Read this! Snuffed out - how to get regs wrong, and did pharma play a role?

[Oliver]

Two excellent articles out today.

Good coverage pointing out the insanity of handing vape to the tobacco industry in The Economist (USA): http://www.economist.com/news/business/21698704-how-not-regulate-e-cigarettes-snuffed-out?frsc=dg|e

And one in The Register (UK) covering the Lords session on the EU's TPD, Tuesday, in which one of those involved in the negotiations, Lord Callanan (formerly MEP), claimed that the pharmaceutical industry was behind the restrictions: Big Pharma wrote EU anti-vaping diktat, claims Tory ex-MEP

 

[ShowerHead]

The Economist has it exactly right. Neither a 'Pro' stance nor an 'Anti' stance.
Short and to the point.
Of course, my Federal 'representatives' don't read, at least not past 'Nanny' magazine.

 

[BreSha6869]

Great stuff. Thanks for posting it.

 

[Robino1]

Tweeted out to the masses .... ok so I only have a few followers...
but those followers have more followers and so on and so on.

 

[Bob Chill]

Good articles. I made a comment in the Economist. Tried to not let my anger get in the way with my keystrokes...did an ok job...lol

 

[Katmar]

Good articles. I made a comment in the Economist. Tried to not let my anger get in the way with my keystrokes...did an ok job...lol

You did an excellent job. Very well written!!

 

[Eskie]

I agree the Economist article was nicely balanced. But as pointed out, it's BT that will benefit. It's hard for me to see Big Pharma in on it as they have no dog in the fight. They have no products, other than gums or patches, which are now generic and over the counter in the US, so the large pharmaceutical companies have no real profit that's threatened by vaping. BT, on the other hand, not only has cigarettes at risk, but as the Economist pointed out, their own cig-a-likes they would rather see sold with high profit margins to their benefit.

And BT has such a long history of being honest and concerned for the health of their users.....

 

[puffon]

I agree the Economist article was nicely balanced. But as pointed out, it's BT that will benefit. It's hard for me to see Big Pharma in on it as they have no dog in the fight. They have no products, other than gums or patches, which are now generic and over the counter in the US, so the large pharmaceutical companies have no real profit that's threatened by vaping. BT, on the other hand, not only has cigarettes at risk, but as the Economist pointed out, their own cig-a-likes they would rather see sold with high profit margins to their benefit.

And BT has such a long history of being honest and concerned for the health of their users.....

The biggest money maker for big Pharma, is treating the thousands dying from the effects of smoking.

 

[choochoogranny]

Eskie, big pharma does have a huge stake in the outcome of any ecig restrictions. Think about the times you don't go to the doctor for a tobacco induced illness. Think of your future when you're not being treated for COPD or lung cancer. Them's the big bucks lost to pharma.

 

[BrotherBob]

Snuffed out - how to get regs wrong, and did pharma play a role?
Yes, among others. There is so many folks culpable my head spins.

 

[crxess]

Snuffed out - how to get regs wrong, and did pharma play a role?
Yes, among others. There is so many folks culpable my head spins.

Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pharma - TobaccoControl Tactics

Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

Organizations stand to lose Hundreds of millions/Billions(?) and their Jobs if Tobacco goes away.

Anti Smoking Groups: The Full Guide - Quit Smoking Community

Just Follow the money Trail.


I'd offer more..............but Google seems to be slightly broken in my area today.

 

[BrotherBob]

Just Follow the money Trail.

Yes, $ is the common glue, but you got to watch those Velcro crazies.

 

[Robino1]

I agree the Economist article was nicely balanced. But as pointed out, it's BT that will benefit. It's hard for me to see Big Pharma in on it as they have no dog in the fight. They have no products, other than gums or patches, which are now generic and over the counter in the US, so the large pharmaceutical companies have no real profit that's threatened by vaping. BT, on the other hand, not only has cigarettes at risk, but as the Economist pointed out, their own cig-a-likes they would rather see sold with high profit margins to their benefit.

And BT has such a long history of being honest and concerned for the health of their users.....

Think Chantix and Wellbutrin. Also mentioned above, the drugs they push to treat cancer, emphysema, bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma, obesity (can't exercise when you can't breathe) etc.... the list is endless.

 

[Rickajho]

The biggest money maker for big Pharma, is treating the thousands dying from the effects of smoking.

In this game as with so many other's - always follow the money.

 

[UnclePsyko]

Tweeted out to the masses .... ok so I only have a few followers...
but those followers have more followers and so on and so on.

Cool! Anxiously awaiting the tweet... you know, kinda like a 6 degrees of Robino1.

 

[GammaRadiation]

I hate when people think there are super secret closed door meetings where "big pharma" and "big tobacco" meet with "FDA" and talk about how to stick it to the users. The fact of the matter is that it is much less convoluted. The FDA is responding to criticisms and concerns and the easiest route for them is to tie it all into tobacco because it is most similar to tobacco. Be glas they didnt call vapes medical devices.

The results are not in, in time the approval process will get easier as one may cite previous submissions regarding safety. Think the GRAS system in food and GRASE in off patent drugs.

 

[UnclePsyko]

Excellent articles, it's really refreshing to see some rationale, even though it doesn't seem to exist here in the U.S. Gubernment anymore.
Although the article in The Economist had this to say...

"Yet e-cigarettes are not totally harmless. Nicotine seems to meddle with the development of adolescent brains, for example. Some vapour devices deliver dangerous chemicals, including formaldehyde. The evidence for e-cigarettes’ broad effects is still slight. Smokers may give up traditional cigarettes for electronic ones, but teenagers may do the opposite."

Jeez... hasn't that been discussed ad nauseam already?!?

 

[crxess]

Sad, I read back over these two articles.

The UK article seems very direct and to the point. Misconceptions, manipulation and UK Corrections.

The Us Article Reads more like:
Well...................The FDA may be over steping..........but, but, but......
With Mentions of DEEMing and Requirements for Qualification, While tossing in the Formaldehyde, Adolescent Brains, and Teen Gateway cards......

Nicotine is Blamed for altering brain development like it makes people stupid.

Albert Einstein
Thomas Edison
Alexander Graham Bell
J Robert Oppenheimer
Edwin Hubble
Sigmund Freud
Howard Carter
BJ Palmer

Many Presidents and World leaders...............and the list goes on and on.

Whatever story required to be told to fit the need of those most financially motivated.

ETA: @UnclePsyko - like minds

 

[Falconeer]

Can I suggest you do a Google Search on this and you might just find Big Pharma's Representations the the EEC stating their case and arguing that vaping was indeed affecting their business.

 

[GammaRadiation]

Can I suggest you do a Google Search on this and you might just find Big Pharma's Representations the the EEC stating their case and arguing that vaping was indeed affecting their business.

But affecting business has little to do with it. I still stand that in once this is all settled we will have slightly higher priced products with known safety levels so we may adequately judge risk.

It cost money and man hours. Boo hoo. At $10 profit per 30ml bottle they dont have far to go to ensure they arent killing their users like big tobacco did for decades upon decades.

I do not support how far the regulations went on the first round but safety claims are largely conjecture at this point. Better safe than sorry. Everyone should want this to some extent.