Dr. Michael Siegel Calls Possible E Cig Ban a TRAGEDY

[dEFinitionofEPIC]

Hey... if the American Cancer Society can threaten to sue the FDA into acting, then why can't a normal citizen? (I know the answer is cash and balls... so this is completely rhetorical)

Well that one woman sued the tobacco companies for her husband's death from addiction to nicotine....Got a lot of money too. Could all be in the same ballpark... Start with some balls and maybe end up with some cash

 

[chokmah]

Pete - I though of the exact same thing today at work. What if we had to go back to analogs and someone got the dreaded big 'c' ???

Well we found out about E-cigarettes AFTER my husand was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer so now its a must quit.. I hate to say it but so far nothing has helped with that for us until the E-Cigarette... We tried the patches and gums and do to mixture of meds we are excluded from taking things like Chantrix and such..

 

[TropicalBob]

Calaban, you are a rare voice of reason here. Yes, if e-cigs are banned, we can choose to quit. Or we can use another legal product.

No regulating agency will see this fight as either e-cigs or tobacco cigs. A smoker can quit cold turkey. A smoker can use a plethora of approved nicotine replacement products. A smoker can move to snus or tobacco pellets or other legal smokefree products.

We chose e-cigs. And we're happy with our choice. But if e-cig makers haven't followed well-prescribed protocol for approval to be sold, then good-bye e-cigs. What needed to be done long ago was not a secret. It was simply ignored by manufacturers.

 

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

I have (I think) enough equipment to last me quite a while - and some friends who are handy with a solder iron (me,alas, am all thumbs!)

I can mix my own, and learn to live without nic - or use (BLECH!!!) the gum if I have to have nic.

WARNING!! WARNING!! RANT ALERT!!!


But, the court's still out on my opinion - will the FDA ban PV's? I don't know....
Will our legal system manage to bring some sense of logic into the proceedings? Again, I don't know.

Wha do I know:
-Increased public awareness of all things PV will make it that much harder to let the big Pharma and big Tobacco push their weight around to have our elected officials protect their interests.
-Those who would tout the PV as an NRT or smoking sessation device, or make wild claims of being perfectly safe push us closer to a ban.
-Those who tout the PV as a shock device, who rebel against the smoking bans by using this in established non-smoking areas push us closer to a ban.


We cannot win this war with "shock value!" We have to do this by getting the public aware of what this is! We have to make the public, big Pharma, big Tobacco, and Capital Hill realize that, yes, we NEED testing. Yes, we NEED eliquid regulated the same way as Tobacco. (just not taxed!!!) All we ask is that while you do your testing, let us, consenting, rational, reasonable, law-abiding adults continue to use our devices... After all, you've let us use tobacco!


Sorry - rant - now over.

 

[yvilla]

No regulating agency will see this fight as either e-cigs or tobacco cigs. A smoker can quit cold turkey. A smoker can use a plethora of approved nicotine replacement products. A smoker can move to snus or tobacco pellets or other legal smokefree products.

Bob, the well-documented numbers put the lie to that argument. The abysmal success rates of all of those "approved nicotine replacement products" show that not all addicted smokers can quit, at least not for long. Siegel's article itself quite cogently makes that point:

"Furthermore, we know that smokers almost never continue using nicotine replacement to stay off cigarettes. A very small percentage quit, but the overwhelming majority return to cigarette smoking.

In contrast, it is quite plausible that many smokers would find the e-cigarette to be an alternative to smoking and it may actually be more successful in keeping them off cigarettes. If true, this would literally save "countless lives.""

 

[wv2win]

Thank you sherid for posting this story. Do we know who this Doctor is? I would like to send this letter to my US Senators and Congressman and I intend to call Laughtenburg's office and let at least let whoever answers the phone kniow what I think of their employer.

 

[Recycled]

It took me some hunting to figure out who Dr. Siegel is, too. It's in the link posted in the first post of this thread.

tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary

(I can't post links yet, so the link is way back there at post 1.)

"I am a physician who specialized in preventive medicine and public health. I am now a professor in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department, Boston University School of Public Health. I have 20 years of experience in tobacco control, primarily as a researcher. My areas of research interest include the health effects of secondhand smoke, policy aspects of regulating smoking in public places, effects of cigarette marketing on youth smoking behavior, and the evaluation of tobacco control program and policy interventions."

...not bad credentials and a good one to have going to bat for us.

 

[fjames]

Here's an interview with Siegel from a year ago or so (scroll down a bit.) He's well loathed by the anti-smoking Nazis apparently.

 

[TropicalBob]

And that's a problem if he now represents e-smoking. That's what I meant when I said his currency might have been spent in earlier battles. This quote from a peer speaks to that:

"I view him as a tragic figure - he has completely lost it," says University of California tobacco researcher Stanton Glantz. "His view is that everybody in the tobacco control movement is corrupt and misguided except for him. You have to be careful what you say to preserve credibility in academic circles, and he is not doing that."

We can't choose our enemies or our allies, I guess. But maybe this is not the best guy to represent e-smoking interests with government agencies. We don't want the reaction ... "oh, himmmmmm."

 

[Closet Toker]

Senator and Anti-Smoking Groups Want to Ban Less Harmful E-Cigarettes and Protect the Most Toxic Ones
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary
Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has announced that he wants the FDA to immediately take electronic cigarettes -- which deliver essentially pure nicotine (with no tar or other tobacco constituents) -- off the market. At the same time, he is a supporter of legislation that would provide special protection to actual tobacco-containing cigarettes and ensure that this most toxic variety of cigarettes always remains on the market and continues to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans each year.

The electronic cigarette is a battery-powered device that contains a nicotine/propylene glycol solution and vaporizes the nicotine, producing a vapor of nicotine that is inhaled by the smoker. Because there is no tobacco, there is no tar and so while the vapor contains nicotine, it does not contain any of the thousands of other constituents of tobacco smoke. Also, because the cigarette produces a vapor, and not smoke, there is no secondhand smoke that could affect others. Moreover, the amount of nicotine delivered can be controlled by the user, allowing the smoker to gradually reduce the level to wean himself off of cigarettes entirely if he so desires.

Senator Lautenberg's call for removing the electronic cigarette from the market, as well as for providing special protection - and government approval - for the much more toxic actual tobacco-containing cigarettes - was endorsed by the American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

Representative Cliff Stearns (R-FL) countered Lautenberg's call for the removal of electronic cigarettes from the marketplace, arguing that these products are designed to help smokers quit, that they have succeeded in doing so for many smokers, that they are safer than tobacco-containing cigarettes, and that they are safer for nonsmokers because they do not produce secondhand smoke.

According to an article in The Hill: "Stearns shot back at Lautenberg on Monday, saying that there is no evidence that the device is harmful. 'Before the FDA takes any immediate action, it should put forward scientific evidence that these products are harmful or unsafe,' he said in a statement. 'These e-cigarettes are smokeless and do not produce carcinogens. The nicotine in e-cigarettes is controlled in a capsule that can help in smoking cessation by allowing the user to reduce gradually the nicotine level, hopefully to zero.' Stearns has sent electronic cigarettes to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and President Obama to help them quit smoking."

The Rest of the Story

How special that a public policy maker who touts himself as being a champion of the public's health as well as some of the leading national health advocacy organizations are demanding that we ban what is clearly a much safer cigarette than those on the market, but that we allow, protect, approve, and institutionalize the really toxic ones.

This is about as idiotic and irrational an approach as I have ever seen in my 22 years in tobacco control and public health.

One company has a product on the market which delivers only nicotine. There are potentially serious health effects of this nicotine, especially with regards to heart disease. However, there are no other toxic chemicals and no carcinogens, so there is no risk of cancer or chronic obstructive lung disease.

Another company has a product on the market which delivers nicotine plus more than 4000 other chemicals and toxins, including over 60 proven carcinogens, and which we know kills over 400,000 people a year.

Our health groups' response: prohibit the first company from marketing its product, but officially provide government approval of the products manufactured by the second company.

What Senator Lautenberg and the health groups are trying to do is ban a much less harmful type of cigarette but to give an official government seal of approval to the much more toxic one that we know is killing hundreds of thousands of Americans each year.

The logic of these actions completely escapes me.

Or at least the logic did escape me until The Ashtray Blog pointed out that Senator Lautenberg is the recipient of more than $128,000 from pharmaceutical companies (in 2008 alone).

The only real threat that electronic cigarettes pose is not to the public's health, but to the profits of the pharmaceutical companies, which manufacture competing products (nicotine replacement therapy). If lots of smokers turn to electronic cigarettes, rather than pharmaceuticals, in order to try to quit smoking, then the pharmaceutical companies stand to lose lots of money. So perhaps it is not surprising that Senator Lautenberg is standing up to protect the financial interests of the pharmaceutical companies over the interests of the public's health.

The behavior of the health groups is equally mystifying. But perhaps not so mystifying when you consider that the Clearing the Air blog points out that these groups received millions of dollars from a foundation which is largely underwritten by a pharmaceutical company. Might a financial interest explain why these health groups are sacrificing a huge potential benefit to the public's health for the protection of pharmaceutical company profits?

Electronic cigarettes pose a threat to pharmaceutical smoking cessation aids precisely because the pharmaceutical aids are so dismally ineffective. The rates of successful smoking cessation with these pharmaceuticals is less than 10%. Thus, the overwhelming majority of smokers who try to quit using pharmaceutical aids are unsuccessful.

Accordingly, there is a huge potential market for a nicotine delivery system (such as an electronic cigarette) that will be more popular with smokers. The fact that the e-cigarette system is similar to a cigarette may make it much more effective and popular for use among smokers who are trying to quit smoking.

To be sure, this is a potentially life-saving intervention. There is initial evidence that many smokers have found the e-cigarette to be an effective method for smoking cessation. Moreover, it makes sense that smokers would find it more attractive to use an e-cigarette than a nicotine patch.

Furthermore, we know that smokers almost never continue using nicotine replacement to stay off cigarettes. A very small percentage quit, but the overwhelming majority return to cigarette smoking.

In contrast, it is quite plausible that many smokers would find the e-cigarette to be an alternative to smoking and it may actually be more successful in keeping them off cigarettes. If true, this would literally save "countless lives."

But the anti-smoking movement is too much in bed with the pharmaceutical industry to allow this natural experiment to actually take place. The movement is so heavily funded by Big Pharma that it cannot risk the loss of pharmaceutical profits, even if disallowing the experiment comes at the expense of a substantial number of human lives.

While there must be oversight of the claims that e-cigarette manufacturers are making regarding the safety of the product, the attention should be focused on these claims, rather than on an outright ban on this type of cigarette.

Moreover, since the product is clearly being marketed primarily as an alternative cigarette, rather than as a smoking cessation aid, it should not fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the FDA.

Once again, we see that the scientific evidence base and common sense reasoning are not guiding the tobacco control movement. It is, instead, being guided largely by money. The profits of both tobacco and pharmaceutical companies are being protected at the expense of the protection of the public's health.

It is truly a tragedy.

Excellent follow up! So true!

It is clearly shown that smokers are seen as $$$ (dollar amounts), not human beings.
Personally, I am sick of being treated like a second class human. I should not have to feel shame for who I am.

 

[Storyspinr]

As someone new to e cigs but a veteran of the "smoking wars", I can assure you any comment against Siegel by Glantz is a comment in Siegel's FAVOR; Glantz is a rabid anti-smoker who cannot tolerate dissent. Siegel has appeared as a witness in court, appeared on "20/20" and been published in peer-reviewed journals. While I strongly disagree with his support for workplace smoking bans, I believe his support for e cigs can indeed help due to his tobacco-control and medical credentials.

 

[sherid]

Dr. Siegel is a professor of public health at Boston University. He is known as a staunch anti smoker working with the major anti smoking cartel. Then, he objected to the anti-smoking group methods as they became more and more extreme. He was booted for objecting. He has a long history of serving on committees, testifying in tobacco cases, etc. It is only recently that he has come to accept that tobacco control is out of control. ASH and TFK's now label him a nutcase. Clearly, he is not. He is a wonderful ally where e cigarettes are concerned.

 

[sherid]

E Smokers really need to educate themselves about the enemy. The enemy, as I see it, is ASH and their splinter groups. You will be amazed at where these people are going. It is not just about e smoking. It is about Healthy People 2010 and what that can mean for all of us: smokers, vapers, fat people, and drinkers.

 

[Brando]

E Smokers really need to educate themselves about the enemy. The enemy, as I see it, is ASH and their splinter groups. You will be amazed at where these people are going. It is not just about e smoking. It is about Healthy People 2010 and what that can mean for all of us: smokers, vapers, fat people, and drinkers.

True. By the time we all stand up together to re-assert our rights it may be too late. Regardless of your politics we've just voted in the most powerful left leaning government we've ever seen (mostly due to the ineptitude of the Repubs while they were in power) who's underlying philosophy is ultimately "control" the people and assume their power. My biggest concern is that our rights as outlined by the Constitution will be futher eroded by policies like these . BTW, I've contacted my congressmen on my personal feeling in support of e-cigs.

For those afraid of an FDA Ban... Don't Worry!

Regardless, the cat's out of the bag now! So whatever the FDA & Congress decide it will matter only in our creativity to circumvent decisions that are not in our own best interests (like our founding fathers did with England). Look at all the things they've tried to "ban" & restrict before. It's not going to work. E-cigs will continue to grow and juice will still be available... why? They CAN'T stop it which is the reason for the propaganda machine that's starting to roll which is standard proceedure in politics and business. Fear over Fact.

Look, we can't stop illegal immigration, drugs, money, guns and the plethora of other items that are brought into the country everyday. The federal government is ineffective at best at just about everything it decides to do. They are not all powerful or all knowing so lets all keep promoting the benefits to our friends and familes, provide resources and keep up the good fight!

 

[palermo45]

Dr. Siegel is a professor of public health at Boston University. He is known as a staunch anti smoker working with the major anti smoking cartel. Then, he objected to the anti-smoking group methods as they became more and more extreme. He was booted for objecting. He has a long history of serving on committees, testifying in tobacco cases, etc. It is only recently that he has come to accept that tobacco control is out of control. ASH and TFK's now label him a nutcase. Clearly, he is not. He is a wonderful ally where e cigarettes are concerned.

Dr Siegel and most physicians who are ethical are all pretty much on the same page and they are very much in favor of electronic cigarettes. With all I have read and the physicians and toxicologists I know personally, I would say 95% of all physicians who have bothered to look into e-cigs agree that e-cigs are much safer than traditional cigarettes. You simply look at the 10-12 ingredients found in e-cigs vs the 4000+ known ingredients found in regular cigarettes and immediately understand the difference. In addition, EVERYONE knows that the main killer is TAR!! Those which disagree are either ignorant beyond explantion or have one of their hands in the Pharmaceutical cookie jar!!!

 

[Territoo]

Look at what one letter from one Senator did. It pulled doctors, congressman, and people in prominent anti-smoking positions out of the wood work saying "Woah... wait a minute. You want to keep tobacco cigarettes on the shelves which have been proven to kill their users... but you want to take something off of the market that thus far hasn't been proven to kill anyone? All it has done is proven that it can, in fact, move people away from tobacco."

That's promising. And that is exciting. Well... at least for me.

Lacey,

Got a link to that letter from the Senator? I'm collecting articles w/ the possibility of writing an essay about ecig use.

 

[Territoo]

E Smokers really need to educate themselves about the enemy. The enemy, as I see it, is ASH and their splinter groups. You will be amazed at where these people are going. It is not just about e smoking. It is about Healthy People 2010 and what that can mean for all of us: smokers, vapers, fat people, and drinkers.

Healty People 2010? Are these the same ones as Healthy People 2000 that I would often read about during the '80's when I was a medical student? By the year 2000, people were less healthy than in 1985. Scary to think of how healthy Americans WILL (not) be in 2010. 8-o

 

[breno]

The fertilizer used to grow tobacco is radioactive and it is in the tar, the tar sticks in the lungs, radiating your lungs.
So how about marketing it as a 'smokers radioactive tar removal system'
you will look pretty silly trying to ban that!!

 

[Territoo]

I think most will agree that research needs to be done on ecig safety and effectiveness and most would be willing to bear a reasonable increase in cost to obtain this. However, we are each sitting at home alone, lamenting that we personally can't make this happen. Individually we can't. However, I'd like to propose a hare-brained idea and the rest of you can pick it apart.

First of all a consortium of ejuice vendors is formed. ECA could spearhead this, if they are willing, but it can be done w/o them if they choose not to get involved. We could call this Liquid Nicotine Vendors Consortium (LNVC). Or we could call it Dummies R Us! Name's not important at this stage.

Ejuice vendors would pay a fee to join this cosortium and can use membership as an advertising method, stating that they have agreed to abide by LNVC's poolicies in manufacturing, bottling, and selling of ejuice. How meaningful this will be depends on LNVC. More oversight (inspections, etc.) would cost more, but make being a member mean more. Or they could just have members sign a contract stating they promise not to be mixing batches of ejuice in their bathtubs. Cheaper, but less meaningful. The consortium would establish these type of policies, as well as acting as political lobbies, public voice, etc.

Each member would not have equal voice, but a number of votes based on the mgs of nicotine sold. Perhaps one vote per 1000mg of nicotine sold. In order to obtain this vote, the vendor would have to submit records verifying his sales AND pay 1 cent per mg nicotine sold. This extra penny per mg could be passed on to the consumer.

A 10ml bottle of 24mg nicotine juice, which current runs about 9.99 would have an extra $2.40 added to it, making it cost 12.39. That's not as high a markup as the current taxes on tobacco. Carts are included too. If you sell a cart that hold 1cc of 24mg juice, that would add 24c to the price of the cart.

These funds would go in part to the operation costs of the consortium, lobbying, advertisement, vendor oversight. Most should support research on the ecig.

Whatta ya thing? Totally hare-brained or doable? Or somewhere in between?

If Judge Leon rules in favor of FDA's ban, I don't see this happening though.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Territoo -

This is exactly what the ECA is trying to work towards when it comes to liquid manufacturer members. Right now, the ECA is working on getting the manufacturers to manufacture and respect ISO 9000 standards. Cleanliness and testing are all a part of these standards.

Once the manufacturer is on board, then they can guarantee that their stuff is clean, manufactured properly and that they are using all minimum Food Grade Human Consumption products. (DEG will never be found in anything ever... as DEG is a by-product of "cutting corners" when it comes to this product)

An outside third party will be hired to go through the facility and check to ensure that everything is being done... at least once a year, which is more than the FDA does with food products manufactured here in the US right now.