Petition the administration to recognize e-cigarettes

[tybin]

I Think it's important to contact the White House and tell them what you think about this response that was just sent to us!

Submit Questions & Comments | The White House

 

[EmmaJo]

Believe me I have tybin. And yes, I do not live in a reasonable world. It's so unfortunate and I'm just so angry about the whole situation. Vapers use a LEGAL drug. But yet there is "medicinal ........." shops opening up in parts of our country that sell an ILLEGAL drug. LEGAL drug....ILLEGAL drug. WTH? Makes no sense at all.

I could go into such a rant right now but everyone has heard it all before I'm sure.

 

[VapRon]

I just got the same response. How dissapointing.
And to round it out, since about 1 hour I am getting e-mails from Huffington post. Just wonder why????

 

[stevejo]

Just recieved this gem in my email:

Protecting Public Health Through Safe and Effective Treatments
By Dr. Lawrence R. Deyton, M.S.P.H, M.D., Director of the Center for tobacco Products at the FDA.

Thank you for signing the petition "Recognize electronic cigarettes as an effective alternative to smoking and support job creation in this new industry."

E-cigarettes may contain ingredients that are known to be toxic to humans or otherwise harm public health -- for example, if they are attractive to young people and lead kids to try other tobacco products, including conventional cigarettes, which are known to cause disease and lead to premature death. Because clinical studies of these products have not been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), consumers currently have no way of knowing what types or concentrations of potentially harmful chemicals are found in these products, or how much nicotine people inhale when they use these products.

FDA is taking steps, as authorized by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, to include electronic cigarettes under the agency's regulatory authority.

However, in light of the lack of validated scientific data, including a lack of reliable indicators of nicotine and harmful chemical content, FDA cannot at this time conclude that electronic cigarettes are an effective alternative to smoking.

Make no mistake, the Obama Administration shares your concern about the public health risks associated with cigarette smoking and is committed to helping Americans quit. Cigarette smoking poses a serious public health risk to our Nation, accounting for about one-third of all cancers, including 90 percent of lung cancer cases. On average, adults who smoke die 14 years earlier than nonsmokers. Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent. A 35-year-old man who quits smoking will, on average, increase his life expectancy by 5 years.

As someone who is clearly engaged on this issue, we also want to make sure you know about the Great American Smokeout, the American Cancer Society's nationwide campaign to encourage smokers to make a plan to quit

Wrote a decent response, sent to a few emails and entered int heir contact form:

To whom it may concern:

As a 15-year two-pack-a-day smoker, I have been trying for years to find a way to cut back and eliminate my smoking habits. My personal savior in this struggle was the personal vaporizer(pv), or e-cigarette. The struggle to quit or use alternative products is a long, hard road, and wonderful products like the pv make it a much easier path.

As we are all aware, cigarette smoking is one of the most directly harmful habits available to adults in this country and, in a greater scope, the world. Cigarette smoke contains known carcinogens, carbon monoxide, and tars that are dreadfully harmful to our bodies. However, a large percentage of the health risks derive directly from two sources: the preparation of cigarette tobacco, and the act of burning that produces the smoke.

Many smokeless alternatives exist, and these alternatives are not given their due as a harm-reduction method. Obviously the best-case health scenario is to quit altogether, kicking both the nicotine addiction and the habit of smoking. However, for some this is either not feasible or extremely difficult. Enter harm-reduction. Stop fighting the addiction to these products and start working on reducing the harm they cause to both users and persons in the vicinity of users, the majority of which is caused by the smoke itself and the act of smoking.

Though I grew up in a non-smoking home, I can attest to the short-term effects of secondhand smoke. As a youngster growing up in a small town, all of our cafes and restaurants were smoking restaurants. After a dinner out with my family, I would often notice a shortness of breath, a foul smell on my self and my belongings, and a nagging cough. These symptoms would generally disappear overnight, however were still present and annoying. I can imagine the effects of a child growing up in a smoking home that was exposed to this type of environment constantly.

All harm-reduction alternatives, from pv's to dissolvable tobacco lozenges to smokeless tobacco and snus, eliminate the secondhand exposure to cigarette smoke. Even if these alternatives were just as dangerous to the user as a regular tobacco cigarette, would it not be worth encouraging their use for the simple reduction in secondhand smoke and improvement in overall air quality? yet these products are mandated by our own FDA to carry the same warning labels as all tobacco cigarettes, with smokeless tobacco even carrying a warning that "Smokeless tobacco is not a safe alternative to smoking." They also carry the same 'sin tax' that tobacco cigarettes do, even in light of the reduced harm that they cause.f

This to me seems extremely counterproductive. To add to the contradictions present about these products, there are even studies present to prove the harm reduction to the user, above and beyond the 'secondhand' implications. I reference the following linked USA Today article that states "... the two studies show snus may not be as harmful as previously thought, and far less harmful than cigarettes. " (Link Doctors: Swedish snus cut risk of cancer - USATODAY.com)

Now, seeing the scientific facts presented by Swedish medical experts, should we not encourage users of tobacco cigarettes to attempt to switch to a harm-reduced smokeless product, even if it is no "Proven 100% Safe?" Even if a product is 50% safer that cigarettes (and most studies show the electronic cigarette, Swedish snus, and dissolvable tobacco products to have as low a 1% of the risk), would it not be worth 50% less cancer, 50% less emphysema, and 50% less of all the other ills directly linked to tobacco smoking?

My question to our administration is this: How would a government concerned with the welfare of its constituents deny them (the constituents) information on lower-harm alternatives to dangerous products if the constituency desired to use these products? I realize that the FDA regulates all of our drug supply for safety reasons. However, how many drugs have come to market and later been recalled for safety reasons? How many drugs are in the market right now that have dangerous side effects, but are not pulled as those side effects are deemed ‘less harmful’ than not having the drug?
Your own statement that you release states “…the Obama Administration shares your concern about the public health risks associated with cigarette smoking…” How can this be so when so many potential life-saving alternatives are either deinied, taxed, or warning labeled into obscurity?

As a responsible administration, one that is concerned with the health of all American citizens, I urge you to stand behind the smokeless movement, by way of supporting importation and US production of e-cigarettes; by not limiting or taxing importation of proven safer Swedish snus; and by supporting production, tax breaks, and distribution incentives for dissolvable tobacco products. Stop the waste of tax dollars that is enforcing labeling requirements, curbing importation, and enforcing distribution of these reduced-harm products.

Links for reference:

Experts agree on a 90% risk reduction using Low-Nitrosamine Smokeless Tobacco products
The Relative Risks of a Low-Nitrosamine Smokeless Tobacco Product Compared with Smoking Cigarettes: Estimates of a Panel of Experts

RJ Reynolds statement regarding dissolvable tobacco products
http://www.rjrt.com/uploadedFiles/C...mentToCamelDissolvablesMisrepresentations.pdf

NY Times article supporting access to e-cigs
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/s...but-they-have-some-unlikely-critics.html?_r=1

Health New Zealand study on safety of e-cigs
http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf

Wikipedia article featuring collection of information on e-cigs, use, and safety
Electronic cigarette - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bryansthl]

This was a big waste of time. The government is showing where it stands now. And its not for the people!

 

[mostlyclassics]

I Think it's important to contact the White House and tell them what you think about this response that was just sent to us!

It's the White House that sent that email! That's their position on the matter! Your mommies have spoken!

 

[loft]

I think we should flood them with snail mail. I received the same cookie cutter response earlier but couldn't read it as I was at work.

 

[Nunnster]

Oh I just got that email today, and I was about to make a new post to rage about it. But it seems it has already been done. For the people my bum

 

[Scottinboca]

I got the email as well. What a load of cr@p.

 

[Uma]

I just received one also. This is extremely upsetting. Maybe we need to be a squeeky wheel and start protest marches?? (but brrrr, baby it's cold outside)...

This is so outrageous

 

[EmmaJo]

VERY decent response SteveJo

Edited to add: would you mind if I copy/pasted to send to my congressman?

 

[Torqueguy]

Yet one more reason to take out the garbage in 2012.

How about that Hope and Change now?

Vote right

 

[Uma]

I kinda lost it in my response back.... oops.

(we need clean up crew on email 12 please)

 

[Scottinboca]

The devil you know, is better then the devil you don't know!

Yet one more reason to take out the garbage in 2012.

How about that Hope and Change now?

Vote right

 

[MrsCasey]

I second EmmaJo's request to copy SteveJo's letter and send it to my Congressman and any other Government Official I think could or should help our cause. I would probably slightly alter it so that it's not ignored as a form letter and would add a link to Dr. Michael Siegel's co-authored study from February 2011. If squeaky wheels can get Nativitys taken down and crosses removed from public property then we should be able to get off our butts and make enough noise that they can't ignore us.

 

[MrsCasey]

I think we should flood them with snail mail. I received the same cookie cutter response earlier but couldn't read it as I was at work.

Snail Mail, E-Mail any response quoting statistics strengthening our stance and remaining calm and rational could help. It's better than sitting back doing nothing. If we do nothing we really have no right to complain if/when ecigs are regulated, taxed or banned!

 

[Mammal]

As we all know, the FDA is seeking, and will probably eventually get, some sort of regulatory authority - really, they're the ones who should be in charge of making sure these favorite toys of ours aren't full of antifreeze/arsenic/e.coli/nerve gas/CJD prions/[just making things up here]. And if it does turn out there's something horrible about the current formulations that suddenly turns everyone into zombies 20 years down the road, it's on them and the CDC to discover the problem and formulate the response.

I've had surprisingly good luck asking the FDA "dumb" questions in the past (*cough* - remember the debate over the safety and approval of urethane vs. latex prophylactics? The answer was complicated because the actual workings of the regulatory system and what-actually-gets-tested are complicated, but it was informative, and the MD on staff stuck answering didn't at all mind replying and trying to clear things up**).


So - may I suggest directing short emails to the FDA, not bothering to cite "unscientific" sources (medical researchers unfortunately can't officially rely on Wikipedia or the New York Times, except as inspiration), mentioning that you're an e-cigarette user, you feel your health has improved, you're terrified you might return to actual tobacco if regulation destroys availability, and just generally point out that we all understand their mission is to make sure harmful products aren't on the shelves, but any regulation needs to be phased in gradually, carefully, and in a way that doesn't injure ex-smokers who are comfortable with the possibly harm-reducing choice?

If your doctor is on board, cite to your doctor as a point of contact, and if you're willing, discuss being amenable to releasing your medical records if it helps advance any studies or meta-analyses on the actual health impacts of what we're all doing here.



** The response was complicated enough that I'd have to refer back to the actual email to determine exactly what was said, so I don't want to give any secondhand confused medical advice on that OT subject here. Hopefully they have a clear statement of what is/isn't known on the website by now.

 

[DC2]

Hey Mammal, that sounds like a pretty good approach.

But it assumes the FDA gives a crap about something other than money.
And just maybe they might, so I'd like to see what others have to say.

 

[TUS172]

So... Below is the White House response to the White House Petition that so many of us signed earlier this year. I recieved it today as an email From: The White House info@messages.whitehouse.gov

Protecting Public Health Through Safe and Effective Treatments
By Dr. Lawrence R. Deyton, M.S.P.H, M.D., Director of the Center for Tobacco Products at the FDA.
Thank you for signing the petition "Recognize electronic cigarettes as an effective alternative to smoking and support job creation in this new industry."
E-cigarettes may contain ingredients that are known to be toxic to humans or otherwise harm public health -- for example, if they are attractive to young people and lead kids to try other tobacco products, including conventional cigarettes, which are known to cause disease and lead to premature death. Because clinical studies of these products have not been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), consumers currently have no way of knowing what types or concentrations of potentially harmful chemicals are found in these products, or how much nicotine people inhale when they use these products.
FDA is taking steps, as authorized by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, to include electronic cigarettes under the agency's regulatory authority.
However, in light of the lack of validated scientific data, including a lack of reliable indicators of nicotine and harmful chemical content, FDA cannot at this time conclude that electronic cigarettes are an effective alternative to smoking.
Make no mistake, the Obama Administration shares your concern about the public health risks associated with cigarette smoking and is committed to helping Americans quit. Cigarette smoking poses a serious public health risk to our Nation, accounting for about one-third of all cancers, including 90 percent of lung cancer cases. On average, adults who smoke die 14 years earlier than nonsmokers. Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25 to 30 percent and lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent. A 35-year-old man who quits smoking will, on average, increase his life expectancy by 5 years.
As someone who is clearly engaged on this issue, we also want to make sure you know about the Great American Smokeout, the American Cancer Society's nationwide campaign to encourage smokers to make a plan to quit. Watch a special video from President Obama and learn more about it here:

 

[twohandedcreations]

i sent my comments back to the white house regarding their cookie cutter response!!! Profits are at stake here!!! someone would have to take a pay cut if tens of thousands of people stopped getting lung cancer!!! and big pharm. cant have that!!!


makes me wanna go postal...!!