Dr. Michael Siegel Calls Possible E Cig Ban a TRAGEDY

[chokmah]

LOGIC?! What's Logic? Can we profit from it???

log⋅ic   /ˈlɒdʒ

ɪk/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [loj-ik] Show IPA
–noun 1.the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.2.a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic. 3.the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.4.reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move. 5.convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts. 6.Computers. logic circuit.

Origin:
1325–75; ME logik < L logica, n. use of neut. pl. (in ML taken as fem. sing.) of Gk logikós of speech or reason. See logo-, -ic

Related forms:
log⋅ic⋅less, adjective

Synonyms:
4. sense, cogency.

The logical answer is NO...

I would think by your name you could determine that for yourself.

 

[OutWest]

Perhaps you could sue the FDA, if they ban it, for forcing you to smoke tobacco and ruining your health. I am sure a good lawyer could make a great case out of it.

Their argument would be that you can just quit, despite the fact that millions of smokers have tried numerous times to quit and failed.

 

[sherid]

"Their argument would be that you can just quit, despite the fact that millions of smokers have tried numerous times to quit and failed."
The recent FLA case where the widow sued BT on the grounds of her husband's addiction to cigarettes and WON is a precedent for future cases claiming addiction as well as possible ADA recognition.

 

[dEFinitionofEPIC]

The logical answer is NO...

I would think by your name you could determine that for yourself.

? Don't understand your response to my sarcasm.... Though I get the little "definition" joke....

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Have I told you lately that I love you? 8-o


The more this develops, the more the truth becomes apparent (and hopefully the more widely known it becomes). Big pharma lines the pockets of the lobbyists and Congress. And, all of them only care about profit. Luckily there are a few exceptions and some congressmen who still have some ethics (as amazing as that is). Unfortunately Lautenberg is apparently not one of those who do.

No you haven't! I have been feeling unloved by you lately

Personally, I am really excited about all of this! I think it is just what the doctor ordered! Literally!

 

[dEFinitionofEPIC]

Personally, I am really excited about all of this! I think it is just what the doctor ordered! Literally!

Is there something you know that I don't?

 

[sherid]

From Dr. Siegel's discussion of today's blog about e cigs. The poster is from SmokeFree
The American Cancer Society has a conflict of interest on this issue, as it has an apparently secretive multi million dollar exclusive product endorsement contract with GlaxoSmithKline whereby GSK has given ACS lots of money for ACS's official endorsement of Nicoderm, Nicorette, and Commit (with ACS name and logo on these products).

Exclusive product endorsement contracts typicially contain non compete clauses (that prohibit the product endorser from also endorsing competitor brands or products).

But even if the ACS/GSK contract doesn't specifically prohibit ACS from endorsing competitive nicotine (and/or tobacco products), its in ACS's financial interest to not endorse competitive products (as the severance clause in the contract probably allows GSK to end the contract whenever it chooses to do so).

I'm also not aware of any peer reviewed journal article by ACS researchers Michael Thun or Jane Henley (who have authored several articles with misleading health risk information about smokeless tobacco products) that cites GSK's multi million dollar NRT product endorsement contract as a potential conflict of interest.

But unless/until the ACS/GSK contract is made public, only ACS and GSK will know if their contract lawfully prohibits ACS from saying anything good about alternative smokefree tobacco/nicotine products.
Bill Godshall | 03.25.09 - 3:32 pm | #

 

[pam]

I think we should start an email campaign and call it "Who's Trying To Kill The Electronic Cigarette?"

We could send the article from the original post, or other relevant articles, to various cable media personalities. This would make a great story and I can think of any number of cable shows that might cover it. A lot of these shows have blogs now so we could go on the blogs and comment.

I think framing the debate in this way (who's trying to kill the electric cigarette?) would be very effective. I know some have felt that we should try to fly under the radar but I think that ship has sailed.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Is there something you know that I don't?

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.

 

[TropicalBob]

You're easily excitable!

We've had some good letters and some allies come forward, but don't for a second discount the clout of the forces now lined up to ask for an FDA ban on sale of e-cigs.

Give the FDA a week to answer the letter.

The recent FLA case where the widow sued BT on the grounds of her husband's addiction to cigarettes and WON is a precedent for future cases claiming addiction as well as possible ADA recognition.

And it verifies that nicotine addiction is a disease that can have fatal consequences, which is the reason e-liquid is a "drug" designed to treat this condition. Devices that treat medical conditions are also regulated.

Let's hold the confetti another day or two. I'm hopeful reason will win out -- but we just don't know what goes on behind the curtains of government.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Let's hold the confetti another day or two. I'm hopeful reason will win out -- but we just don't know what goes on behind the curtains of government.

Yes Papa. (two winks to ensure this is love being shown)

 

[dEFinitionofEPIC]

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.

...ahh I see. The Eternal Optimist.... guess theres nothing wrong with that.

 

[whatagem]

What a shame that everything is dictated by a senators pockets. I wonder how many drugs are sold for the prolonging of someone's life who has lung cancer? Emphysema? Thorat cancer? etc, etc.....

 

[LaceyUnderall]

I love Lacey's view!!!! I gives us some hope and that is why I read all of her posts. But Lacey--if there is a ban, can we stop by to say hello, have a couple of drinks, and hit you up for an atomizer or two?? LOL---Thanks for my daily dose of hope from you every day-----Sun

Of course! And I am glad I can sprinkle a little sunshine on your day

 

[dEFinitionofEPIC]

What a shame that everything is dictated by a senators pockets. I wonder how many drugs are sold for the prolonging of someone's life who has lung cancer? Emphysema? Thorat cancer? etc, etc.....

Emphasis on EVERYTHING. Nothing is sacred my friend.... Money makes the world go 'round. People are just a means to an end....

 

[BARENETTED]

Perhaps you could sue the FDA, if they ban it, for forcing you to smoke tobacco and ruining your health. I am sure a good lawyer could make a great case out of it.

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' ???

 

[LaceyUnderall]

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' ???

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)

 

[Jim Davis]

Excellent read. thanks.

 

[Calaban]

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' ???

It's not a question of 'IF' someone gets the dreaded big C.....someone will. Likely one of us.

The FDA and their lawyers will argue that we as smokers have a choice to NOT smoke, and they are correct. We do have that choice.

It's not an easy choice, in fact it's damn near impossible as we all know, but it can be done. And that is enough for the courts I'm afraid.

We have to get away from the notion that a ban on e-cigs will 'force' us to go back to smoking analogs. Yes, we know that it's true for many of us, but it sounds weak and dramatic, and will never stand up in court.

 

[sherid]

Lacey, if the gloom and doom postings were all that were posted here, I would never visit the forum. You look at the bright side, and I appreciate the positive energy. Thank you.