Discussion in 'Campaigning discussions' started by Vocalek, Mar 25, 2010.
Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
spreading the word and emailing to our state
Vapors Coalition has tried to simply the process for all. See this post:
If they would ban e-cigs in these states, could we still purchase them outside of these states?
The Illinois vapers contingent did an awesome job! The committee refused to vote on the bill until they get more information. And they made the news! Vote on electronic cigarettes ban postponed in Ill. House committee | Political Fix | STLtoday
Hopefuly, JustJulie will come by and fill us in on some of the details - they have some great stories! They called me after the meeting and sounded pumped, excited and hopeful!
The job is not done yet - there is another meeting next week. And then we have to take our fight to New York!!
I'm just curious here, but what do these law makers have against their own people? Honestly, if I could no longer get E-cigs I would go back to analog cigarettes. Which means I would still be getting nicotine.... nicotine that I now get from my E-cig. Not to mention all the other crap I get from analogs.
IMHO, you have to remember who we are dealing with. Politicians, almost without exception, have only one goal: to be re-elected and remain in power.
Everything else is secondary. Never forget that.
Smokers are evil, in the same category as drunk drivers. The proof is endless. More taxes on smokers, but overlook drinking. Why? Because there are more drinkers than smokers, and drinkers vote.
Booze causes more death, misery, heartbreak, and wrecked lives and families than all the other legal and illegal drugs combined.
But smokers are the evil, because they are in the minority and an easy target.
Ergo: anything related to nicotine must also be evil.
Fight evil, and you get re-elected.
It's that simple.
I know what you mean. I feel like saying, "I know it's not really your intention to kill me, but it sure feels like it."
My personal opinion is that most politicians want to do their job--they want to protect their constituents and do what's best for the people they represent. The problem is that sometimes they just aren't terribly informed, and if you're not informed, it's hard to do your job properly.
You've got to remember that what is behind these banning bills is ACTIVE LOBBYING on the part of so-called charities that are supposed to be acting to promote and protect the public health. Yup. The American Lung Association was the "charity" behind SB3174, and it sure sounded as if the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society were behind it, too, from what Kathy Drea was saying.
For years, folks have relied on these charities to act in the best interests of the public, and so when they support or oppose something, people tend to listen and give weight and credibility to those opinions. Our legislators have come to rely on these organizations to give them sound, accurate information and advice on how the legislators can best serve their constituents.
Thus, it's no surprise that when the ALA drafts a bit of legislation and then goes door to door in the state legislature telling people that e-cigarettes need to be banned, folks listen. The problem is that the ALA isn't being truthful.
Here's the meat of the American Lung Association's Memorandum in Support of a total ban on the sale of e-cigarettes in New York:
How many misstatements, distortions, and half-truths can you find in that Memorandum?
When legislators receive bad information, they enact bad laws. What we need to do is help our legislators do their jobs and help provide them with good, solid information.
My personal opinion is that what we saw in the Illinois Human Services Committee yesterday was elected state officials trying to do their job. Concerned citizens were given an opportunity to speak, and the Committee members listened . . . and they asked some pointed and hard questions.
Legislators want to do their jobs . . . but we can't expect them to do their jobs well if we don't take the time and effort to help educate them on e-cigarettes and counteract some of the blatant misstatements of the "charities" pushing for these state bans on the sale of e-cigs.
Agreed. This would be a good start!!
I just sent ALA my 2 cents.
I had sent an email to the FDA. I included links to updated info. I got a reply......it just pisses you off to read it. Regurgitate the same lame crap! The refuse to read any new info. Even by reputable sources!
Thank you for writing to the Ombudsman's Office, in the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Your email has been forwarded to the Division of Drug Information for a direct reply.
At this time, we are not aware of any data establishing electronic cigarettes as safe and effective for their intended uses. Based upon our case by case review of a number of these products, they are drug/device combinations that require approval by FDA before they may be legally marketed in the United States. None of these so-called electronic cigarettes or their components has been approved by FDA. Therefore, the marketing of the products FDA has reviewed is not legal in the United States. As a matter of policy, however, we limit communications about the regulatory status of specific marketed products to those responsible for them, and we do not discuss our enforcement actions except with the targets of those actions.
There may be a perception among some users that electronic cigarettes are a safe and effective means to quit smoking conventional forms of tobacco. However, FDA is not aware of any scientific data to support those perceptions. Since these products have not been submitted to the FDA for evaluation or approval, the agency has no way of knowing, except for the limited testing it has performed, the levels of nicotine or the kinds and amounts of other chemicals that the various brands of these products deliver to the user. The FDA's Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis analyzed the ingredients in a small sample of cartridges from two leading brands of electronic cigarettes. In one sample, the FDA's analyses detected diethylene glycol, a chemical used in antifreeze that is toxic to humans, and in several other samples, the FDA analyses detected carcinogens, including nitrosamines. FDA also found varying levels of nicotine in cartridges labeled as containing the same level of nicotine as well as the presence of nicotine in cartridges labeled as containing no nicotine. These test results indicate that these products are manufactured under inadequate or non-existent controls.
FDA is concerned that electronic cigarettes may introduce young people to nicotine use which may lead to an increase in the use of conventional tobacco products with well-known, adverse, health consequences. Additionally, it is unclear what health effects these products could have on users or if misuse or product failure could lead to nicotine poisoning or other serious adverse health consequences. There are a number of proven safe and effective cessation aids that smokers can use to quit smoking. The U.S. Public Health Service's, Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update recommends using a combination of proven cessation interventions including FDA-approved nicotine replacement therapy and/or non-nicotine medications and counseling to more than double a smoker's chances of quitting successfully. Free help is available to smokers in all states by calling 1-800-QUIT-NOW or by visiting www.smokefree.gov<http://www.smokefree.gov/>.
Thank you again for your comments regarding this issue.
Drug Information RL
Division of Drug Information
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
Food and Drug Administration
For up-to-date drug information, follow the FDA's Division of Drug Information on Twitter at FDA_Drug_Info<http://......./eqdl9>
This communication is consistent with 21CFR10.85(k) and constitutes an informal communication that represents our best judgment at this time but does not constitute an advisory opinion, does not necessarily represent the formal position of the FDA, and does not bind or otherwise obligate or commit the agency to the views expressed.
From: Weinstein, Les S
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 2:41 PM
Cc: CDER DRUG INFO
<< Message: half truths and lies about electronic cigarettes >> << Message: flawed pespective >>
Thank you for the articles you sent about e-cigarettes. By way of this email I am forwarding them to FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) for follow-up.
Office of the Director
Center for Tobacco Products (CTP)
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
CTP Call Center: 1-877-CTP-1373
I had sent links to info gleaned from here. Harvard study and such. They do not want to look at any new info. Their study is outdated. Basically I got a form letter back. I did not use my own words except to state that my health has improved since i started using a PV and that they should be looked at as a healthy alternative to smoking not as a smoking cessation device. They treat us as if we know nothing and only they know what is good for us!
I guess i will just keep my mouth shut.......sit on the sidelines and watch.....I get the impression that what I did is seen as bad.
I spent most of the afternoon gathering good info and sources found here and passed along what I found. This just fires me up due to the injustice of it.
I wont do any more......
No! Please do not become passive. You did fine and did nothing wrong! Good for you to take action...keep up the good work! The only thing I would do differently, is leave out the healthy(ier) part the next time and just refer to your own health having improved with this cigarette alternative
May I suggest Hogie, that you redirect your efforts to a target that is more likely to pay attention. We have given up contacting the FDA directly as a lost cause.
You live in New York. Find out where your Assembly Representative has a local office, call and make an appointment to talk to him or her about some health concerns. Take your equipment with you. Tell your story and then demonstrate. Let the Assembly Member know that you need for him or her to sponsor an amendment to A1468: Electronic Cigarettes/ Nicotine Vaporizers. Section 2 needs to be deleted in its entirety. If Section 2 is still a part of the bill when it comes to a full vote in the Assembly, you need for him or her to vote NO.
Even if your Assembly Member is one of the sponsors or is already brainwashed to vote for it, hand him or her two documents printed out before you leave:
http://www.casaa.org/files/CASAA%20Position%20Statement.pdf - 1 page
The first is a one page summary of CASAA's position on electronic cigarettes. It refutes many of the lies being used in support of the ban.
The second is Dr. Siegel's article published in the Journal of Public Health Policy. It describes the research he conducted on the available evidence on the safety and effectiveness of electornic cigarettes.
In fact, what you might do is hand the 1-page document to him or her and ask them to quickly skim it before you state your case. In stating your case, all you really have to do is tell your story. Tell them how the product has helped you and what effect switching has had on your health.
FYI: Here is a link to the text of the bill: Bills
Thanx. I have those documents but had not thought to print the bill. I am printing it now. Also, the reporter called me a few minutes ago. She is going to call me on thursday to see about meeting that day or friday. She wants to come to my house. I told her that friday I have an appointment to meet with my represenative so we will have to plan around that. Maybe hearing this she will undersatnd how serious I am about this issue.
You are awesome!!! Wish more would take the initiative and branch out.
For years, it's been the same controversy from the FDA...to ban electronic cigarettes.
For reasons such as: It's appealing to kids, they think it's not healthy and so on. THe main focus always seems to fall on fear the children will become intrigued by it, use it and then use tobacco cigarettes.
I went to a local 7-Eleven to buy e-cig cartridges and they ID'd me. It Identification process to buy an ecig was almost as tight as going through security at an airport!
They young man beside me had NO trouble purchasing tobacco cigarettes and BEER! No ID was asked for, nor did he have to sit and wait as they punched in his driver's license numbers into they system and make sure the license was real.
Message conveyed to me and probablly they yound teenagers behind me???
Much easier to obtain tobacco cigarettes than electronic ones!
Besides, we need to consider the mind of an adoloescent for just a minute here, FDA people:
What teenager looking to do "grown-up" things and rebel would want to attempt to impress his friends with a fake cigarette? Some object that resembles their ballpoint pen and blows water vapor out? Besides, it's MUCH easier to obtain the real thing anyway!
IMO I'm getting sick of hearing about banning e-cigs. If they are so terrified of kids eventually using tobacco cigs, then just ban tobacco cigs! SInce that's the ultimate concern of bad habits.
I have a ? and I really don't know where to ask it. Didn't the Appellate court rule that the e-cig can be regulated as a tobacco product? If so then that changes the whole NY ban proposal I would think.
S 1399-MM-1. PROHIBITION OF PRODUCTS NOT DEFINED AS TOBACCO PRODUCTS
OR APPROVED BY THE UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION. 1.
PRODUCTS CONTAINING OR DELIVERING NICOTINE INTENDED OR EXPECTED FOR
HUMAN CONSUMPTION THAT ARE NOT TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AS DEFINED IN SECTION
THIRTEEN HUNDRED NINETY-NINE-AA OF THIS ARTICLE, SHALL NOT BE DISTRIB
UTED OR SOLD UNLESS SUCH PRODUCTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE UNITED
STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION FOR SALE AS TOBACCO USE CESSATION OR
HARM REDUCTION PRODUCTS OR FOR OTHER MEDICAL PURPOSES AND ARE BEING
MARKETED AND SOLD SOLELY FOR THAT APPROVED PURPOSE.
2. IN ADDITION TO ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AUTHORIZED IN SECTION THIRTEEN
HUNDRED NINETY-NINE-EE OF THIS ARTICLE, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MAY APPLY
IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ON FIVE DAYS NOTICE,
FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING COMPLIANCE WITH THIS SECTION. IN ANY SUCH
PROCEEDING THE COURT MAY IMPOSE A CIVIL PENALTY IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH VIOLATION.
If the court ruled that they are tobacco products and can be regulated as such, wouldn't that make this null and void?
There has not been an official ruling regarding the regulation status of e-cigs at this time. Judge Leon has only opinionated that he thinks they should be regulated as tobacco products but has not officially ruled as such yet. The case is still pending in the court system, the only official ruling that has been made to this time is that the FDA was to stop confiscating through customs the products of the 2 e-cig companies that filed suit against the FDA, and they appealed that ruling as well. The FDA is continuing to attempt to have e-cigs labeled as drug devices, so we continue our fight to prevent that from happening.
Ah ok, I thought it was an official ruling. If he does rule that it is indeed a tobacco product that would be a good thing I think.
Separate names with a comma.