Now is the Time To Act! I am Serious! **updated**

Status
Not open for further replies.
ok guys obviously the 5th deadline has gone and no news from the FDA, but i believe that the sooner we reach the 10,000 mark on our petition the better. This is the only combined effort to do something against the FDA in the ecig industry. so lets join forces and make it count :) the easiest way to get thousands of people to sign up in a matter of days is to spam youtube (technically its not spamming, its just informing)

so go to youtube, and search for any video that is relevant to this petition
type in things like
-FDA
-ecig
-Ecigarette
-FDA ban
-smoke 51
-ruyan
etc etc be creative

and in the comment box type in something along these lines (copy and paste to save time)
"HEY GUYS, the government body FDA is soon banning this product in the USA unfairly, because they know that they will get less taxes from real cigarettes. this is unfair and goes against the american constitution! please please please go to Google and type in "electric cigarette petition" and click the first link. every vote counts, we have the right to quit cigarettes and save our health!!!even if your from the UK or Canada because they will copy USA. please copy and paste this//"

something along those lines, remember you cannot include links or else it wont post, so you have to say "go to google and type in electric cigarette petition" also, at the end of your post, say "please copy and paste this" so more and more people will do it.

collectively the top 10 ecig videos on youtube have more then 1.5 million views, so getting around 5 thousand people to sign the petition in a few days should be a piece of cake! lets do it.
ps can someone make my post into a thread, i dont think i have sufficent posts to do it?
 

LaceyUnderall

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Dec 4, 2008
2,568
5
USA and Canada
"HEY GUYS, the government body FDA is soon banning this product in the USA unfairly, because they know that they will get less taxes from real cigarettes. this is unfair and goes against the american constitution! please please please go to Google and type in "electric cigarette petition" and click the first link. every vote counts, we have the right to quit cigarettes and save our health!!!even if your from the UK or Canada because they will copy USA. please copy and paste this//"

something along those lines, remember you cannot include links or else it wont post, so you have to say "go to google and type in electric cigarette petition" also, at the end of your post, say "please copy and paste this" so more and more people will do it.

or if you haven't quit but have switched your "brand" from tobacco to electronic... you can say that too ;)
 

majiliet

New Member
Apr 29, 2009
1
0
As I read all of this I want to cry. I have smoked Tobacco for 30 years tried once to quit . I got so neurotic I didn't know myself. I lit a cigarette, it was safer for the people around me. I researched E-Cigs for about 8 months, finally committed, got them in the mail was scared because I didn't want to smoke Tobacco any more and was afraid I was going to fail in the attempt to quit. I filled my first cart, puffed, was still nervous. A few hours later I thought I wanted a Tobacco cig, so I lit one. It was kinda gross, I have been Tobacco free now since March 9th. I don't miss them, my lungs are clearing, my singing voice is getting stronger, I have more energy, and that nasty smell is gone from my life. I have never been one to get involved in the political world, but what is being done here really makes me fell violated. I am glad that through this forum and what we are trying to do here I have a voice. Thank You All.
 

mnowen2002

New Member
May 6, 2009
1
0
While I am reading about how the Federal Government is trying to STOMP our rights yet again. First they price my Camel Cigs out of my reach, and when I find that E-Cigs can take me from 2+ packs a say to Tobacco free for over 2 Months, they tell me I can't have them. What happened to my right to free myself from harmful addictions and to pursue happiness? And how much of this plays into the BILLIONS of Tax Dollars lost from the Obama Tobacco Taxes. I find that we are no longer a Nation By the People and For The People.
 

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
67
Ted Kennedy has introduced his FDA tobacco legislation (S. 982). For a copy, go to THOMAS (Library of Congress) and type in S. 982 in the bill search.

A key difference of Kennedy's new bill is that it only has 40 cosponsors (and just 3 Rs, Collins, Lugar, Snowe). Last session, Kennedy's bill had 59 cosponsors.

That is probably why Kennedy delayed its introduction for more than two weeks (as Kennedy had previously told the media he would introduce the bill on April 20.

A month ago, CTFK was claiming it wanted to get at least 60 cosponsors for kennedy's bill. That also explains why just two days ago, CTFK and ALA sent out alerts urging folks to contact their Senators and urge them be cosponsors.
 

Sun Vaporer

Moved On
ECF Veteran
Jan 2, 2009
10,146
27
Florida
Ted Kennedy has introduced his FDA tobacco legislation (S. 982). For a copy, go to THOMAS (Library of Congress) and type in S. 982 in the bill search.

A key difference of Kennedy's new bill is that it only has 40 cosponsors (and just 3 Rs, Collins, Lugar, Snowe). Last session, Kennedy's bill had 59 cosponsors.

That is probably why Kennedy delayed its introduction for more than two weeks (as Kennedy had previously told the media he would introduce the bill on April 20.

A month ago, CTFK was claiming it wanted to get at least 60 cosponsors for kennedy's bill. That also explains why just two days ago, CTFK and ALA sent out alerts urging folks to contact their Senators and urge them be cosponsors.


Bill--thanks for the info and keeping us posted--it is appreciated---Sun
 

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
67
Sen. Kennedy has introduced his FDA tobacco bill (S. 982) and scheduled a Senate HELP Committee mark-up session on the bill beginning next Tuesday, May 12.

Please urge committee members (contact info below) to OPPOSE the bill unless/until it is amended to protect public health instead of cigarette markets.

Also below are Smokefree Pennsylvania's letter to committee members, a suggested amendment, and two related news articles.

- - -

Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15218
412-351-5880

May 7, 2009

Dear Senator

Smokefree Pennsylvania urges you to OPPOSE Senator Kennedy's FDA tobacco bill (S. 982), a privately negotiated deal by Philip Morris and the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids in 2004, because it protects the deadliest tobacco product (cigarettes) at the expense of far less hazardous smokefree tobacco/nicotine alternatives and public health.

Instead, please SUPPORT harm reduction amendments (see suggested amendment below) to:
- inform smokers that cigarettes are more hazardous than smokefree tobacco/nicotine alternatives,
- let smokefree alternatives (including electronic cigarette nicotine inhalers) remain on the market,
- encourage the industry to develop smokefree tobacco/nicotine alternatives to cigarettes.

As drafted, the Kennedy bill protects cigarette markets at the expense of public health because it:
- conceals the fact that cigarettes are far deadlier than smokefree tobacco/nicotine products,
- misleads consumers to believe that smokefree products are as hazardous as cigarettes,
- bans new and recently introduced (since 2007) smokefree tobacco products,
- allows/encourages FDA to ban smokefree nicotine products including electronic cigarettes,

Cigarettes are 100 times deadlier than smokeless tobacco products, while smokefree nicotine products (e.g. electronic cigarettes) pose even fewer risks. Switching from cigarettes to smokefree tobacco/nicotine alternatives reduces smoker's health risks nearly as much as quitting all tobacco/nicotine use. Millions of smokers have already sharply reduced their health risks by switching to smokefree tobacco/nicotine alternatives. Unfortunately, 85% of smokers inaccurately believe that smokefree tobacco products are as hazardous as cigarettes. I coauthored a report "Tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for inveterate smokers" at Harm Reduction Journal | Full text | Tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for inveterate smokers

In contrast to claims by others, the Kennedy bill also would do little to reduce youth tobacco use (as it prohibits the FDA from banning tobacco sales to high school seniors, and prohibits the FDA from banning tobacco sales at stores accessible to minors). But at the very least, the bill should be amended to help save the lives of 45 million addicted cigarette smokers.

Since 1990, Smokefree Pennsylvania has advocated policies to reduce tobacco smoke pollution indoors, increase cigarette taxes, reduce tobacco marketing to youth, preserve civil justice remedies for tobacco victims, expand smoking cessation services, and inform smokers that smokefree tobacco/nicotine products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.

Thank you for your consideration, and feel free to contact me anytime.

Sincerely,


William T. Godshall, MPH
Executive Director

- - -

Suggested amendment to S. 982 to rank tobacco products according to health risks (adapted from Sec. 305 of the Burr/Hagan tobacco bill, S. 579). Please note that provisions to allow all smokefree tobacco/nicotine products to remain on the market need to be added to this suggested amendment.

In Section 911 of the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (as added by Title I), insert
"(n) ESTABLISHMENT OF RANKINGS. -
"(1) STANDARD AND PROCEDURES. - Not later than 24 months after the date of enactment of this chapter, the Sectretary shall, by regulation, after consultation with an Advisory Committee established for such a purpose, establish the standards and procedures for promulgating rankings, comprehensible to consumers of tobacco products, of the following categories of tobacco products and also nicotine-containing products on the basis of relative risks of serious or chronic tobacco-related diseases and adverse health conditions those categories of tobacco products and also nicotine-containing products respectively present in -
"(A) cigarettes;
"(B) loose tobacco for roll-your-own tobacco products;
"(C ) little cigars;
"(D) cigars;
"(E) pipe tobacco;
"(F) moist
"(G) dry snuff;
"(H) chewing tobacco;
"(I) other forms of tobacco products, including palletized tobacco and compressed tobacco, treated collectively as a single category; and
"(J) other nicotine-containing products, treated collectively as a single category.
"(2) CONSIDERATION IN PROMULGATING REGULATIONS. - In promulgating regulation under this section, the Secretary -
"(A) shall take into account relevant epidemiologic studies and other relevant competent and reliable scientific evidence; and
"(B) in assessing the risks of serious or chronic tobacco-related diseases and adverse health conditions presented by a particular category, shall consider the range of tobacco products or nicotine-containing products within the category, and shall give appropriate weight to the market share of the respective products in the category.
"(3) PROMULGATION OF RANKING OF CATEGORIES - Once the initial regulations required by paragraph (1) are in effect, the Secretary shall promptly, by order, after notice and an opportunity for comment, promulgate and make available to the general public rankings of the categories of tobacco products and nicotine-containing products in accordance with such regulations. The Secretary shall promulgate the initial rankings of those categories of tobacco products and nicotine-containing products and make such ranking available to the general public not later than January 1, 2012. Thereafter, on an annual basis, the Secretary shall, by order, promulgate and make available to the general public updated rankings that are (1) in accordance with those regulations, and (2) reflect the scientific evidence available at the time of promulgation. The Secretary shall open and maintain an ongoing public docket for receipt of data and other information submitted by any person with respect to such annual promulgation of rankings.

- - -

Phone and fax numbers for Senate HELP Cmte members, and an e-mail address to contact all members of the committee.

Senate HELP Committee Phone Fax

Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) 202-224-5465 202-224-5128
Chairman
Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT) 202-224-2823 202-224-1083
Tom Harkin (D-IA) 202-224-3254 202-224-9369
Barbara A. Mikulski (D-MD) 202-224-4654 202-224-8858
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) 202-224-5521 202-224-2852
Patty Murray (D-WA) 202-224-2621 202-224-0238
Jack Reed (D-RI) 202-224-4642 202-224-4680
Bernie Sanders (I-VT) 202-224-5141 202-228-0776
Sherrod Brown (D-OH) 202-224-2315 202-224-6519
Robert P Casey, Jr (D-PA) 202-224-6324 202-228-0604
Kay Hagan (D-NC) 202-224-6342 202-228-2563
Jeff Merkley (D-OR) 202-224-3753 202-228-3997

Michael Enzi (R-WY) 202-224-5375 202-224-6510
Ranking Member
Judd Gregg (R-NH) 202-224-3324 202-224-4952
Lamar Alexander (R-TN) 202-224-4944 202-228-3398
Richard Burr (R-NC) 202-224-3154 202-228-2981
Johnny Isakson (R-GA) 202-224-3643 202-228-0724
John McCain (R-AZ) 202-224-2235 202-228-2862
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) 202-224-6665 202-224-5301
Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT) 202-224-5251 202-224-6331
Pat Roberts (R-KS) 202-224-4774 202-224-3514
Tom Coburn (R-OK) 202-224-5754 202-224-6008

To send an e-mail to all members help_comments@help.senate.gov

- - -

A Discovery Channel Daily Planet interview with Dr. Carl Phillips on electronic cigarettes is at:
Daily Planet : May 05, 2009

- - -

Kennedy again proposes a bill to regulate the tobacco industry

By Richard Craver
Winston-Salem Journal
May 7, 2009
Kennedy again proposes a bill to regulate the tobacco industry

The debate over whether to have federal oversight of the tobacco industry has resurfaced with the reintroduction of a bill in the U.S. Senate.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., contains few major changes to the one he submitted last year that would put the industry under the auspices of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

That bill failed to pass the Senate because Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., threatened to tie up the bill with a filibuster and President Bush opposed the move.

The bill "would stop the marketing of tobacco products to children, require tobacco companies to list the poisons in their products and mandate larger and more effective warning labels on tobacco product packaging," said John Seffrin, the chief executive of the American Cancer Society's Cancer Action Network.

The latest version of the Kennedy bill does not include a separate category for smoke-free tobacco as a potential harm-reduction product.

Such a provision has been sought by some anti-smoking groups that view smoke-free products, such as moist tobacco, snus and dissolvables, as alternatives for tobacco users who can't or won't quit.

"We continue to believe that Sen. Kennedy's bill is lacking," said Maura Payne, a spokeswoman for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

"It would impede efforts to bring potentially reduced-risk tobacco products to market, would make it difficult for adult tobacco consumers to gain accurate information about the comparative risks between different types of tobacco products, and would task an already overburdened FDA with taking on regulation of a product category about which it has no expertise," Payne said.

In March, Burr and Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., introduced an alternative bill for federal regulation of tobacco products that would save cigarette companies billions of dollars over the next 10 years.

The proposed Federal Tobacco Act would create a new federal agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to solely regulate tobacco instead of assigning the task to the FDA.

Also in March, a key House panel approved legislation sponsored by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to give the FDA oversight of tobacco, a move that set the stage for likely House approval later this year.

Both bills propose paying for the new regulation by imposing "user fees" on tobacco companies, with the largest share paid for by the nation's two largest cigarette companies, Philip Morris and Reynolds.

Tobacco analysts said that the Burr-Hagan bill has only a slim chance of passing both the House and Senate, though some of its provisions could be incorporated into a final version of the Waxman bill.

Bill Godshall, the executive director of SmokeFree Pennsylvania, said that a drop-off in sponsorship for the Kennedy bill could open the door for an amendment aimed at smoke-free products.

"While Kennedy's FDA tobacco bill last session had 59 co-sponsors, his new bill has only 40 co-sponsors, including just three Republicans," Godshall said.

"I suspect that is why Kennedy delayed the bill's introduction for more than two weeks -- to try to get more co-sponsors and/or to get a lead Republican co-sponsor."

Richard Craver can be reached at 727-7376 or at rcraver@wsjournal.com.
 

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
67
Per TropicalBob's inquiry, Kennedy's bill and Waxman's bill were identical until last session when some amendments were made to both bills. Those amendments were incorporated into the current versions (i.e. Waxman's bill with House approved amendments, Kennedy's bill with Senate HELP Committee amendments).

While several different amendments were approved by the Senate HELP Cmte to Kennedy's bill last session, by far the most important amendment was Mike Enzi's to require color-graphic warning labels covering 50% of all cigarette packs (as Kennedy's original bill and Waxman's current bill would only require text warnings covering 30% of cigarette packs. Smokefree Pennsylvania was the ONLY health organization in the nation that urged the Senate HELP Cmte to approve Enzi's picture warning amendment).
The other amendments to Kennedy's bill were very minor (one banned clove cigarettes, and several slightly altered cigar provisions).

Waxman's bill had three amendments, all of which were negotiated and offered by Waxman in exchange for letters of endorsements by previous opponents of Waxman's bill.

One amendment provided a four year moratorium for small tobacco companies (of which there are 400 - 500) to comply with product testing requirements. In exchange for this amendment, these companies agreed to support the bill and stop opposing it.

Another amendment required the FDA to consider existing state/local laws in establishing federal fines/penalties for retailers caught selling tobacco products to youth (as retailers complained that they are already subject to state/local penalties, although most state/local laws impose very few if any penalties against retailers as most penalties are imposed against minimum wage sales clerks). In exchange for this amendment, the National Association of Convenience Stores agreed to endorse the bill and stop opposing it.

The third amendment to Waxman's bill allowed free samples of smokefree tobacco products to be distributed at certain adult-only establishments (i.e. bars). In exchange for this amendment, United States Smokeless Tobacco Company (maker of Skoal, Copenhagen and other smokefree tobacco products) and Swedish Match (maker of cigars, Red Man, General and other smokeless tobacco products) agreed to endorse the bill and to stop opposing it.

Other than that, the Kennedy and Waxman bills are identical.

It is extremely likely that all amendments to the Waxman and Kennedy bills will be incorporated into the final version of the legislation.

Hope this helps.

Regardless, the key is to convince the Senate HELP Cmte to amend Kennedy's bill with harm reduction provisions that let smokefree tobacco/nicotine products (including e-cigarettes) to remain on the market, and to inform the public that they are less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.
 

TropicalBob

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 13, 2008
5,623
65
Port Charlotte, FL USA
Regardless, the key is to convince the Senate HELP Cmte to amend Kennedy's bill with harm reduction provisions that let smokefree tobacco/nicotine products (including e-cigarettes) to remain on the market, and to inform the public that they are less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.

As a harm reduction advocate, I agree. Keep at it. Those amendments so far do not help our cause one iota. E-cigs, snus, nasal snuff, and dissolvables could be banned in a flash if Congress doesn't prevent it (I can never support the use of chew tobacco, so I exclude it from my less-harmful list).

Thanks for the great explanation.
 

unixian

Full Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 7, 2009
12
0
I just thought I'd share this...

Dear Representative Biggert:
As a conservative, I am a firm believer in solving my own problems, but when the government starts having a major negative impact on my lifestyle, there really isn't much one can do except ask for help from that same government.
What I'm talking about today and what I'm asking your help on is the proposed bill coming up authored by Sen Kennedy regarding Tobacco. Specifically, there is a section in the bill that Bans personal vaporizers - sometimes known as electronic or electric cigarettes. I believe there are even some members of Congress who are using/used them.
Oddly enough these devices do not use tobacco, and therefore do not supply the user with the 4000 odd carcinogenic substances found in normal cigarettes. They DO however supply nicotine (if the user wishes -- it's not an intrinsic requirement). This, I beleive it's why these devices have fallen within the purview of this bill. That, plus the fact that the pharmaceutical companies and the big tobacco companies would love to see this device banned.
I say that because smoking cessation products are a $3 billion a year industry and we all know how much tobacco rakes in.
The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that since using my e-cigarette, I have never felt better, I have stopped coughing, and my mouth no longer tastes like an ashtray in the morning. This device has been a godsend to me.
The objection that nicotine delivery systems should be banned does not make sense since one can buy patches and such at any drug store.
The objection that this device would be a segue for children to traditional cigarettes is ridiculous. E-cigarettes are much more expensive than traditional cigarettes (the minimum I've seen for a kit is $45 and the liquid is around $30 for a 30ml bottle) and traditionals are so much easier to obtain (current law notwithstanding). In addition, to be seen using an e-cigarette is considered "geeky".
Well, I guess I'm a geek, but if I am, I feel the constitution protects my right to be one! Unfortunately, these days, the constitution is increasingly becoming simply a quaint document rather than the law of the land.
Please do what you can to ensure that the ban on these devices is not enacted into law and do whatever else you can to asisst others who choose to use them in assert their rights to do so.
If you wish to learn more there is an organization called the Electronic Cigarettes Association. Their web site is <URL REMOVED> .

Some will tell you that electronic ciarettes are dangerous. So are Big Macs, So is alchohol, so are guns, so is electricity.
So what.
That you for your time.
David Gangemi
 
Have you considered contacting the members of the Senate HELP Committee as well? They're scheduled for a markup of the bill next Tuesday!

As always, anybody who wishes to send a fax, my offer stands if you don't have free fax at your disposal. I just sent one this morning for another member. Just PM me and I'll give you the email address to send your message. Attachments are fine.

Cheers,

~~Cheryl
 

Brooks

Full Member
May 10, 2009
44
0
66
Chicago
This is what I sent to Pelosi and Durbin:

This is in regard to a recent FDA hearing on the safety of ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES.

It appears that the FDA has some sort of problem with these devices.
Let's look at a few facts:
1. The FDA has approved nicotine for human consumption.
2. The FDA has approved Propylene Glycol for human consumption.
3. The FDA has approved Glycerin for humane consumption.

If you put these three products together you get what is in the liquid that creates the vapor used by E-cigarettes.

These devices are extremely valuable, in that they are helping hard-core smokers quit the use of ACTUAL cigarettes.

I am a Firefighter and was able to get off of cigarettes with E-cigs. I have told other hard-core smokers about these and now they are getting "clean-smoke" too.

Now the FDA would rather have me smoke the real ones again? That is crazy!

The vapor created by these E-cigarettes is apparently harmless to the user AND to bystanders, contain NO tar, contain zero carbon monoxide, and reduce the health risks to the smokers using them to nearly zero.

In fact, a company called zero toys is presently selling children’s toys with The SAME vapor (minus the nicotine, of course) being ejected into the air that THEY breath. This is the same vapor used in fog machines. THIS IS A HARMLESS SUBSTANCE!!!

The federal government was responsible for allowing the cigarette companies to get us addicted. Now it is time to help those of us victimized by this passive stance and submission to tobacco lobbyists find a healthier alternative to this legal poison.

Please pass this letter on to other lawmakers and stop this agency (FDA) from taking away the one product that will give those of us who cannot quit a chance at a longer life.
 

rock

Full Member
Feb 23, 2009
63
0
Obama is counting on the new Federal Tax increase on cigarette's so he can give that money to the banks also. The FDA does not want you to use other means of smoking, they will lose BILIIONS !!!!

The FDA's friends at the tobacco companies are powerfull people, as you can see they stopped shipments of e-cigs from China with is really illegal for them to do because these are just fogging devices, but there is no longer laws for the People, only for the CROOKS in Washington
 

Bill Godshall

Executive Director<br/> Smokefree Pennsylvania
ECF Veteran
Apr 2, 2009
5,171
13,288
67
The Association for the Treatment of Tobacco Use and Dependence
also sent a letter to the FDA urging the agency to ban e-cigarettes.
http://www.ereleases.com/pr/2009-ATTUD.pdf

The ATTUD ATTUD advocates the use of nicotine patches, gums, lozenges and prescription drugs for smoking cessation, and many/most of its members have received funding from drug companies.

The ATTUD standards http://www.attud.org/docs/Standards.pdf
cites the following Provider Competencies (for smoking cessation service providers)
- Utilize the findings of national reports, research studies and guidelines on tobacco treatment.
- Identify evidence-based treatment strategies and the pros and cons for each strategy.
- Be able to discuss alternative therapies such as harm reduction, hypnosis, acupuncture, cigarette tapering.

The 275 page US PHS tobacco treatment guidelines
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/tobacco/treating_tobacco_use08.pdf
recommends nicotine gum, lozenges, patches and prescription drugs as the only evidence based tobacco treatment methods. A majority of the panel who wrote the document (which doesn't even mention cold turkey as a way to quit even though the vast majority of exsmokers quit via cold turkey) were heavily funded by drug companies that market nicotine gums, lozenge, patches and prescription drugs for smoking cessation.

Seems like virtually all individuals and organizations that have urged the FDA to ban e-cigarettes have recieved huge amounts of money from drug companies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread