Washinton Times: Electronic cigarette peddlers are just blowing smoke, health officials say

[Kent C]

I fully agree about government's reluctance to back out of regulation. However, I believe the FDA has a real concern with how they should propose regulation here. They made their stance once and got spanked in court. They didn't get away with regulating them as pharma products. They don't have a lot of science to use as a defense if they end up in court over proposed regulation. The "We just don't know" defense won't work. The "What about the children" defense won't work. They need some science to bring to the courtroom and there's very little that supports any strong stance against e cigs.

I believe they realize they have a dilemma in that their opponent was very weak financially the first time around, but there's a lot more ammunition available now. It will be interesting to see how they try to resolve this.

That may be exactly what their lawyers are thinking... excellent points.

And there may be someone there (doubtful.. but perhaps) who is thinking... ecigs may* reduce lung cancer more than the decades of work by the American Cancer Society and the medical profession combined!

*one can use 'may' when it's positive

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Makes one wonder if there are some at the FDA that are thinking that just maybe they should just require accurate ingredient lists on the label and commercial food grade production facilities. They've been trying to find something to hang a ban hat on since 2009 with no success, every study they've done proves the opposite once you get past the press release bovine excrement and their twisted sister manipulation of statistics. The FDA found out the hard way in 2010 that the courts want facts and they have none, where it seems like at least one study a month is coming out to back the fact that e-cigarettes really are 99.9% safer than burning tobacco.

The only fact that the FDA is dealing with right now is their masters at BP are going to be highly po'ed if they can't figure a way around the above problem. I would suggest that they are already working plan B, trying to get many smaller bans at the city, county and state level. As soon as one does it they run to next one and point to the first one to show what they did about evil e-cigs and to protect the children.

We are in a long war with experts at propaganda, they've been doing it for over 40 years and aren't going to quit anytime soon.

 

[Kent C]

I don't agree with the BP/BT arguments but focus on the city, county, state level is common to problems and solutions. Many feds would prefer no concealed carry laws, but many states like them - esp. when crime decreases. Yet all it takes in many cities or towns is for some loudmouth do gooder to say 'there should be a law against... (fill in the blank) - usually some junk science environmental wacko - I know around here each town has one...sometimes even two but they get regulations passed which kill jobs, and save no one. Then they run for city council.

 

[rothenbj]

That may be exactly what their lawyers are thinking... excellent points.

And there may be someone there (doubtful.. but perhaps) who is thinking... ecigs may* reduce lung cancer more than the decades of work by the American Cancer Society and the medical profession combined!

*one can use 'may' when it's positive

I'm really questioning the real desire to decrease disease and extend life. It may all be a red herring, a sales pitch to generate contributions and a marketing theme. Part of the problem with society is people living longer. Once you leave the working world, you become a society cost. Most of us are still part of the bottom line of the health industry whether we smoke or not. The longer you live, the more they make. Most will have some form of health issue that leads to mortality at some point in our lives. Mom had a heart attack last year where they determined the bottom of her heart was shot. That didn't stop her from falling a year latter and breaking her hip. Now she's in assisted living (a nice word for a home) which will empty her life's savings within the next two years, if she makes it. If she does, which is possible, society will then pick up the cost. She'll be 95 in January.

Her 87 year old brother had been in the hospital for the last 2 1/2 months and now is in an acute care unit for who know how long with no certainty what his next destination might be. They operated and treated him for colon cancer last year which I suspect led to his intestinal issues now. He's showing the same signs of dementia that my mom has after so many medical issues.

Has longevity been a gain or a loss for society? Medicare has been paying for their health issues and SS has been coming in for over 20 years in both cases. Would society have benefited from early mortality? You be the judge.

ACS throws up that flag of wanting to fight cancer but it's really more of a campaign promise than an actual attemp to cure cancer and the medical world would be out of business if people didn't get sick. Just beware, I'm a cynic.

 

[Vocalek]

Hey, thank you, but I just selected it. Let's give a big to Bob Chill! His entire comment is well worth reading!

I hope Vocalek will post her letter to the editor here, as soon as she's able...

This is my letter that the Washington Times published today: LETTER TO THE EDITOR: E-cigarettes can help smokers quit - Washington Times

My suggested headline was "Story about e-cigarettes is just blowing smoke," but the Editor had other ideas.

 

[AgentAnia]

Well done! Your suggested title is brilliant; sorry they didn't see fit to publish that as well.

 

[TyPie]

That may be exactly what their lawyers are thinking... excellent points.

And there may be someone there (doubtful.. but perhaps) who is thinking... ecigs may* reduce lung cancer more than the decades of work by the American Cancer Society and the medical profession combined!

*one can use 'may' when it's positive

THIS is EXACTLY right, imho. A Pro-ecig campaign where:

E-CIGS MAY:
1.) greatly reduce lung, esophogeal and other tobacco smoking-related cancers
2.) greatly reduce COPD
3.) greatly reduce stinky clothes, hair, automobiles and living spaces
4.) greatly reduce potential harm from 2nd-hand tobacco-smoke
5.) greatly reduce deaths from tobacco-smoking-related disease
6.) greatly increase or even restore lung function
7.) greatly reduce heart attack and stroke
8.) greatly reduce smoking tobacco among our youth (the CHILDREN!)
9.) greatly extend the lives of former tobacco smokers
10.) greatly reduce the cost of medical care for tobacco-smoking-related disease
11.) greatly increase the ability of tobacco-smokers to quit
12.) greatly reduce the incidence of burn holes in your pants, home and automobile upholstery
and on........(you get the point. E-cig users can probably type out 20 or 30 of these without even thinking about it. There *MAY* be many other benefits as well. )

 

[Kent C]

I'm really questioning the real desire to decrease disease and extend life. It may all be a red herring, a sales pitch to generate contributions and a marketing theme. ...

Has longevity been a gain or a loss for society? Medicare has been paying for their health issues and SS has been coming in for over 20 years in both cases. Would society have benefited from early mortality? You be the judge.

ACS throws up that flag of wanting to fight cancer but it's really more of a campaign promise than an actual attemp to cure cancer and the medical world would be out of business if people didn't get sick. Just beware, I'm a cynic.

Uh.... I may have overestimated ... Hopefully that last sentence means something, but yeah.. zero pop. has been a driving force of the Left since their support of eugenics in the progressive era and later under Erlich's influence in the 60's, which continues to this day. So the line 'Would society have benefited from early mortality?' means more to them than it does for me, who looks in terms of what benefits individuals rather than what benefits society... although they could never admit that fact, publicly. Sometimes they get caught though... see:

Obama to Jane Sturm: Hey, take a pill - YouTube

 

[WillyZee]

Simply put ... you are awesome Elaine

 

[Jay-dub]

Politics and media like money. Hyperbole brings eyes to the page/screen for media. For politicians it can be part of a shake-down strategy. They make your industry seem in question so you can "convince" them that there's no need for draconian measures using your free $peech. (emphasis on $peech). They're looking to motivate e-cig proponents into "making it rain", while assuring the opponents that the flow of funds from their lobbying is working. Motivating opponents to maintain the course of throwing the politicians money. It's the all about the grift.

 

[Anjaffm]

I'm really questioning the real desire to decrease disease and extend life. It may all be a red herring, a sales pitch to generate contributions and a marketing theme. Part of the problem with society is people living longer. Once you leave the working world, you become a society cost. ...

ACS throws up that flag of wanting to fight cancer but it's really more of a campaign promise than an actual attemp to cure cancer and the medical world would be out of business if people didn't get sick. Just beware, I'm a cynic.

First of all, I am sorry about your mother and your uncle *hugs*

But yes, I am a cynic, too. Or maybe just too old and too experienced in life to believe in sweet-sounding fairy tales.

And smoking is very beneficial to society / the government indeed
- at least in European countries where you have mandatory old-age pension insurance (paid IN by mandatory contributions taken from people's paychecks, and paid OUT by the government, who received the mandatory contributions in the first place):

To take a European example of a country with full state provision, tobacco taxation in the UK totaled £12.1 billion in 2011/12, according to figures compiled by the Tobacco Manufacturers Association. Smoking cost the National Health Service approximately £5 billion in 2005, and it’s reasonable to assume this figure was not drastically different in 2011/12, leaving a net income from taxes of around £7 billion.

And that’s before you consider the savings made in non-payments of state pensions to people who die early from smoking. The 2010/11 state pension bill was £66.8 billion. Tobacco smokers’ average life expectancy is approx. 10 % lower, so in the UK (and averaging across men and women), this would be a net saving of around 8 years per smoker. Retirement age is averaged at 62.5 years, giving us an average pension-claiming period of around 17.5 years for everyone (smokers and non-smokers included), and 9.5 years per smoker. From these figures, we can say that a very rough estimate of the cost, were smokers to live as long as everyone else, would be an additional £7.5 billion.

So, in an ideal world, where smoking was eradicated and no-one was dying from it, the exchequer would lose out on a total of around £14.5 billion per year (around $22 billion) – for context, this is more than the projected 2014 cost for ‘protection’, i.e. Police, prisons, fire services, courts etc. in the UK.

source

A world where nobody gets sick and dies early is every government's worst nightmare.

..........
and great letter, Elaine!

 

[Kent C]

Anjaffm,

But yes, I am a cynic, too. Or maybe just too old and too experienced in life to believe in sweet-sounding fairy tales.

Like 'utopias' that preach peace and love but where all their policies are implemented through force or threat of force

A world where nobody gets sick and dies early is every government's worst nightmare.

Only if the government has socialized healthcare and retirement, as you point out. Otherwise it could be a dream - productive people living long and paying taxes