Organizations with the Ability to Listen

[Lalesa]

We'd welcome any suggestions you might have.

The very organizations I thought would be thrilled about people no longer lighting up tobacco cigarettes are our very vocal opponents. It boggles my mind that the Lung Assocation wants me to go back to wheezing and coughing up junk every morning. It seems that sticking to their moral stance of "nicotine abstinence" is much more important to them than the problem of people getting sick and dying.

Volcalek,
I think you are under the mistaken impression that the Lung Assoc. (and all the others) actually care about us. No, they do not want to see us go back to smoking. They are of the "quit or die" mentality.
In actuality, the longer we do smoke, the more funding they get to get us to quit, but the longer we smoke, the more funding.... viscous circle - all to benefit them. It's not about us, the public health or any other noble cause. Its about the money and the fact "they" don't want to see anyone put their hand to their mouth and exhale anything that looks like it might be smoke. "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!" LMAO!
Oh, except for medical marijuana - that's ok as long as they don't have to see it being consumed.

It's not just the FDA, the "Associations For Our Own Good" etc. its everywhere in government. I'm dealing with it now with Calif. Air Resource Board. On some of those forums you could literally switch the topic from diesel to E-cigs and the posts are the same - almost verbatim. Good thing Halloween is coming - It's getting Scarrrrrry out there!

 

[LaceyUnderall]

While I don't want to discourage anyone from trying to solicit advocacy assistance from any organization or individual, many/most of the organizations cited (on this section of the forum) are libertarian, anti tax, anti government, right-to-smoke and/or right wing (i.e. Republicans).

Although any and all support is desirable, I think the most important organizations to solicit support for e-cigarettes (as alternatives to cigarettes) are health, healthcare, scientific, liberal, and anti-smoking organizations (i.e. Democratics).

Most e-cigarette prohibitionists and critics are anti-tobacco extremists, liberal or left wing.

If the contraversy over e-cigarettes becomes too partisan (as appears to becoming the case), e-cigarettes could well be banned in jurisdications controlled by Democrats.

Also, while many anti tax and libertarian organizations may be sympathetic to e-cigarettes, many/most of those organizations only advocate for/against legislation that is of financial concern to their wealthy corporate and/or right wing contributors.

Hi Bill!

I have to disagree. In Indianapolis, we are currently in the fight to put a city ordinance proposal to rest that will not only be banning smoking from public anythings, but it also includes the electronic cigarette. Of course, this charge is led by SmokeFree Indy.

What is also interesting to note is that the persons who are sponsoring this bill consist of 2 republicans and 2 democrats. I just sat through an hour and half meeting with republicans, democrats, and libertarians who are against the smoking ban. We have seen smoking bans imposed in a multitude of cities and states and there is one thing that is consistent about who is doing this: There is no consistent party affiliation.

This isn't about party affiliation. This is about certain people attempting to enforce their particular belief system upon certain people. Those against the electronic cigarette are against it because it "appears to be smoking". There is no concern for public health involved and as I have found out over the past week... those writing the legislation have not even SEEN an electronic cigarette in person, let alone know what it does. They assume it "burns" something which is grossly incorrect.

While support from the groups you have mentioned are definitely needed, we also cannot sell our souls to groups who have demonized us for years... hoping that they won't make a concession and then in a years time, fight us again because they can't stand the idea that people are actually participating in action. From history, we can show direct correlation to the "let's make concessions and then in two years, we will come back and force you to make more".

For instance, in Indianapolis in 2005, SmokeFree Indy forced business owners to make concessions. For instance, they wanted establishments to cater to 18 and above. The business owners, not wanting a full ban, agreed to these terms and here we are in 2009, and the same SmokeFree Indy group has come back and literally blanked out every single exemption that was made. http://www.indy.gov/eGov/Council/Proposals/Documents/PROP09-371.pdf As you can see from the obnoxious amount of stricken language, they have been planning this from the get go.

So... considering we aren't dealing with folks who even think Science and Scientific study is relevant, we have to plead to those organizations who do believe in consumer choice, American freedoms and liberties. We should make efforts towards the groups you have mentioned, but we need to do so with caution.

 

[palermo45]

I agree with you! Most people trust Doctors and if we could get enough of Doctor's opinions on e-cigs, it would benefit our cause. I have a very close friend who is a Physician here in Southern California. He has taken a look at the ingredients of e-cigs and read up on what proponents say and to him it is laughable! Like he states, anything that has a dozen or so chemicals which do not BURN (no tar) vs all of the known poisons in regular cigarettes is by basic common logic safer! He also stated that quite a few of his patients have shown him their own e-cigs and told him that they have been able to quit regular cigarettes. He has stated that his patients show improved lung function and seem to be much happier. So this is one Doctor who has just half a dozen of patients who have told him about their possitive experience. If every Doctor in the Country has half a dozen similar stories, that is a heck of a lot of success stories. I would venture to say that there must be at least 20,000 people who have slowed down their intake of regular cigarettes or quit altogether thanks to the e-cig.

What we need to do, is somehow get the American Medical Association involved. We need to get the word out there to all patients and people who use e-cigs to share that in detail with their physicians. Then somehow we need to get all of this input on a single database so we can show some nationwide numbers. Physicians can also perform tests (which they would do anyways) on patients' breathing, lung function, capacity, etc and monitor the patients improvement on a monthly basis. Then we can show that x amount of physicians have been monitoring x number of patients who have switched from regular cigarettes to e-cigs. On a month by month basis, Physicians have been monitoring there patients breathing capabilities and every month, each patint showed an improvement of X percentage. Something like that! We need to have it in a simple graph form. Once Doctors start doing this and the word spreads, in a matter of months every Doctor could be doing this (they would want to) and we would then have specific evidence of lung improvement as well as other health benefits directly from our Country's physicians. If in a matter of several months, we could show a few thousand people benefitting from e-cigs, we would definitely be taken much more seriously and our message would then be bigger news. Sorry for the typos but I am exhausted. I think you get the idea!!

All we need is a way for Doctor's to get the initial information to a database that we can access. Any ideas on how to do this? We do have some prominent Doctor's on our side already!

If we have this possitive information from a good amount of Doctors, who will question them? If 1000 Doctors all say that the patients they have who use e-cigs showed a lot of improvement, who can take that away from these same patients? Besides lung function, there are other tests which can all be performed quite easily and take seconds to do!

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Palermo,

It's a great idea... but would need to be set up in order for them to use it. I don't know what a website (which would be the best) like that would cost... but it wouldn't be cheap due to the intense security needed as it would contain personal info

So if you know anyone?!?!

But you are right. More doctors DO need to stand up for their patients and not just in the office, but in the real world.

 

[Vocalek]

The information in the database would need to be structured in such a way that you cannot determine the identity of the patient. Otherwise you run afoul of the HIPAA Privacy Rule (The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) Health Information Privacy

 

[Vocalek]

Volcalek,
I think you are under the mistaken impression that the Lung Assoc. (and all the others) actually care about us. No, they do not want to see us go back to smoking. They are of the "quit or die" mentality.
In actuality, the longer we do smoke, the more funding they get to get us to quit, but the longer we smoke, the more funding.... viscous circle - all to benefit them. It's not about us, the public health or any other noble cause. Its about the money and the fact "they" don't want to see anyone put their hand to their mouth and exhale anything that looks like it might be smoke. "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!" LMAO!
Oh, except for medical marijuana - that's ok as long as they don't have to see it being consumed.

It's not just the FDA, the "Associations For Our Own Good" etc. its everywhere in government. I'm dealing with it now with Calif. Air Resource Board. On some of those forums you could literally switch the topic from diesel to E-cigs and the posts are the same - almost verbatim. Good thing Halloween is coming - It's getting Scarrrrrry out there!

Of course I know better now. But I was astonished at the organizations that came out against this. I believed their mission statements.

I will never donate another penny to ALA, ACS, or AHA until they stop telling lies and start proving to me that they actually care about human suffering.

Becoming a vaper has been a real eye-opener for me. I have read some of the studies sponsored by AHA and published in medical journals, and see that they structure the research to get the answer they want.

 

[jj2]

My doctor was very interested in the e-cig—even insisted I show it to another doctor. I wanted to show it off right in front of everyone in the office, but he didn’t. Then there is the fear of potential lawsuits (remember, there is little know about our PVs) so unless you could protect the doctor’s identity, I doubt any of them would do what you want.
And with no documentation of Dr. and the patient, no one will give it much credence.

 

[palermo45]

My doctor was very interested in the e-cig—even insisted I show it to another doctor. I wanted to show it off right in front of everyone in the office, but he didn’t. Then there is the fear of potential lawsuits (remember, there is little know about our PVs) so unless you could protect the doctor’s identity, I doubt any of them would do what you want.
And with no documentation of Dr. and the patient, no one will give it much credence.

It wouldn't have to be somthing stating that particular doctors endorse and recommend e-cigs. It would just be peoples Doctors stating what they have seen in reference to their patients use of e-cigs and lung function. I have read many posts of people that have switched to e-cigs and their Physicians have stated that their lung function has improved. All I am saying is if we can show even a few hundred Doctors documenting their patients medical improvements while using e-cigs, it would be beneficial. There is nothing wrong with a Doctor stating: Patient smith showed me his electronic cigarette device 3 months ago. I performed a spirometry and peak flow meter tests at that time and one every month after and lung function has improved by XXX percentage. I was thinking of something along those lines. Just as a start, I am sure all of us on this board would have no problem asking our Doctors about this.

 

[sutrufu]

Thanks so much for this. I appreciate the effort. It really helps a lot.

 

[Koman]

I agree with you! Most people trust Doctors and if we could get enough of Doctor's opinions on e-cigs, it would benefit our cause. I have a very close friend who is a Physician here in Southern California. He has taken a look at the ingredients of e-cigs and read up on what proponents say and to him it is laughable! Like he states, anything that has a dozen or so chemicals which do not BURN (no tar) vs all of the known poisons in regular cigarettes is by basic common logic safer! He also stated that quite a few of his patients have shown him their own e-cigs and told him that they have been able to quit regular cigarettes. He has stated that his patients show improved lung function and seem to be much happier. So this is one Doctor who has just half a dozen of patients who have told him about their possitive experience. If every Doctor in the Country has half a dozen similar stories, that is a heck of a lot of success stories. I would venture to say that there must be at least 20,000 people who have slowed down their intake of regular cigarettes or quit altogether thanks to the e-cig.

What we need to do, is somehow get the American Medical Association involved. We need to get the word out there to all patients and people who use e-cigs to share that in detail with their physicians. Then somehow we need to get all of this input on a single database so we can show some nationwide numbers. Physicians can also perform tests (which they would do anyways) on patients' breathing, lung function, capacity, etc and monitor the patients improvement on a monthly basis. Then we can show that x amount of physicians have been monitoring x number of patients who have switched from regular cigarettes to e-cigs. On a month by month basis, Physicians have been monitoring there patients breathing capabilities and every month, each patint showed an improvement of X percentage. Something like that! We need to have it in a simple graph form. Once Doctors start doing this and the word spreads, in a matter of months every Doctor could be doing this (they would want to) and we would then have specific evidence of lung improvement as well as other health benefits directly from our Country's physicians. If in a matter of several months, we could show a few thousand people benefitting from e-cigs, we would definitely be taken much more seriously and our message would then be bigger news. Sorry for the typos but I am exhausted. I think you get the idea!!

All we need is a way for Doctor's to get the initial information to a database that we can access. Any ideas on how to do this? We do have some prominent Doctor's on our side already!

If we have this possitive information from a good amount of Doctors, who will question them? If 1000 Doctors all say that the patients they have who use e-cigs showed a lot of improvement, who can take that away from these same patients? Besides lung function, there are other tests which can all be performed quite easily and take seconds to do!

I think those are solid points.