Surely we have some people in New York with a history of fighting cigarettes,but are supporting the smokefree cigarette as a lifesaving product. I am thinking of people with political backgrounds and medical backgrounds with good credentials. I would think the Health Committee would allow someone such as that to speak to them,and provide some actual data--a comparison of chemicals in cigarettes and smokefree cigarettes. There are also companies in the US producing their own liquid and testing each batch. I think of ESmoke in New Jersey and I am sure there are other companies producing liquid in the US. Kristin is this a possibility?
Nearing disaster in New York - please take action NOW to prevent e-cigarette ban.
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- halo revolution totally wicked
- Status
Adding to the made in the USA list.
Johnson Creek, Rathe juice, Viking.
I seems to remember that at one point barely any of them actually listed the ingredients.
However I notice now that Johnson Creek and Rathe provide an ingredient list on the bottles. Viking does not, or at least did not the last time I ordered.
Senator Antoine Thompson (60th Senate district: New York State Interactive Map | New York State Senate ) Chairs the Environmental Conservation Committee.
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
my input:There are indeed less hazardous alternatives to cigarette smoking, Mr. Thompson, the Chantix and all those big pharma,) but only and specifically an electronic cigarette keeps me from smoking 7 to 15 combustible cigarettes.
___________________________
Help NY and the United Kingdom!
Help stop the bans!
Last edited:
I'm glad they've at least taken the time to have their minions write back...but what a bunch of weaselly responses.
I agree.
Stay on top of it, people of New York.
They say contact me about further concerns and I'm sure there are plenty of concerns. Engaging in the legislation requires NewYorkers to keep working on it, don't stop. Maintain communication and someone please try to obtain invitation to attend, or have an attorney appear with you.
The hearings have been closed without invitation, but I have a feeling some legislators could gladly work on invitations.
Form letter -- it's identical to the one I got from him (except, of course, your name and address.)Here is the letter I received from Antoine Thompson.
Yes... if....
My bad!
Also here is a message I got from my Senator, Senator Alesi.
Just got it today...
Jay
I hope that they all don't rely on just ALLIGATIONS as the letter says..before any bill is passed ALL facts should be on the table, not just ALLIGATIONS. This is our biggest problem, that if they did their homework on the E-cig, it would be best...All studies, testings, Etc!!
They would find this is a better way to go than the cigarette or going back to them!!!!
Big money talks & I am sure that has alot to do with this bill!!
Last edited:
The interesting thing about that form letter from Thompson's office (and it is the same one we got in response to the CASAA letter sent end of March), is the little "ao" down at the bottom - indicating who actually wrote it. That would be Thompson's legislative policy director Alvin Ogar (I'm not sure how her first name is spelled, but I am sure about the last name).
She's the person we met with on Thursday, May 6th, one day after the latest of the letters shown here were sent. We all felt the meeting with her went excellently, and she really did not understand the issues until we met with her. It is to be hoped that now that we have educated her, she might potentially be an ally as this thing progresses, and that she will in turn educate Thompson, and talk to her counterparts in the other Senator's offices as she said she would do.
She's the person we met with on Thursday, May 6th, one day after the latest of the letters shown here were sent. We all felt the meeting with her went excellently, and she really did not understand the issues until we met with her. It is to be hoped that now that we have educated her, she might potentially be an ally as this thing progresses, and that she will in turn educate Thompson, and talk to her counterparts in the other Senator's offices as she said she would do.
Last edited:
uh-oh, something more than letters may be needed? I thought robot replies were limited to emails. (Half-joking only) I mean, I can understand that several people may write him about the same thing, but I doesn't the letter NOT reflect the post-Rosenthal crisis?
Anyway, he accepts further concerns from y'all, said he. And If he's glad for New Yorker's enganging in legislation, I say full spped ahead, vaper friends of NY! Go, go, go!
Anyway, he accepts further concerns from y'all, said he. And If he's glad for New Yorker's enganging in legislation, I say full spped ahead, vaper friends of NY! Go, go, go!
Absolutely, the answer to that is yes! New Yorkers need to call as well as write the Health Committee Senators, and they especially need to call their own Senator, whether on the Health Committee or not, and set up face-to-face meetings in their district offices. They are all in their home offices on Thursdays and Fridays (unless doing special sessions in Albany right now because of the budget not yet being passed).
If anyone gets a meeting and wants to know what documents should be printed out and brought to meetings, please just contact me and I can help with suggestions and links.
Anyone not in New York who is wanting to help, letters and faxes and calls can still be made. You can refer to relatives in NY, or doing business with NY, or whatever you can come up with to show your nexus with and concern for NY citizens with regard to this bill.
Ok, I've been thinkinking about the Alesi reply.
He's alarmed by the fact that the FDA has not approved ecigs.
Correct me as needed; I post this to clarify, and to share with those who may not understand, also.
Combustible tobacco cigarettes are not FDA approved, they are protected by the Congress against being outlawed.
The FDA tried to ruin electronic cigarettes for the U.S., and is very fiercely fighting and appealing, because the current ruling, as of today, puts ecigs in the cigarette category (which the FDA has not ultimate power to outlaw them.)
Thus the FDA cannot outlaw (or mess with) ecigs, (or cigarettes for that matter,) 'basically' speaking. So they're trying to conjure up the thought that they're not cigarettes, like it's something from Mars or something.
My tentative thought(s):
Therefore we need all legislators (even at the federal legislation, imo) to open their eyes and see that they're cigarettes. They're a thousand times better, in fact. If that's what we need, we need to keep it in mind then, and work on asking for the proper and simple addition of ecigs to the cigarette protection package of Congress. In Illinois, the current [fed.] ruling that they're cigarettes (basically speaking) was indeed brought up, and could also help in NY. If we can just keep the current ruling permanent, it would help the cigarettes in the U.S. to include the much safer electronic version.
SORRY, EDIT - ADD:
Sorry, I lost my train of thought. Ok. Alesi is alarmed that the FDA hasn't approved ecigs yet. BUt WE DON'T WANT THEM TO! Not only are they an untrustworthy agency half the time, but ecigs ARE cigarettes. They're cigarettes in reality, and luckily there IS a judge in touch with reality, so they're currently cigarettes, and that's why the FDA can't approve or fiddle with them any more.
To make the long story short:
I AM ALRMED THAT ALESI IS ALARMED!
He's alarmed by the fact that the FDA has not approved ecigs.
Correct me as needed; I post this to clarify, and to share with those who may not understand, also.
Combustible tobacco cigarettes are not FDA approved, they are protected by the Congress against being outlawed.
The FDA tried to ruin electronic cigarettes for the U.S., and is very fiercely fighting and appealing, because the current ruling, as of today, puts ecigs in the cigarette category (which the FDA has not ultimate power to outlaw them.)
Thus the FDA cannot outlaw (or mess with) ecigs, (or cigarettes for that matter,) 'basically' speaking. So they're trying to conjure up the thought that they're not cigarettes, like it's something from Mars or something.
My tentative thought(s):
Therefore we need all legislators (even at the federal legislation, imo) to open their eyes and see that they're cigarettes. They're a thousand times better, in fact. If that's what we need, we need to keep it in mind then, and work on asking for the proper and simple addition of ecigs to the cigarette protection package of Congress. In Illinois, the current [fed.] ruling that they're cigarettes (basically speaking) was indeed brought up, and could also help in NY. If we can just keep the current ruling permanent, it would help the cigarettes in the U.S. to include the much safer electronic version.
SORRY, EDIT - ADD:
Sorry, I lost my train of thought. Ok. Alesi is alarmed that the FDA hasn't approved ecigs yet. BUt WE DON'T WANT THEM TO! Not only are they an untrustworthy agency half the time, but ecigs ARE cigarettes. They're cigarettes in reality, and luckily there IS a judge in touch with reality, so they're currently cigarettes, and that's why the FDA can't approve or fiddle with them any more.
To make the long story short:
I AM ALRMED THAT ALESI IS ALARMED!
Last edited:
There is NO legal definition for e-cigarettes, however, the FDA has ruled them drug delivery devices for their own purposes and wants to treat them as such. That is what is being debated in the SE vs. FDA court case and why the AAPHP is petitioning them to treat them as they would reduced harm tobacco cigarettes, instead.
Exactly, and rather than trying to conjure up a term for them, I recommend that they stay in touch with reality and simply realize that they're cigarettes. This is what I believe the current [fed.] ruling implied to me.
Just... when trying to legally define an e-cig for hideous agendas, I say instead let's just simply work--or start--on the nomenclature of what it is to begin with: a cigarette! Sometimes a cigarette is just a cigarette. (It just so happened that brilliant scientific advancement of humanity made it possible to make it a reduced-harm cigarette at last.)
Defining them as a tobacco product is the lesser of two current evils, but it is not the best answer.
Defining them as a tabacco product does prevent the FDA from banning them, but that definition also gives the FDA the power to regulate them to the point of making them useless.
The FDA can eliminate flavors, the FDA can limit the nicotine strength, the FDA can mandate that only tamper-proof cartridges can be used. The FDA can, in essense, regulate them to the point that they don't work much better than all the failed NRT products out there.
The best and final definition lies somewhere else.
It is debatable whether or not we should currently be pushing for the tobacco product definition. Many believe it is the lesser of two evils, a necessity right now to keep them from being banned, and a stepping stone to eventually position us to lobby for a better definition. Others believe that we are giving away the farm by going down this path, and we should be fighting for a better definition right now.
Defining them as a tabacco product does prevent the FDA from banning them, but that definition also gives the FDA the power to regulate them to the point of making them useless.
The FDA can eliminate flavors, the FDA can limit the nicotine strength, the FDA can mandate that only tamper-proof cartridges can be used. The FDA can, in essense, regulate them to the point that they don't work much better than all the failed NRT products out there.
The best and final definition lies somewhere else.
It is debatable whether or not we should currently be pushing for the tobacco product definition. Many believe it is the lesser of two evils, a necessity right now to keep them from being banned, and a stepping stone to eventually position us to lobby for a better definition. Others believe that we are giving away the farm by going down this path, and we should be fighting for a better definition right now.
v1John, your use of the term "cigarettes" for ecigs is unfortunate, and I really think this terminology should be avoided.
No, we are not lobbying anywhere for electronic cigarettes to be considered "cigarettes". We are lobbying for them to be considered a "tobacco product", and beyond that, a "reduced harm tobacco product", to be used as an alternative to cigarettes.
Cigarettes are specifically defined in law in many places, both for purposes of federal and state laws. They consist of tobacco rolled in a wrapper, usually paper, and they are specifically designed to be burned.
One of the biggest advantages of ecigs is that they are NOT burned, and therefore the toxic and deadly products of combustion are not delivered to the user and those around the user, via smoke.
So we really need to stay away from calling ecigs "cigarettes", IMO, and keep to "tobacco product" only. Other examples of tobacco products, that should also eventually be classed as "reduced harm" tobacco products, are snus and dissolvables, such as Stonewall and Arriva, and they are nothing like burned "cigarettes" either.
No, we are not lobbying anywhere for electronic cigarettes to be considered "cigarettes". We are lobbying for them to be considered a "tobacco product", and beyond that, a "reduced harm tobacco product", to be used as an alternative to cigarettes.
Cigarettes are specifically defined in law in many places, both for purposes of federal and state laws. They consist of tobacco rolled in a wrapper, usually paper, and they are specifically designed to be burned.
One of the biggest advantages of ecigs is that they are NOT burned, and therefore the toxic and deadly products of combustion are not delivered to the user and those around the user, via smoke.
So we really need to stay away from calling ecigs "cigarettes", IMO, and keep to "tobacco product" only. Other examples of tobacco products, that should also eventually be classed as "reduced harm" tobacco products, are snus and dissolvables, such as Stonewall and Arriva, and they are nothing like burned "cigarettes" either.
Last edited:
Just saw your post after writing mine, DC2.
Unlike many, I consider ecigs "tobacco products" because that's what they ARE, IMO (and in Judge Leon's opinion, as well, that matters way more than mine!). And IMO, what we need to be figthing for is that they get classed, and regulated appropriately as such, as "reduced harm tobacco products", which is what they and the other smokefree tobacco products all deserve.
Unlike many, I consider ecigs "tobacco products" because that's what they ARE, IMO (and in Judge Leon's opinion, as well, that matters way more than mine!). And IMO, what we need to be figthing for is that they get classed, and regulated appropriately as such, as "reduced harm tobacco products", which is what they and the other smokefree tobacco products all deserve.
Last edited:
Well I go by the current situation which is that cigarettes are protected products by Congress.
This should help derive a fancy definition.
Maybe we need to have Congress redefine cigarettes for us, for the entire nation. It would save a lot of the vaper's legal battles in many states.
edit add- The ecig mimics a cigarette, though, and nicotine is optional, sometimes there may be times when I will vape 0 nicotine. And I vape because of how well it mimics them. If NY were to say sorry, e-cigs banned, you have mouth tobacco and skin bandaids and suicide chantix pills already available, then what?
But I see your point, and since states can define things the way they want, then your opinions matter more for the battle of NY.
This should help derive a fancy definition.
Maybe we need to have Congress redefine cigarettes for us, for the entire nation. It would save a lot of the vaper's legal battles in many states.
edit add- The ecig mimics a cigarette, though, and nicotine is optional, sometimes there may be times when I will vape 0 nicotine. And I vape because of how well it mimics them. If NY were to say sorry, e-cigs banned, you have mouth tobacco and skin bandaids and suicide chantix pills already available, then what?
But I see your point, and since states can define things the way they want, then your opinions matter more for the battle of NY.
Last edited:
Again, I have to say that I vehemently disagree. There can never be a legal definition that fairly or correctly lumps ecigs in with conventional cigarettes.
One is burned, and involves spewing out the products of combustion - the stuff that is universally acknowledged to be the cause of smoking-related illness and death.
The other is not, and does not.
The battle is squarely about getting all those so-called "health" groups and politicians, both federal and state, to finally acknowledge and publish the TRUTH that alternative, smokefree tobacco products are less harmful, by magnitudes, than conventional cigarettes.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked