Siegel BLASTS e cig Opponents

[sherid]

On the Absurdity of the Anti-Smoking Groups' Position on Electronic Cigarettes
The major national anti-smoking organizations - including the American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, and Campaign for tobacco-Free Kids - have called for the removal of electronic cigarettes from the market. In their statement, these groups take issue with claims that these products are safer than cigarettes and that they can help people to quit smoking.

The Rest of the Story

The position of these anti-smoking groups is an absurd one, and it demonstrates that they are not really about protecting the public's health after all. If health were the concern, then why would these groups prefer that people smoke conventional cigarettes -- which contain thousands of chemicals and more than 60 carcinogens -- rather than electronic cigarettes, which deliver the nicotine without any of these chemicals and carcinogens?

The absurdity of these groups' position was summarized best by Jacob Sullum, who described it as follows:

"Telling smokers they may not use e-cigarettes until they're approved by the FDA is like telling a floundering swimmer not to climb aboard a raft because it might have a leak."

Sullum's description of the situation is a perfect one.

There are only two mitigating factors that would give legitimacy to the public health groups' position. One is if the use of electronic cigarettes was preventing smokers from quitting smoking. In other words, if smokers who otherwise would have quit entirely were using these products. However, there is no evidence that this is the case. Instead, it appears that electronic cigarettes are helping smokers -- who would otherwise continue to smoke conventional cigarettes -- to keep off cigarettes.

The other mitigating factor would be if nonsmokers were starting to use electronic cigarettes. Again, there is no evidence that this is the case. Electronic cigarettes are clearly being marketed to smokers and there is no evidence that nonsmokers are using these products.

The health groups' questioning of the validity of the claim that electronic cigarettes are safer than conventional ones shows the lack of a role that science plays in the modern day tobacco control movement. Stating that we can't draw such a conclusion until the FDA fully studies the product sounds like something the tobacco industry would have said 50 years ago about the evidence that cigarette smoking is harmful.

The health groups' questioning of the validity of the claim that electronic cigarettes can help people to quit smoking shows an ignorance of the hundreds of testimonials coming from e-cigarette users.

What seems to be behind the anti-smoking groups' concerns is more an ideological opposition to the theoretical idea of a cigarette-like product than any legitimate health concern. The rest of the story is that scientific integrity and health itself are losing out to ideology in the modern-day tobacco control movement.
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary

 

[Kate51]

SHERID, Thanks for this post, couldn't have said it better myself. Everyone pass this along to every one of those media outlets proporting ecig ban approvals

 

[Angela]

the American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, and Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids

What I can't understand is, what right have these organisations got to have ANY official opinion on the e-cig? OK, the Heart Association - possibly a tenuous connection because of the nicotine, but I would have thought that they would have had greater things to worry about, but Cancer Society? As far as anyone is aware (and to the best of scientific knowledge today), nothing in e-cigs causes cancer. Tobacco-Free Kids? There's no tobacco.

Do they have an official policy on sweets and chocolate, complaining about the possible side-effects of obesity and detrimental effect on teeth? After all, a lot of people trying to move away from smoking analogues start eating a lot of that stuff!

 

[Dilutetrips]

my fav is how they say that e-cigs will make kids want to smoke. So lets not have somthing that should/could save lives because someone might want to use it. I do not know if vaping is healty, but I know that it is better for me then cigs. If smoking is legal then e-cigs should be also.

 

[Avid]

Great reading, thanks for posting

 

[Vapor Pete]

In reading through the many stories on the "Rest of the story" pages, it occured to me: Since SE is suing over their right to sell e-cigs, and there a number of people (Bill Godshall, etc.) who are saying that taking these off the market is the wrong move, would it be prudent for someone who say, has a smoking related illness to sue the FDA also?

1. I smoked cigarettes
2. Dr. told me I had the beginnings of emphysma and to quit smoking.
3. I tried all the FDA approved NRT products, or at least a good number of them.
4. those products did not work, back to smoking
5. found e-cigs
6. E-cigs have kept me off cigarettes for (insert amount of time) without withdrawl or complication.
7. Dr. says lung performance is now getting better
8. I now am having trouble getting my e-cig equipment, due to FDA seizing shippments.
9. I would like to sue FDA because they are withholding from me, a device that has helped me avoid further complications.

The above scenerio is not me... but what if it were someone out there? Would a lawsuit like that (or some variation thereof) serve to show the actual reasons behind the FDA's actions, and bring to light the absurd idiology of the Anti's statements?
My best,
-VP

 

[ejfan1977]

In reading through the many stories on the "Rest of the story" pages, it occured to me: Since SE is suing over their right to sell e-cigs, and there a number of people (Bill Godshall, etc.) who are saying that taking these off the market is the wrong move, would it be prudent for someone who say, has a smoking related illness to sue the FDA also?

1. I smoked cigarettes
2. Dr. told me I had the beginnings of emphysma and to quit smoking.
3. I tried all the FDA approved NRT products, or at least a good number of them.
4. those products did not work, back to smoking
5. found e-cigs
6. E-cigs have kept me off cigarettes for (insert amount of time) without withdrawl or complication.
7. Dr. says lung performance is now getting better
8. I now am having trouble getting my e-cig equipment, due to FDA seizing shippments.
9. I would like to sue FDA because they are withholding from me, a device that has helped me avoid further complications.

The above scenerio is not me... but what if it were someone out there? Would a lawsuit like that (or some variation thereof) serve to show the actual reasons behind the FDA's actions, and bring to light the absurd idiology of the Anti's statements?
My best,
-VP

I think you have a very valid idea. I really enjoy hearing you think out loud!

 

[sherid]

My question is how did organizations like the ALA and the ACS as well as ASH and its spinoffs ever manage to get so much power. Presently, they appear to control entire governments and the legislature in countries throughout the world. They do so with lies and exaggerated claims. They give ... REPORT CARDS to states and make demands. They have WaY too much power, and I find that disturbing beyond belief.

 

[Bryn]

In reading through the many stories on the "Rest of the story" pages, it occured to me: Since SE is suing over their right to sell e-cigs, and there a number of people (Bill Godshall, etc.) who are saying that taking these off the market is the wrong move, would it be prudent for someone who say, has a smoking related illness to sue the FDA also?

1. I smoked cigarettes
2. Dr. told me I had the beginnings of emphysma and to quit smoking.
3. I tried all the FDA approved NRT products, or at least a good number of them.
4. those products did not work, back to smoking
5. found e-cigs
6. E-cigs have kept me off cigarettes for (insert amount of time) without withdrawl or complication.
7. Dr. says lung performance is now getting better
8. I now am having trouble getting my e-cig equipment, due to FDA seizing shippments.
9. I would like to sue FDA because they are withholding from me, a device that has helped me avoid further complications.

The above scenerio is not me... but what if it were someone out there? Would a lawsuit like that (or some variation thereof) serve to show the actual reasons behind the FDA's actions, and bring to light the absurd idiology of the Anti's statements?
My best,
-VP

Sounds like a very good case for class action lawsuit against FDA. Also many people don't have health insurance these days (loss of jobs due to lay-off) so e-cigarettes have been a life saver instead of having to go to doctors, hospitals, etc. for health problems caused by cigarette smoking.

 

[wyzardd]

never mind, finally saw the link to the article

 

[Boston George]

They have WaY too much power, and I find that disturbing beyond belief.

Amen.

Fear self-righteous individuals who wish to 'protect' you.

23% of people smoke, although not a majority its still a good sized voting block. If smokers collectively said they would vote for someone who defended their rights, those lobbies would be in trouble.

 

[arogyam]

Thanks for share this great post

 

[TropicalBob]

I fully, 100% support and believe the summary paragraph at the end, but Siegel's posts regularly trouble me because he seems to invariably stretch the facts. Case in point:

If health were the concern, then why would these groups prefer that people smoke conventional cigarettes -- which contain thousands of chemicals and more than 60 carcinogens -- rather than electronic cigarettes, which deliver the nicotine without any of these chemicals and carcinogens?

These groups have NEVER said that. Ever. And never will. It's not either e-cigs or real cigs. For these zealots, it's no e-cigs and QUIT real cigs. By putting words they never said in their mouths, and then basing the rest of his commentary on that, he devoids the proper conclusion in his final paragraph.

 

[Spikey]

Might make sense to post this in the health section.. I know at least 3 or 4 people on here who vape because of health issues and whose health has improved due to giving up analogs. They might find it a viable option to start a lawsuit.

In reading through the many stories on the "Rest of the story" pages, it occured to me: Since SE is suing over their right to sell e-cigs, and there a number of people (Bill Godshall, etc.) who are saying that taking these off the market is the wrong move, would it be prudent for someone who say, has a smoking related illness to sue the FDA also?

1. I smoked cigarettes
2. Dr. told me I had the beginnings of emphysma and to quit smoking.
3. I tried all the FDA approved NRT products, or at least a good number of them.
4. those products did not work, back to smoking
5. found e-cigs
6. E-cigs have kept me off cigarettes for (insert amount of time) without withdrawl or complication.
7. Dr. says lung performance is now getting better
8. I now am having trouble getting my e-cig equipment, due to FDA seizing shippments.
9. I would like to sue FDA because they are withholding from me, a device that has helped me avoid further complications.

The above scenerio is not me... but what if it were someone out there? Would a lawsuit like that (or some variation thereof) serve to show the actual reasons behind the FDA's actions, and bring to light the absurd idiology of the Anti's statements?
My best,
-VP

 

[Bill Godshall]

Here's another article by Sullum on e-cigarettes. The website posting contains links to referenced documents.


'We're About Harm Reduction...Except I Can't Say That'

Jacob Sullum
Reason Hit & Run
May 6, 2009
Hit & Run > 'We're About Harm Reduction...Except I Can't Say That' - Reason Magazine

Contrary to an email message that the Food and Drug Administration seems to have sent accidentally, the agency did not announce enforcement actions against leading distributors of electronic cigarettes yesterday. Craig Youngblood, CEO of the e-cigarette company inLife, says an FDA official told him the message contained "inaccurate information," but it's not clear whether that means the "extensive rollout" described in the notice has been called off or merely delayed. "Some of the people I know are saying a ban is imminent," says Youngblood, but "we really don't know."

In the meantime, the FDA says it is treating e-cigarettes on a case-by-case basis, which seems to involve looking for health claims that render them unapproved drug delivery devices. The more cautious distributors therefore avoid describing e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation tool or as a way of treating or mitigating disease. It's clear that e-cigarettes, which contain no tobacco and deliver nicotine in water vapor instead of smoke, are far less hazardous than standard cigarettes. But saying so risks attracting unwanted attention from the FDA, which has seized some companies' shipments. (One of them, Smoking Everywhere, has sued the FDA in federal court, arguing that the agency has no jurisdiction over e-cigarettes.) "Safest, safer, those are mitigating claims," says Youngblood. "We need to be careful as an industry in how we depict our product. Without medical evidence, we shouldn't be saying anything is safer."

At the same time, the industry's main argument against FDA interference is that it is providing a safer alternative to cigarettes. In a statement released on Monday, former congressman Matt Salmon, president of the newly formed Electronic Cigarette Association, complains:

"The message that is being sent by the FDA to those who cannot stop smoking, or who do not wish to stop smoking, is that it is better to keep smoking tobacco, which kills more than 400,000 people in the US per year....It is time to stop misinformation, to put the needs of consumers ahead of special interests, to put public health ahead of stifling process, and to embrace the first true innovation in a centuries-old space."

The industry's regulatory dilemma is clear when you talk to Youngblood. Even while mentioning testimonials from smokers who "have made a transition," he is careful to say, "We are not a quit-smoking device....We are an alternative nicotine delivery device." (That terminology may be risky too, since that's what former FDA chief David Kessler called cigarettes when he unsuccessfully tried to regulate them during the Clinton administration.) And even while contrasting the myriad toxins and carcinogens in tobacco smoke with the "13 or 14" chemicals in e-cigarette vapor, none of which is a known carcinogen, Youngblood says talking about relative hazards is asking for trouble:

"We can't make those statements. We have to make [consumers] draw that conclusion. And quite frankly, that's OK, because people know it....[Regulators] do put you in a bit of a bind. It's hard to communicate openly without putting your foot in your mouth....We're about harm reduction, and that's truly to our core....Except I can't say that."

 

[katink]

I am not a US-citizen, but the above is certainly the case for me... beginning COPD, now off all meds and almost back to normal for the lungs... but still needing nic (and possibly the action) so the e-cig IS a life-saver for me.

For my feeling (though reality might sadly be otherwise) it really should be possible to call FDA/government/anti-groups who-ever to court over their conduct... hope someone does find a way.

 

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

I have always discribed my gizmo as a "cleaner alternative." If I'm challanged, I CAN back this up with fact....


No burning tobacco smoke in the atmosphere
No ashes littering the ground
No spent butts on highways or landfills
No tar or smoke in the lungs

 

[yvilla]

I fully, 100% support and believe the summary paragraph at the end, but Siegel's posts regularly trouble me because he seems to invariably stretch the facts. Case in point:

If health were the concern, then why would these groups prefer that people smoke conventional cigarettes -- which contain thousands of chemicals and more than 60 carcinogens -- rather than electronic cigarettes, which deliver the nicotine without any of these chemicals and carcinogens?

These groups have NEVER said that. Ever. And never will. It's not either e-cigs or real cigs. For these zealots, it's no e-cigs and QUIT real cigs. By putting words they never said in their mouths, and then basing the rest of his commentary on that, he devoids the proper conclusion in his final paragraph.

TBob, you are missing this essential point that Siegel makes:

Instead, it appears that electronic cigarettes are helping smokers -- who would otherwise continue to smoke conventional cigarettes -- to keep off cigarettes.

He doesn't claim these prohibitionist groups and lawmakers say they want people to keep smoking. He is simply presenting the reality and the impact their illogical position is having and would have on thousands of people like many of us here at ECF - adult smokers of ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty years, most of whom have tried quitting countless times and with every "approved" method possible, but without success. And who would or will resume smoking should ecigs truly become unavailable.

It is clearly permissible to cite and condemn the obvious and foreseeable consequences of an action or position, without regard to whether the actor expressly admits or has a "guilty intent". It is done every day in courtrooms across the land, for example, in cases of criminally negligent or reckless homicide, or even in product liability cases or certain discrimination cases, where the impact of a challenged policy on classes of people is looked to rather than any "stated" intent to discriminate.

So why are you so unwilling to apply this well-known and accepted principle to our situation?

 

[sheilalynn]

1. I smoked cigarettes
2. Dr. told me I had the beginnings of emphysma and to quit smoking.
3. I tried all the FDA approved NRT products, or at least a good number of them.
4. those products did not work, back to smoking
5. found e-cigs
6. E-cigs have kept me off cigarettes for (insert amount of time) without withdrawl or complication.
7. Dr. says lung performance is now getting better
8. I now am having trouble getting my e-cig equipment, due to FDA seizing shippments.
9. I would like to sue FDA because they are withholding from me, a device that has helped me avoid further complications.

The above scenerio is not me... but what if it were someone out there? Would a lawsuit like that (or some variation thereof) serve to show the actual reasons behind the FDA's actions, and bring to light the absurd idiology of the Anti's statements?
My best,
-VP

That scenario IS me since I was not given a choice by the doctor. After 30+ years of smoking and developing COPD it was quit or else. I'm just glad someone pointed me towards the e-cigs or I know I'd still be puffing away 30-40 analogs a day.

I have tried every method out there in the past to quit and nothing has worked. Just the fact that when I got my first e-cig last week, I immediately (that day) went from those 40 cigs a day to just 3 without a problem. Once I get the high nicotine liquid those few stragglers a day will go away too.

It's an amazing product if you ask me, and the anti-smoking campaign people should commend us for finding a solution and the inventor for developing that solution that even they should be happy with.

 

[TropicalBob]

Yvilla, we must be talking apples and oranges. The statement you quote of his is one I would certainly agree with. We read evidence of that daily on this forum. The statement I quote is an outright falsehood. No two ways about it.

The health groups have never said they prefer people smoke real cigarettes over e-cigs. Yet that's clearly what he wrote. Read his words.

If health were the concern, then why would these groups prefer that people smoke conventional cigarettes -- which contain thousands of chemicals and more than 60 carcinogens -- rather than electronic cigarettes, which deliver the nicotine without any of these chemicals and carcinogens?

There is a big difference between an assumed consequence of banning e-cigs and promotion of cigarettes. That's all I'm getting at. The health groups "prefer" no such thing as he states.