Dr Michael Siegels views on the recent ruling

Status
Not open for further replies.

BigJimW

Moved On
ECF Veteran
May 17, 2009
2,058
7
60
Warwick, RI
www.moonport.org
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: IN MY VIEW: The Court Ruling on Electronic Cigarettes: What Does It Mean?

The ramifications of the ruling is why I did not go on a pro e-cig tangent in my press release NJ Government Official Proclaims Real Cigarettes Are Safer Than Electronic Cigarettes

I'm glad we have this doctor on our side. I facebooked Dr Seigel the links to both the original news article and my press release. Maybe we'll read some of the doctors insite on the comments made by Gordon recently.
 

BigJimW

Moved On
ECF Veteran
May 17, 2009
2,058
7
60
Warwick, RI
www.moonport.org
Great article! Thanks for linking Jim.

Anytime. ;)

What is great is that the FDA was given two big blows recently. The ruling that prohibiting color coding on packs of cigarettes was determined to be unconstitutional (freedom of speech violation), and now Leon blasting the FDA that they overstepped their bounds with seizing e-cigs and sided for the industry. I expect to see more flack for the FDA in coming months as they "adapt" to overseeing cigarettes. :w00t:

But on the other side of the same token, I expect to see more bellyaching and whining from fanatical anti-smoker groups like tobacco Free Kids and ASH because they're not getting their own way. 8-o
 
Last edited:

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
66
Thanks for posting Jim.

I largely agree with Mike Siegel about e-cigarettes (and most other scientific issues).

NJ Senator Bob Gordon's statement about e-cigarettes is absurd and irresponsible, and I doubt that his office issued that press release. Rather, it appears the press release was issued by an e-cigarette advocate to expose Gordon's irresponsible grandstanding.

Following is the letter I sent Senator Gordon last month (he hasn't responded).

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Godshall
To: Robert Gordon
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 5:24 PM
Subject: Oppose e-cigarette usage ban, support no sales to minors

Dear Senator Gordon:

To improve public health, Smokefree Pennsylvania urges you to SUPPORT S-3504 (to ban sales of electronic cigarettes to minors under 19) and to REJECT S-3503 (to ban adult use of electronic cigarettes in ALL indoor workplaces).

As you may be aware, about 100,000 smokers in the US have quit smoking by switching to smokefree nicotine inhalers (commonly called electronic cigarettes) during the past several years. Electronic cigarettes (aka e-cigarettes) look like a real cigarette, but emit NO hazardous tobacco smoke, and pose NO risks to nonusers. E-cigarettes emit a tiny amount of nicotine to users, and emit a tiny amount of propylene glycol vapor (commonly used in theatrical fog, asthma inhalers and thousands of air sanitizing products). The inhalation of propylene glycol has been extensively studies for many decades, and poses no health risks at the tiny levels emitted by e-cigarettes.

Unfortunately for public health and common sense, S-3503 inaccurately redefines "smoking" as including the use of smokefree e-cigarettes in order to ban the use of these lifesaving products in all workplaces in NJ (including in the privacy of one's office, work station, etc.). While Smokefree Pennsylvania has advocated smokefree workplace laws for more than 20 years (because tobacco smoke pollution poses a health hazard to people and property), we urge you to REJECT S-3503 because it improperly defines the usage of smokefree products as "smoking", unfairly discriminates against e-cigarette users who have recently quit smoking, would force e-cigarette users outside into smoking areas to obtain smokefree nicotine, and would discourage hundreds of thousands of smokers from quitting and/or reducing cigarette consumption by switching to e-cigarettes.

Proponents of S-3503 have grossly and intentionally misrepresented the health risks of e-cigarettes in order to scare legislators into voting for this unwarranted legislation that threatens (instead of improves) public health. Smokers who have recently quit and/or are trying to quit need support, not harassment and ostracism.

We also urge you SUPPORT S-3504 (that would prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes to minors under 19 years) because it is a reasonable and responsible public health meausure. Although there is no evidence that e-cigarettes have been marketed to youth (as some proponents of S-3504 have falsely claimed), enactment of this legislation would help prevent future sales of these products to minors (similar to laws that prohibit tobacco sales to minors).

Thank you for your consideration, and feel free to contact me any time for additional information or assistance.

William T. Godshall, MPH
Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15218
412-351-5880
FAX 351-5881
smokefree@compuserve.com
 

BigJimW

Moved On
ECF Veteran
May 17, 2009
2,058
7
60
Warwick, RI
www.moonport.org
Thanks for posting Jim.

NJ Senator Bob Gordon's statement about e-cigarettes is absurd and irresponsible, and I doubt that his office issued that press release. Rather, it appears the press release was issued by an e-cigarette advocate to expose Gordon's irresponsible grandstanding.

Yes, that JAMES WILLIAMS guy sure knows how to put out a press release, doesn't he? ;)

Sincerely,
BigJimW

:D
 

harmony gardens

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 9, 2009
903
2,800
Wisconsin
Good find Jim,,,

Question,,, even though this decision limits manufacturers from claiming that ecigs are a smoking cessation device, or claiming they are a safer alternative to smoking, would there be any restrictions that would prevent local vaping clubs from passing the word on to thier members or potential members??
 

Territoo

Diva
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
  • Jul 17, 2009
    6,748
    32,888
    Texas
    Good find Jim,,,

    Question,,, even though this decision limits manufacturers from claiming that ecigs are a smoking cessation device, or claiming they are a safer alternative to smoking, would there be any restrictions that would prevent local vaping clubs from passing the word on to thier members or potential members??

    There are others that can answer this better than I, but my take is that the clubs can't make the claims, BUT, they can do the research that proves its safer and/or more effective. Then they can make such claims. It will be up to groups such as CASAA, RtV, and VI to do the research needed on vaping.
     

    River

    Super Member
    ECF Veteran
    Nov 11, 2009
    591
    36
    Independence, KY USA
    Y'know, I went on the Campaign for tobacco free kids site, joined the organization and took the tobacco free pledge. Then used their quick links to my representitives and their quick action links to govt organizations to tell my story and ask for protection for personal vaporizers.

    The only way to to defeat these guys is to get a say in the organization and change their insane policies from within.

    There is only a couple hundred thousand people in that one surely we can get in there and bring some common sense with us.
     

    CJsKee

    Super Member
    ECF Veteran
    Verified Member
    Apr 1, 2009
    991
    26
    Oklahoma
    There are others that can answer this better than I, but my take is that the clubs can't make the claims, BUT, they can do the research that proves its safer and/or more effective. Then they can make such claims. It will be up to groups such as CASAA, RtV, and VI to do the research needed on vaping.


    I don't see how this could be correct...that would be in violation on our 1st Amendment rights to freedom of speech. We, as individuals, can say whatever we want. I think this would only apply to manufacturers and suppliers and the product claims they can make. Michael Siegel stated in his blog that public health officials, doctors, ect. can continue to spread the good word. Of course, the research is still necessary.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread