I'm doing an argumentative research paper on e-cigs for college, need some help...

[0smitty]

Hey all;

Sooooo, I'm constantly digging through the e-cig news section here, and I see quite a few good, solid articles pertaining to all things related to ecigs/research/legislation/etc. I've found some good information on our school's EBSCOhost database, but now I need some input from some of the "regulars" here; any chance I can get people such as kristin, rothenbj, ezmoose, and anyone else I've forgot to point me in the direction of articles that might hold some ground in a scholarly paper??

I'm going with the thesis statement: "Electronic Cigarettes should not be regulated by either the FDA or Big tobacco because these entities have their own profits at hand rather than the best interests of electronic cigarette users". Whaddaya think???

I appreciate it, folks!!!

 

[Thulium]

Hey all;

Sooooo, I'm constantly digging through the e-cig news section here, and I see quite a few good, solid articles pertaining to all things related to ecigs/research/legislation/etc. I've found some good information on our school's EBSCOhost database, but now I need some input from some of the "regulars" here; any chance I can get people such as kristin, rothenbj, ezmoose, and anyone else I've forgot to point me in the direction of articles that might hold some ground in a scholarly paper??

I'm going with the thesis statement: "Electronic Cigarettes should not be regulated by either the FDA or Big tobacco because these entities have their own profits at hand rather than the best interests of electronic cigarette users". Whaddaya think???

I appreciate it, folks!!!

Your first homework assignment, read the 2010 Tobacco Harm Reduction Yearbook--available as a free download:

• Tobacco Harm Reduction 2010 - a yearbook of recent research and analysis

Regarding your thesis statement, you would have a difficult time defending that statement for several reasons. Strictly speaking, FDA does not have any "profits", but if you are looking for more information on the FDA's conflicting interests, FDAreview.org has some very interesting information:

• Why the FDA Has an Incentive to Delay the Introduction of New Drugs
• Theory, Evidence and Examples of FDA Harm

 

[kristin]

Additionally, Big Tobacco has no legally recognized regulatory power.

How about "Electronic cigarettes should be regulated neither as tobacco nor a drug delivery device, but as a reduced harm tobacco alternative."

 

[Bill Godshall]

The proposed thesis is wrong because tobacco companies don't regulate anything and because FDA has and will continue regulating e-cigarettes, either by continuing to try banning e-cigarettes by regulating them as drug devices under the FDCA, or by promulgating regulations for e-cigarettes as tobacco products under the FSPTCA.

The latter option is the only practical and realistic solution to keep e-cigarette legally accessible and affordable.

 

[Vocalek]

In this thread, Response #3, I tried to give an overview of the court case that will decide which way the FDA regulates the products. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...at-up-coming-case-between-fda-ecig-about.html

I suggest that you read through the Opinion document that was issued by U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon. It describes the legal arguments as proposed by each party and then as viewed by the Judge.

FDA said "It's a drug-delivery device; we will regulate it under Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act." SE & NJOY said, "It isn't intended to treat a disease. It's a smoking replacement." The Judge said, "FDA. if you want to regulate it, do so under the Tobacco Act." (Note: These are not direct quotes. They are how I view the positions of each party.)

http://www.casaa.org/files/SE-vs-FDA-Opinion.pdf

 

[100thMonkey]

If you were my child, I'd buy you a car.

 

[0smitty]

Additionally, Big Tobacco has no legally recognized regulatory power.

How about "Electronic cigarettes should be regulated neither as tobacco nor a drug delivery device, but as a reduced harm tobacco alternative."

The proposed thesis is wrong because tobacco companies don't regulate anything and because FDA has and will continue regulating e-cigarettes, either by continuing to try banning e-cigarettes by regulating them as drug devices under the FDCA, or by promulgating regulations for e-cigarettes as tobacco products under the FSPTCA.

The latter option is the only practical and realistic solution to keep e-cigarette legally accessible and affordable.

Yeah, my thesis wasn't the best, I agree...It worked for the moment, though. Initially, my teacher wouldn't allow me to do the paper on this topic as "smoking" was on her topic blacklist. Once I explained to her that it wasn't going to be another paper on "why smoking should/not be banned in certain areas" or another one of those "tobacco kills people and we should stop it" papers, she allowed me to do it because I'm wanting my paper to focus more on the legal/ethical standpoints. Namely the notion that taking away our e-cigs is about the same as denying obese people the privilege to buy gym memberships, at least that's how I see it.

Here's what I'm struggling with: where the paper will get it's strong points. Ideally, I would like to make it (A) show that regulation is purely a scapegoat for the fact that BT/BP/BG are simply trying to hold control over the market, and thus control over their incomes...As I understand it, they're all in bed with one another, and more vapers = less tobacco sold = job cuts at ALA, ASH, PMUSA, hospitals, pharma companies, etc...Oh, and let's not forget that our states are relying on smokers' habits to be the crutch that holds up the flailing economy, putting inexorbitant taxes on tobacco to fill their budget gaps and preserve slush funds.

Or maybe I'm simply not educated enough, and this is just how I see it. Either way, I'm looking to learn a lot while doing this paper. Even though it is a research paper, there is room for the writer's voice. While my voice might not be any kind of loud, at least it would be one more voice being heard.

Oh, before I forget...Thanks for helping clarify my thesis!!! At least now I have something more viable to work with!!

In this thread, Response #3, I tried to give an overview of the court case that will decide which way the FDA regulates the products. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...at-up-coming-case-between-fda-ecig-about.html

I suggest that you read through the Opinion document that was issued by U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Leon. It describes the legal arguments as proposed by each party and then as viewed by the Judge.

FDA said "It's a drug-delivery device; we will regulate it under Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act." SE & NJOY said, "It isn't intended to treat a disease. It's a smoking replacement." The Judge said, "FDA. if you want to regulate it, do so under the Tobacco Act." (Note: These are not direct quotes. They are how I view the positions of each party.)

http://www.casaa.org/files/SE-vs-FDA-Opinion.pdf

Hmmmmmm, that should come in quite handy!!!! I can't think of too many things that hold more credibility than legal proceedings!

If you were my child, I'd buy you a car.

Niiiiice!

 

[rothenbj]

Additionally, Big Tobacco has no legally recognized regulatory power.

How about "Electronic cigarettes should be regulated neither as tobacco nor a drug delivery device, but as a reduced harm tobacco alternative."

Smitty, you have a tough argument based on your thesis premise. I'd suggest reworking the title. I think Kristin's idea is good if you take "reduced harm tobacco alternative" to mean what it says rather than the definition that the FDA has yet to come up with. Right now they are just words that may get translated into something different as FDA formulates a process. A good read on the topic follows-

dr-lars-erik-rutqvist-of-swedish-match-ab-phase-iii-clinical-trials-on-swedish-snus-began-in-2008 | Larry Waters Reports!

Match is running phase III clinical trials on their Swedish snus without knowing what will actually be required and they may not know for a couple more years. E cigs are certainly a smoking alternative, probably harm reduction from smoking cigarettes (oh so political), but the government gives so few options on how they can be designated.

As much as I hate to concede it, the FDA will control this product one way or the other. From our standpoint, we need the tobacco rather than drug designation. Then the battle comes down to nicotine content which really makes this product for a lot of people.

You've been given a lot of great links to develop your paper from, you just have to get your original premise structured so that it makes sense. Good luck!

 

[100thMonkey]

I've been thinking this afternoon about the import of such a paper. I wonder if there have been any dissertations done on the subject, any journal publications or peer reviews.

The most salient of arguments for me lies in the gigantic quit rate (for lack of a better term) of the vaping community. It might be helpful to draw up a questionnaire that this community (which is immense) could contribute to. Keeping it very clinical. I.e., How many years did you smoke? How many times have you tried to quit? What methods have you used to quit? Why did you consider them unsuccessful?...From this, perhaps you could glean what the real issues are. I primarily quit cigs because I was sick of paying $7 a pack. I was resigned that I'd probably be smoking all my life because the quits didn't stick. Now, I don't want them at all. My story is echoed throughout the others here.

There may be some gold in identifying and then refuting each of the claims being made of why PVs should be controlled, banned, or limited.

If it is possible to tease out the motivations of the FDA, BT, etc., you are taking on a large, mysterious area and perhaps causing yourself to get into a controversy that outweighs the scope of this paper, witness Thulium's statement, "Strictly speaking, FDA does not have any 'profits'..." Government agencies being the murky institutions they are, one could find oneself devoting their life to such a question and still not answering it. However, I think that this investigation has terrific merit because it is the bottom-line question of everyone: "Why do they want to take away something that is saving our lives?"

I'm thinking right now that this is a similar argument to "Who killed the Electric Car?"

I'm glad you're doing this, it will help many of us clarify our own arguments.

Blessings.

 

[scheherezade]

I did a paper and presentation on the same subject last semester. I used figures from tax profits, i.e. going to CHIP (which is already facing a shortfall and uses money from cig taxes to fund it) as well as reported revenue from pharmaceutical quitting aids(non-effective, therefore repeat customers, dangerous, esp. when compared to reducing risk by switching to e-cigs, etc.) to prove a financial conflict with consumers switching to ecigs. There was quite a bit of other info I used as well, but those things may get you started with the money issue you're working on. By the way, mine was a position paper as well, got an A, but I'm actually still working on it as it was more than just a paper to me. Probably the same for you as well. PM me if you need anything. I'll help if I can. Almost forgot, take a look at who is on the FDA advisory board, you'll find it interesting.

 

[bassnut]

I've been thinking this afternoon about the import of such a paper. I wonder if there have been any dissertations done on the subject, any journal publications or peer reviews.

Dr. Michael Siegel comments a lot in his blog The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary.

He writes a lot about "E-cigarettes". He supports them.
Use the search box in the far upper right at his blog.
He's on the FDA Tobacco Advisory Shadow Panel.

an alternative scientific panel on tobacco control aimed at producing more effective ways to reduce the health and economic impact of smoking than the FDA's scientific advisory panel on tobacco.

Quoted from here.

 

[Vocalek]

I've been thinking this afternoon about the import of such a paper. I wonder if there have been any dissertations done on the subject, any journal publications or peer reviews.

The most salient of arguments for me lies in the gigantic quit rate (for lack of a better term) of the vaping community. It might be helpful to draw up a questionnaire that this community (which is immense) could contribute to. Keeping it very clinical. I.e., How many years did you smoke? How many times have you tried to quit? What methods have you used to quit? Why did you consider them unsuccessful?...From this, perhaps you could glean what the real issues are. I primarily quit cigs because I was sick of paying $7 a pack. I was resigned that I'd probably be smoking all my life because the quits didn't stick. Now, I don't want them at all. My story is echoed throughout the others here.

Some of these questions were answered in the CASAA survey that Kristin wrote. Results can be viewed here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=HrpzL8PN5cP366RWhWvCTjggiZM_2b8yQJHfwE9UXRNhE_3d

In the survey conducted by the Tobacco Harm Reduction organization, all surveyed were previous smokers, and 91% had made previous quit attempts with 44% trying 4-9 times and 21% trying 10 or more times. (Publsihed in Tobacco Harm Reduction Yearbook 2010)
http://tobaccoharmreduction.org/wpapers/011v1.pdf

NJOY surveyed users as well.
NJOY Survey Identifies Who Uses Electronic Cigarettes and Why | Reuters

Etter surveyed users from 3 European Countries:
BioMed Central | Full text | Electronic cigarettes: a survey of users

 

[100thMonkey]

Thank you bassnut for the Michael Siegel links. I really like the guy!

And Vocalek, that was exactly what I was looking for and absolutely fascinating! Thank you so much.

 

[Vocalek]

Thank you bassnut for the Michael Siegel links. I really like the guy!

And Vocalek, that was exactly what I was looking for and absolutely fascinating! Thank you so much.

You're welcome Monk. I should mention that at the same time the CASAA survey was seeking responses, J.F. Etter was conducting a follow-on survey looking to get 1500 responses. Most folks took both surveys, so he should have received over 2000 initial responses. We look forward to publication of his second set of results.

 

[0smitty]

Sweet, data like this is exactly what I'm looking for. I have to rework my thesis statement once I've outlined the body of the paper, however it looks like I'm on the right track now!