E-cigarette primer for state and local lawmakers

Status
Not open for further replies.

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,635
1
84,777
So-Cal

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,635
1
84,777
So-Cal
I haven't read the Entire document.

But what I have seems to be Well Balanced and Reasonably Unbiased. I like most of what I see.

With the Exception to This...

WHAT ARE STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO DO?

...

2. Consider upping the age to purchase any tobacco
product from 18 to 21. This would remove cigarettes
from the high school environment.118

...

I Can't say I am in favor of Raising the Legal Age to use a tobacco Product from 18 to 21 Years Old.

I also think the Rational that it would Remove Cigarettes from the High School Environment is a Fallacy.
 

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US
So good I'm saving it out as a reference. A few nitpicks - one on just PR value - "the Free Markets. Real Solutions" subtitle is going to put off anyone Left of say, Ronald Reagan - which would include the Bush Family, all but about 6 of the Senate Republicans and more than half in the House and all Democrats.

And again, some writers like to be 'reasonable' so they stick in something like this:

"Harm reduction is not harm elimination. All nicotine-delivery products present a risk of potential illness greater than would be considered acceptable in other consumer products."

... which is simply a false statement. There are many consumer products that 'present a risk of potential illness greater' than ecigarettes. How about alcohol, certain foods, some (not all) 'new age remedies'?

I liked this part:
Non-attractiveness to teens and non-smoking adults:

..."Experience to date, however, has shown that while many non-smoking teens may experiment with e-cigarettes, very few continue their use and that it is extremely rare for a previously non-smoking teen to transition from e-cigarettes to tobacco cigarettes." (with 6 study references!)

"Two recently published studies conducted by public health non-profits – one in the United States and the other in the United Kingdom – show that teens are very aware of e-cigarettes, but researchers were unable to find even a single non-smoking teen who had taken them up. One study published online in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health and co-authored by Dr. Jonathan Winickoff, chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Tobacco Consortium, was able to find only six nonsmokers who had ever used e-cigarettes in a national survey of 3,240 adults, including 1,802 non-smokers."

And:

"For decades, tobacco-control advocates have considered the terms “smoking” and “tobacco use” (and I'd add 'nicotine') as if they were synonymous. Their stated goal has been “a tobacco-free society,” even though almost all the deaths and almost all the addiction has been from a single tobacco product – cigarettes."

and...

"Flavored e-cigarettes: Nicotine has an extremely harsh taste and, unless sweetened or flavored in a smokeless tobacco
product or e-cigarette, it would be unpalatable to almost all potential users. Flavors, and the ability to change flavors at
will, are important to adult users of e-cigarettes. 116 Even the over-the-counter pharmaceutical nicotine products available
on drugstore, discount store and supermarket shelves come in a variety of fruit and candy flavors. The flavoring
of these FDA-approved pharmaceuticals is a concern never raised by those who oppose flavored e-cigarettes
."
 

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US
I dunno?

Seem like a Pretty Realistic Statement to me.

What's realistic about the 'potential risks'? Nothing - because 'potential' isn't real. The 'potential risk' is exaggerated (there hasn't been any reports of illnesses) and hence, there are many other consumer products that have risks greater than ecigs. Cirrhosis is a risk with drinking. Botulism, ecoli with certain foods. He's just trying to be 'reasonable'. (not a compliment)
 

CabinetGuyScott

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 24, 2014
484
1,188
Detroit
customcabinetsbycasey.com
Excellent find!

Great commentary throughout this thread...

Here's the link to website page/source of the pdf: E-cigarette primer for state and local lawmakers | R Street Institute | Free Markets. Real Solutions.

Gotta get this one off to Gov Snyder and his lyin' piece-o-rubbish director of health...

Edit: Be sure to click on the link under "Joel Nitzkin" at the top of the article. There's a listing of other pieces from Joel, including this awesome article:
FDA lifts restrictions on OTC nicotine replacement therapies | R Street Institute | Free Markets. Real Solutions.

That one is a real keeper too!
 
Last edited:

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,635
1
84,777
So-Cal
What's realistic about the 'potential risks'? Nothing - because 'potential' isn't real. The 'potential risk' is exaggerated (there hasn't been any reports of illnesses) and hence, there are many other consumer products that have risks greater than ecigs. Cirrhosis is a risk with drinking. Botulism, ecoli with certain foods. He's just trying to be 'reasonable'. (not a compliment)

Perhaps what it gets down to is Does One Believe that there are Potential Risks involved with Putting Nicotine into ones Body in the form of e-Cigarette Vapor? Both in an Adult. But also in a Developing Body such as in a Minor.

And whether or not the Habitual Inhalation of Flavoring, Colorants and Artificial Sweeteners is Risk Free?
 

TomGeorge

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 29, 2014
518
446
Buffalo/Rochester
What's realistic about the 'potential risks'? Nothing - because 'potential' isn't real. The 'potential risk' is exaggerated (there hasn't been any reports of illnesses) and hence, there are many other consumer products that have risks greater than ecigs. Cirrhosis is a risk with drinking. Botulism, ecoli with certain foods. He's just trying to be 'reasonable'. (not a compliment)

Just to add onto this, the processed and junk foods that are sold in restaurants, grocery stores and every gas station are just as unhealthy if not more so for you than any NDP
 

DrMA

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 26, 2013
2,989
9,887
Seattle area
What's realistic about the 'potential risks'? Nothing - because 'potential' isn't real. The 'potential risk' is exaggerated (there hasn't been any reports of illnesses) and hence, there are many other consumer products that have risks greater than ecigs. Cirrhosis is a risk with drinking. Botulism, ecoli with certain foods. He's just trying to be 'reasonable'. (not a compliment)

Agreed. The potential risk with many consumer products is far greater than that of ecigs, and it is commonly accepted. Just look up your lifetime risk of death from a car crash. Or the potential of getting permanent brain damage from eating shellfish and anchovies.
 

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US
Perhaps what it gets down to is Does One Believe that there are Potential Risks involved with Putting Nicotine into ones Body in the form of e-Cigarette Vapor? Both in an Adult. But also in a Developing Body such as in a Minor.

And whether or not the Habitual Inhalation of Flavoring, Colorants and Artificial Sweeteners is Risk Free?

Life itself isn't 'Risk Free'. And there are not potential but known benefits of nicotine. And while there are risks involved in consumptions of any substances - too much water will kill you - people have choices and when it involves only them, they should be free to make those choices regardless of what some do gooder thinks might be risky. And all the known information, has low probabilities compared to other consumer goods. To 'give' that there is a 'potential risk' without data is irresponsible or just a 'stylistic' way of thinking one is attempting to be 'balanced' when in fact, it just gives ammunition to the enemy.

When Zeller said that ecigs are good for public health in the context of only hardcore smokers - even though he thought the continued addiction endangered the larger population, people here hopped on the out of context statement. This is why you won't see me advocating child proof caps, labeling or bans on sale to minors. I won't 'give' that to those "do gooders" who think those, who they consider to be stupid people, should have the gov't take care of what is, in effect, their own responsibility as a consumer or a parent. In fact, I think more harm is done by coddling people in that manner.

In effect, it's that same thinking as Zeller except in the opposite direction - iow, I think some people might be 'harmed' if not coddled, but 'for the larger population' the effect is beneficial in that people learn by theirs and others' mistakes and make them better consumers... and parents. And where he is willing to basically 'condemn to death' (that is known) hardcore smokers, I'm willing to lose a few to Darwin, than the shackle that larger population 'for the greater good' :) Actually ....for upholding the individual rights of those individuals who compose the false concept of 'society'.
 
Last edited:

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,635
1
84,777
So-Cal
Life itself isn't 'Risk Free'. ...

Never said it was. e-Cigarettes in My Opinion are No Exception.

It seems like the Problem you have with the Wording is the term "Potential Risk".

If a Substance is Not a Risk to All Users, say it is Harmful to only 1 in 1,000, then how would you Describe the Risk involved with that Substance? Potential seems like a Realistic way to Describe such Risk.

I will not Argue that there May Be some Benefits to putting Nicotine into ones Body. Treating people with Alzheimer's Disease comes to mind. But what happens if a Person does Not have Alzheimer's Disease? Is this a Case where Risk Outweighs Benefit?

And I have Not heard much about the Habitual Inhalation of Flavorings, Colorants and Artificial Sweeteners?

I think Potential Risk is an Appropriate Term in the Context of e-Cigarettes/e-Liquids. Because the term does Not Imply that there is Risk to Every User. And I think it would be Somewhat Irresponsible if an e-Cigarette use was Labeled as Risk-Free.
 

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US
Never said it was.

Never said you did.

e-Cigarettes in My Opinion are No Exception.

But when almost any product can be a risk, why 'give' that in a paper where you're trying to support ecigarettes? If you're promoting the new sandwich at Wendy's do you make a note that there is some risks involved, when no apparent risks are evident?

It seems like the Problem you have with the Wording is the term "Potential Risk".

It's not the wording of it. Pretty plain concept. It's the use of it in the paper. Again, it is some faux 'balanced' aspect that I have a problem with, though at this point, since you've bought into it, perhaps he's just brilliant. :facepalm: :laugh:

I'm not going to further argue the point. I've made mine.
 

Jman8

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 15, 2013
6,419
12,928
Wisconsin
Too much advocacy for restricting sales to minors. Thus not so brilliant in my book, and when someone shows me a case where prohibition of a highly demanded product worked, I may sit up and take notice. Until then, prohibition, as I observe has the exact opposite effect in shared reality. It creates a problem that seeks a solution. One where banning from adults suddenly seems to make crystal clear sense.
 

zoiDman

My -0^10 = Nothing at All*
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 16, 2010
41,635
1
84,777
So-Cal
Awesome article. It would be nice if all Senators, Represenatives, Congress, CDC, FDA, and many others read this. I don't know what weight it will hold because they seem dead set on these regulations. It would be encouraging just to know they read this. :vapor:

Maybe it would be a Good Idea to send your Reps a Link to this Paper?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread