FDA to Hear R.J. Reynolds' Smokeless Tobacco Petition
- Thread starter Petrodus
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
In contrast to the headline of Richard Craver's article, the FDA's Dec. 17 hearing is not focussing on Reynolds' petition urging the FDA to correct its misleading "not a safe alternative" warning on smokeless tobacco.
Craver asked me my views on Reynolds' petition the other day, and an hour later I sent him my THR Update stating that 15 THR advocates would be testifying at FDA's hearing. Craver's article also inaccurately stated that Greg Connolly (the snus and e-cigarette prohibitionist from MA whose recent study confirmed that NRT isn't effective for achieving "nicotine abstinence") would be testifying, but its Greg Conley with CASAA.
But I plan to endorse Reynolds' petition at the hearing, and recommend that FDA require similar statements on all NRT products, and most importantly, all cigarette packages (as smokers really need to know that smokefree products are less hazardous than cigarettes.
Craver asked me my views on Reynolds' petition the other day, and an hour later I sent him my THR Update stating that 15 THR advocates would be testifying at FDA's hearing. Craver's article also inaccurately stated that Greg Connolly (the snus and e-cigarette prohibitionist from MA whose recent study confirmed that NRT isn't effective for achieving "nicotine abstinence") would be testifying, but its Greg Conley with CASAA.
But I plan to endorse Reynolds' petition at the hearing, and recommend that FDA require similar statements on all NRT products, and most importantly, all cigarette packages (as smokers really need to know that smokefree products are less hazardous than cigarettes.
E-cigarettes are "less hazardous than cigarettes"
Every time I hear that ... it just makes my face flush !!
Why in all heck do so many including us ... use that phrase.
E-cigarettes are not "hazardous" ... yeah, I know "the evil nicotine" ... but that's it !!
A small hand warmer carried in your pocket
is "less hazardous than sticking your hand in a fire"
But no one says that !!
It's understood e-cigarettes are guilty by association
"Less hazardous than cigarettes" ...
says almost nothing ... What is this saying anyway ??
Some kind of "politically correct" thing because we can't
scientifically prove the percent they are safer ??
Every time I hear that ... it just makes my face flush !!
Why in all heck do so many including us ... use that phrase.
E-cigarettes are not "hazardous" ... yeah, I know "the evil nicotine" ... but that's it !!
A small hand warmer carried in your pocket
is "less hazardous than sticking your hand in a fire"
But no one says that !!
It's understood e-cigarettes are guilty by association
"Less hazardous than cigarettes" ...
says almost nothing ... What is this saying anyway ??
Some kind of "politically correct" thing because we can't
scientifically prove the percent they are safer ??
That's about it, Petro. To those people, a thousand vapers, saying that e-cigs got them away from smoking and that they are much healthier now, doesn't mean a thing. It has to come from people in lab coats, who don't smoke or vape and who are conducting "scientific" tests, for them to believe it.E-cigarettes are "less hazardous than cigarettes"
Every time I hear that ... it just makes my face flush !!
Why in all heck do so many including us ... use that phrase.
E-cigarettes are not "hazardous" ... yeah, I know "the evil nicotine" ... but that's it !!
A small hand warmer carried in your pocket
is "less hazardous than sticking your hand in a fire"
But no one says that !!
It's understood e-cigarettes are guilty by association
"Less hazardous than cigarettes" ...
says almost nothing ... What is this saying anyway ??
Some kind of "politically correct" thing because we can't
scientifically prove the percent they are safer ??
We are "nobodies" to the ANTZ and the FDA.
I understand what said ...That's about it, Petro. To those people, a thousand vapers, saying that e-cigs got them away from smoking and that they are much healthier now, doesn't mean a thing. It has to come from people in lab coats, who don't smoke or vape and who are conducting "scientific" tests, for them to believe it.
We are "nobodies" to the ANTZ and the FDA.
However, why don't we openly reject and claim We Are Offended
when anyone says this garbage including the FDA ETC.
Makes more sense to just reply with "Apples and Oranges" !!!
Which one do you want to talk about ??
less hazardous = safer = 
what's the problem; they are saying the same thing. The confusion comes when people say ecigs are "safe" instead of "safer than tobacco cigarettes".
ETA:
For all intents and purposes, nothing is 100% safe, or 100% non-hazardous.
what's the problem; they are saying the same thing. The confusion comes when people say ecigs are "safe" instead of "safer than tobacco cigarettes".ETA:
For all intents and purposes, nothing is 100% safe, or 100% non-hazardous.
Last edited:
That's about it, Petro. To those people, a thousand vapers, saying that e-cigs got them away from smoking and that they are much healthier now, doesn't mean a thing. It has to come from people in lab coats, who don't smoke or vape and who are conducting scientific" tests", for them to believe it.
We are "nobodies" to the ANTZ and the FDA.
And if the scientific tests findings are contrary to the party line it, never see the light of day.
Last edited:
If you tell a smoker ...
E-cigarettes are safer than cigarettes
The smoker will say really ... a little more safe or a lot more safe or ... what ??
It says NOTHING more that e-smoking is probably a little more safe.
I KNOW ... FEW really are interested in this subject
However, if you are in sales (and we are to a big degree)
I think saying e-cigarettes are safer doesn't really send the
message that e-smoking will NOT kill you and Smoking Cigarettes
WILL kill you.
E-cigarettes are safer than cigarettes
The smoker will say really ... a little more safe or a lot more safe or ... what ??
It says NOTHING more that e-smoking is probably a little more safe.
I KNOW ... FEW really are interested in this subject
However, if you are in sales (and we are to a big degree)
I think saying e-cigarettes are safer doesn't really send the
message that e-smoking will NOT kill you and Smoking Cigarettes
WILL kill you.
Something I would like to see on every cigarette pack:
"The surgeon general has determined that cigarette smoking is bad for your health and can kill you.
Although total abstinence from tobacco is the healthiest alternative, switching to a safer alternative to smoking by using smokeless tobacco products (such as SNUS or Electronic Cigarettes) will greatly reduce your health risks."
"The surgeon general has determined that cigarette smoking is bad for your health and can kill you.
Although total abstinence from tobacco is the healthiest alternative, switching to a safer alternative to smoking by using smokeless tobacco products (such as SNUS or Electronic Cigarettes) will greatly reduce your health risks."
Good Idea !!
However, I don't think BP and their employees at the FDA would find it amusing
E-cigarettes are "less hazardous than cigarettes"
Every time I hear that ... it just makes my face flush !!
Why in all heck do so many including us ... use that phrase.
E-cigarettes are not "hazardous" ... yeah, I know "the evil nicotine" ... but that's it !!
A small hand warmer carried in your pocket
is "less hazardous than sticking your hand in a fire"
But no one says that !!
It's understood e-cigarettes are guilty by association
"Less hazardous than cigarettes" ...
says almost nothing ... What is this saying anyway ??
Some kind of "politically correct" thing because we can't
scientifically prove the percent they are safer ??
Thats ok, because I get the same feeling when someone proclaims that something that has had no long term studies say it is completely safe. No one knows at this point what the long term health ramifications are, you absolutely cannot know that or prove it at this stage, stop saying it. Calling them e-cigarettes doesn't help either because you get the automatic association to cigarettes, it's in the name, it should only be referred to as vaping.
These are absolutely valid questions, ignoring it or dismissing it does not help the community:
When a container starts to degrade how long has it been doing it before a vaper notices? What are the long term effects of using a degrading container for too long?
When you get burnt hits what are the chemicals you are inhaling? What are the long term effects of that?
When you get burnt hits what are the chemicals you are inhaling? What are the long term effects of that?
myyrkezaan:
I have not heard too many people claim that e-cigarettes are perfectly safe. And we had this discussion about what they should be called a good two years ago. But the bottom line is that when we respond to news stories or write to legislators, we need to be calling the products by the name that is well-known. If Podunk is considering adding "e-cigarettes" to their indoor smoking laws, if we write and ask them not to include PVs in their smoking ban, they won't know what we are talking about.
I'm not crazy about the name either, but they are electronic and they are intended to replace the traditional cigarettes. So that product name makes sense if you are trying to capture the attention of smokers. Why would a smoker want to try a vaporizer? A vaporizer is something you use in your bedroom when you are congested, no?
On the other hand, my pet peeve is all those "public health experts" telling us that we need to try the "safe and effective" smoking cessation products approved by the FDA.
The ones that are fairly safe are not effective, and the ones that are marginally more effective are not so safe. I give you as proof the FDA-required black box warnings on Zyban and Chantis. The FDA doesn't call for black box warnings on drugs that are safe.
I have not heard too many people claim that e-cigarettes are perfectly safe. And we had this discussion about what they should be called a good two years ago. But the bottom line is that when we respond to news stories or write to legislators, we need to be calling the products by the name that is well-known. If Podunk is considering adding "e-cigarettes" to their indoor smoking laws, if we write and ask them not to include PVs in their smoking ban, they won't know what we are talking about.
I'm not crazy about the name either, but they are electronic and they are intended to replace the traditional cigarettes. So that product name makes sense if you are trying to capture the attention of smokers. Why would a smoker want to try a vaporizer? A vaporizer is something you use in your bedroom when you are congested, no?
On the other hand, my pet peeve is all those "public health experts" telling us that we need to try the "safe and effective" smoking cessation products approved by the FDA.
The ones that are fairly safe are not effective, and the ones that are marginally more effective are not so safe. I give you as proof the FDA-required black box warnings on Zyban and Chantis. The FDA doesn't call for black box warnings on drugs that are safe.
Vocalek: In what I quoted was the very claim: E-cigarettes are not "hazardous" ... yeah, I know "the evil nicotine" ... but that's it !!
They also say cigarette patch and cigarette gum, which I find ridiculous. I still think trying to push vaping as a cigarette alternative is the way to go because those APVs have nothing in common other than delivery and you distance yourself from smoke and tobacco. It has more in common with an inhaler, maybe something like Nico-Haler (N-Haler is taken), E-Haler, E-Nic .... It's a slow process when educating people on something new that requires a change in thinking.
As far as the "experts" and "FDA" you are totally correct. I love how some drugs are illegal but an approved one on the market can have hallucinogenic effects where people commit suicide, that makes sense. Whats even worse is that people are taking it to stop smoking because they are afraid of getting cancer in the future but are risking death now. Hmmm, possible death now supersedes to stop possible death in the future , sign me up!!
I haven't been here long, but I've seen quite a few posts where people say "safe/healthy" instead of "safer/healthier"; if people keep pushing that and something not "safe/healthier" happens those opposed to it will use that, no matter how minor and it will set things back.
I know lots of people don't like BT, but they will be the ones pushing to get it approved and in public places and be doing it faster once they get rolling.
They also say cigarette patch and cigarette gum, which I find ridiculous
. I still think trying to push vaping as a cigarette alternative is the way to go because those APVs have nothing in common other than delivery and you distance yourself from smoke and tobacco. It has more in common with an inhaler, maybe something like Nico-Haler (N-Haler is taken), E-Haler, E-Nic .... It's a slow process when educating people on something new that requires a change in thinking.As far as the "experts" and "FDA" you are totally correct. I love how some drugs are illegal but an approved one on the market can have hallucinogenic effects where people commit suicide, that makes sense. Whats even worse is that people are taking it to stop smoking because they are afraid of getting cancer in the future but are risking death now. Hmmm, possible death now supersedes to stop possible death in the future , sign me up!!
I haven't been here long, but I've seen quite a few posts where people say "safe/healthy" instead of "safer/healthier"; if people keep pushing that and something not "safe/healthier" happens those opposed to it will use that, no matter how minor and it will set things back.
I know lots of people don't like BT, but they will be the ones pushing to get it approved and in public places and be doing it faster once they get rolling.
PVs AKA Personal Vaporizers
Back in the days ...
Many here on the ECF and others in "the movement" preached to everyone
to refer to e-cigarettes as PVs to distance e-cigarettes from cigarettes.
That term NEVER caught on with the Public and NEVER will (Period)
Tell anyone, outside our circle, ... "Its a Personal Vaporizer"
They will look at you as if you have 2 Heads thinking you have a medical condition.
The world knows them as Electronic Cigarettes
and "E-Cigarettes" is just a "Slang" term for Electronic cigarettes"
PS: I use the term PVs ONLY "here on the forum"
because most of the popular products used by members here
don't look anything like a cigarette !!
I NEVER USE THAT TERM in Public ... Unless I want to get someone
to look at me as if I have 2 Heads
Back in the days ...
Many here on the ECF and others in "the movement" preached to everyone
to refer to e-cigarettes as PVs to distance e-cigarettes from cigarettes.
That term NEVER caught on with the Public and NEVER will (Period)
Tell anyone, outside our circle, ... "Its a Personal Vaporizer"
They will look at you as if you have 2 Heads thinking you have a medical condition.
The world knows them as Electronic Cigarettes
and "E-Cigarettes" is just a "Slang" term for Electronic cigarettes"
PS: I use the term PVs ONLY "here on the forum"
because most of the popular products used by members here
don't look anything like a cigarette !!
I NEVER USE THAT TERM in Public ... Unless I want to get someone
to look at me as if I have 2 Heads
myyrkezaan: The quote is taken out of context. Petrodus was not making a claim that e-cigarettes are totally harmless.
He was commenting on the phrase "less hazardous" and taking exception to the use of the word "hazardous", because the word has a negative connotation. It's putting negative ideas and numerous questions into the head of the listener. "Oh you are admitting that they ARE hazardous? You said 'less'. Less than what? How much less?"
Perhaps we should start referring to them as a "low-risk alternative," in the same classification as Swedish snus. Research shows that since a sizable percent of Swedish smokers have switched to snus, Sweden's lung cancer death rate is half that of the U.S. Population level meta-analyses have shown that former-smokers that switched to snus do not have any higher risks of smoking-related diseases than former smokers who quit tobacco/nicotine use altogether.
We can never prove that these products are 100% risk-free. Few things are. But somehow "less hazardous" seems to imply a higher level of danger than the phrase "low risk."
"Less hazardous" sounds as if we are claiming fewer cases of disease and death, but implies that there still might be significant hazards in using the product.
"Low risk" brings to mind that there might be minor problems such as dry mouth, but that nothing life-threatening is involved.
He was commenting on the phrase "less hazardous" and taking exception to the use of the word "hazardous", because the word has a negative connotation. It's putting negative ideas and numerous questions into the head of the listener. "Oh you are admitting that they ARE hazardous? You said 'less'. Less than what? How much less?"
Perhaps we should start referring to them as a "low-risk alternative," in the same classification as Swedish snus. Research shows that since a sizable percent of Swedish smokers have switched to snus, Sweden's lung cancer death rate is half that of the U.S. Population level meta-analyses have shown that former-smokers that switched to snus do not have any higher risks of smoking-related diseases than former smokers who quit tobacco/nicotine use altogether.
We can never prove that these products are 100% risk-free. Few things are. But somehow "less hazardous" seems to imply a higher level of danger than the phrase "low risk."
"Less hazardous" sounds as if we are claiming fewer cases of disease and death, but implies that there still might be significant hazards in using the product.
"Low risk" brings to mind that there might be minor problems such as dry mouth, but that nothing life-threatening is involved.
Using risk management mite be the way to go. I use it in motorcycle riding. How I manage the risk is on going training and practice.
And A.T.G.A.T.T all the gear all the time. Everything has some risk to it. Its how you manage said risk is the key.
And A.T.G.A.T.T all the gear all the time. Everything has some risk to it. Its how you manage said risk is the key.
Bet ya'all a buck "WE" didn't coin the term "Less Hazardous"
Just because THEY use that term ...
Doesn't mean WE should also. We can simply say ...
"The correct term is Low Risk" !!!!
To repeat what Elaine said ...
"Less hazardous" sounds as if we are claiming fewer cases of disease and death, but implies that there still might be significant hazards in using the product.
"Low risk" brings to mind that there might be minor problems such as dry mouth, but that nothing life-threatening is involved.
When we engage in a discussions with those opposed to e-cigarettes ...
I suggest we should indicate that we are "Offended" with the implication
E-cigarettes are the cause of any disease or deaths ... dry mouth ... OK
but NOTHING Life-Threatening.
Number of reported deaths from using e-cigarettes ... remains ZERO !!
Number of deaths and diseases from smoking ... in the Tens of MILLIONS.
I suggest we should use "low risk" when we post in Comments sections
on articles ... actually, it wouldn't hurt for us to use "low risk" when we
compare smoking with e-smoking ... in discussions here on the ECF.
Opinions about e-smoking can easily be influenced just by the words
and phrases THEY use as well as the words and phrases WE use.
Just because THEY use that term ...
Doesn't mean WE should also. We can simply say ...
"The correct term is Low Risk" !!!!
To repeat what Elaine said ...
"Less hazardous" sounds as if we are claiming fewer cases of disease and death, but implies that there still might be significant hazards in using the product.
"Low risk" brings to mind that there might be minor problems such as dry mouth, but that nothing life-threatening is involved.
When we engage in a discussions with those opposed to e-cigarettes ...
I suggest we should indicate that we are "Offended" with the implication
E-cigarettes are the cause of any disease or deaths ... dry mouth ... OK
but NOTHING Life-Threatening.
Number of reported deaths from using e-cigarettes ... remains ZERO !!
Number of deaths and diseases from smoking ... in the Tens of MILLIONS.
I suggest we should use "low risk" when we post in Comments sections
on articles ... actually, it wouldn't hurt for us to use "low risk" when we
compare smoking with e-smoking ... in discussions here on the ECF.
Opinions about e-smoking can easily be influenced just by the words
and phrases THEY use as well as the words and phrases WE use.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
