Why do anti-smoking groups oppose tobacco harm reduction?

[Vocalek]

...composing a response to Mr.Sielbeck's email. He'll never figure out that he didn't send the original message to me, as he has probably sent out hundreds. I have received word-for-word the same message from other ALA employess as well as the American Heart Assn.

Hi Mr. Sielback:

I'm writing to let you know that your scientific information on electronic cigarettes is outdated. There have been at least a dozen studies conducted on the chemical make-up of electronic cigarette liquid. CASAA.org

We should be able to rely on government agencies to provide us with factual scientific information. Unfortunately, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has fallen down on the job. It is unheard of for a toxicology report to leave out the quantitative data on potentially harmful substances discovered during testing -- but that's exactly what the FDA did.

The FDA press coference stirrred up a lot of excitement when they announced that they had found carcinogens in electronic cigarette cartridges. People would probably not have been so excited about it if the FDA had bothered to mention that the quantity matches the amount in the FDA approved nicotine patch. Obviously the FDA would not have approved the patch if 8 nanograms was considered dangerously carcinogenic, right? For verification of the quantity see the Health New Zealand report, especially the footnote under Table 2.2 on page 7. http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf

You can also view a chart that compares the Tobaco-Specific Nitrosamine (TSNA) levels of electronic cigarettes to a variety of nicotine products and tobacco products, including popular brands of cigarettes. http://www.casaa.org/files/TSNA_Chart(1).pdf

The testing performed by Ben Thomas Group found that only one of the TSNAs identified by FDA actually makes it into the vapor phase of njoy, and that particular chemical is not considered a carcinogen.

To its credit, the FDA did specify an approximate quantity (1%) of the diethylene glycol (DEG) it claims to have found in one of the 18 cartridges tested. However, we know that "the dose makes the poison," and FDA failed to tell its audience whether or not the amount found is enough to be harmful. It turns out that 1% of the 1/2 ml. of liquid in a cartridge is approximately 5,000 times smaller than the toxic dose, which is calculated based on the person's weight in kg. The other thing that is very strange is that among all the tests that have been performed on many different brands of liquid, no other lab has found any DEG. Could it be that the FDA accidentally introduced some contamination?

The bottom line is that no tests on electronic cigarettes -- not even those conducted by FDA -- have identified any potentially harmful substances in large enough quantities to be carcinogenic or toxic.

So you see, continually quoting the FDA's study as "proof" that electronic cigarettes are dangerous makes it appear as if the American Lung Association doesn't know what it is talking about.

Furthermore, there are mixed messages coming from your organization If the ALA believes that Eissenberg's study proves that there is no nicotine coming out of an electronic cigarette, then what is the FDA's basis for banning the product as an unapproved drug-delivery device? An electronic cigarette cannot possbily be a drug-delivery device if it doesn't deliver a drug.

Perhaps this product is a wonderfully effective placebo. Thousands and thousands of people are reporting that they are finally able to achieve smoking abstinence by substituting the electronic cigarette for their tobacco cigarettes. If these people are no longer inhaling smoke, and they are managing to do that with a placebo, how can the ALA possibly justify trying to put a stop to it? I look forward to your answer.

 

[savagemyth]

What we need is to stop trying to argue with the ignorant and instead funnel our arguments into a comprehensive scientific study on ecigs and use that to justify our argument.

 

[tpajames]

What a great response to this email. I appreciate your input and hope that your knowledge on the subject matter penetrates the thought processes on this issue. If one person in the appropriate position "gets it", maybe the electronic cigarettes can be recognized for the wonderful product that it is. Thank you again.

 

[Thulium]

Excellent response, Elaine. I wanted to say many of the same things, but I am so emotionally charged by the fact that these particular groups have fallen victim to such deep corruption that I can't be as eloquent without an overwhelming urge to devolve into an f-bomb laden rant!

Surely these organizations aren't entirely staffed by brainless puppets. do the people who think for themselves have no conscience or are the unconscionable actions of "the powers that be" so successful that they have snowed people who are otherwise well intentioned?

One point that really gets under my skin is the fact that they mention the Eissenberg study, but fails to mention Eissenberg's actual conclusion that even under the test conditions that failed to deliver nicotine...they were determined to be at least as successful at diminishing the urge to smoke as the NRT. Of course we also know that subsequent studies have shown e-cigarettes to be even MORE successful at helping users achieve and maintain smoking abstinence when they're used properly and deliver recreational nicotine as intended.

 

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

Well - I wasn't nearly as nice in my reply to the esteemed Mr. Seilback......

Dear Michael Seilback

I have read a few responses you've left to other consumers of Electronic Cigarettes (below), and, frankly, am quite appalled at your stance. Can you do nothing but follow the company line?

You focus on the study the FDA did, which you, in you canned response, call limited. Is this one, LIMITED STUDY, enough to condemn an entire industry? There are OTHER studies out there, that show, conclusively, that electronic cigarettes are a far safer alternative than the product they are trying to replace: REAL CIGARETTES. Anyone who is comparing these products to other products is missing the obvious point - that e-cig users are not quitting, they have replaced the act of burning a carbon-based product and inhaling the smoke to inhaling clean nicotine in a carrier that is safe to inhale in asthma inhalers, air sanitation products, and commercial fog machines.

Spare me the rhetoric - that you don't know what's in them, that they are attractive to children, and that they're being marketed as a cessation product. I've heard it all before, and refuted the same. I'm waiting for the REAL reason the ALA and others are against these products, not the smoke and mirrors propaganda campaign you're running to sound like you care.

Do you, or anyone at the ALA, have the courage to stand up and admit the true reasons your organization is so violently opposed to a product that is poised to SOLVE the problems created by centuries of humans smoking tobacco?

If you were truly concerned about protecting the children from this product, your lobbyist Cathy Drea would have jumped at the chance to modify the proposed legislation in IL that was recently shot down, and had laws placed to block sales to children only.

The truth, in my mind's eye: your organization is against these products because they are not heavily financed and controlled by the industry that pays most of your organizations' bills - the large Pharmaceutical companies.

http://.............../safe.html On this page is a bounty of information for you to peruse regarding electronic cigarettes. If you are truly concerned for the health and safety of your fellow Americans, you'll give that webpage a good browsing, and pull the wool out from over your eyes.

Your organizations' stance, as it is right now, stands to condemn the 100,000+ vapers in this country to tobacco. Make no mistake, the choice being forced on us by these bans and bid for control is not a choice between vaping and quitting. It is a choice between vaping and TOBACCO. There are no other options acceptable to the consumer base you are trying to control.

You want dangerous vaping practices? Ban the products, and I guarantee they'll go underground. Now, quality control in a black-market industry is HARDLY their primary concern, wouldn't you agree? What happened to young, impressionable girls before abortions became legal? I'll tell you: there were a lot of DEAD YOUNG GIRLS who ended up on the wrong side of a back-alley abortionists' table, that's what happened.

Your organizations' stance on these products is WRONG. Dead wrong. Dead, as well, will be the 400,000+ smokers a year who lose their lives to tobacco. Congratulations, you're killing people. Think about it!

I'm looking forward to your response, but not holding my breath (and, lookie here - I can BREATHE again thanks to my e-cig) for a rational reply.

 

[bassnut]

It frustrates me that all of these wonderful letters get written and sent but only receive form letters in return that don't address their content. I see this over and over. There's no way to tell if they're being read.

Somehow these arguments need to be made in a more public forum, ideally in the form of a debate. Radio is ideal. I think Elaine was working on getting National Public Radio interested.
Should we be sending letters to our local news papers and radio stations or seek out (target) the writers and contributors to these outlets individually and let them know what's going on here? Would we just be stirring up even more hate and bigotry?

 

[Vocalek]

Yes, do send letters to local media. You have a much better chance of getting a Letter to the Editor published in your local paper than we have of capturing the attention of national media outlets. (Not that we are going to stop trying, mind you.) If enough of these letters get published across the country, we build up a groundswell that will be very hard to quash.

 

[D103]

Great letter Elaine! I would love to see that one also appear in numerous major newspapers or on television. I know for me, I start out well intended, stating my viewpoints and observations, but then, alas, emotions seem to get the better of me and I lapse into an angry, babbling rant. Ahh...maybe one of these days I'll be able to really grow up. I did want to say to Mr. Wolf - excellent point made - you are right! It is more than just govt. Big Business and Big Organizations. It is a serious lack of critical thinking on the part of the American Public and We do need to work at becoming more involved, more informed and better informed as well as much more selective in what we choose to believe/accept and not believe and particularly what we tolerate from our leaders and government in general.

 

[BCB]

I loved your letter, Vicks!

 

[Janetda]

Both letters are great - sigh. So much talent spent on people who won't listen.