New Indoor Bans - Please Help!

[Webby]

Funny - I asked the site admin about the delay in propagation and he blamed it on "an unprecedented amount of global internet traffic"

I sent him back the logs from Network Overview /// Internet Traffic Report and haven't heard back...


Michal "Webby" Douglas | President - CASAA.ORG
Consumer Advocates for Smokefree Alternatives Assoc.
182 St Francis Street; STE 300 Mobile, AL 36602
T: 251.285.8500 Fx: 251.445.1043 Skype: CASAAHQ

 

[Janetda]

The link is dead now. When I talked with Mr. Scavo I told him he needed to the responses and perhaps correct what he said on the site. I guess they just decided to take it down. Scavo got all his information from Clenahan. Clenahan never returned my call. But Scavo really didn't know a damn thing and was completely clueless. He told me that he was told that Chinese manufactures cut corners by putting antifreeze in the cartridges and that all the same chemicals in cigarettes were in e-cigs. Of course I tried to correct his information and he seemed surprised by my information. He told me I need to talk to Clenahan quick so he could change the legislation before it went to public hearing. Of course now, no one is returning calls or wants to hear the truth.

We absolutely need a big group at the Albany hearing.

 

[Nikhil]

Amusing, since anti-freeze is much more expensive than PG or VG.

 

[Janetda]

I may not be the best person to make calls because I actually laughed.

Scavo: The Chinese put antifreeze in those thing to cut corners. I'll bet you didn't know that!

Me: hahahahaha

 

[rhantson]

I'm noticing quite a number of so-called articles on the internet that are attempting to portray vaping in a negative light suddenly disappearing without rhyme or reason (other than the obvious - they are just plain false).

I know that I've been vaping for only 17 days today, but ever since I purchased my first PVD I've been trying to find as many articles as I could that had FACTS stating that my switch to vaping was hazardous to my health... Every article that I find, is written and based on pretty much the same inaccurate information and doesn't seem to provide any "new" information whatsoever supporting the already debunked claims.

If you ask me, those involved heavilly in the debunking process, need to immediately archive/snapshot these articles BEFORE they are removed, so that when you find "new" ones, you can refer to these other articles that are disappearing because of being debunked.

That's my opinion... The fact of the matter is plain and simple... the moment that vaping is banned and the sale of PVD's are banned, they have to immediately ban the sale of a lot of other products (including tobacco, many medical devices, etc).

The Tobacco Industry and those who profit greatly from the sale and taxation of analog cigerettes, are in my opinion the driving force behind this attempt to limit and even ban the sale and use of these devices. THEY are pretty much the ONLY groups that would benefit from such a ban. I'm new - and I don't have all the facts, but as a newbie - this screams at me that the only people that I can see legitamately against this, is the tobacco industry. I've not found a SINGLE responsible medical professional that would agree with the ban of PVD - in fact, I found many who are urging patients to make the switch.

My opinion, its worth about 3 1/2 cents... but that's how I feel...

 

[Nikhil]

You can still view a cached version of the article here. Found by searching google for the URL, although I don't know how long until that cached version will last (probably 1-2 weeks at most).

 

[Vocalek]

I'm noticing quite a number of so-called articles on the internet that are attempting to portray vaping in a negative light suddenly disappearing without rhyme or reason (other than the obvious - they are just plain false).

I know that I've been vaping for only 17 days today, but ever since I purchased my first PVD I've been trying to find as many articles as I could that had FACTS stating that my switch to vaping was hazardous to my health... Every article that I find, is written and based on pretty much the same inaccurate information and doesn't seem to provide any "new" information whatsoever supporting the already debunked claims.

If you ask me, those involved heavilly in the debunking process, need to immediately archive/snapshot these articles BEFORE they are removed, so that when you find "new" ones, you can refer to these other articles that are disappearing because of being debunked.

That's my opinion... The fact of the matter is plain and simple... the moment that vaping is banned and the sale of PVD's are banned, they have to immediately ban the sale of a lot of other products (including tobacco, many medical devices, etc).

The Tobacco Industry and those who profit greatly from the sale and taxation of analog cigerettes, are in my opinion the driving force behind this attempt to limit and even ban the sale and use of these devices. THEY are pretty much the ONLY groups that would benefit from such a ban. I'm new - and I don't have all the facts, but as a newbie - this screams at me that the only people that I can see legitamately against this, is the tobacco industry. I've not found a SINGLE responsible medical professional that would agree with the ban of PVD - in fact, I found many who are urging patients to make the switch.

My opinion, its worth about 3 1/2 cents... but that's how I feel...

That's what we all thought at first. But it turns out that the tobacco industry hasn't done a thing to oppose e-cigarettes. We were absolutely astonished when we learned that our most bitter enemies were the very groups that have been hammering at us all along to stop smoking!

Yes, that's right. The American Lung Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, and Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids were the first groups to speak out against e-cigarettes. They had no proof that the products were dangerous, so they asked the FDA to ban them. The FDA began seizing shipments of incoming products, and then were sued by Smoking Everywhere, joined by the company that markets the NJOY products. FDA decided to test the products. When they couldn't find anything overtly dangerous in the products, the FDA decided to do a spin job on the facts that would make your Whirlpool look like a slacker.

Whenever you see a doctor quoted who is negative on e-cigarette, dig in and you will find that s/he is affiliated with the ALA, AHA, or ACS. These organizations, joined by CTFK have banded together in sending out disinformation to legislators trying to get the products banned at the state and local level. http://www.lungoregon.org/tobacco/pdf_word_doc/Policy_Guidance_on_E-Cigarettes_4-7-10 (2).pdf

The two theories going around regarding why these organizations are doing this are 1) "follow the money" and 2) "they know what's best."

1) Follow the money. All of the above organizations receive funding from two sources: The tobacco settlement (so if more people quit, they get less money) and the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the smoking-cessation products that are 90 to 95% ineffective. If we don't buy as many cigarettes, and manage to do so without buying the FDA-approved products, the organizations are hit with a double-whammy in the pocket book.

2) They know what's best. Some folks believe the movers and shakers behind all this are simply nicotine abolitionists. They believe they know better than we do what's best for us. If half-truths or outright lies are required to force us to do their bidding, that's OK because the end justifies the means.

 

[Thulium]

Great points, Vocalek! Thing is, both theories lead to Big Pharma and the FDA: Follow the money (BP) and it goes right to "the people who know best" (FDA).

BP & FDA have a mutually beneficial relationship and they don't like e-cigs because they screw it all up. BP makes products that the FDA tells us we need to use and FDA gets their piece of the action through corporate "sponsorship", regulatory fees, or donations. If the FDA "allows" people to make informed decisions about tobacco products, they might be "confused" into thinking they don't need to quit using FDA approved cessation medications sold by BP. So the FDA's idea of protecting the public health is actually to "protect" us from truthful information while simultaneously protecting the profit margins of BP companies who are major contributors to the FDA's operating budget.

The FDA doesn't really want to ban e-cigs, they really just want to "protect" us from buying tobacco products from anyone other than their customers "sponsors" like GSK and Pfizer.

 

[ezmoose]

It's akin to those who make their living selling Virus Protection Software; I doubt they wish and hope for the day those pesky virus creators stop their shenanigans! lol

Certainly Big Pharma has much at stake and a cozy relationship with the FDA; however, I wouldn’t discount Big Tobacco's lobbying influence. After all, they stand to lose a ton of money unless they can (successfully) produce and market an E Cigarette of their own!

 

[Ravens Rose]

Well I hope you guys have better luck than NJ did. In NJ e-cigs have been put in the same category as regular cigs. If you can't smoke somewhere... you can't vape either!

I just started vaping in July, so I had no idea that they fell into the same category here.. but leave it to NJ to put vaping in the same category.

It is absolutely ridiculous!

 

[Vocalek]

What's needed in New Jersey is for vapers to challenge the law on the basis that there is no scientific evidence that vapor is harmful to bystanders and that it violates the rights of former smokers who use the devices to be sent to the smoking section.

 

[Ravens Rose]

You can't smoke indoors in any public places for a long time now. Originally they tried to make you be 25 ft or more from any door to any public place but I think the # of ft from a door has been reduced.

The wording that I found about the law that was changed to include vaping is absurd.

I tried to attach an article about it. Hope it works!

http://www.tobacco-facts.net/2010/0...garettes”-use-in-public-passes-another-hurdle

Another link for your reading enjoyment.... As I said... I hope you have better luck!

http://www.prlog.org/10491997-nj-go...tes-are-safer-than-electronic-cigarettes.html

 

[Thulium]

What's needed in New Jersey is for vapers to challenge the law on the basis that there is no scientific evidence that vapor is harmful to bystanders and that it violates the rights of former smokers who use the devices to be sent to the smoking section.

That and the fact that the way the law was written it forbids "...anything that can be inhaled or exhaled." It cannot withstand judicial review.

IMO, the only thing keeping the law in place is that it is too stupid to actually be enforced so it hasn't made it into a courtroom yet.


...Perhaps a little "civil disobedience" is in order?

 

[Scucci]

What really sucks about these new laws and revisions is that there just aren't enough of us to do anything about it after it's been passed. There's the court systems, but I don't trust the courts to do the right thing, at all.

If there were more of us, then vape-ins would be a decent way to raise awareness and actually get the message out. Calling local news outlets, getting everyone together, and sitting in/on the local capital buildings and court houses can get word out quicker than relying on the media to pick up stories on court cases. I mean, the laws would slip through the cracks if it weren't for people keeping their eyes on them.

I was doing a youtube video a few days ago and never got around to uploading it... but it's basically my theories on why e-Cigs are being added to the existing bills out there all ready. I think there are 2 basic reasons... first being it cuts down on word of mouth "advertising". I have yet to see a commercial on TV and every time I'm out people come up to me and ask me about the thing. I tell them about it, and most of them are surprised by it... like it's from the future or something. When you explain it to them, then they're usually on board with it... but adding them to the list of banned stuff cuts that word of mouth down, helps keep the sales down, and helps keep people that would've probably bought them and in turn been ...... off by the new bans. Also, adding them to the list of banned stuff, lets them ban them completely in the future... I mean hell... they're already on the list with cigarettes, right? They MUST be bad for you... so by banning them they're just doing you a favor, right? Gotta look out for the public after all... if you miss ecigs, there's always analogs to go back to, right?

Then again, I'm a tin hat type of guy... I'm overly paranoid about a lot of things and I see conspiracies everywhere.

 

[Bill Godshall]

ezmoose wrote:

I wouldn’t discount Big Tobacco's lobbying influence. After all, they stand to lose a ton of money unless they can (successfully) produce and market an E Cigarette of their own!

The two largest cigarette manufacturers in the US (Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds) have adopted, and have encouraged the FDA to adopt, tobacco harm reduction policies taking into account (and informing the public about) the health risks of different tobacco products. See http://media.gatewaync.com/wsj/pdfs/2010/01/altria_fda-2009-N-0294_harm-reduction.pdf and attachment


PM, Reynolds and Lorillard also have began marketing new low nitrosamine smokefree tobacco products (i.e. snus, dissolvable smokefree tobacco products) as smokefree alternatives for smokers. And of course the entire tobacco industry knows that sales of moist snuff (Skoal, Copenhagen, Grizzly, etc.) have increased by 50% in the past decade, while cigarette sales have declined by more than 25%.

The executives of the large US tobacco companies (especially Reynolds) would like to see Judge Richard Leon's ruling in the SE v FDA case become the law of the land, would like to see the FDA promulgate e-cigarettes regulations under the FSPTCA (as a tobacco product), and would like to begin marketing their own brands of e-cigarettes (as they have "shelf space" contracts with 500,000 tobacco retailers in the US).

I'm not aware of any tobacco manufacturer in the US that has endorsed the FDA's attempted ban on e-cigarette imports, or any state or local legislation or AG action to limit the sales or usage of e-cigarettes.

Meanwhile, tobacco distributors and retailers (especially tobacco specialty retailers) are increasingly marketing e-cigarettes.

 

[ezmoose]

ezmoose wrote:

I wouldn’t discount Big Tobacco's lobbying influence. After all, they stand to lose a ton of money unless they can (successfully) produce and market an E Cigarette of their own!

The two largest cigarette manufacturers in the US (Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds) have adopted, and have encouraged the FDA to adopt, tobacco harm reduction policies taking into account (and informing the public about) the health risks of different tobacco products. See http://media.gatewaync.com/wsj/pdfs/2010/01/altria_fda-2009-N-0294_harm-reduction.pdf and attachment


PM, Reynolds and Lorillard also have began marketing new low nitrosamine smokefree tobacco products (i.e. snus, dissolvable smokefree tobacco products) as smokefree alternatives for smokers. And of course the entire tobacco industry knows that sales of moist snuff (Skoal, Copenhagen, Grizzly, etc.) have increased by 50% in the past decade, while cigarette sales have declined by more than 25%.

The executives of the large US tobacco companies (especially Reynolds) would like to see Judge Richard Leon's ruling in the SE v FDA case become the law of the land, would like to see the FDA promulgate e-cigarettes regulations under the FSPTCA (as a tobacco product), and would like to begin marketing their own brands of e-cigarettes (as they have "shelf space" contracts with 500,000 tobacco retailers in the US).

I'm not aware of any tobacco manufacturer in the US that has endorsed the FDA's attempted ban on e-cigarette imports, or any state or local legislation or AG action to limit the sales or usage of e-cigarettes.

Meanwhile, tobacco distributors and retailers (especially tobacco specialty retailers) are increasingly marketing e-cigarettes.

In a perfect and transparent world, we would have access to "all" the information. In the real world, much goes on behind the scenes in covert fashion.

I don’t doubt that Big Tobacco is against any law or legislation that threatens their agendas or products; reduced harm or not. Even if Big Tobacco is exerting its lobbying efforts to oppose the FDA in the current case, you can bet it’s because of their self interests not because they have suddenly developed a conscious! lol

Big Tobacco will do whatever it deems necessary to ensure its survival whether or not it makes sense or their motives are apparent to the casual observer.

Tobacco companies have been both competitive and collaborative with pharmaceutical firms.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12169078

Big Tobacco will lobby whomever, for whatever to ensure its profit margin remains healthy. If that means getting in bed with the competition, then that’s what they will do; unless and until that relationship no longer pays off.

 

[kristin]

EZ don't forget that Big Tobacco has the ultimate trump card - it controls the source of the nicotine that Big Pharma and the e-cig industry needs to make the very products that compete with cigarettes.

BT isn't stupid. They know that their best chance at saving the bottom line is to get people to embrace smokeless products in the manner they embraced cigarettes and the best way to do that is through reduced harm status. Unlike BP and their public health shills, e-cigarettes don't threaten BT's bottom line, as BT could more easily get into the e-cigarette business than they could get into the nicotine cessation business - which is the Axis of Evil's agenda. Anything which allows the continued use of tobacco products and nicotine benefits BT. To support the antis in any way would make no sense, as they are no longer just anti smoking, they are anti ALL tobacco and non-pharma nicotine.

If BT truly only cares about their bottom line, then the most logical course of action would be to support e-cigs as tobacco products, promote reduced harm over abstinance, increase the market for smokeless tobacco and also start making their own e-cigs.

 

[ezmoose]

If BT truly only cares about their bottom line, then the most logical course of action would be to support e-cigs as tobacco products, promote reduced harm over abstinance, increase the market for smokeless tobacco and also start making their own e-cigs.

At the end of the day, if BT does successfully market E Cigarettes, what will be the fate of the Mom & Pop E Cigarette suppliers? Will they be run out of business?

 

[Janetda]

emoose, I think at the end of the day we're going to see far fewer mom & pop operations anyway. The truth is that no matter who wins what, for e-cigarettes to take off into the mainstream, e-liquid will have to be batch tested...each and every batch. Many businesses that we have grown to love run on a small profit margin and they won't be able to keep up with regulations. Some small shops take liquid from the manufacturers and re-bottle it into smaller bottles. I don't think they will be able to do that at home any more. They certainly aren't going to be mixing stuff themselves at home no matter how sanitary they try to be. So, no matter what, IMO the e-cig business is going to change in a big way as we go along. If we have e-liquid, and that' a big IF, it's going to be more expensive but of a better, more consistent quality.

Personally see a future of carts only and e-liquid will end up black market only. Even then it will be hard to find because I really expect the FDA to make nicotine available only to those who are licensed. That's my bleak little picture of the future anyway.

 

[ezmoose]

emoose, I think at the end of the day we're going to see far fewer mom & pop operations anyway. The truth is that no matter who wins what, for e-cigarettes to take off into the mainstream, e-liquid will have to be batch tested...each and every batch. Many businesses that we have grown to love run on a small profit margin and they won't be able to keep up with regulations. Some small shops take liquid from the manufacturers and re-bottle it into smaller bottles. I don't think they will be able to do that at home any more. They certainly aren't going to be mixing stuff themselves at home no matter how sanitary they try to be. So, no matter what, IMO the e-cig business is going to change in a big way as we go along. If we have e-liquid, and that' a big IF, it's going to be more expensive but of a better, more consistent quality.

Personally see a future of carts only and e-liquid will end up black market only. Even then it will be hard to find because I really expect the FDA to make nicotine available only to those who are licensed. That's my bleak little picture of the future anyway.

That's what I'm thinking; looks like I'm heading towards being criminalized! lol