Emily's Post - The Saga Continues

[ezmoose]

Emily's Post: Electronic cigarettes, Marty McFly, and internet detective-ry - Isthmus | The Daily Page

Commented:

Emily,

I commend you for educating yourself about E Cigarettes rather than blindly buying into the company (FDA) line.

I'm not affiliated with any E Cigarette suppliers; I am an E Cigarette consumer and have been free from smoking (after 40 years) since December 6, 2009 thanks to E Cigarettes. The improvement in my health (particular my ability to breathe) has been remarkable.

I am all for reducing harm, premature death, and the burden on health care costs associated with smoking. The problem, as I see it, is the all-or-nothing (quit or die) mentality that permeates many public health agencies as well as anti-smoking (tobacco) organizations.

Given the low rate of success of smoking cessation using FDA approved products and/or counseling (hypnosis), you would think health care professionals would be open to the next best thing; reducing the harm. No one can claim E Cigarettes are completely harmless; no one can say that about coffee, alcohol or junk food either. However, it’s a no brainer that removing the smoke from the formula reduces the harm substantially.

Isn’t reducing harm the primary objective of the Family Smoking Prevention and tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA)?

“The main goal is to use the best available science to guide the development and implementation of effective public health strategies to reduce the burden of illness and death caused by tobacco products.” FDA

Wouldn’t one assume that the FDA et al. would be open to any and all effective solutions for reducing harm? Apparently, open-mindedness is somehow lost in the process.

“If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.”Abraham Maslow”

E Cigarettes are not the solution for all nicotine addicted smokers; they are a much safer alternative (solution) for many smokers who can not or choose not to give up nicotine.

Perhaps creating a third category for E Cigarettes is reasonable. Given the FDA’s reluctance to classify E Cigarettes as a tobacco product combined with their insistence that they be classified as a Drug Delivery Device (effectively regulating them out of existence), I doubt they are open to that suggestion.

I suspect that the intended goal of the FSPTCA is being overshadowed by politics, money, and control!

If you are interested in researching Tobacco Harm Reduction (E Cigarettes) further, I suggest tobaccoharmreduction.org as a good source of information. Their downloadable yearbook is a good read.

Bob

 

[bassnut]

Comment posted.
Thanks for the heads-up, ezmoose.

 

[ezmoose]

Comment posted.
Thanks for the heads-up, ezmoose.

My pleasure!

 

[kristin]

Commented, of course. Couldn't ignore the attacks on CASAA and myself!

 

[bassnut]

Commented, of course. Couldn't ignore the attacks on CASAA and myself!

Nope, you couldn't and you went in with both barrels blazing! I hope Emily takes your "Watergate" challenge to heart.
I wish I had more to contribute. My post looks weak but I thought I'd just show up as a non-supplier and support. It's probably not necessary.
I hope Emily can take it all in. It's obvious she also has a defensive streak but is still able to listen.
Yes. The gauntlet has been thrown down, indeed!

 

[ezmoose]

It may be time to invest in some stronger glasses; I can hardly make out the small font used on Emily's posts! I have to copy and paste into a word document, then, increase the font size to read it to avoid getting a migraine!

Maybe I am just getting old! lol

 

[bassnut]

Yes. Small print.
I had to zoom up the text on my screen.

Why is everybody addressing Jason Smith now?
Something's off-track here....

 

[ezmoose]

Why is everybody addressing Jason Smith now?
Something's off-track here....

It's that Groupthink thingy! And yes, I suffer from it too! lol

 

[spaky]

Commented, of course. Couldn't ignore the attacks on CASAA and myself!

Wow! I never knew that a reporter doing research and writing about what they found was considered an attack.

 

[Vocalek]

I don't know where she got her information from, but she got some of it wrong.

Take frequent commenter Elaine Keller: "This product provides the nicotine my brain requires for adequate functioning (without destroying my lungs.) I have been smoke-free since March 27, 2009. The wheezing has disappeared. So has the phlegm that I used to cough up every morning."

True, I did say that.

Hey, great! Happy to hear it. But Elaine also just happens to be on the Board of Directors of The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association (CASAA) – a consumer group that was created and is currently "funded by your friendly, neighborhood U.S. Electronic Cigarette Suppliers" to do direct lobbying on their behalf.

Perhaps I'm being overly senstive here, but her remark about what I said comes across as snide and condescending. ["So what! Big deal!"]

And the part in quotation marks that I bolded for emphasis here is just plain not true. Although she used quotation marks, she fails to provide an attribution. Did she put it in quotes so she could avoid being accused of just making it up?

Oddly enough, other frequent commenter Kristin Noll Marsh is also on that same Board of Directors, as well as that of Vapers International (a group that gathers information and funds in order to complete clinical research supporting nicotine vaporizers and electronic cigarettes), all while running a website that sells e-cigarette accessories.

Obviously people who really love the product have every right to join groups to support its use and put out information about it. What I have a problem with is the fact that CASAA is funded by the industry, and several of its members apparently make a habit of going forth to spread tales of e-cigarettes use in cutting back on or quitting smoking. They become de-facto industry lobbyists.

There's an implication that Kristin and I are collecting a salary in payment for doing lobbying. Neither of us thinks that's immoral or illegal -- after all, the American Lung Association is using paid lobbyists. But it happens to be untrue. And the tone comes across as accusatory.

Here's part of my comment in response:

Yes, Kristin and I are on the board of directors of CASAA. CASAA stands for Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association. The organization was formed by people whose lives and health have been improved by using reduced-harm products such as electronic cigarettes and snus. Practically all of the folks who market electronic cigarette products do so because they owe their own status as former smokers to these products and saw the tremendous potential. Nevertheless, those who market the products do not control CASAA.

Membership is open to all. However, no more than 25% of the Board of Directors membership can be made up of suppliers. CASAA board membership is totally uncompensated. See: About CASAA.org

I don't need to be paid by anyone to want to tell the truth about these products. I am trying to stay alive, physically healthy, and mentally healthy. That's reason enough to speak up.

 

[kristin]

Wow! I never knew that a reporter doing research and writing about what they found was considered an attack.

When she reports only half-truths and inaccurate facts for the sole purpose of casting doubt on the motives of myself and CASAA, then it's an attack. She would have had to really dig to find that one quote about CASAA being funded by ecig vendors. She failed to cite her source with that quote, which would have shown that it was really an ECF post about the formation of the ECO and not about CASAA. CASAA isn;t even mentioned in the post.

That is completely distorting the facts and false reporting to reach her goal of discrediting myself and CASAA. Since the facts about CASAA's true funding are more easily accessible and she could have easily contacted me to ask about my business and advocacy work, it's obvious her intent was to make us look bad by implying that CASAA is a front for ecig companies and I'm only in it for the money.

That sounds like an attack to me.

 

[bassnut]

Wow! I never knew that a reporter doing research and writing about what they found was considered an attack.

You make a good point.
It appears to me that while Emily is hitting back a little after the pummeling she endured following her first article she is showing great willingness to investigate and understand more. Re-reading her 2nd article, I see that more so.
Again, the focus should be to inform and not to punish. Unless I'm missing something Emily doesn't appear to have an "anti" agenda now as much as it appeared in her first article....just showing a little defensiveness.
She being a non-smoker, I have to give her credit. I hope she survives this go-round with her curiosity intact and embraces the Woodward/Bernstein model.

 

[yvilla]

How is it okay for her to propagate a flat out mistruth that CASAA is funded by the e-cigarette industry, and is nothing more than an (impliedly) covert lobbying agent of the industry?

 

[bassnut]

It's not OK.
She's misinformed and/or drew a wrong conclusion.
I don't see that as being on a disinformation campaign.

I'm probably under the false impression that our comments become part of her article.
I understand the frustration. I understand "That's why we rant!"
I just think if she says something inaccurate or misleading she should be corrected - but not punished.

 

[kristin]

It was intended, Bassnut. She would have had to really dug for that comment about vendor financing and if she had just read a few more posts she'd have seen that it wasn't even about CASAA, but about the never-formed ECO. Yet she used the quote anyhow.

That's deliberate disinformation.

 

[Rev. Redmond Farrier]

I usually stay away from the comment sections of articles like that since everywhere else I go controversial articles usually have comment sections full of name calling flames with little or no attempt at backing up a position on the subject at hand. I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised when I read through the comments there. Almost every poster there, both the pros and antis, attempt to explain their position with intelligence and logic. I find it to be quite refreshing and encouraging to see that the debate tends to stay a bit more civilized than debates on other subjects that I often find myself in the middle of.

 

[Danyulc]

Seems obvious to me as well that this person has an anti ecig agenda. To infer that people are making up claims that ecigs are helping them to reduce or quit smoking is a bit ludicrous. Especially considering that the author visits this forum. You don't have to spend 10 minutes on here to see how many people have been positively effected by them. Just look at a few signatures!!!

So while I applaud the author in attempting to disguise her agenda, she has failed. Make no mistake, any rational person that comes here and does their homework can clearly see the benefits of this product. Only non-smokers with an agenda would even be interested in writing an article about ecigs in the first place. I belive there are basically two reasons people find out about and research Ecigs. Either they want to use them to help themselves or a friend/relative or those who want to ban them.

Very few non-smokers even know about Ecigs. Even fewer would care enough to do copius amounts of research in an attempt to write an 'unbiased' piece about them. IMO, she is clearly attempting to influence public opinion. Which is most effectively done with a piece like the one she has written. If you openly slam the Ecig it's obvious you have an agenda. However, if you do it in such a way as to seem unbiased you are much more likely to influence the reader. That is what we have here.

-Danyulc

 

[D103]

Excellent point on motivation Danyulc. One example can be very telling: a May 21, 2008 FDA report indicates that up to that date there had been 3,063 documented cases of serious injuries and 78 Deaths associated with the use of the FDA approved smoking-cessation drug Chantix - and it remains on the market. In six years of being on the market there is not ONE documented case of personal injury or serious illness associated with the use of electronic cigarettes and yet they (FDA, ACS, ALA, AHA et.al) are willing to go to extreme measures to remove this technology from the marketplace ".....because we're not absolutely sure of its' safety....." That is, at best, disingenuous and at worse(and more likely) dishonest and corrupt. This is truly a "David and Goliath" story when it comes to the legal battle and anyone who even remotely suggests that the e-cig industry, the ECF, CASAA and/or ANY of it's representatives are in someway this All-Powerful lobbying force quite clearly is deluded, naive, misguided or more likely "blowing their own smoke".

 

[PlanetScribbles]

I just love how, when confronted with a no-win scenario, these puritan BP/establishment shills turn to 'shooting the messenger'. Emily is clueless and far too ready to accept the argument she has already decided that she wants to pursue.
She has already decided on the issue, and (it seems) unable to change her opinion. Pretty sad really. Wise up Emily, you might actually enjoy being on the correct side of the fence.
It is pitiful that she turned on Elaine's first hand account and painted it as being somehow tainted by politics. Shame on you Emily.

 

[bassnut]

It was intended, Bassnut. She would have had to really dug for that comment about vendor financing and if she had just read a few more posts she'd have seen that it wasn't even about CASAA, but about the never-formed ECO. Yet she used the quote anyhow.

That's deliberate disinformation.

In order to find that old quote about the ECO and attribute it to CASAA, Emily would have had to do some serious digging and ignore all of the information out there that shows that CASAA is NOT funded by suppliers.

I dig.

We don't represent a product or an ingredient, we represent a CONCEPT - that the public needs to be informed and educated about smokeless alternatives - including e-cigarettes.

Double dig. Great post, Kristen.