So if someone were to try and get the vendors to ban together to for an association of some sort, how would one get the ball rolling?
US Senate Appropriations Cmte approves bill urging FDA to issue "deeming" regulation for unregulated tobacco products, including e-cigarettes
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Your lawyers completely misread Judge Leon's opinion. If they represent 3 other e-cigarette companies, those lawyers need to get on the phone with Bill Godshall in the next week and get a better grasp on the implications of the deeming regulation.
You are correct that people shouldn't be panicking and cluttering up the thread with talk about stocking up on supplies.
Yes,and we need to keep bumping this thread so more people become aware of this serious problem--and take time to write a letter to their Rep and/or Senator--if they are on the Senate or House Appropriations Committee. The Republicans on this committee really need to receive letters from their constituents.Many of these Republicans who voted for this Bill serve on the Senate HHS committee with Durbin,Landrieu,etc. We need vapors in South Carolina,Kentucky,and Tennessee to contact their Senator concerning their displeasure with the Senators" vote--and intelligently explain the reasons for your displeasure. Maybe Volcalek will post the link that shows which Senators voted for this bill. If your Senator did,in fact, vote for this bill please contact them--by snail mail or a telephone call or a visit to one of their District offices.If your Senator voted against it,thank them! It is amazing what can be done if we all work together.
OOPS! I should have mentioned which Senator!--Alexander,Tenn--Graham,South Carolina, and Minority Leader McConnell of Kentucky.
Respectfully, I will believe what my attorneys have said. Time will tell.
I do agree about the likelihood of heavy taxation.
At least forward your lawyers this article and read it for your own knowledge. The authors at Troutman Sanders also charge $500 an hour, but they've been involved with tobacco litigation for years.
http://www.troutmansanders.com/file...7-4c24-b1ea-854594be1a74/ssAPR12_Troutman.pdf
This is a ROUGH draft of a letter to Sen. Graham (I'll add the "Honorables" and stuff later). I'm posting it because I don't think I fully understand the immediate issue, and really need someone, or several someones, to read and correct what I've written.
I haven't checked to see about House members yet, but my Congressman is Jim Clyburn, and I wouldn't waste a stamp asking him to do anything that would cause his leadership to get all frowny.
Senator Graham;
I have long been an admirer of your intelligence and political skills, and proud that you are my senator. So I was very disappointed to read recently that you supported Sen. Durbin's amendment to the appropriations bill urging the Food and Drug Administration to promulgate regulations on "other" tobacco products.
Although the language in the amendment emphasizes regulation of flavored cigars (using some very shaky justification), pressure on the FDA to issue deeming regulation for other tobacco products could very well push the agency toward actions that will have serious and harmful effects on the health of millions of citizens.
I was a smoker for 52 years until I discovered the electronic cigarette, which all of the research so far shows to be at least 95 percent safer than cigarettes (the FDA's misleading 2009 press release notwithstanding). Many other former smokers are improving their health and lengthening their lives by using various forms of smokeless tobacco such as snus or dissolvables. I believe that a deeming regulation would make all of these products unavailable in the short term, expensive and user-unfriendly in the long run.
The FDA's bias against tobacco harm reduction and its willingness to conceal the truth about safer alternatives is undeniable. It is simply frightening to me that having at last freed myself from cigarette smoke, that agency is being urged to take actions that may drive me back to it.
Please use the influence you have to urge the FDA to change its stance toward tobacco harm reduction, to be more truthful in its communications about the relative dangers of various tobacco products, and to proceed cautiously before regulating several million former smokers back into smoking.
Sincerely
I haven't checked to see about House members yet, but my Congressman is Jim Clyburn, and I wouldn't waste a stamp asking him to do anything that would cause his leadership to get all frowny.
Senator Graham;
I have long been an admirer of your intelligence and political skills, and proud that you are my senator. So I was very disappointed to read recently that you supported Sen. Durbin's amendment to the appropriations bill urging the Food and Drug Administration to promulgate regulations on "other" tobacco products.
Although the language in the amendment emphasizes regulation of flavored cigars (using some very shaky justification), pressure on the FDA to issue deeming regulation for other tobacco products could very well push the agency toward actions that will have serious and harmful effects on the health of millions of citizens.
I was a smoker for 52 years until I discovered the electronic cigarette, which all of the research so far shows to be at least 95 percent safer than cigarettes (the FDA's misleading 2009 press release notwithstanding). Many other former smokers are improving their health and lengthening their lives by using various forms of smokeless tobacco such as snus or dissolvables. I believe that a deeming regulation would make all of these products unavailable in the short term, expensive and user-unfriendly in the long run.
The FDA's bias against tobacco harm reduction and its willingness to conceal the truth about safer alternatives is undeniable. It is simply frightening to me that having at last freed myself from cigarette smoke, that agency is being urged to take actions that may drive me back to it.
Please use the influence you have to urge the FDA to change its stance toward tobacco harm reduction, to be more truthful in its communications about the relative dangers of various tobacco products, and to proceed cautiously before regulating several million former smokers back into smoking.
Sincerely
Last edited:
Very nice letter. Maybe Placebo effect,Volkelt,or Bill Godshall would be able to help you with any details you might add. They have a greater depth of knowledge than I do concerning the effects of this proposed bill. It is confusing--other than the fact we know it is not positive for us. You should write more letters--they are good!
I am nothing if not persistent! I will keep bumping this thread because I feel it is so important. We need some folks from Kentucky,Tennessee to write letters Alexander and McConnell. If they have a district office in your area--go visit with their staffer. One vapor is working on Graham in South Carolina. We need more South Carolina vapors to write letters to Graham--and go by one of his District offices. The staffers keep records of the voters comments on legislation--the more people that express a dislike for a piece of legislation,the more attention the Senator will pay to our opinion. Inform yourself about this legislation and its possible effects on vapors. Then compose that letter and send it! I will list the Senators that voted against this piece of proposed legislation and a thank you can be sent to them! That will be my next bump.
zoiDman,
I agree, it would be nice to know where she stands on this issue. Here's her bio's opening paragraph (relevant in bold);
I did a search on their website, and didn't find anything related to e-cigs or electronic cigarettes. So I think it's time to ask her. Unfortunately, since she doesn't have an email address, the only way to contact her is by the following means;
Fax: 240-453-6141
Telephone: 240-276-8853
Mailing address:
Tower Building
Plaza Level 1, Room 100
1101 Wooton Parkway
Rockville MD 20852
The Surgeon General would have been the FIRST person I would have gone after when rumors of Bans, Regulation and Taxations started about 2 years ago.
Perhaps the Surgeon General couldn’t be swayed to be a “Friend” of e-Cigarette use, but any Sympathy towards the issues is better than having a Hard Liner in that Position.
Historically, the SG has been resistant to tobacco harm reduction. The current SG is no better at avoiding hysterical and sweeping generalizations of tobacco used by the ANTZ
Notice the casual interchanging of "smoking" and "tobacco use?"
She also claimed in a 2010 report:
Which is simply not true and designed to continue the war on smokers.
In a 2012 report, she equates all tobacco use without recognizing that smoke-free tobacco is better than smoking:
She also calls nicotine addiction the "most serious" health effect of tobacco use!
And blames youth initiation on tobacco companies, when there is no evidence tobacco advertising raises youth initiation rates, ignoring that tobacco industry ads have been severely curtailed, yet youth initiation hasn't gone down much in 20 years.
Seriously - who here started smoking because of industry advertising??
Based on her ANTZ rhetoric regarding tobacco and nicotine, I can safely guess that e-cigarettes and THR are not something welcomed by the current SG.
I could be being over the top by saying this, but if we were to try and convince/correct someone on the issue of harm reduction, it would be the Surgeon General. Essentially, if you control the head, the body will follow. Just my 
I’m not surprised to hear that the SG isn’t in Love with e-Cigarettes.
I would still want to have that Agency on the List of Government Bodies to be sent Pro e-Cigarette Study Results and Related Documentation.
Even having the SG Acknowledge that e-Cigarettes is some form can be an Alternative to Smoking is better than having them Completely on the Other Side of the Issue.
I don't think they have much.
Mental sway towards a swing vote Congressman? Maybe Priceless.
If I remember correctly, someone did write the SG a couple of years ago and the reply they received was basically a quote of the FDA statement about carcinogens and antifreeze.
I'm just not holding too much hope for this SG. If she cannot even acknowledge scientifically-proven THR facts about smoke-free tobacco and basically lies about nicotine, she won't see continued addiction to e-cigarettes as any sort of compromise. It seems to be "quit or die" for her. Doesn't mean we wouldn't continue to fill her in on the scientific evidence of e-cigarettes as it comes available, but I don't hold high hopes for changing her mind. She's apparently an ANTZ and no amount of reasoning or science gets through their zealotry. Unfortunately, I foresee having to work around her and over her rather than ever getting her on our side.
I'm just not holding too much hope for this SG. If she cannot even acknowledge scientifically-proven THR facts about smoke-free tobacco and basically lies about nicotine, she won't see continued addiction to e-cigarettes as any sort of compromise. It seems to be "quit or die" for her. Doesn't mean we wouldn't continue to fill her in on the scientific evidence of e-cigarettes as it comes available, but I don't hold high hopes for changing her mind. She's apparently an ANTZ and no amount of reasoning or science gets through their zealotry. Unfortunately, I foresee having to work around her and over her rather than ever getting her on our side.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
