You are absolutely right TB. Time for me to work in a different letter focusing on the concerns that they expressed.
Stephanie
- Status
Stephanie
TB...Choking hazard...really? They aren't the FDA, and should support anything that has a chance to reduce cases of cancer. I'd go as far as to say that they should help fund the tests needed to gain FDA approval. What a great way for them to spend their money...reducing cancer.
The reason there is a failure to communicate is because we aren't speaking the language of money and power.
The reason there is a failure to communicate is because we aren't speaking the language of money and power.
Where did I post on this thread anything about a choking hazard? I'm missing that reference. No, the cancer society should not be concerned about that aspect of e-smoking. I did post about the choking hazard in a thread about a new tiny French e-cigarette. And that's no small matter to many.
Edit: I found it. Page one. That's the cancer society speaking the truth. It is a hazard, just shouldn't be a big concern for a cancer agency.
Edit: I found it. Page one. That's the cancer society speaking the truth. It is a hazard, just shouldn't be a big concern for a cancer agency.
Last edited:
choking hazard easily resolved with blister packs. Then, in theory, they wouldnt be a hazard until used and then theyre attached to the atomizer. And, should be of no concern to the cancer society.
The real issue, imho, is that they dont want cancer deaths to drop because that'd mean a reduction of funding. Just like the govt doesnt really want smokers to quit because of the tax money theyd lose.
The real issue, imho, is that they dont want cancer deaths to drop because that'd mean a reduction of funding. Just like the govt doesnt really want smokers to quit because of the tax money theyd lose.
Sorry, I should have quoted the what I was looking at when I responded.
This is all I saw in my head:
ACS said:
bob said:
I think that their response was far from reasoned. If a product isn't for children, than there is no concern as to whether or not it's a choking hazard (especially the ACS's which you do concede). To me it looks like they have a nice little shell game where the ACS applauds a Senator for pushing the FDA to comment, and then the ACS points to the FDA's comment to back their position.
I wish that I could share your optimism that a polite and intelligent campaign will change things, but I don't think anything will change unless someone with money and/or power is publicly embarrassed. I hope you're right, but judging by the ACS's weak arguments I don't think reason has much to do with their positions.
I disagree that the ACS reasons are in any way invalid. All seem valid to me. Frankly, I could list many more even more valid ones.
But you might be right about this being a done deal. It was funny to me to see my position characterized as optimistic. I'm usually portrayed as "doom and gloom" for simply stating the reality instead of some "hope".
Personally, I don't expect the FDA to suddenly have a change of mind. I don't expect an anti-tobacco senator to say "I overreached this time, people." I don't expect four of this country's major health organizations to admit they were on the wrong side of this. And no one expects support for e-smoking from Big Pharma or Big Tobacco. Laughable.
That means the ban on selling or importing will continue and my bet continues to be that the ban will a total one, devices and liquid, until an application for "new" status is submitted and approved. Even if the advertised use of a device is non-nicotine. That will fool no one. It's still to treat nicotine addiction, the FDA will say. Why else would anyone puff vapor?
It might be a long wait.
But you might be right about this being a done deal. It was funny to me to see my position characterized as optimistic. I'm usually portrayed as "doom and gloom" for simply stating the reality instead of some "hope".
Personally, I don't expect the FDA to suddenly have a change of mind. I don't expect an anti-tobacco senator to say "I overreached this time, people." I don't expect four of this country's major health organizations to admit they were on the wrong side of this. And no one expects support for e-smoking from Big Pharma or Big Tobacco. Laughable.
That means the ban on selling or importing will continue and my bet continues to be that the ban will a total one, devices and liquid, until an application for "new" status is submitted and approved. Even if the advertised use of a device is non-nicotine. That will fool no one. It's still to treat nicotine addiction, the FDA will say. Why else would anyone puff vapor?
It might be a long wait.
I've got a question. So the FDA is currently stopping some imports, and is stating that selling the devices is not legal under 505. Why haven't the mall kiosks and internet suppliers been shut down? Have any sellers received a cease-and-desist notice, or had their merchandise confiscated or anything? I'm just curious if any action besides a few customs blocks has been taken.
Actually to add to my own post, the really big question is what happens when someone says 'no', I'm not going to stop selling. What agency do they send to enforce? The FDA cops? The DEA? Local police? Or do you just instantly owe money in the form of fines that you have no way of contesting? I'm curious how all this is going to go down once all the talking is done and enforcement starts.
+1
I have been saying the same thing.
While the FDA & Co have stated that it is 'case-by-case' or 'device-by-device' and claims based -- why HAVEN'T they locked down SE? They are the most visible and also the worst offenders afterall...
Here's my reponse from the acs. Sounds like all of the others
Dear Stephanie,
Congratulations on your success at quitting smoking. Thank you for sharing your
concerns about the American Cancer Society's stance on electronic cigarettes.
We're sorry to lose your support. Your comments have been forwarded to the
appropriate staff member for consideration.
According to the Society's online information about electronic cigarettes, the
electronic cigarette, or e-cigarette, is sold with cartridges of nicotine and
flavorings. Several brands and varieties of the e-cigarette are now sold in the
US. Here, the e-cigarette is usually sold as a way to get nicotine in places
where smoking is not allowed, although some may sell it as a way to quit
smoking. The cartridges are sold in different doses of nicotine, from high doses
to no nicotine at all.
The e-cigarette has no published clinical trials that suggest it might work as a
way to help smokers quit. No clinical trials have been submitted to the FDA. As
of early 2009, the FDA has not ruled as to whether e-cigarettes are medical
devices but it is investigating. There may also be questions about how safe it
is to inhale some of the flavorings and other substances in the nicotine mists
into the lungs. Even substances that are safe to eat can harm delicate tissues
inside the lungs.
The inforamation above was taken from the following link on our website:
ACS :: Guide to Quitting Smoking
Thank you for contacting your American Cancer Society.
Anne
Online Cancer Information Specialist
Dear Stephanie,
Congratulations on your success at quitting smoking. Thank you for sharing your
concerns about the American Cancer Society's stance on electronic cigarettes.
We're sorry to lose your support. Your comments have been forwarded to the
appropriate staff member for consideration.
According to the Society's online information about electronic cigarettes, the
electronic cigarette, or e-cigarette, is sold with cartridges of nicotine and
flavorings. Several brands and varieties of the e-cigarette are now sold in the
US. Here, the e-cigarette is usually sold as a way to get nicotine in places
where smoking is not allowed, although some may sell it as a way to quit
smoking. The cartridges are sold in different doses of nicotine, from high doses
to no nicotine at all.
The e-cigarette has no published clinical trials that suggest it might work as a
way to help smokers quit. No clinical trials have been submitted to the FDA. As
of early 2009, the FDA has not ruled as to whether e-cigarettes are medical
devices but it is investigating. There may also be questions about how safe it
is to inhale some of the flavorings and other substances in the nicotine mists
into the lungs. Even substances that are safe to eat can harm delicate tissues
inside the lungs.
The inforamation above was taken from the following link on our website:
ACS :: Guide to Quitting Smoking
Thank you for contacting your American Cancer Society.
Anne
Online Cancer Information Specialist
It looks like they may actually be reading the letters...probably more so than the politicians involved. They seem to be getting more specific with each letter. Is there any chance that one of you who has tried and failed with the 5 FDA approved types of NRT's could write to the ACS? Let them know that none of the 5 NRT's have worked for you, and that e-cigs have. And then ask for their official recommendation as to whether you should continue with the e-cig, or switch back to tobacco.
These are the 5 FDA approved NRT's cited on the ACS's website:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_13X_Guide_for_Quitting_Smoking.asp?sitearea=PED
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved 5 types of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT):
Nicotine patches (transdermal nicotine systems):
Nicotine gum (nicotine polacrilex):
Nicotine nasal spray:
Nicotine inhalers:
Nicotine lozenges:
I would do it, but I've never tried any of those and have only tried cold turkey before e-cigs.
And maybe also inquire as to how they can mention combining NRT's as an option (when it's not FDA approved), but demonize e-cigs:
These are the 5 FDA approved NRT's cited on the ACS's website:
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_13X_Guide_for_Quitting_Smoking.asp?sitearea=PED
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved 5 types of nicotine replacement therapy (NRT):
Nicotine patches (transdermal nicotine systems):
Nicotine gum (nicotine polacrilex):
Nicotine nasal spray:
Nicotine inhalers:
Nicotine lozenges:
I would do it, but I've never tried any of those and have only tried cold turkey before e-cigs.
And maybe also inquire as to how they can mention combining NRT's as an option (when it's not FDA approved), but demonize e-cigs:
Last edited:
Good Letter, Duck! Thank you for sharing. I'm preparing several generic letters to send to these groups as well as politicians.
I guess it would soon make them think again if 'every' smoker said they will never make another contribution to the cancer society. .....I have always popped some money into collection boxes.
I truly fail to understand how a nicotine inhaler is safer then a vape. And nasal spray? I must've missed that one.
Quote:..Here, the e-cigarette is usually sold as a way to get nicotine in places
where smoking is not allowed.
They word that in a way to sound like it's doing something wrong ....would they also say ...'the nicotine Patch is a way to get nicotine into places where smoking isn't allowed as well??
where smoking is not allowed.
They word that in a way to sound like it's doing something wrong ....would they also say ...'the nicotine Patch is a way to get nicotine into places where smoking isn't allowed as well??
Because the nicotine inhaler contains practically nothing. Sucking on it the way they suggest will exhaust you before you get any kind of nicotine and leave you just wanting a cigarette. Aeros made a better version using real pressed tobacco, but it's still not as good as an e-cig. I can't possibly see the nasal spray being any safer than the e-cig either (at least not if we're talking about getting overdosed on nic).
JamesD
Not sure. I started out my letter stating that I would no longer support them in anyway. Maybe if more and more people state that, they might listen. Who knows
Stephanie
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
