Legislation would prohibit electronic cigarettes.

[Traver]

Not a big site but you can comment without registering.

The councilman added he wanted the electronic cigarettes banned from being smoked in the same locations regular cigarettes were banned because they could be emitting harmful chemicals.

Vallone legislation would prohibit electronic cigarettes > YourNabe.com > Queens

 

[DC2]

I finally made a comment that I like without letting my anger get the better of me...

Every time someone wants to ban anything related to electronic cigarettes we always hear the same old garbage from them... we don't know what's in them... think of the children... the FDA says they are dangerous... but it's all just blah, blah, blah.

We DO know what is in them: Propylene glycol and/or vegetable glycerin, a bit of water, optional nicotine, and FDA approved flavorings.

As for the children, these are products for committed adult smokers who have tried everything to quit and could not do so. There is no evidence that children or teens are in any way attracted to electronic cigarettes. The startup costs and the maintenance involved would deter them should they ever have any interest, and certainly it is an activity would be very difficult to hide with all the charging of batteries, packages arriving in the mail, and bottles of juice lying around.

As far as the FDA saying they are dangerous, this study by Dr. Michael Siegel of the Boston University School of Public Heath shows why the distortion of the truth by the FDA has made their words more dangerous than electronic cigarettes will ever be: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-institutes/population-development/files/article.jphp.pdf

 

[Rosco]

`

 

[Traver]

FDA saying they are dangerous

I am pretty sure the FDA never said they are dangerous. What they said is they don't know if they are safe. A very different thing. Anyway nice comment.

 

[DC2]

I am pretty sure the FDA never said they are dangerous. What they said is they don't know if they are safe. A very different thing. Anyway nice comment.

True, they have only implied that they are dangerous.
And the media are the folks that ran with it.

 

[Our House]

No, the FDA never said they were dangerous.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration today announced that a laboratory analysis of electronic cigarette samples has found that they contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze.

...

The FDA’s Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis analyzed the ingredients in a small sample of cartridges from two leading brands of electronic cigarettes. In one sample, the FDA’s analyses detected diethylene glycol, a chemical used in antifreeze that is toxic to humans, and in several other samples, the FDA analyses detected carcinogens, including nitrosamines. These tests indicate that these products contained detectable levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals to which users could potentially be exposed.

Source: FDA and Public Health Experts Warn About Electronic Cigarettes

Seems like a tad bit more than an implication.

 

[DC2]

Seems like a tad bit more than an implication.

Yeah, that is a bit more than an implication.

My bad.

 

[The Duke]

It's great you don't have to register to leave a comment, left my 2 cents.

 

[Nicko]

I left a comment saying that hysterical nonsense is more fashionable than common sense logical thinking.

On this forum we often refer to anti-smoking/anti-vaping zealots. Surely BIGOTS would be a more appropriate word.

 

[Traver]

No, the FDA never said they were dangerous.

Source: FDA and Public Health Experts Warn About Electronic Cigarettes

Seems like a tad bit more than an implication.

Detectable levels of anything does not mean dangerous. They also found nicotine a deadly poison but we vape every it day.

 

[Our House]

Detectable levels of anything does not mean dangerous.

Toxins and carcinogens must be at toxic or carcinogenic levels - not detectable levels - to be dangerous. The levels were well below that. FDA misreported (lied about) the results of its "study" to the general public to make ecigs seem dangerous. This goes well beyond implying danger.

 

[Who_Wants_To_Know]

Traveler. I appreciate your logical viewing of what the FDA says. However you are not seeing the implications behind it. This is stated in a way and for to incite fear and hatred. It does not matter that the word Dangerous was not used or detectable levels may not mean dangerous.

Most people and news outlets will see it that way.

"Oh my go you're going to die." Sell more papers and get more site hits than "These things have a few bad things in them, but nothing at an alarming level." The truth is not really important.

People react with extremes. Look around and you will see it. Everything has to be BIG and NOW! Nothing can take time, or be subtle any more. It's all or nothing in peoples minds. People are not going to take the time to look at things unless they have a real interest in them. That goes for reporters too.

The FDA knew that would be the reaction and it's the reaction they want.

 

[JWebb]

Traver, interesting article, just shows they (media and politicians) will always go on the attack against e-cigs and say whatever they want without regard to the facts.

 

[DC2]

The FDA knew that would be the reaction and it's the reaction they want.

I think we can all agree on that one.

 

[Our House]

To this day, I still don't see how the FDA was able to get a way with that. The nation's leading public health agency knowingly making a dishonest public statement with the intention of misdirecting people away from being healthier.

Is there nobody in charge of keeping the FDA in check? Whoever was responsible for that press release should be in jail right now.

 

[DC2]

Whoever was responsible for that press release should be in jail right now.

Hard to deny that, even considering the implications of jailing FDA employees.

It was, and is a crime, and a very serious one.
I'm not sure how it can be seen in any other way.

 

[Traver]

Traveler. I appreciate your logical viewing of what the FDA says. However you are not seeing the implications behind it. This is stated in a way and for to incite fear and hatred. It does not matter that the word Dangerous was not used or detectable levels may not mean dangerous.

Most people and news outlets will see it that way.

"Oh my go you're going to die." Sell more papers and get more site hits than "These things have a few bad things in them, but nothing at an alarming level." The truth is not really important.

People react with extremes. Look around and you will see it. Everything has to be BIG and NOW! Nothing can take time, or be subtle any more. It's all or nothing in peoples minds. People are not going to take the time to look at things unless they have a real interest in them. That goes for reporters too.

The FDA knew that would be the reaction and it's the reaction they want.

Absolutely right, the FDA is very careful about how it words these things. They manage to say nothing meaningful and at the same time make sound like something dangerous. I reply to a lot of these articles whenever they allow comments. What I am trying to do is find ways to use their own words and research against them and still be factually correct.

 

[Eddie.Willers]

I URGE all ECF members to visit the site mentioned and leave their comments.
I posted a criticism of the need for pols to get involved without understanding the facts.

 

[the_maiden_fair]

I left my 2 cents. I don't know if it will help with their ignorance, it's like fighting with an idiot, they bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

 

[Vocalek]

To this day, I still don't see how the FDA was able to get a way with that. The nation's leading public health agency knowingly making a dishonest public statement with the intention of misdirecting people away from being healthier.

Is there nobody in charge of keeping the FDA in check? Whoever was responsible for that press release should be in jail right now.

His name is Joshua Sharfstein. He has left the FDA and now is in charge of the Maryland state Department of Health. (Sorry Maryland). And I agree with you. What the man did is despicable. He may have believed that he was "helping us" by failing to tell the whole truth (which qualifies as perjury in a court of law). Perhaps he was under the delusion that if he can dissuade smokers from switching to less harmful alternatives they will "quit completely" (i.e. become abstinent from nicotine) tomorrow or the next day.

However, in my book, "the end justifies the means" doesn't cut it as an excuse--especially when the end turns out to be something quite different from his fantasies. Millions of smokers, convinced that smoking is safer than e-cigarettes, have continued to damage their lungs, cardiovascular system, and DNA. And they owe it all to Mr. Sharfstein.