dispersal is one thing. "Cold Calling" is another.

 

[Vocalek]

If you are a supplier, I beg of you, do not use the comments on news stories to advertise your web site. It reduces the credibility of all the rest of the folks leaving comments.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

If you are a supplier, I beg of you, do not use the comments on news stories to advertise your web site. It reduces the credibility of all the rest of the folks leaving comments.

Good point... Will add to the OP.

 

[KickASH]

It is great to feel like we can have our voices be heard. Thanks Lacey.

Great comments Vocal.

 

[unknwn]

I follow just about all the news links that I find on the ECF, and usually enjoy reading the comments that follow most any article that provides interest to me. When I amble through the aforementioned comments, I invariably quit when I come across the shameless and ultimately self-serving advertisement for "my e-cig product or site". If there was a way to keep track of this abandonment of a page, you would probably find that it is pretty high.
To consider these text-isements as distasteful and counterproductive is an understatement.
To put it another way, IT SUCKS , and penalizes the suppliers that show restraint and good manners.
Oh, i forgot that good manners (not to mention restraint) is an optional quality of character in our modern? society.