FDA URGENT - US Senate HELP Committee - Thursday 2:30pm
- Thread starter rolygate
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Suggested question.
-There are many claims that using ecigarettes have helped people quit smoking entirely. And since ecigarettes have become more prominent since around 2010, the percentage of smokers have dropped from the 24% area in 2008, down to 18.1% now. Is there an estimate of how many lives would be saved if the percentage of smokers dropped to the CDC goal of 12%?
-There are many claims that using ecigarettes have helped people quit smoking entirely. And since ecigarettes have become more prominent since around 2010, the percentage of smokers have dropped from the 24% area in 2008, down to 18.1% now. Is there an estimate of how many lives would be saved if the percentage of smokers dropped to the CDC goal of 12%?
Other sugg'd Qs:
Is the CDC aware of cessation evidence from Europe, such as that from France, and the UK ?
Is the CDC aware that that ASH UK has officially abandoned its previous position that e-cigarttes are a gateway to tobacco cigarette smoking?
(These questions should also be asked with the qualifier that the UK has an estimated 3 million vapers, i.e. 5% of its total propulation, according to the NHS [?] - can someone follow up with the link please)?
Is the CDC aware of cessation evidence from Europe, such as that from France, and the UK ?
Is the CDC aware that that ASH UK has officially abandoned its previous position that e-cigarttes are a gateway to tobacco cigarette smoking?
(These questions should also be asked with the qualifier that the UK has an estimated 3 million vapers, i.e. 5% of its total propulation, according to the NHS [?] - can someone follow up with the link please)?
Last edited:
Zeller has made numerous quotes about ecigs haveing lower risks than cigarettes. I would like to hear him explain those.
There is also a recent study reguarding poliicy of ecigs in relation to public health that would be valueable for most members to read.
There is also a recent study reguarding poliicy of ecigs in relation to public health that would be valueable for most members to read.
I contacted Tammy Baldwin. I did a copy/paste of the provided questions because time is a factor. I urge people of Wisconsin to contact Tammy ASAP!
None of the committee are from my state, so I just sent my comments and the questions to the senators on the committee that may aspire to higher office in the future, and to the senators that are facing tough elections in 2014. Flood these types on either side of the aisle, they are more fearful of the voters in our current climate.
Hi crxss! I contacted Barbara, too. I like her a lot, have for decades - she's always been in the trenches for the little guy and locally responsive. Tough old dame. (Democrat here, not spoiling for a fight.) On ecigs, though, I dunno. She's not a fan of big biz, that's one thing - not going to be easily shmoozed by big tobacco. But nannying is a damned epidemic.
It was maddening as the site blipped out with an "oops" message three times as I was trying to compose a pithy, succinct comment in that little box, and when I finally did submit it I wasn't flipped to a page reassuring me that the thing had actually sent, so ugh.
SO last minute. The skunks.
It was maddening as the site blipped out with an "oops" message three times as I was trying to compose a pithy, succinct comment in that little box, and when I finally did submit it I wasn't flipped to a page reassuring me that the thing had actually sent, so ugh.
SO last minute. The skunks.
I contacted Casey, but on the form it asked for a topic I was unsure so I chose trade. I hope I chose the right one
None were from my state either Stosh, so i went down Bill's list and contacted them all. They may not care to see Texas on the address, but my voice is out there. We are ALL in this boat together as far as I am concerned.
Perhaps a sign that they're freaking out a little because they're realizing they have a bigger fight than anticipated on their hands?
I am going to watch the hearing closely. While personal stories are ineffective for the Agency regulatory side (they are just implementing what the Congress tells them to do). For Congressmen and Politicians, personal stories ARE very effective, and the threat of groups organizing voters against Politicians, is at the heart of Democracy. So communicating to your representatives, can be effective on what items they control.
I want to urge that people do not use made up, or fabricating statistics, and knee-jerked conclusions already denied by the FDA. Such as.
FDA’s proposed deeming regulation that would ban >99% of e-cig products, give the e-cig industry to Big Tobacco, (including all premium vaporizers and e-liquid)
The FDA rules do not say this, and if the Congressman call up the FDA, the FDA will deny it, as they have already done publicly, as being a false premise. There is no category known as Premium Vaporizers. Saying banning >99% means Everything. Everything is everything, including Njoy, Blue, V2's E-Liquids, every thing.
It also directly contradicts
Cigalikes are what most people understand as an E-Cigarette, because they are. APV is a subset, but most people using "E-Cigarettes", are use Cigalikes, not APV. If under the theory (stated as fact) that BT and Big Cigalike companies are being given everything in the Deeming Regulations. It then is NECESSARILY proves False that greater than 99% of all E-Cig products will be banned using the very same law.
Regardless of the arguments, you can not have both thing being true at the same time, its way to easy to expose as False, when your Congressman investigates, they will Absolutely find out their constituents are misinformed.
The two statements together are false, period.
On the conclusions already denied side, and WAY too easy to deny
Putting the CDC in the conspiracy camp, won't win votes. The item in question is looking for Ex-Smokers only, whom AT ALL TIMES SMOKED, even though they possibly reduced SMOKING using alternatives. You can question the merits, but don't fabricate a false narrative, that any Congressman will discover if they read the link. Again its asking for people who smokers, and remained smokers, and were smokers when they got diagnosed.
Politicians are motivated by personal stories, but if your Politician is armed with misinformation the Opposition will exploit it and them, you have shot yourself in the foot.
C-SPAN Link, it should be live streaming, their map of streaming info is a bit confusing though, they update on the fly each day
http://www.c-span.org/video/?319401-1/fda-regulation-ecigarettes
-----This is my one and only response to this thread, I will not respond to replies on this thread. Vape On.
I want to urge that people do not use made up, or fabricating statistics, and knee-jerked conclusions already denied by the FDA. Such as.
FDA’s proposed deeming regulation that would ban >99% of e-cig products, give the e-cig industry to Big Tobacco, (including all premium vaporizers and e-liquid)
The FDA rules do not say this, and if the Congressman call up the FDA, the FDA will deny it, as they have already done publicly, as being a false premise. There is no category known as Premium Vaporizers. Saying banning >99% means Everything. Everything is everything, including Njoy, Blue, V2's E-Liquids, every thing.
It also directly contradicts
"gives the e-cigarette industry (comprised of several thousand mostly small companies) to Big Tobacco and perhaps several large cigalike companies"
Cigalikes are what most people understand as an E-Cigarette, because they are. APV is a subset, but most people using "E-Cigarettes", are use Cigalikes, not APV. If under the theory (stated as fact) that BT and Big Cigalike companies are being given everything in the Deeming Regulations. It then is NECESSARILY proves False that greater than 99% of all E-Cig products will be banned using the very same law.
Regardless of the arguments, you can not have both thing being true at the same time, its way to easy to expose as False, when your Congressman investigates, they will Absolutely find out their constituents are misinformed.
The two statements together are false, period.
On the conclusions already denied side, and WAY too easy to deny
C. Why is the CDC recruiting and offering to pay e-cigarette users who were diagnosed with a “serious health condition” to appear in advertisements even if their disease wasn’t caused by e-cigarette use?
Putting the CDC in the conspiracy camp, won't win votes. The item in question is looking for Ex-Smokers only, whom AT ALL TIMES SMOKED, even though they possibly reduced SMOKING using alternatives. You can question the merits, but don't fabricate a false narrative, that any Congressman will discover if they read the link. Again its asking for people who smokers, and remained smokers, and were smokers when they got diagnosed.
Politicians are motivated by personal stories, but if your Politician is armed with misinformation the Opposition will exploit it and them, you have shot yourself in the foot.
C-SPAN Link, it should be live streaming, their map of streaming info is a bit confusing though, they update on the fly each day
http://www.c-span.org/video/?319401-1/fda-regulation-ecigarettes
-----This is my one and only response to this thread, I will not respond to replies on this thread. Vape On.
Last edited:
You know how to make a fellow feel good
Didn't know what else to select beside 'trade.' I was happy to see I was not the only one.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
