FDA seizing new shipments

[Sassyonemeis]

OMG that was an awesome letter!!! I think this letter needs to be sent to Ms. Rosenthal, the author of the idiotic A01468 bill in NYS, and all of the other members of Assembly.

Dear Sen. Kohl:

Thank you for your kind offer to be of assistance. Would you please launch a Senate Investigation into acts of misfreasance on the part of FDA officials. Ask Margaret Hamberg and Joshua Sharfstein why the FDA misrepresented the science regarding the FDA's limited testing of electronic cigarettes in 2009.

The FDA succeeded in convincing the public that e-cigarettes are likely to cause cancer and/or poison users by employing pejorative words such as "carcinogens" and "antifreeze" in their press conference. They also failed to tell the whole truth. In a court of law, that is considered perjury. Hamberg and Sharfstein may not have been under oath when they lied, but causing harm to public health is not a lawful act on the part of an employee of a Federal health agency.

Ask Hamberg and Sharfstein how the quantity of "carcinogens" in a days supply of e-cigarette liquid (about 1 ml) compares to the same carcinogens in an FDA-approved nicotine patch. The correct answer is that both contain about 8 nanograms of tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs).

Ask them how the 8 nanograms of TSNAs in a day's supply of e-cigarette liquid compares to the quantity of TSNAs in a pack of cigarettes. The correct answer is that a pack of Marlboros contains 126,000 nanograms. By my calculations that makes one day's worth of smoke over 15,000 times more carcinogenic than e-cigarette vapor.

Ask them whether 1% of the tobacco humectant diethylene glycol, incorrectly referenced as "antifreeze" in the FDA's press release, presents any danger whatsoever at that quantity. The correct answer is "no."

Ask how many e-cigarette cartridges that contain 0.01 ml of diethylene glycol would be required to fatally poison a 150 pound adult. The fatal dosage of diethylene glycol is 1 ml. per kg. of body weight. Thus, the correct answer is 6,600 cartridges, consumed in a single day.

Thousands of smokers who had been considering switching to an electronic cigarette continued to smoke, because the FDA's disinformation led them to falsely believe that smoking is less harmful than using an e-cigarette. Several foreign countries banned e-cigarettes, citing the FDA's "health concerns" as the reason. One has to wonder how many smokers who did not switch have developed irreversable lung damage or cancer during the 18 months that the FDA's disinformation has remained unchallenged.

Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University has reviewed the available scientific evidence on the safety and effectiveness of e-cigarettes. You can access a copy of his article that was published in the December 2010 issue of the Journal of Public Health Polilcy at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-institutes/population-development/files/article.jphp.pdf

Dr. Siegel's finding was that "a preponderance of the available evidence shows them to be much safer than tobacco cigarettes and comparable in toxicity to conventional nicotine replacement products."

Several surveys of e-cigarette consumers reveal that between 63% and over 80% are using e-cigarettes as a complete replacement for smoking. Furthermore, more than 90% of users report that their health has improved. This is understandable when you stop to consider that e-cigarette users no longer inhale tar, carbon monoxide, particulates, and thousands of chemicals created by the process of combustion. Nothing is burned in an e-cigarette.

Again I thank you for your offer to be of further assistance. I look forward to your spearheading the investigation into the behavior of FDA officials in this matter.

 

[Sassyonemeis]

On June 21,2010, NY State Legislature voted to increase the state's already high $2.75/pack tax on cigarettes by $1.60 for a total of $4.35 per pack. The ayes had it over the coughing and hacking nos, making New York the most expensive place to smoke in the U.S.

More precisely, New York City, which charges its own cigarette tax on top of the state and federal taxes, is the most expensive place to light up, with smokers paying $6.85/pack in taxes alone.

In addition to the cigarette tax, the bill also raised taxes on cigars and chewing tobacco by 29%.

The tax hike, which is expected to bring in around $290 million a year, is part of the state's plan to do something about its $9.2 billion deficit. emphasis added

Let's look at the numbers here: Just for NYC residents, let's say a person smokes 1 pack per day and switches to e-cigs, if 1,000 people switch to e-cigs that is a loss of $2,500,250 per year. That's just for 1,000 people!!! It's about the money, not our health. As stated above, it is part of the state's plan to do something about the deficit... period.

gatorfan wrote


Tobacco taxation has NOTHING to do with FDA's attempt to ban or its ongoing seizures of e-cigarettes, and has NOTHING to do with state or local legislative attempts to ban e-cigarettes.

These folks want to ban e-cigarettes because they are tobacco/nicotine prohibitionists.

The outrageous irony is that CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA aggressively lobbied (along with Philip Morris) to enact the FSPTCA, which explicitly prohibits the FDA from banning cigarettes, and yet these same groups are urging FDA and states to ban e-cigarettes.

 

[Sassyonemeis]

Interesting to say the least. Also worthy of mention, this article was posted by none other than Michael Seigel, the author of one of our biggest pieces of evidence.

Between 1998 and 1999 the drug companies spent $83.6 million to lobby congress and more millions or so in direct and indirect contributions. They also spend money on political grass roots efforts, state and local legislators. It may be that the FDA does not receive money directly from these companies but many of the people within the FDA have worked or received money from them. Some of them also have investments in these companies. Here's one example:
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: Washington Ethics Group Calls for Investigation into Conflicts of Interest of Two FDA Tobacco Panelists, Citing Their Financial Ties to Big Pharma

You can bet that the FDA is going to pay attention to those congressman that control it's purse strings. So drug company money still has a big influence on the FDA.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Sassyonemeis wrote:

It's about the money, not our health. As stated above, it is part of the state's plan to do something about the deficit... period.

Last year's state budget process has nothing to do with Rosenthal's motives for trying to ban e-cigarette sales.

Rosenthal wants to ban e-cigarettes because she (like CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA) is a tobacco/nicotine prohibitionist. If Rosenthal thought she could get enough Assembly votes to ban cigarette sales in NY, she would introduce that too (even though doing so would eliminate all cigarette tax revenue).

Criticize Rosenthal for lying about e-cigarettes and for trying to ban them, but please don't falsely claim that her underlying motive is to protect cigarette tax revenue.

 

[kristin]

That is true. The die hard anti-tobacco people - and they do exist - cannot get cigarettes banned, so they go after everything else remotely related to recreational nicotine, ie. nicotine water, nicotine lotion, nicotine pops, smokefree tobacco, flavored tobacco, menthol and e-cigarettes. They claim that these will all lead to smoking, so they don't even care if the products are 1,000 times safer than cigarettes and would greatly improve the health of nicotine users who are currently using cigarettes.

As harm reduction experts like Dr. Siegel point out, it's not about improving the health of smokers anymore. It's about banning anything recreational nicotine-related that they can, even if smokers must die in the process. It's about addiction - even if it's a low risk product. It is truly a quit or die mentality. Rosenthal demonstrated that when she said, “If people want the easy way to just get addicted to another nicotine delivery system, I hope soon they’ll have to look elsewhere.” Seriously, where else can someone become addicted other than tobacco products? Why does she ignore that we are ALREADY addicted? She can't see beyond her blind hate.

It's no longer about the negative health effects of smoking. It's all about her hatred for addiction and those addicted. That comes through clearly in the statement above. She's the worst imaginable ex-smoker.

I'm not saying that legislators aren't going to be looking at the bottom line, but it's people like Rosenthal that are truly driving this crusade.

 

[mauzey]

Understood Bill, but wouldn't she seem like less of a hypocrite if she did try to ban cigarettes as well? It's hard for many to not to see this as a money issue in the absence of a push for an all out ban on tobacco, or does she see this this issue as low hanging fruit and easily picked.

 

[Petrodus]

Last year's state budget process has nothing to
do with Rosenthal's motives for trying to ban e-cigarette sales.

Rosenthal wants to ban e-cigarettes because she (like CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA) is a tobacco/nicotine prohibitionist. If Rosenthal thought she could get enough Assembly votes to ban cigarette sales in NY, she would introduce that too (even though doing so would eliminate all cigarette tax revenue).

Criticize Rosenthal for lying about e-cigarettes and for trying to ban them, but please don't falsely claim that her underlying motive is to protect cigarette tax revenue.

Prohibitionist … Makes sense to me!

Follow the Money or Where is the Money trail?

We use these phrases in an attempt to make common sense why someone would be opposed to E-cigarettes.

We do need to start using the word “prohibitionist” more often when referring to specific individuals and groups not motivated by money. We can debate whether or not they are prohibitionists. However, money really isn't always the motivation for individuals to speak out and press for smoking and E-smoking bans.

A perfect example would be the King County, WA "prohibitionists". They made no bones about it...They were against the "Social Behavior" of smoking (Save the Children). They are "prohibitionists". They didn’t vote to ban E-cigarettes to protect the tobacco tax revenues.

When someone quotes the FDA lies and misinformation… That should raise a question with us. Are they just misinformed or are they a hard-shell prohibitionist?

If the person is just misinformed…It is possible to turn them from the Dark Side. If the person is a prohibitionist, we will probably be wasting time preaching to them that PG is harmless and E-cigarettes will save the lives of smokers. Quit or Die...They don't care either way.

It is very difficult to go head-to-head with a prohibitionist who doesn’t quote FDA Lies and misinformation and just campaigns on Save the Children.

Using the word "prohibitionist" should be considered when communicating with our elected officials because it would add to our credibility.

 

[Sassyonemeis]

NYS has been a financial disaster for quite a while (thanks Paterson). While she may be a prohibitionist, at this point the MAIN concern for ALL of NYers is how can we steer away from bankruptcy that is imminent. HEY! Let's add some MORE tax onto cigarettes!

They do talk out of both sides of their mouths though dont they?! Let's raise taxes so that people will quit, but we are raising the tax to increase revenue to help cut the state's deficit.

What I DO know is, they are not currently taxing e-cigarettes and if you think that they do not consider the loss of tax revenue in relation to e-cigs, then I believe you are kidding yourselves. We are talking about multiple millions of dollars that to a state that is such a state of disaster as NY is, it is a consideration on anything they vote on at this time. Just because they are not publicly taking that stance, doesnt mean that this motivation does not exist. How could they publicly support smoking for the tax dollars? This state is DESPERATE to say the least. And the desperation screams loudly in this proposed bill.

Just my opinion of course...

 

[Thulium]

Sassyonemeis wrote:


Last year's state budget process has nothing to do with Rosenthal's motives for trying to ban e-cigarette sales.

Rosenthal wants to ban e-cigarettes because she (like CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA) is a tobacco/nicotine prohibitionist. If Rosenthal thought she could get enough Assembly votes to ban cigarette sales in NY, she would introduce that too (even though doing so would eliminate all cigarette tax revenue).

Criticize Rosenthal for lying about e-cigarettes and for trying to ban them, but please don't falsely claim that her underlying motive is to protect cigarette tax revenue.

Bill, it's not just cigarette tax revenue Rosenthal is trying to protect. Cigarette taxes are just one of many sources of "anti" tobacco money that Rosenthal is trying to protect: There's also the billions in health care, cancer treatments, hospice, smoking cessation programs, pharmaceutical sales, federal grants for antitobacco campaigning, and of course lets not forget the campaign contributions from pharmaceutical and health care corporations.

Rosenthal is deathly afraid that smokers might learn the truth that they can escape the hazards and costs of smoking without buying drugs that are more likely to fail and return them to smoking than actually help. If abolition was her true motivation, smokeless tobacco products would be the LAST thing to ban rather than the first. Leaving no option but smoking or 98% ineffective pharmaceutical drugs doesn't get anyone any closer to tobacco or nicotine free...On the contrary, it is the best known way to PRESERVE the status quo. Rosenthal's logic may be infuriating, but I suspect she's smart enough to know that already.

"Nanny-state" prohibitionism is a red herring intended to convince us that we are giving up our liberty for "safety" (Patriot Act style) when the truth is that the whole war only served to protect corporate financial interests.

 

[mauzey]

Either way, I don't appreciate the government trying to prohibit any of my habits that don't adversely affect other citizens. Nothing makes me more furious than then to listen to these people creating laws on top of laws trying to do whats good for me. It's not there business to keep me from my habits, it's their business to keep criminals off the streets and fill potholes in the roads.

 

[Thulium]

Either way, I don't appreciate the government trying to prohibit any of my habits that don't adversely affect other citizens. Nothing makes me more furious than then to listen to these people creating laws on top of laws trying to do whats good for me. It's not there business to keep me from my habits, it's their business to keep criminals off the streets and fill potholes in the roads.

Yeah, but as long as they keep us busy worrying about recreational nicotine, we don't have time to complain about potholes and overcrowded jails. As long as they keep people smoking, more obvious extreme "population control" measures aren't needed.

 

[Petrodus]

Just got a mental image of Rosenthal agreeing to go on TV with
a few of our "top guns" to debate her proposed E-cigarette ban.

We would shred her up so bad she would immediately resign
and go into hiding.

 

[kristin]

I strongly suggest that people also read this: Tobacco Harm Reduction: News & Opinions

It's an eye-opener.

 

[Petrodus]

I strongly suggest that people also read this: Tobacco Harm Reduction: News & Opinions

It's an eye-opener.

Would appreciate a short paragraph explaining this in layman's terms

 

[kristin]

Sorry, I should have posted a link to the specific blog post, although the whole blog is a must-read too, IMO: If you pretend to be doing honest research, don’t punish people for believing you « Tobacco Harm Reduction: News & Opinions

...most of us have had to revise our ideas about these groups. Since like everyone else we consume the same information, we also start with the view that these groups are working hard to pursue all possible means of improving the health outcomes of smokers, that they genuinely care about not only people and health but about the free exchange of information.

Just a perfect demonstration about where anti-tobacco groups stand these days. They aren't interested in the truth and they are heavily lobbying legislators.

Would appreciate a short paragraph explaining this in layman's terms

 

[DC2]

It's about banning anything recreational nicotine-related that they can, even if smokers must die in the process.

And for anyone who thinks that is just unbelieveable, that nobody could think like that...

There is a YouTube video or something out there, where they interviewed one of these prohibitionists.
And they said it out loud, right there during the interview when pressed on the subject.

I am sure someone will have no trouble locating that video if you wish to see it.
But I wouldn't recommend seeing it, because it will make you so mad you might just break something valuable.

 

[Vocalek]

And for anyone who thinks that is just unbelieveable, that nobody could think like that...

There is a YouTube video or something out there, where they interviewed one of these prohibitionists.
And they said it out loud, right there during the interview when pressed on the subject.

I am sure someone will have no trouble locating that video if you wish to see it.
But I wouldn't recommend seeing it, because it will make you so mad you might just break something valuable.

Are you thinking of the interview with the British nurse who wanted to withhold medical treatment for anyone with a smoking-related illness? When the interviewer pressed her about the logical outcome of such action she stated flatly, "They should just die."

Found it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5gkm8DrP58

 

[maxx]

Just a side note that has come out of this conversation....use of language. I like the idea of pinning the term "prohibitionist" on the antis. I don't agree that it is accurate for the most part....but does put them in a position to have to defend their position. On the other hand, I never cared for the term "addiction" as applied to nicotine users. It's not accurate and places us in the same category of people living in allies and crack houses knocking over liquor stores. I prefer the term "dependence" if we must use a collective term at all.

Language is how you change the way people think. One need look no further than the climate debate. It started out as "global warming"....until it was discovered we haven't been warming for a decade. So they switched to "climate change"....and again ran into trouble since things weren't really changing all that much. Lately, they go with "climate disruption" since nobody has a clue what that means and could be anything they want it to be. I think we should get our heads together, and with the help of an English teacher (we have to have at least one here), come up with a unified lexicon.

 

[MoonRose]

But that's exactly how the really extreme anti-smoking group look at us, I see it every time there is any article written in our local paper that has to do with smokers and smoking bans. There are always those who leave the comments about how smokers are no better than illegal drug addicts with our addiction to nicotine. Even when you point out to them that caffeine is also an addictive drug they refuse to think of their addiction to that in the same light. As far as they are concerned anyone who smokes or uses any of the smokeless products are the scum of the earth because they are "nicotine addicts". Even when trying to explain to them that smokeless tobacco products are not harmful to people around the user, they are still anti-nicotine/tobacco to the most extreme degree of calling anyone who admits to using tobacco products some really hurtful names at times.

 

[maxx]

You're right Moonrose....they do think that way. But if we are to educate and change perceptions, we need to be more careful with our words. We should try to stop using the term ''addiction". I personally don't feel addicted. Dependent yes....addicted, no.

Here is a good article on the subject. It points out dependence is not necessarily a bad thing like addiction is.

Discovery Health "Addiction v. Dependence on Pain Medications"