Great paper -should be require reading for all regulators.
Achieving appropriate regulations for electronic cigarettes
Achieving appropriate regulations for electronic cigarettes
Great Paper - Achieving appropriate regulations for electronic cigarettes
- Thread starter Jake6731
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Totally agree. Great paper. Thanks for posting. Don't agree with all of course but for the purpose of regulators that eat up all the double-speak, this is a good one. It's long and for people who don't need to wade through all the 'precautionary principle' BS, read the first part and then go to the paragraph starting with:
"The first report by the World Health Organization...."
This: "Even smokers who do not want to quit may do so when introduced to e-cigarettes ..." may get regulators' attention...
I know it's a stretch... and it's meant to be
... but if you're a regulator at any level of gov't or just the local council person voting on where ecigs can be used.... IF it were a cancer cure (which in some ways, this could be very true - a cancer avoider - if you will) do you, as a regulator, want to be on record as opposing it, 'for the good of the people' or 'for the good of the children'?? Because, let me assure you, regardless of your vote or decision, you WILL be remembered. That includes all members along the political spectrum and the scientists, bureaucrats, and reporters/bloggers associated - pro and con.
Last edited:
Ok everyone. Go put on a pot of coffee, park your .... down, and read every word. Every single word. That is required reading for all of us who need to put forth cogent arguments on many levels. And if there was ever a paper you need to present to any of these self-labeled "experts" on your community health boards, making ill-formed decisions on behalf of the "public good", this is the paper those boobs need to be forced to read. Whether you can get them to understand - that's another matter. But they cannot in good faith deny the logic of the arguments put forth by those authors. Such as this one tiny quote:Bravo! That read just made my entire week.
Bravo! That read just made my entire week.
Agreed. I just sent off an email to Gov. John Kasich Ohio with a link to the paper and a few words of my experience with ecigs and with ecf, etc. and how there's a lot of papers out there from 'interested parties' but this is a good objective source with all the links. I'm sending to the two Senators and my Rep as well. Most likely it will fall on deaf ears for two of them since one was 'one of those 5 Senators' but it's worth a shot.
Thank you for posting this, absolutely great read. Considering it is from a government institution I wonder how long the author will keep his job? Well the paper is out there now, no way to try and hide what this paper has to say.
Actually no. Detailed information about the authors is available at the top of the article:
Daniela Saitta, Department of Clinical and Molecular Biomedicine, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Giancarlo Antonio Ferro, Department of Law, University of Catania, Catania, Italy.
Riccardo Polosa, UOC di Medicina Interna, Edificio 4, Piano 3, AOU ‘Policlinico-V. Emanuele’, Università di Catania, Via S. Sofia 78, 95123 Catania, Italy.
Oh I understand this, it's just that the paper is from National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, part of the NIH. NIH.gov is definitely U.S. Government. I still think someone is going to hear about it, to much money involved from the tax and lobby people.
Sherrod Brown Sen. D Oh has it now... or his staff does.
THIS is the paper to send out, if you've even considered sending something to your representatives. Or if you have already, add this one too.
THIS is the paper to send out, if you've even considered sending something to your representatives. Or if you have already, add this one too.
Last edited:
Excellent article. This sums it up as to what is needed as a "first approach information" to the not so informed politicians.
OUTSTANDING!!
Question: Noting Rickajho's bump, the question is how to get & keep this in front of the ECF masses' eyeballs and hopefully consciousness??
Where is the optimum place here at ECF for maximum exposure?
My immediate thought is to include this in a hard-copy information binder that I'm going to take to my city mayor, and maybe council members while I'm at it.
Others that I'm thinking about too would be my state & federal level representatives, and maybe a nicer one for the governor's office.
I think that would be well worth a trip to Lansing.
Thinking of other stuff to include in a Policy-maker's Guide to Pro-active & Reasoned treatment of E-cigarettes & vaping (I just made that title up)
I know CASAA has a legislative package regarding indoor bans, but I'm thinking about other stuff to include.
Another thread would be best to gathering your ideas...
Question: Noting Rickajho's bump, the question is how to get & keep this in front of the ECF masses' eyeballs and hopefully consciousness??
Where is the optimum place here at ECF for maximum exposure?
My immediate thought is to include this in a hard-copy information binder that I'm going to take to my city mayor, and maybe council members while I'm at it.
Others that I'm thinking about too would be my state & federal level representatives, and maybe a nicer one for the governor's office.
I think that would be well worth a trip to Lansing.
Thinking of other stuff to include in a Policy-maker's Guide to Pro-active & Reasoned treatment of E-cigarettes & vaping (I just made that title up
)I know CASAA has a legislative package regarding indoor bans, but I'm thinking about other stuff to include.
Another thread would be best to gathering your ideas...
Last edited:
Very impressed by the paper. Offered a balanced view on what needs to be considered before regulation and restrictions are imposed. I particularly enjoyed the sly digs throughout (all warranted of course)
Let's hope this reaches a few people and is put in front of the policy makers. I fear the anti e-cig train has gained a lot of momentum based on speculation, fear and panic. More balanced arguments like this can only help shoot down the preconceived myths that seem to forge restriction and bans.
Well worth a read.
Let's hope this reaches a few people and is put in front of the policy makers. I fear the anti e-cig train has gained a lot of momentum based on speculation, fear and panic. More balanced arguments like this can only help shoot down the preconceived myths that seem to forge restriction and bans.
Well worth a read.
imHo, this needs to be out in General discussion forum.
The traffic counts 'back here', and the eyeballs are a whole lot less, and this powerful piece needs better exposure.
Just sayin'...
The traffic counts 'back here', and the eyeballs are a whole lot less, and this powerful piece needs better exposure.
Just sayin'...
Last edited:
Bravo, outstanding!!
I agree, this should be stickies in several forums.
Bless Polosa's heart, (& the others too). He's had to correct the spin doctors, CDC, etc in the past and they try to shout over him to this day. Well good luck this time bozos.
Every ECF member should read this paper, save it and send it to their elected representatives.
I put in a request for a sticky or an all forum alert... we'll see.
There's a lot of pluses to this paper, but esp. important is 1) the objectiveness of the source and connection to the National Institute of Health and 2) the emphasis on how serious banning, regulating or taxing ecigarettes could affect the health of not only ecigarette users but smokers that have not yet tried them, and the people affected by second hand smoke (again, I'm one that has pointed out that second hand smoke being carcinogenic is a myth, but there are other related aspects to it, and perhaps even more importantly - the perception of how it affects others).
It's as if the authors made a cogent summary of all the work that has been done by many here for months (years?) and many that we've read about and put it in one paper. And it address the main anti-line now - the 'gateway' question, and answers it very well!
There's a lot of pluses to this paper, but esp. important is 1) the objectiveness of the source and connection to the National Institute of Health and 2) the emphasis on how serious banning, regulating or taxing ecigarettes could affect the health of not only ecigarette users but smokers that have not yet tried them, and the people affected by second hand smoke (again, I'm one that has pointed out that second hand smoke being carcinogenic is a myth, but there are other related aspects to it, and perhaps even more importantly - the perception of how it affects others).
It's as if the authors made a cogent summary of all the work that has been done by many here for months (years?) and many that we've read about and put it in one paper. And it address the main anti-line now - the 'gateway' question, and answers it very well!
It also addresses "reasonable" requirements in the selling of e-liquid that I think few of us would have an issue with as long as it wasn't used as a gateway to draconian restrictions.
I notice that on page 10 it mentions that during the first reading of the Euro Tobacco Directive there was a revision; among other things it says:
"Those for which no such claims are made should contain no more than 30 mg/ml of nicotine, should carry health warnings and should not be sold to anyone under 18 years old."
The final regulation is of course only 20 mg/ml. I'm not sure where this drop on 10 has crept in. Does anyone know?
"Those for which no such claims are made should contain no more than 30 mg/ml of nicotine, should carry health warnings and should not be sold to anyone under 18 years old."
The final regulation is of course only 20 mg/ml. I'm not sure where this drop on 10 has crept in. Does anyone know?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked