Missouri SB841 - Minor Sales Ban - UPDATE 9/11/14

[BuGlen]

Just saw in the news today that Gov. Nixon's veto has been overturned by the state senate:
Senators vote to ban selling e-cigarettes to minors | FOX2now.com

Nixon says he vetoed the bill because it also would exempt e-cigarettes from being taxed or regulated as tobacco products.

Probably the best reason to overturn this veto, and I hope it sends a message to other governors.

 

[JustJulie]

Much of the credit goes to BRAVE (Bistate Regional Advocates for vaping Education). CASAA issued the Call to Action, but it was the folks at BRAVE who got locals activated and participating. And, of course, AVA offered an assist as well, putting out two press releases. The success in Missouri was definitely a team win.


Advocacy Group Praises Legislature for Override of E-Cig Veto  - Bistate Regional Advocates for Vaping Education

 

[Bill Godshall]

Missouri Senate and House override Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto of bill (SB 841) to ban sale of “alternative nicotine products” and “vapor products” to youth
SB841 - Modifies provisions relating to alternative nicotine or vapor products
Actions

 

[Bill Godshall]

A news article
Missouri lawmakers ban e-cigarette sales to teens : News

 

[DrMA]

Excellent news! Well done Missouri!

 

[Lisa Belle]

Great Work Everyone! WTG

 

[sonicdsl]

 

[Krashman Von Stinkputin]

Jay Nixon: Rabbit Season!

MO Legislature: DUCK SEASON!!!

 

[DrMA]

Great post by Dr. Siegel on this topic: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/09/anti-smoking-groups-reveal-real-reason.html

Isn't it interesting that BT no longer has to lobby govt to protect its cigarette sales? Self-appointed "public health" groups mooching off TMSA and tobacco tax money are doing this job for BT. Essentially, all BT has to do is sit back and watch how TMSA has transformed the entire tobacco control industry into BT lobbyists with a powerful financial motive to maintain the status quo of the combustible cigarette market. BT must be enjoying the enormous savings it accrues from no longer needing to pay for advertising and lobbying.

 

[Nate760]

Great post by Dr. Siegel on this topic: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/09/anti-smoking-groups-reveal-real-reason.html

Isn't it interesting that BT no longer has to lobby govt to protect its cigarette sales? Self-appointed "public health" groups mooching off TMSA and tobacco tax money are doing this job for BT. Essentially, all BT has to do is sit back and watch how TMSA has transformed the entire tobacco control industry into BT lobbyists with a powerful financial motive to maintain the status quo of the combustible cigarette market. BT must be enjoying the enormous savings it accrues from no longer needing to pay for advertising and lobbying.

One of the core principles of journalism (and law, and science, among other things) is that if you have a direct conflict of interest on a subject, you're supposed to either self-report the conflict or recuse yourself from involvement in the matter at hand. Funny how nobody in tobacco control seems to have gotten that memo.

 

[Kent C]

One of the core principles of journalism (and law, and science, among other things) is that if you have a direct conflict of interest on a subject, you're supposed to either self-report the conflict or recuse yourself from involvement in the matter at hand. Funny how nobody in tobacco control seems to have gotten that memo.

Neither has anyone in journalism

 

[DrMA]

One of the core principles of journalism (and law, and science, among other things) is that if you have a direct conflict of interest on a subject, you're supposed to either self-report the conflict or recuse yourself from involvement in the matter at hand. Funny how nobody in tobacco control seems to have gotten that memo.

That's correct, and the main reason why I wrote to FDA that all research from tobacco control is fatally and irreparably conflicted in terms of providing regulatory guidance in general on any topic, but in particular their input on ecigs must be entirely dismissed:

«I am attaching a list of known researchers who are fatally conflicted, have a proven track record of prejudice and scientific misconduct, and should not be allowed to participate in any decision-making process regarding ecigs (Attachment 1). Any publication or comment concerning ecigs authored or co-authored by any of these conflicted researchers should be summarily dismissed as “suspect” and “untrustworthy”. In addition, no further public funding should be awarded to researchers in Attachment 1 or their research groups.»

Attachment 1 - Fatally and irreconcilably conflicted researchers

 

[Bill Godshall]

Big Pharma shills ACS, AHA, ALA and Gov. Nixon’s Tobacco-Free Missouri keep lying about the new MO law banning e-cig sales to minors and about FDA’s proposed deeming regulation, Godshall posts comment delineating many of their false claims.
Missouri


Per DrMA's list of conflicted tobacco controllers, I know about half the folks on that list, and agree that they have irreconcilable conflicts of interest.

I also know an additional 100 or so tobacco controllers who have irreconcilable conflicts of interest (who aren't on the list).

How did you develop the list, and what criteria did you use? It would be helpful if their conflicts of interest were listed under each name.

 

[Nate760]

I suspect the real challenge would be finding any prominent voice in the ANTZ camp who isn't fatally and irreconcilably conflicted.

 

[DrMA]

Big Pharma shills ACS, AHA, ALA and Gov. Nixon’s Tobacco-Free Missouri keep lying about the new MO law banning e-cig sales to minors and about FDA’s proposed deeming regulation, Godshall posts comment delineating many of their false claims.
Missouri


Per DrMA's list of conflicted tobacco controllers, I know about half the folks on that list, and agree that they have irreconcilable conflicts of interest.

I also know an additional 100 or so tobacco controllers who have irreconcilable conflicts of interest (who aren't on the list).

How did you develop the list, and what criteria did you use? It would be helpful if their conflicts of interest were listed under each name.

The list represents the 129 signatories of the glANTZ letter to WHO, a letter rife with lies, misinformation, misrepresentation, and propaganda. This was my attempt to turn their own weapon against them.

IMHO, the main conflict of interest these guys have, which could be listed under each name, is the fact that they are tobacco control (TCI), and, as such, have a massive vested interest in continued, large-scale smoking world-wide. By fabricating junk science, lies, and misinformation regarding THR, all the people on the list have repeatedly and irrefutably demonstrated that they are pursuing their own financial interests at the expense of public health and that the continuation of smoking and the protection of tobacco industry dominance is their sole purpose.

Don't get this wrong: being an anti-smoking advocate is not what constitutes COI. Rather, membership in TCI + demonstrated track record of prejudice and scientific misconduct are the necessary and sufficient criteria to add names to this list.

Otherwise, I think we should pursue Bill G.'s excellent idea and:

1. add the additional "100 or so" names to the list
2. document all their conflicts of interest

Then, we could publish the list in any media that would have it preceded by a statement like this.

 

[Bill Godshall]

DrMA wrote

IMHO, the main conflict of interest these guys have, which could be listed under each name, is the fact that they are tobacco control (TCI), and, as such, have a massive vested interest in continued, large-scale smoking world-wide. By fabricating junk science, lies, and misinformation regarding THR, all the people on the list have repeatedly and irrefutably demonstrated that they are pursuing their own financial interests at the expense of public health and that the continuation of smoking and the protection of tobacco industry dominance is their sole purpose.

While all of those folks are clearly pursuing their own financial goals (i.e. keeping their jobs and/or getting even more government or Big Pharma funding), its also pretty clear to me that most of those folks have individually and collectively deluded (and reinforced) themselves to believe that their propaganda and lobbying campaigns to ban e-cig sales and vaping can or might reduce cigarette smoking.

Only a few of those folks has even a basic understanding of economics and markets (including tobacco markets), and they refuse to consider evidence that is inconsistent with their deeply held ideological abstinence-only "quit or die" beliefs.

 

[Nate760]

While all of those folks are clearly pursuing their own financial goals (i.e. keeping their jobs and/or getting even more government or Big Pharma funding), its also pretty clear to me that most of those folks have individually and collectively deluded (and reinforced) themselves to believe that their propaganda and lobbying campaigns to ban e-cig sales and vaping can or might reduce cigarette smoking.

This, in my view, is the most troublesome part of the whole equation. While the people at the upper echelon of tobacco control probably know full well what they're doing (subverting their stated mission in favor of preserving their funding), I think the majority of their rank and file are still operating with the proverbial wool pulled over their eyes; honorable people with honorable intentions and noble motives who actually believe they're working in service of an effort that will (and wants to) reduce smoking-related morbidity and mortality.

 

[DrMA]

Bill G wrote

deluded (and reinforced) themselves to believe that their propaganda and lobbying campaigns to ban e-cig sales and vaping can or might reduce cigarette smoking.

Whether that's true or not, it does not excuse academic misconduct, manufacturing of junk science, and lying to the public. Any real scientist with a genuine interest in public health would question their deepest held beliefs when faced with the mountain of evidence regarding the safety of ecigs and the usage stats coming out from ASH and CDC. But no, these ANTZ lie, distort, and manufacture junk science in an attempt to bury the reality and pursue their prejudiced and conflicted position.

There was a time in the early days (ca 2009) when I would've believed that the ANTZ stance comes from incompetence and misunderstanding from people who are otherwise acting in good faith (that would've been gross negligence). But now, the evidence to the contrary is too great and the conclusion has to be that ANTZ are maliciously pursuing an agenda they know is contrary to public health (this is criminal negligence).

In the final analysis, whether ANTZ are grossly negligent or criminally negligent is irrelevant. The fact remains they have no business influencing regulatory decision-making.

 

[Nate760]

In the final analysis, whether ANTZ are grossly negligent or criminally negligent is irrelevant. The fact remains they have no business influencing regulatory decision-making.

Agreed, and this is why an urgent need exists to establish a public health infrastructure that is independent of anyone's political whims and cannot be used as an ideological plaything. People's lives are at stake here.

 

[DrMA]

Agreed, and this is why an urgent need exists to establish a public health infrastructure that is independent of anyone's political whims and cannot be used as an ideological plaything. People's lives are at stake here.

LOL. This planet you speak of hasn't been discovered yet. And even if it has, there's no way to get there.