The ALA's disgraceful actions: Causes?

[D103]

Apparently these people seem less upset by people who snort drugs or smoke them (an most drug smokers use tobacco so it burns slower btw) than they are by cigarettes. I say apparently because I have seen no outcry against 'certain substances' which are ILLEGAL to use. Nicotine and tobacco are NOT illegal - we (the consumer of tobacco/nicotine) are not doing anything against the law.
If our lungs are so important to this organisation then it should be at full out war with Big Tobacco. I dont see advertisements from the ALA in newspapers decrying the government for not banning tobacco outright, I see no lobbyists from them (or ASH) demanding the powers that be make tobacco an illegal substance.
Until that day, I will continue to believe that all of these so-called 'health activitsts' have another agenda.
Where is the outcry over sugar?
Where is the outcry over salt?
WHY are our childrens breakfast cereals crammed with both these poisons?
Are they aware of the massive increase in diabetes among Americans?
Where is the outcry over toxic emissions from cars/power plants? Are our lungs only to be protected from tobacco smoke?
Why are smokers targeted? Because we are an easy target - a soft target - a tax cow with a limited life span? Or because they stereotype smokers as being on the lower rung of society and less educated, less likely to 'make a fuss' or be in positions of authority to challenge? (ASH btw think exactly this)
I want places like the ALA and FDA to work FOR me, to be trusted and a place I know I will get good, truthful info, and see them not afraid of government as they crusade for our health.
I dont see that though.
What I see is institutionalised bigotry and shoddy research; half truths and agendas. They really should add a 'sponsored by..' byline to their titles.

/disgusted

My sentiments as well CaptJay and very well said. I think all of this debate needs to be much more public, TEN Times more honest-obviously, and we need reputable people out front sharing truthful information about the technology as well as the 'battle' going on - it truly is a battle. There needs to a Glaring Light shined on the "Goliaths" in this battle and their 'not in the public interest' tactics and maneuverings(Websters Collegiate Dictionary: manuever: 4b: an adroit and clever management of affairs often using trickery and deception) Professionals such as Dr. Michael Siegel, Dr. Brad Radu, Dr. Joel Nitzkin and Dr. Carl Phillips are all respected professionals who could, I believe, speak very compellingly on behalf of this technology and the promise it offers - All people, Not just smokers. Harm-Reduction as Public Health Strategy is in the Best interest of All
people, not just smokers and we need this message "shouted from the rooftops" so to speak.

 

[G_Jones]

If our lungs are so important to this organisation then it should be at full out war with Big Tobacco. I dont see advertisements from the ALA in newspapers decrying the government for not banning tobacco outright, I see no lobbyists from them (or ASH) demanding the powers that be make tobacco an illegal substance.

Exactly. You mean to tell me there's somebody out there sincerely concerned enough and honestly convinced that somebody using a personal vaporizer is a danger to the community? Enough that they would put considerable time, effort, and money behind a campaign to make it illegal? That's a pretty implausible scenario without ulterior motives. Might as well, with a straight face, campaign to make it illegal for clowns to play basketball. It is a strikingly insincere notion in the context of other issues that may actually need some kind of legal oversight to protect the public.

What we have is an obvious commercial interest tying up public officials and legal systems for private monetary gain. I am not blaming legislators directly, they've had this silly stuff come across their desks while having most other issues be of far higher priority, state budget deficits, unemployment, etc. I guess they can take the three minutes to decide whether to vote against the sale of "drug delivery device of foreign origin found by the FDA to contain toxins and the main ingredient of antifreeze" or be the one person to champion (and possibly have their political career marred by) taking a stand in favor of this questionable sounding item, and risk looking like a jerk when if a bunch of children drop dead after using it. (they won't). Faced with choosing their battles wisely, I can see why this would not be any lawmaker's highest research priority - which is why ultimately vapers will have to provide that research.

It should be obvious to anyone with a little common sense who examines what exactly an e-cig is, and what is used in it, that it is a pretty harmless device, and probably a miraculous help and/or harmless hobby for somebody. Yet I still encounter people who have "heard" that it is "bad", though haven't the slightest idea what it actually is. Everybody "knows" now how deadly and toxic smoking is - and this looks and sounds and is marketed like a cigarette, so logic follows it must also be bad. (And yes there's that segment of the public that's been so angry at smokers for so long, that they can't bear the thought of "smokers" getting away with carrying on a similarly pleasurable habit without any negative consequence). Public education is definitely important on this - most people don't know what an e-cig is, just that it is somehow scary and bad.

As for the issue with the decriminalization of ........, its a fairly harmless recreational substance that was banned decades ago for purely political and financial purposes. It has taken year after year of campaigning and public education by ........ enthusiasts, and yes, recent financial incentives for desperately cash-strapped areas, for the consensus of the general public and law enforcement to shift and understand that it is a wiser idea not to have it be considered a criminal substance (prohibition). In all this time there have only been a small percentage of legislators or leaders who would want to be seen in support of the idea because of the general public perception of "...... madness", or that it was being distributed by "communists" or street gangs and other dangerous criminals, etc. What lawmaker would want to be associated with that?

What I am saying is that it is easy to ban something that has been given a bad reputation by propaganda, but it can take a very long time and be a difficult battle to undo those negative associations and un-ban something.

 

[v1John]

Congress has already prohibited, by special order, anyone from banning cigarettes.
This happened a long time ago, and there does not appear to be any changes in the works.

This is exactly why I want us all to write ALL our federal House and Senate representatives, and the White House !!! Now!!!

WE NEED A SPECIAL ORDER at the federal level to prohibit banning electronic cigarettes !!!

Don't wait till the last minute, please

 

[AJMoore]

This is what we do:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/casaa/88440-casaa-donation-form-now-online.html
We have an organization on our side, let's support them FINANCIALLY and let them do what they do best, defend our rights.

 

[karmatized]

What also needs to be done is we need to change public opinion. This is war and we have to dehumanize the people that want to ban these. anytime we fight a war with anything the first thing they do is paint a picture how the enemy wants to eat your children and worships whatever you call the devil.

Everyone thinks they are trying to protect you from the evil e-cigarette, When we need to really show them to be messengers of death.

 

[v1John]

Yes, public opinion is vital. Kudos to all the stores opening up in so many places. I avoided ecigs for so long from being worried about ordering online, and I'm noticing soo many people who don't like buying online, so any real stores that open up I am greatful to.

I am also trying to build up my supply of batteries, etc. Once I have enough, I will start lending and/or giving the older batteries away to friends who smoke so they can try them and see the benefits. Even if I can help them quit smoking for a few hours or a day at a time, it will hopefully help tremendously. I just thought I'd mention this, maybe others are already doing it too or would like to do it also.

 

[v1John]

Many ecig stores may not even be on ECF, is there something like a master petition that vapers can take to the ecig stores to see if they can ask customers to sign them?

I'm thinking about some petition format that could be used for all purposes, including New York, Washington, and the multi-association petition now underway as well?

 

[Stephra]

What also needs to be done is we need to change public opinion.

I think it's more accurate to say we need to CREATE public opinion. We live and breathe this stuff, but the vast majority of people have never HEARD of e-cigs, much less formed an opinion on them.

We desperately need media attention...

 

[Rosa]

I think it's because they painted us (smokers) as dirty, smelly, poisonous lepers for so long and now their p.o.'d because we found something that allows us to still be "smokers" safely. After all the battles over smoking, we won!

They're standing at their podiums yelling, "NO! you're still bad! Still BAD, I say!"

Fools!

 

[daniel2828]

I don't think the ALA gets tax money from tobacco sales.

They are also funded by Big Pharma. If e-cigs work for everyone, they will all be out of jobs.

 

[telsie]

Agreed Wolf...Well said! I just got a response from the ALA and it's disgusting. Check this out:


Thank you for your email to the American Lung Association. Until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determines that e-cigarettes are safe for consumers, the American Lung Association urges consumers not to use these products.

The FDA conducted on limited study in July 2009 and found that the products contained carcinogens and toxic chemicals, including the ingredients found in anti-freeze. A study conducted at Virginia Commonwealth University and published in February 2010 found that e-cigarettes deliver little or no nicotine to users.

For additional information on this topic, we recommend you consult the FDA’s website at - FDA Warns of Health Risks Posed by E-Cigarettes


Thank you for contacting us.

We all know e-cigs are safer than cigarettes because we feel better and breath better as a direct result of vaping instead of smoking. And I think most of us are intelligent, informed consumers who have read every study we can get our hands on about nicotine, PG, and e-cigs in general. But we've largely had to piece our info together from many sources and the American Lung Association isn't going to do that (especially when they have the FDA's shoddy and misleading report in front of them).

So the ALA really can't promote e-cigs as a safe alternative to smoking until there are better (more official) studies done in the US. And I would have absolutely no problem with that stance if that's what their stance actually was. But it clearly is NOT.

The ALA isn't just advising people not to use e-cigs until they're proven safe, they're actively working to get e-cigs banned. That makes them either a total sham organization or a puppet of someone else's agenda... The FDA? Big tobacco? Big pharma? The illuminati?!!!! 8-o

 

[frazzledglispa]

They are also funded by Big Pharma. If e-cigs work for everyone, they will all be out of jobs.

You nailed it on the head right there. Those are the two problems with all of these organizations: their ties to big pharma, and their need to justify their own existence. None of them are really looking out for our interests.

The American Cancer Society continues to try to scare people away from sunlight, emphasizing that it causes skin cancer, ignoring the fact that the sun is a free source of Vitamin D - a very important tool in preventing cancer in which most Americans are deficient. If they really cared about people's health they would encourage people to apply sunscreens after 10-20 minutes of sun exposure. They would also encourage the use of physical sunscreens (zinc oxide and titanium dioxide) rather than chemical, but they don't. They also ignore the data that shows skin cancer rates going up right along with sunscreen usage. Because they don't really want to prevent cancer.

Komen for the cure also refuses to educate women about the importance of Vitamin D in the prevention and treatment of breast cancer. They just go to poor neighborhoods and pay for mammograms - which have been shown to cause the very cancers that they are supposed to detect. And they team up with KFC - because loads of MSG and deep fried foods (acrylimides) prevent cancer. Oh wait, it's the opposite. They don't really want to cure or prevent cancer either.

The American Medical Association opposed a ban on trans-fats, saying they were afraid that people would go back to eating unhealthy saturated fats. But trans-fats are so much worse than saturated fats. Trans-fats are created in a manufacturing plant, and only occur in nature in very small amounts. Saturated fats are natural and necessary for the body, without them your arteries would be very brittle. The studies that showed that the saturated fat in coconut oil is bad for you were actually done on partially hydrogenated coconut oil - in other words - trans fats. These studies were done in the 50's or 60's and they are still pointing to them today. The American Medical Association doesn't care about your health either.

The American Dental Association continues to support fluoridation of the water supply. Despite the fact that fluoride is incredibly toxic, that it has been shown to only have a local effect on teeth, not systemic. Despite the fact that fluoride destroys the bonds between the gum and the tooth, and that it makes teeth brittle. Despite the fact that the original testing was done on water that naturally contained calcium fluoride (a much more strongly bonded molecule) and what is added to the water is sodium fluoride, which is a by-product of the aluminum industry, and is also used as a pesticide. Because the ADA doesn't care about your health either.

I'll stop now, but I could go on and on. Hell, I haven't even mentioned the FDA - you could go on for pages and pages about them.

The fact of the matter that all of the organizations would cease to exist of the diseases and conditions that they supposedly want to cure disappeared. They only care about themselves, they don't care about our health or well-being.

 

[Stephra]

The American Cancer Society continues to try to scare people away from sunlight, emphasizing that it causes skin cancer, ignoring the fact that the sun is a free source of Vitamin D - a very important tool in preventing cancer in which most Americans are deficient. If they really cared about people's health they would encourage people to apply sunscreens after 10-20 minutes of sun exposure. They would also encourage the use of physical sunscreens (zinc oxide and titanium dioxide) rather than chemical, but they don't. They also ignore the data that shows skin cancer rates going up right along with sunscreen usage. Because they don't really want to prevent cancer.

Thanks for this, I thought I was crazy!

I have psoriasis (for those who don't know, it makes your skin rebel against you by forming plaques that scab and peel repeatedly without healing).

I grew up in the 80's when sunscreen awareness was really huge. As a fair-skinned red-head, I adopted the "fear the sun" mentality, going so far as to eventually carry a parasol on sunny days to protect my fragile porcelain skin. Until the psoriasis started.

The dermatologist gave me some topical things that didn't work, after which she suggested Embrel, an injectable drug that is dangerous to your liver. Had I gone on Embrel, it would require daily injections, and monthly liver biopsies to make sure my liver wasn't damaged.

I found out shortly afterward (through internet research) that many psoriasis sufferers get relief from UV treatment. I began tanning (in tiny, three minute intervals) to see if I could get some relief. I was amazed to find that not only did my psoriasis clear, I managed to get a tan (the first one I'd ever had in my life), as well as improve my mood and energy level.

For years, I had teased women who used tanning beds, smirking to myself that they would get skin cancer and I wouldn't. Now I realize that depriving myself of sunlight for so long probably contributed to the problems I had. I really feel as though I was lied to!

 

[frazzledglispa]

Yup, Stephra, I have had a similar experience. I am blond with very fair skin and light eyes. I too bought into the fear the sun mentality. I suffer from keratosis pilaris on my arms (a build-up of excess keratin that causes red spots and bumps on the skin.) A few minutes a day in the sunshine in a short-sleeved or sleeveless shirt and the problem is greatly reduced, along with avoiding lotions that include mineral oil.

Yes, baking yourself in the sun for hours can cause problems, but a short period is incredibly beneficial. Everything in moderation. I use sunscreens (my favorite is Badger Balm - it is all natural and uses titanium dioxide and zinc oxide) but I don't put it on until I have been in the sun for at least 20 minutes. I want the benefit of the sun before I start protecting myself from it.

 

[v1John]

...

The ALA isn't just advising people not to use e-cigs until they're proven safe, they're actively working to get e-cigs banned.

...8-o

Exactly, people.

My thought is to add all of the New York Lung Associations to the list of people to mail the petitions to:

(Help, please. New York needs help now !)

Look in this post:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...lung-association-not-board-4.html#post1349354

 

[JustMeAgain]

I just looked up the ALA's financial statement and in 2009 their tax exempt form (990) says they have 132 employees and their salaries/compensation/benefits were around nine million dollars.

So, if those 132 people become too successful at their jobs, they'll be unemployed.

The irony is that the nature of groups like ALA/ACS is that self-preservation requires defeating their own purpose ~ if no one smoked tobacco, they'll eventually cease to exist. Fulfilling it's own mission statement means the demise of the organization.

There's something very wrong about the whole thing.

 

[DaliMama]

Here is the latest load of CR*P from the ALA when I asked them if the FDA had quantified the amount of carcinogens found in e-cigs compared to traditional cigarettes as well as the amount of known carcinogens we consume in food products.

*Warning* Get your barf bags ready.

Dear Ms. Ferguson,

Thank you for contacting the American Heart Association and American Stroke Association regarding e-cigarettes.


E-cigarettes are battery powered nicotine inhalation devices that claim to deliver nicotine to the user through a vaporized propylene glycol solution. E-cigarette manufacturers and retailers are making unproven health claims about their products – asserting that they are safe or safer than traditional cigarettes. Companies also claim that e-cigarettes can help people to quit smoking and in one press release, an e-cigarette company claimed their products were recommended for pregnant women by physicians.


The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted one limited study in July of 2009 and found that the products contained carcinogens and toxic chemicals, including the ingredients found in anti-freeze. A study conducted at Virginia Commonwealth University and published in February 2010 found that e-cigarettes deliver little or no nicotine to users.

While there has been some very limited research done regarding e-cigarettes, it is the position of the American Heart Association that these products should be required to go through the appropriate regulatory process with the United States Food and Drug Administration prior to being allowed to be sold in the open market. Regulation by the US FDA will help insure that these products are both safe and effective. We currently do not know that either claim would be true.

As a result, the American Heart Association believes that e-cigarettes should be banned from the marketplace until such time as the FDA has approved these devices for sale.

Helping people quit using tobacco is a top priority of the American Heart Association and we will continue to do all that we can to make sure that all people have access to safe and effective tobacco cessation therapies including pharmaceutical approaches as well as counseling. The U.S. Public Health Service has found that that the seven drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in combination with individual or group cessation counseling are the most effective way to help smokers quit.


If you have any questions, please call our toll free number at 1-800-242-8721. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Thank you and have a great day!

All the Best,

American Heart Association
National Service Center
1100 E. Campbell Rd, Suite 100
Richardson, TX 75081
Phone Number: 1-800-242-8721

 

[DC2]

Yeah, that's the form letter everyone gets whenever they mention electronic cigarettes.
You might want to give them a call at the number listed and see if they have an answer.

That's what I did anyway.

 

[esibby]

Yeah, that's the form letter everyone gets whenever they mention electronic cigarettes.
You might want to give them a call at the number listed and see if they have an answer.

That's what I did anyway.

What kind of garbage did they tell you over the phone? Most likely just read off of a computer screen word for word same as a form email I'll bet

 

[DC2]

What kind of garbage did they tell you over the phone? Most likely just read off of a computer screen word for word same as a form email I'll bet

They had a shortened version prepared for telephone callers.
I told the lady that answered the phone that she was killing people by giving them that advice.