The Misbegotten Crusade Against E-Cigarettes -- Wall Street Journal

[BuGlen]

A generally good op-ed by Michael Siegel, in which he basically calls out those in tobacco control that demonize vapor products:

Michael B. Siegel: The Misbegotten Crusade Against E-Cigarettes - WSJ

The issues I have with his opinion are the regulations he recommends for diacetyl and temperature control. We might need more research on diacetyl, but an outright ban at this point is not really warranted (although some would prefer to avoid it). As for temperature control, that requirement could make it more difficult to enter the market for currently less expensive starter kits (like eGo twists). We already have temperature control, and it's called taste. If it tastes bad, the temperature is too high.

 

[WhiteHighlights]

Dang. It's behind a paywall so I can't read the full article. At least there's some exposure to another perspective in the WSJ. Every bit helps, even if we disagree with the details (temp and diacetyl).

 

[BuGlen]

Dang. It's behind a paywall so I can't read the full article. At least there's some exposure to another perspective in the WSJ. Every bit helps, even if we disagree with the details (temp and diacetyl).

Try doing a Google search on the title and click on the link from there. I don't have a WSJ subscription, and yet I had full access to the article.

ETA: I just tried the link I provided vs. the link from Google and confirmed it. I get the paywall message from the direct link, but not from the Google search.

 

[WhiteHighlights]

Try doing a Google search on the title and click on the link from there. I don't have a WSJ subscription, and yet I had full access to the article.

ETA: I just tried the link I provided vs. the link from Google and confirmed it. I get the paywall message from the direct link, but not from the Google search.

That works - thank you! I'm off to read the article.

 

[Kent C]

Try doing a Google search on the title and click on the link from there. I don't have a WSJ subscription, and yet I had full access to the article.

ETA: I just tried the link I provided vs. the link from Google and confirmed it. I get the paywall message from the direct link, but not from the Google search.

That worked.... from our earlier discussions - used to have a subscription to WSJ until Investors Business Daily came out (since dropped also)....

 

[Kent C]

Good article. Although I wince when I see this "Are electronic cigarettes safe? Of course not." Take any drug - aspirin (also good for the heart, they say) - when mentioned in an article, they don't seem to be 'obligated' to say it could cause ulcers or other maladies. And while the ads for other drugs have to go through the whole page of side effects, again, when mentioned in an article, no one mentions them - unless that was part of the story.

Pointing out the rise in ecigs resulting in a decrease in smoking in teens makes a good point that we seldom see. "smokers who used e-cigarettes daily were six times more likely to quit than those who did not." also good news!

 

[BuGlen]

Good article. Although I wince when I see this "Are electronic cigarettes safe? Of course not." Take any drug - aspirin (also good for the heart, they say) - when mentioned in an article, they don't seem to be 'obligated' to say it could cause ulcers or other maladies. And while the ads for other drugs have to go through the whole page of side effects, again, when mentioned in an article, no one mentions them - unless that was part of the story.

Pointing out the rise in ecigs resulting in a decrease in smoking in teens makes a good point that we seldom see. "smokers who used e-cigarettes daily were six times more likely to quit than those who did not." also good news!

Dr. Siegel is still trying to walk a thin line between continuing to support tobacco control (to an extent), but calling out the hypocrites in his own camp. In the year that I've been reading his blog, I can tell that he's getting more and more fed up with the demonization of vapor products as time goes on. Now, if we could just get him to understand that the same principals of THR apply for non-combustible tobacco products, his evolution on the subject might progress further.

 

[choochoogranny]

Better, not best. He still has more learning to do and more studies to read......more prejudices to overcome, but he IS getting there.

 

[Kent C]

Dr. Siegel is still trying to walk a thin line between continuing to support tobacco control (to an extent), but calling out the hypocrites in his own camp. In the year that I've been reading his blog, I can tell that he's getting more and more fed up with the demonization of vapor products as time goes on. Now, if we could just get him to understand that the same principals of THR apply for non-combustible tobacco products, his evolution on the subject might progress further.

Yep - on the whole usually good stuff, sometime great, but he's taking some flack here and by some former THR 'colleagues' as well. I think that or more and more info has affected him.

 

[rolygate]

Siegel started out with some considerable disadvantages in life, so it's surprising to see how far he's come.

He studied under Glantz.

For a long time it looks as if Siegel regarded him as his mentor (and perhaps still does); but there comes a day when seeing your teacher lying prodigiously for money, and causing untold misery and death as a result, seems to cause a problem.

The Public Health industry is split into two camps: those who consider it acceptable to lie in order to get paid, and those who don't. The sub-groups in each don't really amount to much in comparison with that main split. Glantz received $6.6 million [according to Brad Rodu] in funding last year, which may explain why his lying is on a galactic scale. Siegel is lucky in that he still draws a salary from a uni; but perhaps that would be in jeopardy if he went the whole way (as pharma owns many of the universities, and maybe that includes his). In order to keep getting paid you either have to toe the line even though you know much of it is lies, or be capable of enough self-delusion to avoid any problems ["It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair].

The only people who can get away with telling the truth are like John Britton or Robert West, who are so big that if their establishments de-funded them there would be an embarrassing backlash. The smaller targets who make the fatal mistake of being honest about public health issues - Carl Phillips is an example - are sacked [they are forced out, one way or another, so are in effect sacked].

I admire the skill of people like Jon Foulds, who seems to play both sides against the middle successfully. He wrote the earliest large-scale analytical study of Snus, in 2003, which clearly pointed out the massive public health benefits of a population-level move to Snus; and has also helped us out a few times. Somehow he still gets the funding. It could be that like Siegel, he has to (or wants to) keep some of the old dogma going in order to please the right people. THR is hated at the top as it's going to kill the gravy train.

 

[choochoogranny]

Why, Rolygate, they sound like the tobacco exec's lying during questioning by Congress.......It's can't be that they want to keep their families "fed" as they've been paid quite handsomely and should have saved/invested enough to live large. What makes these people "sell their soul" and harming so many in the process?

 

[caramel]

Why, Rolygate, they sound like the tobacco exec's lying during questioning by Congress......

Given some recent information on nicotine addictiveness just by itself, I'm now not sure if they were really lying to the "Is nicotine addictive?" question.

 

[BuGlen]

Given some recent information on nicotine addictiveness just by itself, I'm now not sure if they were really lying to the "Is nicotine addictive?" question.

Can you elaborate on the studies to which you refer? I only ask because the most recent studies I've seen show a significant decrease in dependence for nicotine alone, when compared to tobacco smoke which contains MAOIs. Since most of the ANTZ have been screaming that nicotine is as addictive as the "H" drug, this would seem to counter their claims.

 

[AndriaD]

Why, Rolygate, they sound like the tobacco exec's lying during questioning by Congress.......It's can't be that they want to keep their families "fed" as they've been paid quite handsomely and should have saved/invested enough to live large. What makes these people "sell their soul" and harming so many in the process?

"Love of money is the root of all evil." Nuff said.

Andria

 

[rolygate]

Why, Rolygate, they sound like the tobacco exec's lying during questioning by Congress.......It's can't be that they want to keep their families "fed" as they've been paid quite handsomely and should have saved/invested enough to live large. What makes these people "sell their soul" and harming so many in the process?

Stop winding me up

You know there's an entire website about this and related problems. Especially:
Public Health - A Good Idea Gone Horribly Wrong
The Public Health Guide To Control

Why do they keep doing it? I think it's the same sort of reason as when people think earning a bit more money will solve their problems and pay off their debts: no it won't. Expenditure rises to meet and exceed income, no matter what the income is...

It pays well, and enough is never enough.

 

[rolygate]

Given some recent information on nicotine addictiveness just by itself, I'm now not sure if they were really lying to the "Is nicotine addictive?" question.

Hi. It's not clear exactly what the meaning of this is? Do you mean research that shows nicotine has no potential for dependence, or research that shows it does have some dependence potential? If the latter, please give links - thanks.

 

[caramel]

Hi. It's not clear exactly what the meaning of this is? Do you mean research that shows nicotine has no potential for dependence, or research that shows it does have some dependence potential? If the latter, please give links - thanks.

There were some links posted around here about a study of nicotine experimentally administered through patches to non-smoking Parkinson(?) patients, and the researchers found no dependence/addiction to have developed. I can't find the link now, but I promise to keep looking and will be back with it.

P.S. So far found this one http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/13-nicotine-fix however I'm sure I've seen an original study somewhere in a scientific publication will keep looking for that one as being more credible

 

[rolygate]

There were some links posted around here about a study of nicotine experimentally administered through patches to non-smoking Parkinson(?) patients, and the researchers found no dependence/addiction to have developed. I can't find the link now, but I promise to keep looking and will be back with it.

Yes, there are many clinical trials of this type, and since they have conclusively shown that it is impossible to create nicotine dependence clinically in never-smokers, it is the basis of the argument that nicotine has no potential for dependence except when delivered in a tobacco vehicle. Dr Newhouse of Vanderbilt is the leader in this field, and his opinion is that nicotine's potential for dependence (outside of tobacco) is "virtually nil".

My apologies, but your post might have been interpreted to present the opposing opinion (I was apparently not the only person to interpret it so).

 

[caramel]

No offence take, I'm glad we clarified the misunderstanding.

 

[caramel]

I just went again through the video with the CEO's testifying.

The question was:

"Do you believe nicotine is not addictive?"

1. "I believe nicotine is not addictive, yes"
2. "Mr. Congressman, cigarettes and nicotine clearly do not meet the classic definition of addiction. There is no intoxication."
3. " I don´t believe that nicotine or our products are addictive."
4. " I believe that nicotine is not addictive."
5. " I believe that nicotine is not addictive."
6. " I believe that nicotine is not addictive."
7. " And I, too, believe that nicotine is not addictive."

2. is an attempt to circumvent the question
3. is risky but it depends on definition of "our products". (can define as "packaging of a natural plant" / "we do not make the plant, just the package" if pressed).

The others could mean "We don't know what exactly makes cigarettes addictive, we were not able to pinpoint it to nicotine alone, so no we don't believe nicotine (by itself) is addictive" or "We researched this to its fullest and have determined that nicotine alone is not addictive, so no we don't believe nicotine (by itself) is addictive".

Of course this is pure speculation and should be taken as such.

P.S. I haven't found further material where they were trying to elucidate what exactly makes cigarettes addictive. As a speculation, it may be interpreted that they were only interested to frame the CEOs as liars and demonize nicotine.

If this is the case, and it can be proved that nicotine is NOT addictive by itself, then the ANTZ are guilty for decades of time lost demonizing nicotine instead of finding the real mechanism and creating cigarettes that are not addictive / cigarettes with less harmful composition.