Institute of Medicine committee report on Modified Risk Tobacco Products to be released today

Status
Not open for further replies.

eso

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
It seems to me that e-cigs will need it's oen 'label',being rolled into 'smokeless tobacco' category conjures a vision of a product that may appear to the uneducated as something that must be similar to dip/snuff etc. I truly think that this is yet one more example of a sudo-governmental gear that isn't going to turn without the money-grease to turn it.It's obvious to me that certain factions in govt. simply make and have always made far too much money out of big-tobacco to allow some orphan technology to threaten its existance....but,what do I know?
 

fumarole

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Nov 20, 2009
101
66
Essentially, you are right. Smokers are a vast money machine that fuels the economy and the health industry.

If you remain as a smoker, you will spend thousands of dollars with big tobacco. That also pays off lobbyists, politicians, and even medical researchers - due to the terms of the Master Settlement, money feeds down into universities, 'health' groups and clinical researchers.

If you remain a smoker, you will spend thousands of dollars with big pharma. You will try to quit, and fail, several times - spending hundreds of dollars on quit-smoking drugs, and maybe consulting a doctor once or twice in the process. Then, when you get sick, thousands of dollars will be spent on your treatment: hundreds of dollars on chemotherapy drugs, hundreds of dollars on doctor's fees, hundreds of dollars on hospital or clinic fees, hundreds of dollars on equipment such as oxygen, masks, gloves, and more.

As a smoker you personally, and those paying on your behalf, will certainly pay thousands to BT and about a one in two chance you will pay thousands to BP and the health industry.

But if you switch to an e-cigarette, all that money is lost to BT and BP. You won't buy tobacco, and you won't get sick - or perhaps you will have a thousandth of the chance of getting sick, and it won't include cancer and therefore the expensive and protracted cancer treatments.

There is always the chance you might try Snus, or that BT will get into e-cigarettes, and those two options are going to be about the only money-spinners for BT in the future. So by and large they have shut up about e-cigs and other alternatives like smokeless tobacco.

But agonisingly painful times are ahead for Big Pharma - people won't be stupid enough to buy their useless quit-smoking drugs when something far better, that actually works, is widely available. When you can pick up an e-cig or refills with your bread and milk, why pay for something that has a 98% chance of failure?

And when you don't get sick, they lose thousands. Multiply that by several million e-cig users and you have a desperate situation for big pharma - they stand to lose billions of dollars. Quit-smoking treatments are a one billion dollar a year global industry. Treating sick smokers must run into several billions, and a substantial part of that income is under threat.

As a consequence BP have lied and suborned their way around the world in an attempt to kill off e-cigs. In the countries most vulnerable to corruption they have bought enough government staff to ban e-cigs. In countries with a little more resilience, there is a fight between the suborned officials and politicians, and the community plus medics who have not been bought. The health industry as a whole, and that includes government agencies in the health area, work to pharma's agenda because they pay the bills. What pharma wants, it gets, because billions of dollars says so.

They will kill you for a dollar in the blink of an eye. Only they actually get several thousand for killing you, so it's well worth it.
 
Last edited:

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
67
rolygate wrote:

I believe that Bill has pointed out above that e-cigarette vendors can legally make such claims, since the statutes that specifically prevent such claims do not yet apply - but most likely will soon.

I don't share rolly's pessimism, and I remain hopeful that Obama's advisors and DHHS Secretary Sabelious aren't stupid enough to let FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg propose a "deeming" regulation (even though the agency has previously stated its intent to do so) to apply Chapter IX to currently unregulated tobacco products.

But even if FDA proposes and then approves (after a public comment period) a "deeming" regulation for currently unregulated tobacco products, I've been informed that at least one major e-cigarette manufacturer is prepared to sue the FDA.

rolygate wrote:

However, making such claims would be foolish unless made from a position of strength. Note that a class action has been allowed in CA against Smoking Everywhere for making similar claims.

I disagree, and I encourage all e-cigarette companies to excercise their constitutional right (and recognize the human rights of smokers) to truthfully inform smokers that e-cigarettes are significantly less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.

The lawsuit in California is not related to FDA regulation, as that case cites a violation of California's counterproductive law (approved by voter referendum several decades ago) that requires fearmongering warnings on thousands of different products (not just e-cigs).
 

rolygate

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 24, 2009
8,354
12,405
ECF Towers
So it seems likely that if the FDA try to introduce a restriction then they will fail? That is good news.

In the matter of vendors making 'healthier' claims, they might need to be sure they could afford the consequences. Being right does not mean there is no cost to being in the right. This is why I said it may be better for community organizations to fight this battle.
 

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
67
More news clips on yesterday's IOM report

Bill Godshall: Institute of Medicine urges FDA to protect deadly cigarettes from market competition by far less hazardous smokefree tobacco alternatives.
Bill Godshall - Institute of Medicine report to FDA on Smokeless Tobacco an Outrage

Agency recommends tobacco companies use third-party researchers
Agency recommends tobacco companies use third-party researchers | JournalNow.com

Jacob Sullum: IOM Report Recommends That the FDA Continue Suppressing Lifesaving Information About Cigarette Alternatives
http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/14/iom-report-recommends-that-the-fda-conti

ACSH: More hurdles for tobacco harm reduction
More hurdles for tobacco harm reduction > Facts & Fears > ACSH

Titles of two news articles make false claims about e-cigarettes, as e-cigarettes aren't subject to MRTP regulations (or other Chapter IX provisions), since since forthcoming MRTP regulations would only apply to regulated tobacco products that submit MRTP applications, and since the IOM committee report didn't urge FDA to propose/approve a "deeming" regulation to apply Chapter IX provisions to e-cigarettes or other currently unregulated tobacco products.
Electronic Cigarette Makers Must Prove Safety of Products: Report - Yahoo! News
IOM Calls for Research on E-Cigs, Tobacco Lozenges.:.IMNG Oncology Report
 
Last edited:

dee5

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 8, 2009
1,565
379
Northwest Arkansas
I believe that Bill has pointed out above that e-cigarette vendors can legally make such claims, since the statutes that specifically prevent such claims do not yet apply - but most likely will soon.

However, making such claims would be foolish unless made from a position of strength. Note that a class action has been allowed in CA against Smoking Everywhere for making similar claims.

Members of the community, though, can make whatever claims they like, since they are unlikely to be held to account for them.

Roly, my sign doesn't say e-cigs are safer, it just says I'm not allowed to say they are. I think it would hold up in court, but maybe I'm naive.
 

Ande

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 27, 2011
648
407
Korea
Roly, my sign doesn't say e-cigs are safer, it just says I'm not allowed to say they are. I think it would hold up in court, but maybe I'm naive.

I loved your sign. :) I may have it printed on t-shirts. (But I am not a vendor, just a rather vocal user.)

As for standing up in court- I think intent can often be a key issue in legal findings. With your font sizes, one could argue that your intent is to make a health claim, or to confuse about health claims. (Hard to see what else you could meant it to cause)

So- at the moment I don't think a vendor could use it- might be a heck of an interesting court case if someone wants to spend the money, though...


Best,
Ande
 

VapApe

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 6, 2011
727
767
Ohio
Aaaah, intent. How about:

Due to FDA Regulations I cannot tell you that vaping is better for your health than smoking,
but I'd be happy to talk about the FDA! :lol:

(All in the same font size of course)

My only problem with this is, I have a hard time talking about the FDA with out using language that is not fit for polite company. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread