Idea: Cite the "Clean syringes" parallel

[Eclectic_Current]

First, we ( you all actually, since i'm Canadian) should be directing your letters and petitions to the FDA and not to senators just as Lautenberg's letter was directed to acting commisioner Torti of FDA. ( see: page 5 of thread: Senator seeks to halt sales ... for text of letter )

Now, an interesting precedent we might cite in our arguments to the FDA is the following parallel situation which occurred to me yesterday:

In some jurisdictions, clean syringes ( drug delivery devices) are supplied to ...... addicts ( obvious criminals since ...... is very illegal) as a damage ( from AIDS) reduction strategy. This is considered to be an enlightened health policy and the fact that using ...... is illegal is considered to be of lesser importance than mitigating the health consequences of spreading aids.

SO, since the AIDS problem pales in comparison to the scourge of smoking in terms of sheer numbers affected, it seems to me that citing this very close parallel would serve us well in attempting to make our case with the FDA or the senate or even the media when opportunities arise.

Temporary absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ( of safety & efficacy as a smoking cessation strategy) especially when overwhelming anecdotal indications ( of safety & efficacy) are indeed present as in this situation.

In fact, have any clinical trials been done to show that using clean syringes ( versus sharing syringes) to shoot ...... reduces the incidence of AIDS or were the results of such trials considered too obvious to bother with ?

Isn't it just as obvious that the vaporized inhalation of only 2 of the 4000 chemicals already present in cigarettes (Nic & PG) is manifestly much much safer than smoking and already known to be entirely non-carcinogenic ?

A country that prides itself on the espousing the freedoms that its citizenry enjoys ( and even goes to war to bring such freedoms to others) should not indulge in attempts at social engineering. Legislations and prohibitions against smoking ( or much safer practices like vaping) should protect only those who do not freely choose to indulge in such practices and must stop short of coercing the behavior of those that do make such a free choice.

 

[Skad]

Sadly smokers have become more despised then ...... addicts. The good news is, just like ...... addicts in places that don't have clean needle programs still get needles, even after any kind of ban, we'll still manage to get our fix.

The way I see it, this will play out one of two ways.

1. The FDA ban never happens, and they figure out they have more important things to do then worry about us and our toys. A year from now, we're all laughing about the panic, and we're enjoying the next generation of equipment.

2. The ban happens. The US suppliers shut down. The forum resorts to discussions on which overseas suppliers stuff gets through customs more often, and which brands of nicotine patches can be used to make juice. The modders among us develop ways to make vapor devices using things you can pick up locally. Some suppliers change their product enough to get around the ban, probably by changing the intended purpose of the device.

 

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

My gut says no....don't go there...

Personally, I think it would be a mistake to, even hypethetically, link PV's to any illegal substance.

Image, you know... Let's not tarnish ours more.

 

[dagit]

My gut says no....don't go there...

Personally, I think it would be a mistake to, even hypethetically, link PV's to any illegal substance.

Image, you know... Let's not tarnish ours more.

Yeah, gotta agree it's not so hot to connect dots in such a way that e-cigs get compared to illegal drugs, syringes to PVs, ...... to nicotine, etc.

But on the other hand it seems cigarette smokers are often visualized/characterized as "bad" people anyway, so perhaps there's not a lot of harm (left) to be done to our collective image?

I know that whenever I tease something to effect about how when smokers start breaking into their neighbour's homes to steal stereos and TVs to pawn for cash to support the habit, they'll start to get free drugs (nicotine) and free rehab, I always get a good response. Smokers will generally laugh and non-smokers will tend to have that "oh, never thought of it that way" expression.

I believe smokers (and if not already, e-cigers) already have a tarnished image - maybe we should push for the public sympathy vote now?

 

[leaford]

First, we ( you all actually, since i'm Canadian) should be directing your letters and petitions to the FDA and not to senators just as Lautenberg's letter was directed to acting commisioner Torti of FDA. ( see: page 5 of thread: Senator seeks to halt sales ... for text of letter )

No. The FDA does not base its decisions on public statements, testimony, or desires. They're not supposed to. The only legitimate means of altering their decisions are through scientific studies, executive order, legislation, or court rulings. (Some would say that bribery and extortion are better tools, but lets assume none of us have the means for those, anyway.)

Our representatives, on the other hand, ARE supposed to respond to our concerns and desires. (Again, some would argue that bribery is the more pursuasive tool here, too. But we still don't have the means.)

In fact, have any clinical trials been done to show that using clean syringes ( versus sharing syringes) to shoot ...... reduces the incidence of AIDS or were the results of such trials considered too obvious to bother with ?

Isn't it just as obvious that the vaporized inhalation of only 2 of the 4000 chemicals already present in cigarettes (Nic & PG) is manifestly much much safer than smoking and already known to be entirely non-carcinogenic ?

I'm with you on arguing the harm reduction angle, and the comparison to needle exchanges is valid, if quite gross. In fact, harm reduction activists have already drawn that comparison in the context of smokeless tobacco.

But you're wrong that they haven't tested the effectiveness of needle exchanges at reducing Hepetitis and HIV infections. They have. Extensively. Science does not take things for granted as obvious. Even if they did, they'd still want to know things like how effective it is, so they'd study it for that.

And the same goes for e-cigs. We can't take safety or effectiveness for granted, or as proven by a couple studies and anecdotes. Not even thousands of anecdotes.

Yeah, gotta agree it's not so hot to connect dots in such a way that e-cigs get compared to illegal drugs, syringes to PVs, ...... to nicotine, etc.

Our best allies are the harm reduction proponants in the anti-tobacco movement, and they've already made that comparison in establishing the validity of a harm reduction approach. Also the analogy to condoms versus abstinence. So, we're kinda screwed on that already.

 

[dagit]

No. The FDA does not base its decisions on public statements, testimony, or desires. They're not supposed to. The only legitimate means of altering their decisions are through scientific studies, executive order, legislation, or court rulings. (Some would say that bribery and extortion are better tools, but lets assume none of us have the means for those, anyway.)

Our representatives, on the other hand, ARE supposed to respond to our concerns and desires. (Again, some would argue that bribery is the more pursuasive tool here, too. But we still don't have the means.)




I'm with you on arguing the harm reduction angle, and the comparison to needle exchanges is valid, if quite gross. In fact, harm reduction activists have already drawn that comparison in the context of smokeless tobacco.

But you're wrong that they haven't tested the effectiveness of needle exchanges at reducing Hepetitis and HIV infections. They have. Extensively. Science does not take things for granted as obvious. Even if they did, they'd still want to know things like how effective it is, so they'd study it for that.

And the same goes for e-cigs. We can't take safety or effectiveness for granted, or as proven by a couple studies and anecdotes. Not even thousands of anecdotes.




Our best allies are the harm reduction proponants in the anti-tobacco movement, and they've already made that comparison in establishing the validity of a harm reduction approach. Also the analogy to condoms versus abstinence. So, we're kinda screwed on that already.

You intended that pun, right?

Harm reduction proponents are going to be key, definitely. Personally, I want an argument that obliges all the self-righteous health freaks that turn their noses up at my cigarette addiction to support my right to be healthy....

Who can argue (and still be politically correct) against the notion that "all people have the right to pursue and preserve healthy lives without exposure to cancer-causing products and substances, including second-hand cigarette smoke"?

It could probably be worded more succinctly, or even just better, but the gist of it is there - and that is "all" I want - the right to pursue and preserve a life free from exposure to cigarette smoke. All health freaks should be proponents!

 

[Eclectic_Current]

Leaford said: No. The FDA does not base its decisions on public statements, testimony, or desires. They're not supposed to. The only legitimate means of altering their decisions are through scientific studies, executive order, legislation, or court rulings.

Oh i agree of course. In drawing this parallel ( clean needles for addicts ), i'm simply pointing to a blatant double standard in the FDA position if they outright prohibit an addicted smoker's right to use eCigs as a health Damage Reduction strategy when they are willing to do so for illegal ...... use. The court rulings you refer to are argued from the basis of legal or de facto "precedents" so our arguing this Harm Reduction angle in the context of his double standard helps us no matter how distasteful an argument it may be. It just puts the FDA in an awkward position given how analog smoking is a much more severe social health issue than AIDS is ( in scope and numbers affected).