Ohio ACS denies existance of scientific evidence while lobbying to tax e-cigs and ban their use in workplaces

[Bill Godshall]

In this article from Ohio, drug industry funded American Cancer Society denies existence of scientific evidence and fails to ethically disclose its conflicts of interest while lobbying to tax e-cigarettes and ban their use in workplaces.

Electronic cigarettes expected to hit $1 billion
http://www.lancastereaglegazette.co...garette-sales-expected-hit-1-billion?gcheck=1

 

[soba1]

Ok so we need to find the whose who in that state and email and twitter them like no tomorrow

 

[madmanmatt]

i found out what little this bill states and it only say to ban sale to minors. not sure how the tax will work on this if they can even persue it in any way. while im not for legislation here in ohio, i can understand with minors. i know form personal experience here that mount carmel east has banned vaping as well as the casino here. i was confronted with a very threatning way by a security officer then, after i spoke with his supervisor...he explained that people in the building would get confused that they could smoke in the hospital cause it looks like a cigarette. sure ok...he said that they banned the use of a "nicotine delievery system that you inhale" i asked if they banned the nicoteen patch... i have educational packet for the hospital hr staff...hopefully i can educate the hospital staff with some research and understanding. its sad to see a place that is supposed to help with the health of people ban a product that does help

 

[Rickajho]

Reading articles like that gives me a headache. The practically frenetic stances the ACS is taking - "we don't know","call it tobacco", no such thing as a safe cigarette",'for the children!"... The head on that organization is spinning so fast it's gonna pop off any day now.

They might be American, and "Society" seems to have morphed into a polite word for "Lobbyist", but Cancer appears to be the last thing they are concerned with at this point.

 

[stevegmu]

Ok so we need to find the whose who in that state and email and twitter them like no tomorrow

To support the proposed bill in Ohio? Did you even read the article?

 

[Stubby]

The statement by ACS has big problems, but there is nothing in the bill that is an issue and it should be supported. Even the revision suggested by ACS on calling e-cigs a tobacco product is not at all unreasonable. It's a bit silly to try and create an "alternative nicotine product" category when the main active ingrediant of e-liquid is derived from tobacco.

Outside of the initial statement by ACS they are actually pretty reasonable.

 

[Placebo Effect]

The statement by ACS has big problems, but there is nothing in the bill that is an issue and it should be supported. Even the revision suggested by ACS on calling e-cigs a tobacco product is not at all unreasonable. It's a bit silly to try and create an "alternative nicotine product" category when the main active ingrediant of e-liquid is derived from tobacco.

Outside of the initial statement by ACS they are actually pretty reasonable.

Depending on the state, defining e-cigarettes as a "tobacco product" leads to them being taxed as an other tobacco product. ACS' stated goal is for all states to equalize the taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products, which would discourage smokers from improving their health by switching to smoke-free products and lend credibility to the lie that all tobacco products are equally harmful.

ACS is not reasonable on this issue.

 

[Bill Godshall]

The ACS is lobbying to falsely define e-cigarettes as "electronic smoking devices" to deceive the public to believe they emit smoke, which also furthers their lobbying campaign to redefine "smoking" as including e-cigarette use to ban indoor use of e-cigs, and to tax e-cigs at the same rate as cigarettes.

The ACS of Ohio is saying exactly what the drug industry funded DC offices of CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA told and wrote for them (just as occurred in AZ, OK and RI).

So far, the only state that bans the sale of "electronic smoking devices" to minors is Hawaii, after CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA and HI DOH wrote and lobbied for that bill's enactment this year (but it doesn't tax or otherwise limit sales of e-cigs, and it doesn't ban their use in workplaces).

 

[Berylanna]

So...does that mean people should lobby to AMEND then SUPPORT the bill? People are often more-receptive to "Plan B would be a good thing to do" rather than "oh, no, don't do that." It works even better if you give them TWO or THREE choices, so they have flexibility to use their judgement and do their jobs.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Berylanna wrote

So...does that mean people should lobby to AMEND then SUPPORT the bill? People are often more-receptive to "Plan B would be a good thing to do" rather than "oh, no, don't do that." It works even better if you give them TWO or THREE choices, so they have flexibility to use their judgement and do their jobs.

Please urge Ohio legislators to support HB 144, which would ban the sale of "alternative nicotine products" to minors.

Please don't support any e-cigarette bill sponsored or lobbied for by CTFK, ACS, ALA, AHA, ANR, or other e-cigarette prohibitionists. We should only attempt to amend their bills if they gain traction in legislative bodies, and appear potentially likely to pass.

CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA are lobbying against HB 144 (calling it a Trojan Horse), and instead are pushing their own bill to falsely define e-cigs as "electronic smoking devices"
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ors-want-tax-lifesaving-products-instead.html

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/07/22/e-cigarette-bill-called-trojan-horse.html

 

[stevegmu]

Berylanna wrote



Please urge Ohio legislators to support HB 144, which would ban the sale of "alternative nicotine products" to minors.

Please don't support any e-cigarette bill sponsored or lobbied for by CTFK, ACS, ALA, AHA, ANR, or other e-cigarette prohibitionists. We should only attempt to amend their bills if they gain traction in legislative bodies, and appear potentially likely to pass.

CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA are lobbying against HB 144 (calling it a Trojan Horse), and instead are pushing their own bill to falsely define e-cigs as "electronic smoking devices"
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ors-want-tax-lifesaving-products-instead.html

E-cig bill called a

Ohio HB144 would finally differentiate e-nic in a class of its own, not lumped in with cigarettes and traditional tobacco products. It is what we need on a federal level-

(4)(a) "Alternative nicotine product" means, subject to 104
division (A)(4)(b) of this section, an electronic cigarette or any 105
other product or device that consists of or contains nicotine that 106
can be ingested into the body by any means, including, but not 107
limited to, chewing, smoking, absorbing, dissolving, or inhaling. 108

(b) "Alternative nicotine product" does not include any of 109
the following: 110

(i) Any cigarette or other tobacco product; 111

(ii) Any product that is a "drug" as that term is defined in 112
21 U.S.C. 321(g)(1); 113

(iii) Any product that is a "device" as that term is defined 114
in 21 U.S.C. 321(h); 115

(iv) Any product that is a "combination product" as described 116
in 21 U.S.C. 353(g). 117

(5)(a) "Electronic cigarette" means, subject to division 118
(A)(5)(b) of this section, any electronic product or device that 119
produces a vapor that delivers nicotine or any other substance to 120
the person inhaling from the device to simulate smoking and that 121
is likely to be offered to or purchased by consumers as an 122
electronic cigarette, electronic cigar, electronic cigarillo, or 123
electronic pipe. 124

(b) "Electronic cigarette" does not include any item, 125
product, or device described in division (A)(4)(b)(i) to (iv) of 126
this section.

Bill Text - HB 144 - Ohio 130th Legislature (2013-2014) - Open States

Not only would e-nic be excluded from tobacco taxes; it would also be excluded from tobacco legislation. Sadly, there will probably be a call to action against the bill, as no one ever seems to read the actual text of the proposed legislation.

 

[Placebo Effect]

Not only would e-nic be excluded from tobacco taxes; it would also be excluded from tobacco legislation. Sadly, there will probably be a call to action against the bill, as no one ever seems to read the actual text of the proposed legislation.

CASAA has opposed very few minor bills over the past 2 years. The only ones we have opposed would have required tobacco licensing and/or handicapped online sales by not giving vendors the option of sending USPS delivery confirmation w/ an ID check at delivery.

We also helped push Arizona legislators to enact their ban on e-cigarette sales to minors when the legislative session was winding down and it appeared that the bill had stalled.