That sounds like an excellent idea and I would also readily donate this way.
Time to DO SOMETHING !!!
- Thread starter bassthumper
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- altsmoke madvapes revolution
- Status
That sounds like an excellent idea and I would also readily donate this way.
FYI, just googled him, (he wouldn't be the first person to say he's something that he's not) Won one Pulitzer in 1986 for "specialized reporting"(later called beat reporting, now local reporting), not investigative. "For their investigation of violations and failures in the organ transplantation system in the United States" Still trying to find #2, will let you know.
The Pulitzer Prizes | Awards
The Pulitzer Prizes | Awards
Last edited:
Well I wrote to him also,,now my letter is not as nice as jtcaseyjr's.... but I tried..anyway here it is....oh and I had his name in the subject line and not in the e-mail itself
Hi, My name is Jessica Tapp, I have been a smoker for several years and have tried several things to quit, to no avail. I was only able to quit cigarettes with the e-cigg (or personal vaporizer). I feel that e-ciggs have been misrepresented in a lot of ways and would hope to see that change. Yes, there are still things that need improvement in the e-cigg industry, but I don't think they should be banned or made to be unaffordable because of to many needless rules or regulations imposed.I know safety is a big concern, and I do care about that, but I also feel that e-ciggs are a way better alternative to smoking. I think that not having to worry about cancer, COPD, the smell, and all the other things that cigarette smoking cause, are a great plus ,and should be looked at as a step in the right direction.I would like there to be more research done by the FDA, before more nonfactual statements are put out to the media, because they do not know everything about e-ciggs and in my opinion are over reacting. Please reconsider your views, there are a lot of people out there who have finally been able to get away from cigarettes, and I as one of them, am happy to now be vaping instead of smoking.
Hi, My name is Jessica Tapp, I have been a smoker for several years and have tried several things to quit, to no avail. I was only able to quit cigarettes with the e-cigg (or personal vaporizer). I feel that e-ciggs have been misrepresented in a lot of ways and would hope to see that change. Yes, there are still things that need improvement in the e-cigg industry, but I don't think they should be banned or made to be unaffordable because of to many needless rules or regulations imposed.I know safety is a big concern, and I do care about that, but I also feel that e-ciggs are a way better alternative to smoking. I think that not having to worry about cancer, COPD, the smell, and all the other things that cigarette smoking cause, are a great plus ,and should be looked at as a step in the right direction.I would like there to be more research done by the FDA, before more nonfactual statements are put out to the media, because they do not know everything about e-ciggs and in my opinion are over reacting. Please reconsider your views, there are a lot of people out there who have finally been able to get away from cigarettes, and I as one of them, am happy to now be vaping instead of smoking.
I just googled CASAA and got hits for Casa Vieja and others not hit on their site.
I will try to find them the hard way and explain what meta data is. If you cannot google them and get a hit then they are way under the radar.
I will try to find them the hard way and explain what meta data is. If you cannot google them and get a hit then they are way under the radar.
the editor of AOL online news wrote me back and said that if he ever does a review on e-ciggs again he would consider what I said...
I just googled them and they were #1 on the list: CASAA | The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association
Who else is out there for the people who don't like the CASAA? Is it just the ECA as an alternative?
Last edited:
At least he seems to be keeping the door open... Here's my email. It's longer than I meant to do. I gotta work on the long-windedness.
Dear Mr. Schneider:
I am writing regarding your article about electronic cigarettes. I'm always pleased to see articles and stories about them in the media, because any press does help to make more people aware that they are out there and a viable alternative to tobacco cigarettes. However, I am concerned that articles such as your recent one on AOL may discourage tobacco smokers from considering electronic cigarettes.
While you mention several negative aspects, the very most important aspects of the electronic cigarette were not mentioned at all. The lack of tar, second-hand smoke, and carbon monoxide is just one of many reasons that an electronic cigarette is less harmful than a tobacco cigarette. The FDA's own tests showed nicotine liquid for use in electronic cigarettes to be less harmful than traditional cigarettes.
I would love to see a followup article in the near future telling "the other side" of the story. Many proud people would be happy to tell the world how they have switched from tobacco cigarettes to electronic ones after many years as a smoker, how their lung function is improved, how they don't cough and wheeze in the morning. How they no longer put hundreds of chemicals into their bodies.
AOL News is so widely viewed. Who knows? Your additional research and reporting about electronic cigarettes may even save a life.
Many thanks,
Holly Roberts
Dear Mr. Schneider:
I am writing regarding your article about electronic cigarettes. I'm always pleased to see articles and stories about them in the media, because any press does help to make more people aware that they are out there and a viable alternative to tobacco cigarettes. However, I am concerned that articles such as your recent one on AOL may discourage tobacco smokers from considering electronic cigarettes.
While you mention several negative aspects, the very most important aspects of the electronic cigarette were not mentioned at all. The lack of tar, second-hand smoke, and carbon monoxide is just one of many reasons that an electronic cigarette is less harmful than a tobacco cigarette. The FDA's own tests showed nicotine liquid for use in electronic cigarettes to be less harmful than traditional cigarettes.
I would love to see a followup article in the near future telling "the other side" of the story. Many proud people would be happy to tell the world how they have switched from tobacco cigarettes to electronic ones after many years as a smoker, how their lung function is improved, how they don't cough and wheeze in the morning. How they no longer put hundreds of chemicals into their bodies.
AOL News is so widely viewed. Who knows? Your additional research and reporting about electronic cigarettes may even save a life.
Many thanks,
Holly Roberts
That was good too, maybe if he gets bombarded by all of us..he will see that there really is something to vaping and he was wrong in coming across the way he did in his initial report and write up a new one..at least it's a nice thought that he would...he really has nothing invested unless he is a user etc. as we are...he pretty much wrote his story and it's over, but it never hurts to try, better than doing nothing.
Well put! That's the best thing anyone could have said to him. If he's not interested in truth, he might at least be encouraged to dig a bit deeper by the thought of becoming someone's hero for getting them off smoking. LOL.
mac
Well The reporter who wrote the article actually responded to me again. I have to give the man some respect for at least responding to my emails and just not hitting the delete key. Here is what he said and what I replied back with:
Mr. Casey,
Your point about the way this sentence was written (If the Canadians could do it, why not U.S. regulators?") is a valid comment and I agree I can be read the way you mentioned, and could have been written differently.
However, don't you wonder whether it was science or politics that prevented the FDA from moving along those lines?
Again James, thanks for writing.
And I Replied:
Mr. Schneider,
Thank you so much for your reply. I will first say, I respect the fact that you are willing to admit that it could be read that way and I appreciate your condor.
As far as your point I think it's a little of both actually. Meaning I think there is pressure in Washington to keep these E-cigarettes on the market, not as much as you might think though as the ECA that you mention in your article was a loosely based organization and fell apart. Matt Salmon whom you also mentioned was quoted as saying he left the organization months ago. He also thought they disbanded. The only really active organization around is the The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) They are a consumer group and not organized by E-Cigarette vendors.
I also sincerely believe that the FDA really doesn't have the science to say these are an unsafe alternative to smoking. Please review the actual testing they have done and then compare it to the other smoke alternatives on the market and you will see what I mean.
Do E-Cigarettes need more study, yes I agree that they do. However I also think jumping the gun and banning them is also a mistake. In the 7 years E-cigarette's have been around worldwide, there have not been any serious reported side effects. Outside of the ones you mentioned in the article. As I said in the previous email those side effects can also be attributed to Nicotine usage and/or withdrawal.
I do believe there will and should be some type of regulation and/or standardization for E-cigarettes. However banning them as a "Drug delivery device" is not the answer.
Again Mr. Schneider, thank you for your gracious reply, If there is any thing I can do to help in getting real facts out there, I will be more then happy to do so.
sincerely,
James T Casey Jr
Mr. Casey,
Your point about the way this sentence was written (If the Canadians could do it, why not U.S. regulators?") is a valid comment and I agree I can be read the way you mentioned, and could have been written differently.
However, don't you wonder whether it was science or politics that prevented the FDA from moving along those lines?
Again James, thanks for writing.
And I Replied:
Mr. Schneider,
Thank you so much for your reply. I will first say, I respect the fact that you are willing to admit that it could be read that way and I appreciate your condor.
As far as your point I think it's a little of both actually. Meaning I think there is pressure in Washington to keep these E-cigarettes on the market, not as much as you might think though as the ECA that you mention in your article was a loosely based organization and fell apart. Matt Salmon whom you also mentioned was quoted as saying he left the organization months ago. He also thought they disbanded. The only really active organization around is the The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) They are a consumer group and not organized by E-Cigarette vendors.
I also sincerely believe that the FDA really doesn't have the science to say these are an unsafe alternative to smoking. Please review the actual testing they have done and then compare it to the other smoke alternatives on the market and you will see what I mean.
Do E-Cigarettes need more study, yes I agree that they do. However I also think jumping the gun and banning them is also a mistake. In the 7 years E-cigarette's have been around worldwide, there have not been any serious reported side effects. Outside of the ones you mentioned in the article. As I said in the previous email those side effects can also be attributed to Nicotine usage and/or withdrawal.
I do believe there will and should be some type of regulation and/or standardization for E-cigarettes. However banning them as a "Drug delivery device" is not the answer.
Again Mr. Schneider, thank you for your gracious reply, If there is any thing I can do to help in getting real facts out there, I will be more then happy to do so.
sincerely,
James T Casey Jr
If his point is that politics (i.e., influence of pharmaceutical & tobacco lobby) might be the FDAs compass--as opposed to science and the actual facts of the matter--why not raise an issue like that in his story?
Please donate to CAASA IVAQ PROJECT. If everyone on ecf would donate $5.00,we would be able to complete the scientific study on ecig air quality. Go to the CAASA website and the information will be there. No one is going to do this for us. We have got to be proactive--in an intelligent way. Right now our goal is to keep ecigs from being banned and to educate the public,news media,and politicians. We have to have scientific studies to make a valid and positive argument and we all need to do our part. Please help.
Great great great job!
This is what I meant as the OP...
I'm still concerned about the vendors/suppliers needing to join together SOMEHOW and do something. I don't doubt they will but it could be too late by the time they do.
If you would Casey... will you please keep posting your emails as they are very interesting!!!!
This is what I meant as the OP...
I'm still concerned about the vendors/suppliers needing to join together SOMEHOW and do something. I don't doubt they will but it could be too late by the time they do.
If you would Casey... will you please keep posting your emails as they are very interesting!!!!
From my reading of it, I think he meant just the opposite. He meant there was heavy lobbing to keep them on the market and that's why the FDA didn't ban them. I wanted to show him that there is some lobbying, but not to the extent he believes there is.
If he really believes the e-cig lobby has more than an infinitesimal fraction of the money and influence that big tobacco & big pharma have to work with--and are working with--somewhat ought to welcome him to planet Earth and introduce him around. He can't be that out of touch.
Not to bash him, but I do believe he does not really know anything about E-cigarette's or the industry as a whole. That was reflected in the articles as it was filled with half-truths to out right wrong information.
I was thinking about this thread when I was offline, and I quote the above line because it fits in with what I was thinking. It occurred to me that this is really the crux of the matter. The FDA and other bodies are studying the ecig as a device for delivering nicotine.
Now, I agree that it can be that, and most of the mall ecig manufacturers promote them that way. But does an ecig have to deliver nicotine? The answer to that is 'No!'.
It could be sold as a device for the inhalation of food flavoring, couldn't it? I mean, no one's forcing us to put nicotine in the juice. On it's own, the ecig is pretty innocuous. It's when nicotine comes into the equation that the FDA & Co get interested.
So what I'm saying is this. How could the FDA ban something if it wasn't being marketed to deliver nicotine? Wouldn't it be worthwhile for some of the manufacturers/vendors to pursue this line of thought and contest the whole idea that ecigs are exclusively for inhaling nicotine? Because they're not - not unless the user chooses to add nicotine. How do the FDA know that I use nicotine in my juice? And if I don't, what possible harm can food flavorings do me?
I realise that this would put the onus on juice suppliers, who are the ones actually selling the nicotine, but I reckon it's a possible strategy because I doubt the sale of liquid nicotine could ever be regulated.
mac
- Status
