FDA "Smokers" support Nanny-State when it comes to e-cigs..?

[Cool_Breeze]

Smokers have strong support for many e-cigarette policies

Date: February 3, 2015
Summary: As the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is preparing to issue a final ruling on whether it will extend its tobacco regulatory authority to electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes), researchers have identified strong support for a number of e-cigarette policies among smokers. Findings included strong support for advertising restrictions and placing warning labels for potential risks on the devices.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150203102909.htm?

 

[KODIAK (TM)]

So we discover that the clueless believe in regulation. Nothing new. Yet another fine piece of Social Engineering.

If you "talk" about junk science long enough it will become fact among the drone masses. I wonder what would happen if somebody would start a rumor that vaccinations for childhood diseases like measles would cause side effects in countless thousands...

Oh wait, never mind.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

I was curious how they worded the survey questions, as usual the paper is hidden behind a $37 one day access paywall.

Desk Murders hide much?

 

[WhiteHighlights]

This is sad but maybe true:

However, authors note that support for indoor e-cigarette restrictions could increase over time, similarly to how smokers' support for policies to ban indoor smoking of tobacco cigarettes has increased with time and with the passage of such policies.

Uhm.. weren't we (as smokers) beaten into submission? to the point it wasn't a battle we couldn't fight? Done inch by inch.. first no-smoking sections indoors to having to smoke outside to no smoking within 25ft of the door to no smoking in parks...I don't think smokers supported these policies. Resigned to them, maybe.

 

[skoony]

This is sad but maybe true:

Uhm.. weren't we (as smokers) beaten into submission? to the point it wasn't a battle we couldn't fight? Done inch by inch.. first no-smoking sections indoors to having to smoke outside to no smoking within 25ft of the door to no smoking in parks...I don't think smokers supported these policies. Resigned to them, maybe.

you pretty much nailed it. especially with us older folks.
most people i know smokers and non-smokers opinion
on the subject is and i quote,"ya know Mike their going to ban those"
and that's the extent of their opinion,the end.
regards
mike

 

[caramel]

 

[LaraC]

I was curious how they worded the survey questions

Me, too.

Could have been craftily worded to elicit a lot of "misery loves company" type responses.

 

[KODIAK (TM)]

you pretty much nailed it. especially with us older folks.
most people i know smokers and non-smokers opinion
on the subject is and i quote,"ya know Mike their going to ban those"
and that's the extent of their opinion,the end.
regards
mike

So true Mike. And they're always quick to point out the latest once-in-a-blue-moon ecig "mishap" that somehow makes world news. I think they do it just to push my buttons.

 

[readeuler]

I was curious how they worded the survey questions, as usual the paper is hidden behind a $37 one day access paywall.

Desk Murders hide much?

Yeah, it's really hidden! I can use my voodoo to get into PubMed (ask LaraC and Pennysmalls!) but this one's really hidden. PubMed won't give me access but directs me to Tobacco Control (or somesuch) journal, and the only university with access seems to be Stanford.

I'm seeing an "Epub before print" note here, and I have access to some of the articles from the January journal in which it was published. Hopefully in February it'll be printed and I'll have access. I'll happily pass it along via an email if you shoot me a PM. But I will forget I've been looking for it though

ETA: It's a disgusting journal, by the way. Chock full of ideas on how to better "inform" the FDA into coercing people to stop doing things they enjoy. My "favorite" has been how menthols are better at keeping smokers smoking, so the FDA has food for thought on implementing a wonderful Menthol ban.

ETA2, why I really need to stop browsing this month's articles: From another paper, focusing on their failure to take cigarettes away from those who arguably benefit most from smoking.

Conclustion: Those with psychiatric diagnoses remained much more likely to smoke and less likely to quit, with rates varying by specific diagnosis. Our findings highlight the need to improve our ability to address smoking and psychiatric comorbidity both within and outside of healthcare settings. Such advancements will be vital to reducing mental illness-related disparities in smoking and continuing to decrease tobacco use globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

They really are a crazy cult... ECF would censor the words I would like to have used.

 

[DC2]

Conclustion: Those with psychiatric diagnoses remained much more likely to smoke and less likely to quit, with rates varying by specific diagnosis. Our findings highlight the need to improve our ability to address smoking and psychiatric comorbidity both within and outside of healthcare settings. Such advancements will be vital to reducing mental illness-related disparities in smoking and continuing to decrease tobacco use globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR].

Every legitimate researcher in the field should understand by now why many people with certain mental illnesses smoke more.
And trying to take that away from them to further some "agenda" is the lowest form of disgusting.

 

[readeuler]

Every legitimate researcher in the field should understand by now why many people with certain mental illnesses smoke more.
And trying to take that away from them to further some "agenda" is the lowest form of disgusting.

I couldn't agree with you more, DC2. Seeing that abstract was the first moment I really understood at a visceral level what we're up against. There have been others, but that one got really got to me.

It's bad, man. Really bad.

 

[Bill Godshall]

NorthofAtlanta wrote

"I was curious how they worded the survey questions, as usual the paper is hidden behind a $37 one day access paywall."

This so-called survey (which is really a push-poll designed to mislead participants in order to bias their responses) was funded by FDA and NCI to lobby for the FDA deeming regulation. Nothing like the federal government funding bogus studies that are published in junk science journals that charge money to the public to read).

I sent the following e-mail to the authors, one of whom I've known for the past decade (Delnevo), who knows the e-cigs are far less hazardous than cigarettes, but who receives lots of federal government funding (and she knows that DHHS opposes e-cigs and wants to impose the FDA deeming reg).


Hi Christine and Hello Olivia,

Please send me the full text of your recently published article on e-cigs and FDA regulation at:
Smokers

A statement in your abstract "The majority of respondents (62.5%) did not know that e-cigarettes are unregulated by the FDA" is false, as the FDCA prohibits e-cig manufacturers from making therapeutic claims, and in 2010 the FDA notified e-cig companies (and issued a press release) stating that the FDCA prohibits e-cig companies from truthfully informing consumers that e-cigs could help smokers quit smoking.

Another statement in your abstract "and have the same legal age of sale as other tobacco (87.7%)" is either false or intentionally misleading, as 42 states have already banned e-cig sales to minors (including AK, AL, UT, NJ with age 19 laws), and because the FSPTCA prohibits the FDA from banning sales of any tobacco product (including e-cigs) to 19 year olds.

Yet another statement in your abstract "The FDA will issue a final rule based on comments and data received from researchers, tobacco companies and the public." is also very misleading, as the FDA will only issue a final rule for the deeming regulation if the agency (and DHHS Secretary Burwell and the OMB) decide that they believe the deeming regulation will benefit public health, and if they believe the deeming regulation will stand up to court challenges (which will be filed if/when FDA issues a Final Rule). But in fact, FDA's proposed deeming regulation would threaten public health and protect cigarettes by banning >99% of e-cig products now on the market, and by giving the entire e-cig industry to Big Tobacco companies.

Please note that surveys are supposed to be objectively designed and reported, while push-polls intentionally mislead participants about something in order to bias their responses about public policy issues.

Attached are my presentation on the actual ramifications of the FDA deeming regulation at last year's Food and Drug Law Institute annual conference in DC, and my 110 pages of comments analyzing all of the scientific studies on e-cigs, exposing the many false and misleading claims by Obama's FDA (and other DHHS agencies) about e-cigs, and urging the agency to rescind its proposed deeming regulation (because it would be the worst case of public health malpractice in US history).

Bill Godshall
Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15218
412-351-5880
BillGodshall@verizon.net

 

[AndriaD]

I couldn't agree with you more, DC2. Seeing that abstract was the first moment I really understood at a visceral level what we're up against. There have been others, but that one got really got to me.

It's bad, man. Really bad.

Yep. I've suffered from clinical depression, in varying degrees, for most of my life. If I hadn't discovered WTA, then I'm quite sure that the increasing depression, from the total lack of MAOIs in regular nicotine, would have driven me to either a) suicide, or b) back to smoking. Seems that suicide would be perfectly fine with them, just don't smoke. I mean... they LIKE Chantix, which has an ESTABLISHED history of driving people to suicide.

I think I'll stick with vaping, and WTA.

Andria

 

[Nermal]

This is sad but maybe true:

Uhm.. weren't we (as smokers) beaten into submission?

Of course we were. My a remarkable coincidence, I don't happen to recall any pro smoking organizations or online forums. We got what we deserved.

 

[Racehorse]

This is sad but maybe true:

Uhm.. weren't we (as smokers) beaten into submission? to the point it wasn't a battle we couldn't fight? Done inch by inch.. first no-smoking sections indoors to having to smoke outside to no smoking within 25ft of the door to no smoking in parks...I don't think smokers supported these policies. Resigned to them, maybe.

I was in the workplace when we all smoked our brains out......inside offices.

Now, I imagine what it was like for the non-smokers........having to breathe in that stench all day, and take their clothes home to non-smoking family, wife and kids, *reaking* of cigarette smoke, hair too.

Sorry, but I was never one of the *selfish* smokers who had no idea what this was like for the majority of people who didn't smoke.

And, I am not a selfish vaper.

We have people in a poll right now who accused me of "adultism" because I suggested that 6 or 8 year olds shouldn't be permitted to purchase nicotine, (or vote, or drive motor vehicles, etc.).

apparently, the "Age of Consent" should not even exist, as I'm now *discriminatory*.

I have no desire to *identify* with NUTZ, and I won't, and if they want these things, then even as a vaper I will stand against them. Becuase it makes us look...........crazed. And inordinately, selfish.


A member asked here recently what to expect when they went to their first vaping convention. Every response was along the lines of "clouds" in the room......and every photo I've seen of those meets show the haze.

If you think the general population is going to WANT to be in those rooms, or in an office like that, or restaurant, when less than 20% of the population even vapes, ya'll are sadly mistaken.

The only way to move forward is to recognize that what you love is not at all loved by all. Just like my dogs aren't welcome at work, in most state and nat'l. parks, restaurants, etc.

Maybe I'm just a reasonable person, but i do understand that. I don't HAVE to take my dogs everywhere......and if I feel like I do, then I sit unemployed and house-bound.

I'm just saying: "let's be realistic".

 

[AndriaD]

I'm just saying: "let's be realistic".

I completely agree with that, for all the reasons you named. But the ANTZ are sly and sneaky. If we go along with even 1 small part of their demonize-vaping strategy, it won't be long before vapers are viewed thru the same closed-minded, hysterical lens as smokers. If we say, ok, we'll give you this much, they'll smile, and feel vindicated... and next year, it'll be a bit more... the year after, a bit more... before long, we'll be out back by the dumpster with the smokers. For smoking, that's maybe warranted, because frankly, it smells like burning fecal matter, and the lingering stench it leaves is just sick-making. But it is not warranted one iota for vaping, which is not hazardous to bystanders whatever, leaves no lingering odor, and even fresh, is far less odorous than any kind of smoke.

We may not win the fight to have vaping accepted everywhere, but if we give in, they'll just keep taking and taking and taking... They will not be satisfied by anything except our complete submission to their "end-game"... or our deaths. And they don't care which it is.

Andria

 

[caramel]

Must be the same group of smokers that supported their own exile to the -30C smoking shelter.

 

[skoony]

I was in the workplace when we all smoked our brains out......inside offices.

Now, I imagine what it was like for the non-smokers........having to breathe in that stench all day, and take their clothes home to non-smoking family, wife and kids, *reaking* of cigarette smoke, hair too.

Sorry, but I was never one of the *selfish* smokers who had no idea what this was like for the majority of people who didn't smoke.

And, I am not a selfish vaper.

We have people in a poll right now who accused me of "adultism" because I suggested that 6 or 8 year olds shouldn't be permitted to purchase nicotine, (or vote, or drive motor vehicles, etc.).

apparently, the "Age of Consent" should not even exist, as I'm now *discriminatory*.

I have no desire to *identify* with NUTZ, and I won't, and if they want these things, then even as a vaper I will stand against them. Becuase it makes us look...........crazed. And inordinately, selfish.


A member asked here recently what to expect when they went to their first vaping convention. Every response was along the lines of "clouds" in the room......and every photo I've seen of those meets show the haze.

If you think the general population is going to WANT to be in those rooms, or in an office like that, or restaurant, when less than 20% of the population even vapes, ya'll are sadly mistaken.

The only way to move forward is to recognize that what you love is not at all loved by all. Just like my dogs aren't welcome at work, in most state and nat'l. parks, restaurants, etc.

Maybe I'm just a reasonable person, but i do understand that. I don't HAVE to take my dogs everywhere......and if I feel like I do, then I sit unemployed and house-bound.

I'm just saying: "let's be realistic".

my vapor won't bite your kid.despoil your property,
get into fights with other vapor or keep you up at
night barking at PV's.

mike

 

[WhiteHighlights]

I too worked at a company where I could smoke in my office. I did occasionally and scheduled meetings in a neutral place. Then we had a smoking room, then we had to go outside, away from the door etc.

A vaping convention is an event for vapers. I'd expect clouds there and I don't expect non-smokers or people not interested in vaping to attend. Years ago I went to a cigar convention with my husband. Guess what, there were a lot of clouds there too (some of which smelled good, others not so much).

I don't think vaping in an office now is comparable smoking in the past and especially not to a convention. There aren't the nasty aromas or purported risk to others. I probably wouldn't vape when someone came into the office, unless they happened to be another vaper or told me to go ahead.

Why should vapers have to go outside? or be limited to areas with smokers? And what the heck is up with not vaping in a park or on the beach? really? This is way beyond reasonable restrictions.

There are some smokers groups, who knew? Cambridge MA recently restricted vaping (no vaping in restaurants, bars, hotels and even at outdoor seating adjacent to a bar or restaurant and limited sale of flavored liquids to tobacconists, banned sale of e-cigs at pharmacies (can you say thank you CVS) and raised the age to 21 for tobacco products. Personally, I'd rather allow the bar or restaurant to make their own choice about allowing vaping or not. It's their business, let them make that call. If they don't want vaping, fine, if they want to allow it, fine. Interestingly

Members of the Cambridge Citizens for Smokers’ Rights, who have been protesting the amendments for months, said they felt disappointed by the council’s decision.

ETA: P.S. I too try to be a considerate vaper and don't vape in restaurants or bars (unless I know I can - my first sighting of a vapor in the wild was in a bar in OH). Just because you can doesn't mean you have to be rude to others.

 

[DC2]

Must be the same group of smokers that supported their own exile to the -30C smoking shelter.

Maybe not so much "supporting it" as becoming resigned to it.
In other words, not doing anything at all to fight it.

Which is what WE should NOT allow to happen.

We probably should have done that when WE were smokers...
But most of us felt guilty about it so we kept our mouths shut and let them do what they did.