FDA seizing new shipments

[kristin]

Which reminds me, I had to stop using my CASAA banner in my signature when they changed the size limits.
Does anyone have any "Support CASAA" types of banners that fit the size limitations?

How about this one?

Download CASAA Signature Banner Here

When you add it to your signature, be sure to add a link to it to casaa.org, too, please!

 

[DC2]

When you add it to your signature, be sure to add a link to it to casaa.org, too, please!

How do I add a link?

 

[kristin]

Drag your mouse over all of the graphic text (it says "sigpic" in brackets) in the signature box to highlight it and then click the link button in the menu to add the link address.

 

[Vocalek]

This is exactly how I approach the issue.

If anyone gets into a discussion with me about my continued use of nicotine, you can bet they are going to walk away having gotten an earful of information about how caffeine compares to nicotine, and the potential health benefits of nicotine.

And I will make sure they also walk away with the question in their heads about how they would feel if I took away their coffee, shut down all the Starbucks, and outlawed the use of caffeine in all forms.



Is this information collected, documented, and/or organized in a place people can be pointed to?

All about Nicotine: Nicotine and addiction. (tobaccoharmreduction.org)

Bibliography. (tobaccoharmreduction.org)

CASAA's Nicotine Effects Page: Casaa.org - Harm Reduction

Some of my early blog posts also have links to research on nicotine effects: The Truth About Nicotine

A Google search using

nicotine "beneficial effects"

retrieved 342,000 results

 

[Thulium]

The anti-smokers created this situation--one where the very appearance of smoking (as in, outside, in the open air) is something "decent" people should be protected from (especially, of course, the children). It has nothing to do with anybody's health. It's a moral crusade.

My growing concern is that the antismoker's delusion that the eradication of tobacco is reasonable or even desirable is a myth that I suspect was intended to lure us into a "war" (figuratively or literally) against tobacco. Those that profit from this type of war (Big Pharma especially, but many other industries and their government counterparts as well) have deceitfully set up false targets by exaggerating the risks of smokeless tobacco and even second-third-fourth-whatever-hand smoke that (risks that they are paid to "treat") rather than addressing real issues that could potentially END the very profitable "smoking problem".

After all, the "antis" have known for decades that all forms of smokeless tobacco are drastically less harmful than smoking. If true public health concerns actually took priority over preserving financial and moral controls, there would be no reason to perpetuate myths about smokeless tobacco products. Swedish snus has been around since the 19th Century(?) with hardly any known risks so there's no reason for bystanders to even notice someone using it much less be harmed or offended by it--instead of promoting the potential harm reductions, they quickly move to ban it across Europe before too many people found out.

Why is it we demonize the tobacco companies as if they were the only ones responsible for "covering up" the research showing the harms of smoking? What about the public health doctors, researchers, and government officials who benefited? Big Tobacco may have used their money and power to deceive the public, but let us not forget who accepted the payments: The "anti-tobacco" agencies that are supported by funds from the Master Settlement Agreement and now oppose harm reduction. It is a vicious circle.

The status quo is such that groups like ASH benefit financially when people buy cigarettes through the MSA and local taxes, they gain social stature if they appear to be "fighting tobacco" by promoting the sale of drugs, which in turn generates donations from pharmaceutical companies as cheap and powerful propaganda..er...PSAs and advertisements.

By keeping a certain percentage of the population smoking, the shocking rates of cancer have a perpetual scapegoat: cigarette smoking. It doesn't even matter if it is smoking that is causing the cancer or industrial pollutants or vehicle exhaust or bovine flatulence or a global conspiracy for population control: As long as people think that tobacco causes cancer and the only options are quit or die, the public health organizations continue to profit from the status quo and any truly effective cure must be banned or regulated enough to maintain the status quo.

When they banned vaping wherever smoking is prohibited in King County, WA, they didn't even pretend that it was about health. They banned vaping because it looks like smoking and might "confuse" people and make smoking seem like a "normal" thing to do. (It IS a normal thing to do!)

Even if you set aside the inherent self-righteous moralizing in their agenda, we are supposed to believe that they dislike smoking so much that they want people to believe it is bad to do something that looks like smoking even if it is harmless? That speaks to a deeper fear than just the hazards and byproducts of combustion, but to a moral evaluation of the tobacco plant itself. These "nannies" would have us believe that a plant is inherently evil. They have given into a cognitive dissonance and refuse to believe that anything associated with tobacco could be anything but deadly.

Even if they believed their own craziness about secondhand smoke, it doesn't justify banning smoking (and vaping and smokeless tobacco) in parks and on hospital grounds and college campuses all over the country.

I don't believe this is most people. It's a relatively few rather insane people on a moral crusade who are also trying to keep their high-paying jobs and infinite grants by creating this perpetual idea that, "There's more work to be done."

Actually, I think its a few people on an immoral crusade to perpetuate the status quo and/or increase their financial and moral control over society by playing on the fears of the self-righteous. A true "moralist" is not our enemy, because if they are truly seeking to reduce the "evils" or harms of smoking, they would support harm reduction. Instead, these moralists are fellow victims of the propaganda who need to be educated about the truth in tobacco harm reduction.

Unfortunately, it's a relatively few who have a lot of money, a lot of power, and the ears of legislators. They need to be exposed and discredited for lying all these years--not just about vaping, but about all of it. They won't be stopped by cooperating with them.

No, but they may be stopped by educating people on all sides. The greedy people pulling the strings and perpetuating the myths are very rich and powerful, but they are also very few. Only four out of ten King County BOH members voted "to preserve the social norm" by making it a health code violation to use smoke-free products anywhere smoking is banned.

I think it important to remember that smoke-free alternatives are inherently a financial threat to institutions on both sides. Rather than focus on pointing at the enemy, maybe it is better to look at it as educating them and holding to the hope that enough people value the individual liberty to choose and use smoke-free tobacco products to replace or reduce smoking. Many anti-smokers aren't so much enemies of smokers but rather they have been misled to the wrong side by the fear-mongering propaganda of the greedy.

Look past the false targets of harms of "addiction", "tobacco" and even the vilification of smokers and follow the money and you begin to understand why it seems like the only thing that so-called "antismoking" groups fear more than effective smoking cessation methods is one they can't control or ban. This is the same reason these groups oppose naturopathic or homeopathic remedies and why the FDA is seeking to regulate the nutrition content in foods to prevent non-FDA-Approved therapeutic effects.

History has shown that prohibition only benefits gangsters and a corrupt politic. Therefore, I tend to doubt the motivation of any prohibitionist. ...Especially when it is always the same Usual Suspects of FDA and their amici who not only make the regulations, they also serve as judge, jury and executioner of "Public Health".

 

[Traver]

Well you convinced me.
But:

Consider this:
When I light up a cigarette in front of someone who quit smoking twenty years ago they want one.


I still smoke when I paddle. The last pack has been sitting in my truck since new year. Been to lazy to get a water proof box for a PV. Anyway that why I still light up. Not trying to quit and don't care and I'm going to keep on vaping no matter what the FDA does.

 

[DC2]

CASAA's Nicotine Effects Page: Casaa.org - Harm Reduction

That will work just fine, thanks!

 

[DC2]

I think it important to remember that smoke-free alternatives are inherently a financial threat to institutions on both sides. Rather than focus on pointing at the enemy, maybe it is better to look at it as educating them and holding to the hope that enough people value the individual liberty to choose and use smoke-free tobacco products to replace or reduce smoking.

This isn't an either/or matter, we need to focus on both.

Point at everyone opposing us, and expose them as best we can.
And educate anyone and everyone.

The better we educate, the more effective our pointing becomes.

 

[Vocalek]

Well you convinced me.
But:

Consider this:
When I light up a cigarette in front of someone who quit smoking twenty years ago they want one.


I still smoke when I paddle. The last pack has been sitting in my truck since new year. Been to lazy to get a water proof box for a PV. Anyway that why I still light up. Not trying to quit and don't care and I'm going to keep on vaping no matter what the FDA does.

But would they want one if they were getting adequate nicotine from an alternative source? Many e-cigarette users who stopped smoking altogether report that, after a few weeks without smoke, when they try to light one up, they can't finish it. It tastes nasty. It happened to me. I have no desire to light up, even if I am among a group of people smoking.

 

[MoonRose]

I'm not going to argue with anyone that smoking isn't bad for the smoker, most of us have first hand knowledge about what smoking can do to us healthwise. I do however question just how bad second hand smoke really is, personally I think that has been blown out of proportion and is not nearly has harmful as is being claimed. Yes there is a minority of people who are actually sensative or even allergic to something in the smoke, but I seriously doubt it's nicotine as many try to claim.

 

[Rosco]

Finally, I received a response to my snail mail from my Senator;

Dear Rosco,

Thank you for contacting me regarding Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations. I appreciate having your comments and welcome the opportunity to respond.
It is vitally important that the FDA be given the resources necessary to ensure that safe and effective drugs are available to those who need them. As you may know, the FDA has come under fire for its failure to fulfill that mission regarding some drugs it approved to go on the market. There is also concern about the pharmaceutical industry's influence at FDA.
Several measures have passed in Congress in an effort to restore the FDA as a consumer protection agency. The FDA Revitalization Act of 2007 (S. 1082) was a first step in enhancing research for the previously neglected area of medicine for children. I supported this bill and it passed on the Senate floor 93 to 1. Similar legislation expanding the FDA's authority to ensure food and drug safety was introduced in the House, including the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (H.R. 3580), which became law on September 27th, 2007.
I understand your frustrations with the FDA's intervention; however, as the leading consumer protection agency, we depend on the FDA to ensure that pharmaceuticals on the market are, in fact, safe and effective. Typically, proposed regulation changes within the FDA are followed by a 90 day comment period, which is open to the public. I encourage you to contact the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research directly at Drugs to share your concerns. You can also view FDA regulatory documents open for comment by visiting Regulations.gov. This site allows the public to submit comments via the internet to nearly all Federal Agencies.
Again, thank you for contacting me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other issue.

Sincerely,

Claire McCaskill
United States Senator
P.S. If you would like more information about resources that can help Missourians, or what I am doing in the Senate on your behalf, please sign up for my email newsletter at Claire McCaskill | U.S. Senator for Missouri.

To me, it appears to be the same "spit" that most of us have received from our legislators.

 

[IOU]

Wow!
I haven't received any responses from any of my e-mails, or snail mails from California.

 

[Traver]

But would they want one if they were getting adequate nicotine from an alternative source? Many e-cigarette users who stopped smoking altogether report that, after a few weeks without smoke, when they try to light one up, they can't finish it. It tastes nasty. It happened to me. I have no desire to light up, even if I am among a group of people smoking.

Yea my first one is pretty nasty too and you are right about the nicotine. That's why I can go back and forth from one to the other. My point is that a lot of ex smokers will support smoking bans of any sort not because they are fanatics about it but because they are afraid to be around smokers. Or to put another way they don't want that temptation. In their minds that easily becomes anything to do with tobacco or nicotine or anything. They already quit and aren't looking for information about it. A lot of them think anyone can quit after all they did. Ever think about why the non profits are so success full even thought we know the facts are on our side.

By the way I when I tell a smoker that the vaping and smoking can coexist it becomes a lot easier for them to try it. Sometimes I can almost see the gears going around in their minds because all of a sudden it's not an all or nothing gamble.

 

[Demarko]

So, basically, "We aren't happy with the FDA... but if we piss them off, we all die from poison?"

 

[kristin]

It is vitally important that the FDA be given the resources necessary to 1. ensure that safe and effective drugs are available to those who need them. As you may know, the FDA has come under fire for its failure to fulfill that mission regarding some drugs it 2. approved to go on the market. There is also concern about the 3. pharmaceutical industry's influence at FDA. I understand your frustrations with the FDA's intervention; however, as the leading consumer protection agency, we depend on the FDA to 4. ensure that pharmaceuticals on the market are, in fact, safe and effective.

1. Then why are they trying to make a relatively safe and effective product unavailable?

2. They've failed regarding drugs they've approved and we are supposed to trust they are getting it right with e-cigarettes?

3. Yes, and the pharmaceutical industry is using that influence trying to get a threat to their ineffective and over-priced NRTs off the market.

4. E-cigarettes are NOT pharmaceuticals. However, they are extremely safe compared to tobacco cigarettes and highly effective.

Tell the world that e-cigarettes work! Post your story at CASAA Facebook/Smokefree Stories

 

[n2xe]

cool banner Kristin!

 

[JohnKing]

this about sums it up..

 

[kristin]

cool banner Kristin!

Thanks John, lol! People can get it (plus instructions) here: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/casaa/157293-add-casaa-banner-your-signature.html

 

[skinny]

Not to derail the wonderful conversation going on, but getting back to the OP question: has anybody heard about shipments being sized--especially now that the FDA has been slapped down again?
I heard about shipments being released finally. Does anybody know or have stories?

 

[Brewlady]

Not to derail the wonderful conversation going on, but getting back to the OP question: has anybody heard about shipments being sized--especially now that the FDA has been slapped down again?
I heard about shipments being released finally. Does anybody know or have stories?

Thanks for asking, I posted the question on Cherry Vapes Facebook page, I will update this once I hear back from them.