Stan Glantz attacks e-cigarette industry because thousands of vapers sent comments to FDA

[mrmiller96]

I've got to wonder why no-one has said, straight up, that ecigarettes and vaping do not fit in either the tobacco product category or the drug delivery category because they are neither, just as a cup of coffee and the caffeine within it doesn't fit in either category. It's not one or the other - it's neither, and they should recognize that considering the difficulty they are having trying to fit it in one of the two categories and discovering it just doesn't seem to belong there.

It's a recreational device, and should not be compared to tobacco smoking when it comes to regulation any more than drinking diet soda should be compared with drinking straight vodka. There is hardly any actual relation between the two other than the presence of nicotine.

And I'm getting really tired of the 'children could start smoking cigarettes because of this!' argument. It's ridiculous and unfounded. There is no evidence that anyone would switch from vaping to smoking. even ex-smokers who vape can barely stand the smell of cigarettes once they switch. This also goes for the 'get rid of flavors' argument. Adults like flavors too. If they are going to use that as an argument, I don't see them trying to ban flavorings in alcoholic drinks, which are way more likely to attract youths than vaping does. Vaping doesn't have the 'cool' factor that smoking or drinking has, so they tend to not do it.

I for one would like to see these people get down off of their high horse, stop seeing things through a pane of self-righteousness and actually use some logic and common sense.

 

[DC2]

Well, that pretty much says it all...

There have, however, been many people that said vaping is neither tobacco nor medical device.
Unfortunately, such an alternative has never even been remotely considered by the FDA, nor is it likely to be.

They were told in the court of law that they can not declare it a medical device.
Now they will most likely use their power under law to declare it a tobacco product.

The problem is that it fits the already existing legal definition of a tobacco product...
Regulation of E-Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 (Tobacco Control Act), which amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), was enacted on June 22, 2009, and it provides the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with authority to regulate “tobacco products.” The FD&C Act, as amended by the Tobacco Control Act, defines the term “tobacco product,” in part, as any product “made or derived from tobacco” that is not a “drug,” “device,” or combination product under the FD&C Act.

Nothing we say or do, or anyone says or does, can change that unless the FDA decides otherwise.

 

[kristin]

DC2 has pointed out that, as defined by the tobacco control act, the term "tobacco product" means any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product.

What products are considered to be tobacco products as defined by the tobacco control act?

If e-liquid contains any nicotine extracted from the tobacco plant, it is a legally considered a "tobacco product," as is the accessory device used to consume the tobacco product. Based on the definition of "tobacco product" it is kind of hard to argue that the vast majority of e-cigarettes fit the definition. They even fit the definition of "drug treatment" when used with the intention to become nicotine abstinent (ie. treat nicotine addiction.)

Currently, e-cigarettes are not included in the official list, but they will be come April when the FDA issues deeming regulations. So, the FDA has two options for categorizing products containing nicotine used for human consumption: as a tobacco product or as a drug treatment. As a drug treatment, e-cigarettes would be subject to extensive testing and approval before being allowed to be sold and the "intended use" would be as a short-term treatment for nicotine addiction. Many, if not most, vapers do not use e-cigarettes that way nor is that the advertised intended use. The intended use is as a source of nicotine to be used recreationally, in the same exact way as other tobacco products. Granted, e-cigarettes are thought to be far less hazardous than smoking, but so are a lot of other tobacco products, such as tobacco lozenges, strip, stick and snus. The fact that e-cigarettes are less hazardous than smoking doesn't make them any different than a lot of other smoke-free tobacco products that have been mislabeled under government requirements to fool the public into thinking they are a dangerous product. People seem to forget that e-cigarettes aren't the first nor the only low-risk recreational nicotine product on the market. It's not like having a bit of the tobacco leaf in a smoke-free lozenge makes it so different from extracting the nicotine from the leaf and mixing it with PR and food flavoring.

 

[junkman]

For what it's worth, I'm one who thinks 1st Amendment protects the right to yell fire in a crowded theater.

Why am I not surprised?

The whole comment is ridiculous. Vaping is not "married" to cigarettes, vaping is a substitute for cigarettes. It is no more "married" to tobacco than Tofu is married to meat. Leon states it clearly - "None of these claims, on their face, suggests an objective intent to treat nicotine addiction and withdrawal. At best, these claims demonstrate that Smoking Everywhere markets its electronic cigarettes as an alternative-albeit a healthier alternative-to traditional cigarettes. IS FDA does not point to any representation by Smoking Everywhere that its product is intended to help wean smokers off of nicotine."

The substitutability of Vaping for Cigarettes is the entire reason the product exists. It is close to 100% why every dollar spent on vaping is spent. Everyday someone vapes they are substituting vapor from smoking. From a public and personal health perspective this is a wonderful thing.

That is why the entire argument over smoking cessation/reduction/harm reduction claims issue is ridiculous. You have a legal product killing people but a safe (or at least significantly safer) substitute is facing onerous regulation.

The question is why Glantz and his ilk desire so strongly to stamp out e-cigs.

 

[junkman]

I believe your narrow view point will cause more deaths than save lives. If your viewpoint is that for every 7 smokers a non-smoker dies. Then why can you not see that for every 7 vapors 8 people live?

Wow







.

 

[thew92]

https://twitter.com/ProfGlantz/status/292517488850255872

Stanton is tweeting about this as well

 

[Jman8]

Vaping is not "married" to cigarettes, vaping is a substitute for cigarettes.

Perhaps you're right.

Cigarettes are like the nagging wife.
Vaping is more like the loving mistress.

And for whatever reason, in this case, the loving mistress is making bold public commentary of why she is so much better than the wife, and hoping that nobody sits up and takes notice at these sort of remarks.

 

[subversive]

I left the above comment on his blog. Not sure he will approve it. Who knows.

I honestly think that some regulation would be good. I think that there should not be any radio/TV ads associated with PV devices. I think there should be strict child proof caps and practices for making e-juice to insure out health and the quailty of the items we ingest via vapor. This might stop a couple of the mom and pops who don't have the facilities to make sure they adhere to good practices. However, I don't think that would be a bad thing. I mean you don't want someone giving you 68mg nic e-juice with a label that says 16mg bacause they don't know what they are doing. I also think their should be stiff penalties for anyone caught selling to a minor. After all we are not talking about johnny getting a pack of smokes from the store, but getting $50USD pv device from a store or online vendor.

I used to think regulation would be a good thing. After 2 years, I no longer think it is necessary. I haven't killed myself or poisoned any pets or children. My niece and nephew show no interest in my electronic cigarette and have both been indoctrinated with anti-smoking messages thanks to the public school system. As for confusing 68mg with 16mg, even mislabeled, it would be very hard to do. Just like after smoking too many cigarettes, you feel the effects of too much nic. I also don't worry about someone mixing liquid for me in their garage, because I mix my own with less-than-scientific precision in my living room. I really believe that kids today are far less likely to pick up smoking, and it's a lot easier to steal a cigarette from mom or dad than order expensive, strange equipment over the internet.

 

[Oliver]

Posted on Glantz's blog in response - let's see if he has the intellectual honesty to allow its publication.

But it appears that you have completely misinterpreted Mr Godshall's comment, and completely misunderstood the issues here.

You state in your first sentence that "consumers are using e-cigarettes as smoking cessation aids, a therapeutic use" - but this is utterly tendentious. A product that is a safer version of another product is not "therapeutic" by any definition of the word.

Furthermore there, is not a single e-cigarette company which promotes its products as 'smoking cessation' products, or to be precise Nicotine Replacement Therapy. Additionally, the smoking-cessation e-cigarettes users claim to have undergone cannot be held to be equivalent to that promoted by pharmaceutical products.

If you open a pharmaceutical NRT product, you will find a leaflet which contains directions of use which has the end-goal of the full cessation of nicotine consumption, a clear "therapeutic use".

The central issue here is the ambiguity of 'smoking cessation' - does this mean the cessation of smoking, or nicotine? It is quite clear that NRT products are actually licensed for quitting smoking and nicotine. Furthermore, the fact that they are licensed as medicines at all is a false promise to consumers - the evidence currently available suggests that these products have a success rate of between 2% and 7%, with one study showing no benefit at all in the longer term: Nicotine letdown | Harvard Gazette

Many 'vapers' have indeed reported that they have been able to reduce their nicotine consumption to zero, but that is a side issue here. The issue is that the behavioral change of no-longer smoking (and using an e-cigarette instead) is in no way equivalent to quitting smoking using a pharmaceutical product which claims to have therapeutic benefits for the cessation of nicotine.

To claim the two are equivalent is pure sophistry.

There are, of course, other issues such as the absolute safety of inhaling the vapors produced by e-cigarettes, but these need to be discussed with intellectual honesty.

 

[CES]

thanks for posting comments here, because i really don't want to be part of the traffic that goes to the blog.

 

[sonicdsl]

Posted on Glantz's blog in response - let's see if he has the intellectual honesty to allow its publication.

Very well put SJ! I will be curious to see if he allows the comment through, though I won't hold my breath.

 

[FloridaNoob]

Well as of today My comment has still not be posted. So I am thinking that Stanton is not going to post anything that proves he is wrong and misguided zealot.

@subversive, you do have that right. However, I think most of us would rather have safety and quality kept with the goods we use. You are DIY'ing, so you are a little less bothered by it. However, for others it is a bigger concern. Especially when most of us are vapping as a healthier alternative. I would not want to some how have a toxic flavor added to my e-juice by a person who does not know what they are doing.

 

[Petrodus]

Is it just my imagination or are we seeing more and more
"monitored" comments to weed out anyone
posting opinions which don't agree with the authors ??

 

[junkman]

Is it just my imagination or are we seeing more and more
"monitored" comments to weed out anyone
posting opinions which don't agree with the authors ??

Glantz never posts comments. Very rarely he will post a comment if he feels that it proves some point for him, but the more a comment challenges his point, the less likely it is to be posted.

He really isn't about the exchange of ideas. He is about propagating his agenda.

Now compare him with Bill Godshall. Mr. Godshall was a big player in the anti smoking movement. However, he didn't taking funding from pharmaceutical companies. He honestly reviewed the science on THR and has therefore become a big proponent of THR.

 

[Oliver]

Re-reading Stanton Glantz's piece, I'm astonished that a Professor at a distinguished university can write anything so tendentious.

The first paragraph is bizarre - he states as fact that e-cigarettes are used as smoking cessation aids, and then states that this is a therapeutic use, as fact. The reality is that he is hiding behind the ambiguity of smoking cessation and what it means in terms of outcomes - clearly, therapeutic products are sold expressly to wean smokers off the nicotine addiction (the therapeutic component). E-cigarettes are not.

He must be able to see this, surely? He is, after all, a professor!

I can only come to the conclusion that he is terrified that e-cigarettes will succeed in reducing tobacco related death to such a degree that his position will become the equivalent of being Professor of Coffee Control at the Center for Coffee Control Research and Education.

I'm only half joking - I just can't see another reason for such intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Maxwell_Edison]

Ratio of association by occurrence/event.

Someone drinking a bottle of water at a board meeting, alcohol wouldn't come mind, whereas in a New Year's party setting I might wonder. Furthermore, one doesn't see too many people drinking alcohol in public anymore, and it's mostly juices, softdrinks, etc., so the association does not quite stick.

The environment variable is not so pronounced with rollies, really only 2 things one would likely expect.

E-cig vaping is associated too closely with t-cigs as both contain nicotine even though they are otherwise worlds apart.

I'm sure as time goes by the differences will become more apparent to the public at large. Any new floating idea, regardless how valuable, even indispensable, will get attacked in the beginning stages, derided later, and finally accepted as logical ... lol

I'm certain you know I was purposely exaggerating to keep pace with the whole "looks like" idea as being a ridiculous reasaon to ban vaping. I'm sure anyone could come up with better "looks like" examples, and it could even get quite hilarious. I just can't believe the things they're pulling out of their arses to control my right to choose vape over smoke. I think they suffer from some egotistical need to control others stemming from personal issues they refuse to fix in themselves.

 

[Fiamma]

Money. And he has long gotten away with these pronouncements.

 

[Maxwell_Edison]

Money. And he has long gotten away with these pronouncements.

Murder for profit. Disgusting!!!!!