Oregon Attourney General John Kroger, e-cigarette maker agree on halting sales

[ezmoose]

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20100809/UPDATE/100809016#ixzz0w8EA0Ocu

 

[ezmoose]

Business Journal Portland
Oregon bans electronic cigarettes - Portland Business Journal

OregonLive.com
Electronic cigarette company barred from doing business in Oregon | OregonLive.com

KATV.com
Attorney General squashes electronic cigarettes in Oregon | KATU.com - Breaking News, Sports, Traffic and Weather - Portland, Oregon | Health

Canadian Business Online
Oregon attorney general reaches agreement with electronic cigarette maker to halt sales | Markets | Market News | Canadian Business Online

Seattle Times
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ht...76_apusecigarettesoregon.html?syndication=rss

Oregon is the epitome of Nanny States; it doesn’t shock me!

 

[ezmoose]

Oregon and New Jersey forbid pumping your own gas (no self service stations allowed by law). Nannies proliferate in these states! Consequently, Oregon and New Jersey also have it in for E Cigarettes! Why the voters tolerate this (being treated like children) is beyond me?

 

[rothenbj]

Business Journal Portland
Oregon bans electronic cigarettes - Portland Business Journal

OregonLive.com
Electronic cigarette company barred from doing business in Oregon | OregonLive.com

KATV.com
Attorney General squashes electronic cigarettes in Oregon | KATU.com - Breaking News, Sports, Traffic and Weather - Portland, Oregon | Health

Oregon is the epitome of Nanny States; it doesn’t shock me!

The new approach. No need for legislation, just send in the AG and use the court against them. He hit SE which at this point is functionally bankrupt. Now the fear of god, er close, into anyone selling. Gestapo tactics at their finest!

 

[ezmoose]

The new approach. No need for legislation, just send in the AG and use the court against them. He hit SE which at this point is functionally bankrupt. Now the fear of god, er close, into anyone selling. Gestapo tactics at their finest!

Other Attorney Generals, Virginia’s Ken Cuccinelli for example, are more open-minded and level headed towards E Cigarettes. I think the disease of Nannism is contagious; perhaps some areas are more immune than others? lol

 

[PlanetScribbles]

Business Journal Portland
Oregon bans electronic cigarettes - Portland Business Journal

OregonLive.com
Electronic cigarette company barred from doing business in Oregon | OregonLive.com

KATV.com
Attorney General squashes electronic cigarettes in Oregon | KATU.com - Breaking News, Sports, Traffic and Weather - Portland, Oregon | Health

Canadian Business Online
Oregon attorney general reaches agreement with electronic cigarette maker to halt sales | Markets | Market News | Canadian Business Online

Oregon is the epitome of Nanny States; it doesn’t shock me!

I wouldn't even bother commenting at those links, the comments sections are full of trolls. I don't rise to that bait

 

[ezmoose]

I wouldn't even bother commenting at those links, the comments sections are full of trolls. I don't rise to that bait

I bothered commenting on KATV.com. If nothing else, I feel better! lol

Oregon smokers are being discouraged from taking advantage of a much safer alternative to cigarettes! AG John Kroger will now be responsible for killing some nicotine addicted smokers who can not or choose not to quit nicotine and would have made the switch to E Cigarettes. FDA approved cessation methods (with or without counseling) don’t work for the vast majority of addicted smokers. Is this what you call taking care of the people AG Kroger?!

 

[rothenbj]

I bothered commenting on KATV.com. If nothing else, I feel better! lol

I did the same EZ and for the same reason, I feel better!

I'm with you RSC, keep the children focused on tradition. Cigarettes will be there forever for them and they're certainly much easier to acquire and a lot less expensive. Plus maintenance is not an issue. All you need is a pack and a light. If things go as planned, the FDA will reduce the level of nicotine so the youth will not only smoke, but smoke many, many more cigarettes than the generations before them.

Heck, they might as well be smoking, the ones that aren't are in line for the fastest growing addiction in America, sugar. With the obesity of our youth, the health care costs of smoking will look minuscule. The diseases created by this pandemic show up much earlier, require much more medical attention and result in early morbidity also.

Why in the world would we want to look at products that might improve overall health. Science has shown products such as Swedish snus and other tobacco products could eliminate 98-99% of the danger of smoking cigarettes, but our government and ?non-profit?"health" associations hide that information or publish disinformation such as the FDA's press release last year on E-cigs.

Hey, no sweat off my back. I don't have kids that are going to grow up and have to live in this society where everything is done for the common good. I think they might have called that communism in a previous age, but we've moved on and now the idea is good for America. Who would have thought.

The Ex-marine just drove me nuts with his posts.

 

[rothenbj]

Of course John Banas,,,, has to take credit-

Large E-Cigarette Company Settles Law Suit // Makes Major Concessions, Copycat Suits Likely

 

[ezmoose]

I also dropped a reason bomb in the statesmanjournal.com comments; I feel even better now! The therapeutic value of venting is also proven! lol

Why in the world would AG Kroger discourage nicotine addicted smokers who can not or choose not to quit nicotine from switching to a proven (even by the FDA study if you read it) much safer alternative? Would AG Kroger rather see people die than switch? Makes me wonder about his motives? There is no mystery why the FDA is against E Cigarettes; they compete with the (practically useless) cessation products being pushed by their cozy Big Pharma friends. Fortunately, attorney generals in some states have a more level headed and open-minded approach to E Cigarettes.

http://www.e-cig.org/2010/05/05/virginia-attorney-general-is-smart/

 

[mozzstyxx]

Prestone to launch new product:

 

[kristin]

I couldn't help myself, I posted on OregonLive:

The facts were misrepresented. The FDA tested only 18 cartridges from the two companies that were suing them. Hmmm...weird coincidence?

They tested at parts per TRILLION, when most testing for toxins and carcinogens are at parts per MILLION - much less sensitive. And even at such highly sensitive levels of testing, they still could only find TRACE amounts of nitrosamins - which are possibly carcinogenic - in the liquid. NONE was found in the actual vapor. The levels of nitrosamines found are the same as found in the FDA-approved nicotine patch. So, if it's safe enough for the nicotine patch, why is it suddenly a concern for e-cigarettes? Why did they not tell people that what they found was at such low levels that there wasn't actually any risk of harm from them??

As far as the "antifreeze" found - diethylene glycol - they found "approximately 1%" (in the FDA's words) in one cartridge out of the 18 tested and NOT at anywhere near a toxic level. You'd have to use well over 100 cartridges in a single day to reach a toxic level at that rate (if it was actually in every cartridge) and the average e-cigarette user uses 1-3 cartridges a day. Diethylene glycol can also be found in very low levels in a lot of other products we consume, as the FDA considers low levels of otherwise toxic chemicals not to be a significant health threat. Just as they allow certain levels of carcinogens, animal carcasses and feces and potentially toxic chemicals in our other consumable products. Do you know what the allowable level of insect carcasses and feces are allowed just in black pepper??

Just because something is toxic or carcinogenic at greater levels doesn't make it toxic or carcinogenic at minute levels and the FDA acknowledges that for other products. So, just finding trace amounts of a chemical that is toxic or carcinogenic at much greater levels does not make e-cigarettes dangerous and the FDA knew that and still presented the levels (actually, they purposely omitted specifying the actual LEVELS in their often-cited press release, knowing it would negate the cause for alarm) as being dangerous, when they knew they are not.

Think about it - if e-cigarettes really contained toxic levels of diethylene glycol/anti-freeze, you would be hearing about tens of thousands of e-cigarette users being poisoned in the past 6 years that they have been on the market! And tests by several other labs have found NO diethylene glycol (to date, only one cartridge out of many tested was found to contain any) and they report the same "generally regarded as safe" levels of nitrosamines as found in the nicotine patch. Considering the known dangers of smoking and even the black box warnings on FDA-approved drugs like Chantix, e-cigarettes are about as dangerous as coffee.

The FDA (and organizations like the American Lung Association) was just trying to scare people and protect the big pharamceutical profits and government tax revenues on cigarettes - there is simply no other logical explaination.

It makes no other sense to try to ban a product (which contains just a few FDA-approved ingredients and has been shown even by the FDA test NOT to contain tar, carbon monoxide or the other 4,000 chemicals and 50+ carcinogens found in tobacco cigarettes) based on finding an amount of carcinogens which even the FDA considers acceptable for other nicotine products, the "approx 1%" of diethylene glycol only ever found in just ONE cartridge (and at non-toxic levels), NO reports of illness or injury reported from their use in the 6 years on the market worldwide and 2 years in the U.S. and the availablility of pleasant flavors - which adult smokers enjoy just as much as the supposed children they are accused of targeting. Aside from the fact that no one has seen a sudden increase of teens choosing a product meant to improve the health of adult smokers, with an expensive startup cost, over cheap, easily accessible traditonal cigarettes, simply because they are in fruity/candy flavors. If they want fruity/candy flavors, they'll buy candy for 75 cents. If they want to be cool and smoke, they'll buy (or get from friends) a $6 pack of cigarettes, not a $35-$160 "safer" way to smoke. I don't care what flavors they come in - the vast majority of teens want to spend their money on video games, clothes and junk food - not flavored e-cigarettes!

You tell me - if a product is made of already FDA-approved products, shown to be just as safe as an FDA-approved nicotine patch and there have been no reports of illness or injury, nor actually SHOWN to actually be used by teens, why else is the government going after them and blowing their test results way out of proportion??

By the way - I don't fit into your "typical right wing-whacko-extremist-corporate loving-hate filled-lying-dangerous-money worshiping-pro life until they are born republican" description in any way, shape or form. Before the government and "public health" groups started this crazy war on a safer alternative to smoking, I was a just-left-of-center, moderate, self-employed, fun-loving-yet-broke, lower middle class, pro-choice, never involved in politics, 40 year old, mother of four, considerate smoker that never smoked in the house or around non-smokers. Now, for the first time in my life, I feel I have to stand up for what is right and counter the deadly lies and misinformation the government and these groups are feeding the public. I never would have believed that the government and so-called health groups would be capable of such deception! By banning smokeless products like e-cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, which have been scientifically shown to be 98-99% safer than smoking traditional cigarettes, these groups have caused me to stand up and voice my concern that they are putting financial gain (the only logical explanation) or their hate for all things tobacco over true concern about public health. The truth WILL come out and those who tried to protect cigarettes and pharmaceutical companies by discouraging these safer alternatives will have a lot to answer for if they reomve this product from the market.

All Oregon has accomplished here is to remove a much safer alternative and leave deadly tobacco cigarettes and ineffective pharmaceutical products without any market competition. Think about it.

 

[Vocalek]

I had to break my KATV comments into two parts.

Part I

Attorney General Kroger is to be congratulated for protecting the profits of Big Tobacco. Across the U.S., about a million people have substituted an electronic cigarette for their tobacco cigarettes. Obviously they live in states other than Oregon, where the AG would prefer that smokers continue lighting up the real thing and inhaling tar, carbon monoxide, particles of ash, and thousands of toxic chemicals along with their nicotine.

Perhaps AG Kroger was just as duped by the FDA as "Soup" was. When the FDA announced that their testing found 'carcinogens' and an 'ingredient used in antifreeze', the agency failed to mention that the quantity of so-called carcinogens is equivalent to the amount in the FDA-approved nicotine patch and gum. If the patch and the gum don't cause cancer, why would an electronic cigarette? And the FDA also failed to mention that the quantity of the ‘antifreeze’ it found is thousands of times below the Minimal Risk Level.

Part II

Why did the FDA vilify e-cigarettes? The organizations that rely on donations from the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the FDA-approved smoking cessation products asked the FDA to ban e-cigarettes, and the FDA seemed only too happy to play along.

If electronic cigarettes are dangerous products, can anyone explain why 90% of users report that their health has improved? My case is typical. I switched to electronic cigarettes on March 27, 2009. I am no longer kept awake at night by my wheezing. I no longer cough up phlegm in the morning. So the bottom line is that AG Kroger has "protected" smokers from living a longer, healthier life.

BTW, I have to wonder if "Soup" is our buddy Sharon from Ethic Soup.

 

[rothenbj]

Good question, sounds ignorant enough. She never responded did she? Do you have the njoy review of the fda report link hand? I thought I had it, but couldn't find.

 

[kristin]

I had to split mine into several posts, but here it is all together:

If people here applauding the AG and FDA for their actions and just stop and think for a minute, they'd see how unreasonable and baseless these actions are - if only you take into account ALL of the facts.
E-cigarettes are to smokers what low-fat food is to people trying to lose weight. It's called "harm reduction." It may not be 100% perfect, but it's still reducing the exposure to health risks. Now, if a smoker can't or will not quit nicotine or if a kids gets their hands on them, isn't it a good thing that they are far less harmful than the real thing?
The FDA announced that e-cigarettes contain carcinogens and "anti-freeze" but what they didn't make public (you have to go read the report itself) is that they only found TRACE amounts of carcinogens, even when testing at the extra-sensitive level of parts-per-BILLION. Standard testing is done at parts-per-MILLION. And diethylene glycol (found in SOME anti-freeze) was only found at approx. 1% and has been only found in that ONE cartridge out of all the cartridges tested by the FDA and several independent labs. Additionally, at 1% in a 1-3ml cartridge, someone would have to use hundreds of cartridges in a single day (the average is 1-3 per day) in order to reach a toxic level. The FDA allows a maximum level of diethylene glycol to be found in your toothpaste - so why is it different for this product? Can you not see the inconsistency of finding such low amount of anything potentially harmful - the same as approved in other products - yet singling them out as "dangerous?"

The danger from smoking has been scientifically shown to be in the SMOKE - not the nicotine. Nicotine use, absent the smoke, is no more dangerous than the caffeine in your coffee or cola. So don't be so concerned about nicotine - be concerned about SMOKE.

Yes, where there is a will there is a way as far as kids getting e-cigarettes - the same way they get REAL cigarettes. Yet, WHY WOULD THEY? E-cigarettes are viewed by them as a "safe alternative" for ADULTS. The vast majority of kids do NOT think that they are cool, no matter what flavors they come from. The average kid would much rather spend their money on video games, candy, clothes and junk food. I've spoken to dozens of teens - some that smoke - an NONE of them would "waste" their money on e-cigarettes. Real cigarettes are much cheaper, much "cooler" and much more readily available. Additionally, there has been NO real-life evidence that kids are buying these or even attracted to them - the average age on e-cigarette forums is between 30 - 60 years old! There is absolutely no logic that the average kid will suddenly want to eschew their games and clothes for e-cigarettes, no matter what flavors they come in. If they want chocolate flavor, they're much more likely to buy a candy bar. If any kid is attracted to e-cigarettes, they'd have already been pre-dispositioned to buy REAL cigarettes, which would put them in even more harm's way. The claims that these are targeted to kids are just ASSUMPTIONS and NOT FACT. Kids don't want cherry or chocolate-flavored e-cigarettes any more than they want cherry-flavored Nicorette or chocolate-flavored Ex-Lax.

Part of the reason e-cigarettes have succeeded with so many of the older generation is because they don't smell and they taste good. That makes it much harder to go back to nasty-tasting cigarettes. This directly contradicts the claim that e-cigarettes will lead to more kids smoking. And even if the rare kid decides to use them, they'll make real cigarettes taste especially foul and there is no reason to switch over to them. They would actually act as a DETERRENT to real cigarettes!

There is absolutely no sound logic or reason behind opposing e-cigarettes. Even the FDA testing showed that even though they contained trace amounts of carcinogens, they aren't any worse that the nicotine patch and the only potentially toxic chemical found in them was at non-toxic levels and only one single cartridge - which shows that they are much safer than smoking and that there isn't anything in them to cause concern. Claims that kids are targeted are baseless and unfounded. If there is no danger to adults then there is no danger to the very few kids who decide to try them.

The real science shows that the only thing that e-cigarettes endanger are the profits of Big Tobacco and Big Pharma and the tax revenue of the government.

 

[Bill Godshall]

If anyone can find a copy of the actual settlement and/or a copy of the original claim filed by the OR AG last year, please post.

These State AG actions were filed as part of a coordinated litigation strategy by Democrat AGs against two companies to punish them for exercising their legal right to seek civil redress against the FDA.

 

[ezmoose]

Two more with comments available.

LegalNewsline.com
LegalNewsline | E-cigarette company barred in Oregon

ABC News 9 KEZI
E-Cigarette Company Banned from Oregon | KEZI

 

[ezmoose]

ABC News/Money Picked it up too.

Ore. AG, E-Cigarette Maker Agree on Halting Sales - ABC News

No comments yet.

 

[ezmoose]

As did the Los Angeles Times

Oregon attorney general reaches agreement with electronic cigarette maker to halt sales - latimes.com

 

[kristin]

That "Soup" person is such an incredible JERK!