An unbalanced story that prefers villains to enlightenment. I searched in vain for the words "harm reduction." Thus, the preferred choice of doctors and activists isn't discussed. As the words imply reduction does not mean harms go away, but it does mean the obligation of society is to help users cause the least amount of harm. That eminently practical approach is the justification for e-cigarettes. And the reason that big tobacco has many allies is that there are sound health-based reason for making e-cigarettes available.
14
The Constitution says we have a right to petition. That's the entire basis for the lobbying business in Washington and in every state capitol/capital. But what fuels the lobbying business is the baksheesh, the legal bribery called campaign contributions. I know, I've seen it first hand. But there are things that can be represented in this necessary and necessarily amoral system from which the lobbyist can walk away with some semblance of conscience; and then there are things that can't be. Chief among those things that eat away, that erode individual conscience and devour all sense of ethics and proportion is tobacco. In every way, in every form, in every manner of its delivery it should be made the first most illegal substance in the United States and anyone who works for or represents it should be shunned, completely shunned by decent society. It is a killer, no matter what they say, tobacco is a killer. It nearly killed me and may yet, but having escaped its clutches I know it for the murderer it is and know that anyone who represents it or sponsors legislation on its behalf is guilty of conspiracy to murder.
11
If they're not safe, they're not safe. Stop putting the bad drugs and chemicals in the product, make sure the product works properly and safely, and definitely stop targeting teenagers. How is that asking too much.
5
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch", according to Benjamin Franklin and others. Congressmen don the lobbyists' wolves clothing and eat the rest of us.
14
The tobacco industry has always depended on 'smoke' and mirrors!
It's time to break the addiction of those industry lobbyists.
It's time to break the addiction of those industry lobbyists.
2
Overturn Citizens United. Require full disclosure of all political donations, particularly any and all from corporations. Problem solved.
20
There is a role for health regulation of e-cigarettes. The problem is harmful substances used as the liquid base, including contamination by hazardous chemicals, as well as the use of oils and substances which are harmful to lung tissue.
It is distressing to watch this debate turning, as far as I can see, on nothing relating to health and everything relating to economics.
E-cigarettes are, as many of the comments note, a great aid in quitting smoking and taking the edge off a withdrawal response. It is absolutely shameful that the attention is not paid to safety and a use consistent with public health.
The scenario we see is just capitalism playing out at its most ignorant worst.
It is distressing to watch this debate turning, as far as I can see, on nothing relating to health and everything relating to economics.
E-cigarettes are, as many of the comments note, a great aid in quitting smoking and taking the edge off a withdrawal response. It is absolutely shameful that the attention is not paid to safety and a use consistent with public health.
The scenario we see is just capitalism playing out at its most ignorant worst.
11
The facade of freedom in this country is mind boggling. If you don't like something. Don't do it, but don't go around telling others how to live.
7
Why not?
2
“The F.D.A. has blatantly ignored evidence that our products improve people’s lives,” said Christian Berkey,"....The job of the FDA is to determine safety. They are world experts at their job. If Mr Berkey has thus far not been able to convince the FDA of the harmless nature of his product, it is Mr. Berkey who has failed. If his claim has any merit he needs to go back and do his homework.
5
Lobbyists write most pay to play bills which is a Congressional SOP
5
Don't allow children to use this; do not allow it inside public places if there is any chance that anyone else will be inhaling nicotine or any other chemical released into the atmosphere. Since there is, ban it from these spots.
Set severe penalties for selling vape stuff to minors. Fear of fines and possible business closure keeps most bars and stores on the alert for minor.
Demand that the manufacturers aren't polluting water or soil with the residue from manufacturing and use. Demand liability insurance to cover claims.
I don't care if adult people ingest nicotine nor do I care how they ingest it. I just do not want the this industry reclaiming control of public spaces again. Like many people, I was exposed to tobacco smoke through many years -even at work - against my wishes. These companies shouldn't get to infringe on the rights of the many and to create addicted children ( the real goal) which is their last hope for maintaining the higly profitable tobacco business in the US
Set severe penalties for selling vape stuff to minors. Fear of fines and possible business closure keeps most bars and stores on the alert for minor.
Demand that the manufacturers aren't polluting water or soil with the residue from manufacturing and use. Demand liability insurance to cover claims.
I don't care if adult people ingest nicotine nor do I care how they ingest it. I just do not want the this industry reclaiming control of public spaces again. Like many people, I was exposed to tobacco smoke through many years -even at work - against my wishes. These companies shouldn't get to infringe on the rights of the many and to create addicted children ( the real goal) which is their last hope for maintaining the higly profitable tobacco business in the US
8
I find it odd that so many are against smoking, particularly the electronic version that's helpful to those addicted to nicotine. They're being treated like criminals and outcasts, and the public has more sympathy for hard-core drug addicts and alcoholics. Case in point, the guy just arrested in Delaware for his 12th DUI, driving drunk while his child was a passenger. But, we all know Americans gotta have their booze, come hell or high water, demonstrated by the repeal of Prohibition Laws. Public demand and extreme measures played a part in that decision, so the government gave up, and America managed to have free access to ingest that bottle of liquor...that's all that mattered then, and still does today. Priorities screwed up much?
8
I think that E-cigarettes are relatively harmless however this lobbying business is disgusting
1
How about laws against smoking and driving. I would be in favor of these.
2
I wonder if Fox will call for 'pay for play' investigation on this bill, especially for Rep Cole?
4
The tobacco industry is less honest than meth and heroin dealers.
3
E-cigarettes and/or vaping are to smokers what Methadone is to heroin addicts. Switching to vaping from tobacco is merely trading one addiction for another, no matter the relative difference in toxicity. Those unable to face life without neurotically needing to constantly ingest any substance, whether it is smoked, drunk, or eaten, would do well to explore the often deep-rooted emotional/psychological causes of their addiction. As one who struggled much of his life with an emotional attachment to eating, I say to chronic abusers of any substance: Seek professional help, throw away your crutch--whatever it is-- and walk free. Your life will improve more than you can imagine.
1
In America people get to be idiots. But they don't get to force their idiocy on you. Exhaled nicotine vape products have all the addictive properties of nicotine, and when some idiot exhales where you breath, you get dosed . That is an immoral abuse of other people's right to stay free of addictive drugs if they so choose.
2
These two back to back short paragraphs from the article make statements and assume facts that are totally preposterous and demonstrate (hurt public health and improve people's lives) clearly why the legal corruption of money in politics that characterizes our country has to end.
"With its army of more than 75 lobbyists, tobacco-aligned companies have argued that the F.D.A.’s so-called Deeming Rule could hurt public health by forcing a large share of e-cigarette companies out of business.
“The F.D.A. has blatantly ignored evidence that our products improve people’s lives,” said Christian Berkey, chief executive of Johnson Creek Enterprises, one of the first companies to sell the e-liquid ingredient used in e-cigarettes and vaping products."
"With its army of more than 75 lobbyists, tobacco-aligned companies have argued that the F.D.A.’s so-called Deeming Rule could hurt public health by forcing a large share of e-cigarette companies out of business.
“The F.D.A. has blatantly ignored evidence that our products improve people’s lives,” said Christian Berkey, chief executive of Johnson Creek Enterprises, one of the first companies to sell the e-liquid ingredient used in e-cigarettes and vaping products."
1
As an avid e-cigarette user who used to smoke 2 packs-a-day of tobacco cigarettes I would welcome the governments' investigations into the possible health ramifications of my e-cigarette use. It was the government that brought to public light the health dangers of tobacco cigarettes and I presume the e-cigarette industry has nothing they (knowingly) wish to hide.
4
This article should have included the policies of other countries, such as the UK, where their health departments came to the opposite conclusion of the US.
There, the government is encouraging all smokers of cigarettes to switch to vaping, and all non smokers to try neither.
Makes sense to me.
There, the government is encouraging all smokers of cigarettes to switch to vaping, and all non smokers to try neither.
Makes sense to me.
15
What alarms me more is when government officials who should know better and are supposed to be protectors of the common good actually defend these companies for a handout from them. If we were serious about doing away with this health threat the names of every politician supporting these companies would be on a black list to ensure that they are weeded out during the next election.
2
Shocking that in the Vapped filled backrooms our representatives would pass on - verbatim (a la ALEC) - legislation to protect the commercialization of lung and health destructive systems for profit. eCigarettes are to cigarettes as "Clean Coal" is to Coal. They are both scams with different products.
And with the involvement of the pharmaceutical companies getting smokers to get hooked on their patch or gum instead of cigarettes, it all boils down to industries fighting to increase their profit share off of the nicotine addicted.
And with the involvement of the pharmaceutical companies getting smokers to get hooked on their patch or gum instead of cigarettes, it all boils down to industries fighting to increase their profit share off of the nicotine addicted.
you're half-right Alec is evil however E-cigarettes are relatively harmless
5
In retrospect, after rereading my earlier comment, tjhe average person will make decisions which adversely affect his or her health because they are trusting, easily swayed and generally uneducated regarding potentially destructive results that certain product use will bring to them.
Warnings on many products calling attention to dangers involved with their use are almost invariably presented in a text which necessitates use of a magnifying glass as well as a medical dictionary to read and understand.
I have thoughts regarding human liberty which are as strong as any person's but I also have thoughts regarding responsible behavior .
Those who seek to block rules which do no more than warn people of danger are guilty of a concupiscence which is criminal and would be held accountable if our elected representatives were not engaged enabling behavior which often results in painful death.
Denying harm allows this aberrancy and is the fountain of greed.
Warnings on many products calling attention to dangers involved with their use are almost invariably presented in a text which necessitates use of a magnifying glass as well as a medical dictionary to read and understand.
I have thoughts regarding human liberty which are as strong as any person's but I also have thoughts regarding responsible behavior .
Those who seek to block rules which do no more than warn people of danger are guilty of a concupiscence which is criminal and would be held accountable if our elected representatives were not engaged enabling behavior which often results in painful death.
Denying harm allows this aberrancy and is the fountain of greed.
1
Just skimmed the article, but the gist I got from it was that this country needs greater consumer protections over big tobacco.
As a believer in free market capitalism, if you want to smoke, vape, whatever, by all means go for it as long as my well being isn't impacted.
People have the right to engage in risky behavior and companies also have the right to benefit and attract consumers. A typical prisoner's dilemma.
The appropriate protections are in place such as minimal advertising and restrictions from smoking indoors.
As a believer in free market capitalism, if you want to smoke, vape, whatever, by all means go for it as long as my well being isn't impacted.
People have the right to engage in risky behavior and companies also have the right to benefit and attract consumers. A typical prisoner's dilemma.
The appropriate protections are in place such as minimal advertising and restrictions from smoking indoors.
5
What this country need is to take the money out of politics.
When will we ever learn that as long as these legislators need money to get elected and to remain in office, they will do anything to get elected. I doubt that even when one of their family contracts lung cancer they will support Big Tobacco.
When will we ever learn that as long as these legislators need money to get elected and to remain in office, they will do anything to get elected. I doubt that even when one of their family contracts lung cancer they will support Big Tobacco.
2
Meanwhile the often-overlooked world of pipe smoking is facing the possibility of extermination by the FDA's new rules. Taken at face value, these rules would seem to require anyone carving a tobacco pipe (typical cost: $10-$500, depending on aesthetics and finished quality) to submit the pipe to a complex battery of health tests and legal certifications that could cost $100,000. *Per* pipe. An object that people have been making for centuries.
And when pipe makers ask for clarification on the issue, there's either no response from the FDA, or one even more frustrating: "We don't know."
And when pipe makers ask for clarification on the issue, there's either no response from the FDA, or one even more frustrating: "We don't know."
14
That's right . . . makes all the sense IN THE WORLD . . . Control the heck out of the safer tobacco products by creating undue burdens on acquiring & using them, but those in power are just too spineless to further control cigarettes?!
11
It is an outrage to see the senator from Lousiana doing horrible business to kill the youth. She must be ashamed of herself. Good that she lost that election. I am regretful I gave some money at the urge of Senator Boxer.
2
One of the first Surgeon General's warnings came over 50 years ago. As I worked in a retail business that sold hundreds of cartons of cigarettes, I saw only a brief drop in sales, then sales resumed and even surpassed their prior levels. Smoking is addictive. The best strategy is never to start the habit.
6
Looking at the picture in this article, one has to ask, what about the effects of second hand vapor? Those two vapers look like air polluters in a poorly ventilated space. Where's the data showing little or no long term harm?
8
I wish those intrigued by or hooked on vaping do not suffer the fate of new drugs with no long term data. You are risking unexpected hazards to your health. Although nicotine is not a new drug, its excipient formulation contains chemicals never introduced into the lungs and is thus a risk without long term safety data for any age group.
Like it or not, you are participants in a grand experiment.
Like it or not, you are participants in a grand experiment.
7
Not grand but perhaps fatal.
my wife stopped her two pack a day habit the moment she started vaping.
that was 3 years ago. there's no question vaping is safer than smoking, and she no longer gets winded or smells like an ash tray.
i'll be happy when she quits completely. Chantix made her psychotic. this is safer. big pharma and big tobacco don't make any money off of her.
suits me - FDA needs to tilt at other windmills.
that was 3 years ago. there's no question vaping is safer than smoking, and she no longer gets winded or smells like an ash tray.
i'll be happy when she quits completely. Chantix made her psychotic. this is safer. big pharma and big tobacco don't make any money off of her.
suits me - FDA needs to tilt at other windmills.
8
people vape all sorts of things other than products with nicotine
3
Here's a link to a Vaping Q&A published by Cancer Research UK.
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2016/05/17/10-common-questions-a...
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2016/05/17/10-common-questions-a...
8
The tobacco lobby doesn't actually need to "lobby," like meeting with Members of Congress, writing letters, etc. They will just open their corporate check books into some newly organized 501c4, called something like "Citizens for Clean Air."
You know the rest of the story . . .
You know the rest of the story . . .
17
Just one more way that confressmen/women come out of congress millionaires. How much did each take under the table and how many people have to die before they wake up and regulate ALL products that are not medicinal but are habitual?
1
bad news for you nicotine is actually beneficial in terms of some of the Alzheimer's symptoms
4
I smoked cigarettes (Marlboro, pack a day) for 55 years. Yes, I was aware of the risks, but conventional cessation methods (nicotine patches, lozenges, gum) just couldn't help me quit. Addiction is powerful.
Five years ago, the predictable health crisis arrived. Constant coughing, lungs full of fluid, ashen complexion. A close friend said she wondered privately "How much longer will Jay be with us?"
I purchased my first e-cig kit a month later. Within a few days, the coughing stopped. Two weeks later, my sense of taste and smell returned. At my annual physical last month, my doctor told me my lungs and heart were fine.
Are e-cigs totally harmless? The jury is out. And the recent studies on youth smoking/vaping are disturbing.
All I can say is that e-cigs saved this man's life.
Five years ago, the predictable health crisis arrived. Constant coughing, lungs full of fluid, ashen complexion. A close friend said she wondered privately "How much longer will Jay be with us?"
I purchased my first e-cig kit a month later. Within a few days, the coughing stopped. Two weeks later, my sense of taste and smell returned. At my annual physical last month, my doctor told me my lungs and heart were fine.
Are e-cigs totally harmless? The jury is out. And the recent studies on youth smoking/vaping are disturbing.
All I can say is that e-cigs saved this man's life.
37
This is a good argument in support of allowing physicians to prescribe e-cigarettes for ex-smokers and ban the products outright for the rest of us.
9
but the addiction remains...
1
JayPMac,
Glad you kicked cigarette smoking. But I hate to tell you this but either your doc is a quack or incompetent. After damaging your health for 55 years with Marlboros, your risk of cancer or heart disease doesn't disappear because you're getting nicotine from a delivery system medical science has no short to long term knowledge about. Quitting is always the smart thing to do but your risk of cancer or heart disease remains high and medical surveillance more frequent than annual checkups would be prudent. Also, you saved your own life (if indeed you have), e-cigs had little to do with it. Assuming you're not a shill for special interests, good luck to you.
Glad you kicked cigarette smoking. But I hate to tell you this but either your doc is a quack or incompetent. After damaging your health for 55 years with Marlboros, your risk of cancer or heart disease doesn't disappear because you're getting nicotine from a delivery system medical science has no short to long term knowledge about. Quitting is always the smart thing to do but your risk of cancer or heart disease remains high and medical surveillance more frequent than annual checkups would be prudent. Also, you saved your own life (if indeed you have), e-cigs had little to do with it. Assuming you're not a shill for special interests, good luck to you.
We must never forget that Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Agra NEVER have our health interests in mind. They are interested in the bottom line only and health concerns are only a secondary concern, a by-product. These industries must NEVER be trusted to be truthful and ALWAYS must be regulated to the highest degree possible.
As legal persons, Frankensteins, they are the sociopathic old men in the spook house who throw rocks at kids who wander onto their lawn and confiscate their balls.
As legal persons, Frankensteins, they are the sociopathic old men in the spook house who throw rocks at kids who wander onto their lawn and confiscate their balls.
6
The lobbying "business" is just a euphemism for shameful corruption. But we don't have corruption in America, just likes our human rights record oh well, spotless. Shame!
4
Extraordinary clout, high-profile, influential, army of lobbyists working furiously on behalf of tobacco . . . . where are the the lobbyists working on behalf of our millions of poor kids?
2
Where are the lobbyists for kids? Right there next to the tobacco/nicotine crew who are about to enter a reception. The white hats are the ones who aren't wearing $7,000 Zegna suits, diamond-encrusted Rolexes and $2,000 Bruno Maglis. They cluster outside the closed-door reception because there's a cover charge of $5,000. They email Rep. Tom Cole and leave a message requesting a meeting that get back an auto-reply that announces Rep Cole was recently honored by Grinnell College, with the largest endowment among private small colleges, and someone will get back but no one does.
The public interest lobbyists are there but they don't have anyone in the majority party to work with. That's our job and so far we've failed them.
The public interest lobbyists are there but they don't have anyone in the majority party to work with. That's our job and so far we've failed them.
1
The American Academy of Pediatrics is out there....but... its money generally comes from the contributions of the lowest paid specialty in the nation (pediatricians). We've got the right motives out there but we need loud voices in chorus with our pleas!
Kill one person, and Texas executes the guy found guilty.
Kill hundreds of millions of people, and Congress takes your money and restricts the FDA.
Kill hundreds of millions of people, and Congress takes your money and restricts the FDA.
21
I do wish that reporters would learn the difference between "e-cigarettes" (i.e., vaping products) and the tobacco industry. Modern day electronic cigarettes were invented by a Chinese pharmacist, not a tobacco company scientist. Hon Lik, the pharmacist inventor, watched his father die of lung cancer and was still unable to stop himself from smoking. He came up with the idea of providing a reduced risk method for delivery of the nicotine that keeps smokers lighting up. No tobacco company became involved until 2012, when Lorillard bought a company that was successfully marketing one of the most popular brands, blu-Ecig. The other major tobacco firms quickly jumped on board by either buying out going concerns or developing their own product. Meanwhile, consumers were busy inventing improved products. The companies that will be put out of business by the FDA's deeming regulation, including Johnson Creek Enterprises, quoted in the story, never sold a single tobacco-filled cigarette. They are all small to medium-sized independent companies--in other words NOT the tobacco industry. In fact it is likely that no tobacco company will be harmed.
The number of adult smokers hovered around 46 million for years and years, but began to fall in 2009, and the rates are at all time lows across all age groups. The CDC also found that never-smokers rarely become regular vapers, all of which takes the air out of claims that vaping is some sneaky plot to get people hooked on smoking.
The number of adult smokers hovered around 46 million for years and years, but began to fall in 2009, and the rates are at all time lows across all age groups. The CDC also found that never-smokers rarely become regular vapers, all of which takes the air out of claims that vaping is some sneaky plot to get people hooked on smoking.
31
While nicotine is also found in tomatoes, cauliflower, and eggplant; where do you think these e-cig "juice" companies are getting their nicotine? Tobacco still has far, far more nicotine than any of the nightshade plants I mention above. They may not sell tobacco directly, but they certainly are using tobacco to synthesize their products' active ingredient. Same dog different leg. Though I do agree with the premise that vaping is probably healthier for you than smoking since you avoid inhaling the tar are other nasty chemical that you get when you combust tobacco.
6
They are purchasing their nicotine from the same place GlaxoSmikthKline gets their nicotine for the nicotine patch, gum, lozenges, and inhalers--Chinese chemical companies. GSK is still considered a pharmaceutical company, not a tobacco company. Different dog. If you took the time to meet the people who started up vaping businesses, you would find that most are former smokers who feel their life was saved by switching to vapor and who want to help other smokers save their own lives, too.
12
I am against the e-cigarette. I am against all cigarettes. Thank you.
3
then don't buy them
6
Another revolting habit.
2
I don't think there's enough research on e-cigs to know whether or not they are better than tobacco. However, the fact that the tobacco industry developed e-cigs in the first place is enough to convince me that safety or health aren't priorities for them. E-cigs were developed more than 15 years ago by big tobacco, including Philip Morris, when tobacco litigation threatened to severely curtail the sales and marketing of tobacco. Why would it concern them now whether or not e-cigs are safe? All they want to do is replace tobacco revenues with e-cig revenues and the more who become addicted, the better the profits.. More than likely, e-cigs will turn out to be as addictive so that big tobacco can continue to reap profits from a captive user base. And these profits will be used to lobby congress and others to keep them from creating restrictive legislation for e-cigs. In fact, big tobacco was behind the "reefer madness" propaganda because they were afraid it would be more popular than tobacco and cut into their profits. Their lobbying actions are totally cynical and arrogant. Tobacco should be outlawed.
3
Why doesn't this article mention that Mitch Zeller was a lobbyist for GlaxoSmithKline before accepting his position with the FDA? Why doesn't it mentioin that GlaxoSmithKline is in the tobacco cessation industry?
8
The debate about harm reduction is a messy one, and it's clear that the pharmaceutical companies want a monopoly on selling nicotine products under the auspices of smoking-cessation. This extends to the treatment of nasal snuff or Swedish-style snus where there's no medical evidence to suggest the same deadly consequences as cigarettes or chewing tobacco.
One of the ironies of the FDA rule as it now stands is that the most likely survivors in the e-cig industry would be tobacco giants like Altria, not the small-scale operators who currently offer low-nicotine or nicotine-free versions of all their products. (The e-cig products offered by tobacco giants in convenience stores are all high-nicotine.) Another irony is that the rule has created an lobbying alliance between Big Tobacco and those small-scale operators, when the relationship had been considerably more oppositional, at Big T's expense.
Clearly, as the market expands, this can't be a free-for-all, but there's a risk that overbroad regulation will hand the sector over to the cigarette peddlers and lead to fewer options for harm reduction.
One of the ironies of the FDA rule as it now stands is that the most likely survivors in the e-cig industry would be tobacco giants like Altria, not the small-scale operators who currently offer low-nicotine or nicotine-free versions of all their products. (The e-cig products offered by tobacco giants in convenience stores are all high-nicotine.) Another irony is that the rule has created an lobbying alliance between Big Tobacco and those small-scale operators, when the relationship had been considerably more oppositional, at Big T's expense.
Clearly, as the market expands, this can't be a free-for-all, but there's a risk that overbroad regulation will hand the sector over to the cigarette peddlers and lead to fewer options for harm reduction.
13
The highly profitable tobacco industry is a better target for class action litigation with multi-billion dollar penalties. Small players do harm but lack assets to compensate victims when the evidence of harm accumulates years down the road.
I am a 60-year old ex-smoker who quit 3 years ago when I started vaping. I think the preponderance of evidence is that vaping is much less harmful than smoking, although I support common sense regulation to ensure that harmful substances are not in the products.
I suspect there are millions more like me, who substituted vaping for smoking. While I'm not aware of any studies that definitively prove this yet, smoking rates have plummeted over the last few years after having leveled off for quite some time. That's pretty strong evidence, but not yet proof, that many people are substituting vaping for smoking. Overregulating the industry may turn out to be counterproductive in terms of public health outcomes.
I suspect there are millions more like me, who substituted vaping for smoking. While I'm not aware of any studies that definitively prove this yet, smoking rates have plummeted over the last few years after having leveled off for quite some time. That's pretty strong evidence, but not yet proof, that many people are substituting vaping for smoking. Overregulating the industry may turn out to be counterproductive in terms of public health outcomes.
24
Given your history as a smoker, I would not be all that concerned about potential risk factors posed by vaping. On the other hand, that does not apply to school kids. Given the track record of the industry, These product should not be available available without a prescription until proven safe.
I have no idea whether or not these products are safe, but what possible justification could there be for preventing the FDA from examining and regulating them? I mean, other than greed and obfuscation of the facts of course.
10
I understand and sympathize with nicotine addiction. What I can't understand is how these guys you see tilting their heads way back and blowing their vast clouds into the air seem to think they look like James Dean. They don't.
2
It's sad to see former Louisiana state senator Mary Landrieu now serving as a lobbyist for the tobacco industry. Tobacco use remains the single largest preventable cause of disease and premature death in her home state -- and it's costing the state $BILLIONS (with a 'B') annually.
Here are a few facts:
Louisiana has the 7th highest adult smoking rate in the U.S. at 23.5%. A report from the United Health Foundation ranks Louisiana 46 out of 50 states for tobacco use. Meanwhile, the tax on a pack of smokes in Louisiana is only the 33rd highest in the country, and well below the national average.
According to a report by the Louisiana Department of Health & Hospitals' Centers for Disease Control, annual health care costs in Louisiana directly caused by smoking is $1.89 billion; and annual smoking-caused productivity losses is an additional $2.05 billion. According to the same report, 6,200 adults die each year in Louisiana from the harmful effects of cigarette smoking. Another 750 will die from exposure to secondhand smoke.
Louisiana’s annual Medicaid-related smoking expenses are estimated to be somewhere between $600 million and $800 million.
Here's more: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/food-thought-related-louisianas-budget-cr...
Here are a few facts:
Louisiana has the 7th highest adult smoking rate in the U.S. at 23.5%. A report from the United Health Foundation ranks Louisiana 46 out of 50 states for tobacco use. Meanwhile, the tax on a pack of smokes in Louisiana is only the 33rd highest in the country, and well below the national average.
According to a report by the Louisiana Department of Health & Hospitals' Centers for Disease Control, annual health care costs in Louisiana directly caused by smoking is $1.89 billion; and annual smoking-caused productivity losses is an additional $2.05 billion. According to the same report, 6,200 adults die each year in Louisiana from the harmful effects of cigarette smoking. Another 750 will die from exposure to secondhand smoke.
Louisiana’s annual Medicaid-related smoking expenses are estimated to be somewhere between $600 million and $800 million.
Here's more: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/food-thought-related-louisianas-budget-cr...
5
Great post. Good info. Thanks.
I do not believe the e cigs are safe.
The tobacco industries outrage sounds like the same 'snake oil' propaganda for tobacco cigs we all grew up with.
The tobacco industries outrage sounds like the same 'snake oil' propaganda for tobacco cigs we all grew up with.
4
No more tobacco products...nor more E-cigs or vapes!
3
lol. I love that corporations and their shills spew righteous indignation about their "right" to continue poisoning the populace with their products. The American people should not tolerate this nonsense, it is time to clamp down on lobbying and get some of this dirty money out of Washington.
Meanwhile, the DEA is "protecting" the public by adding Kratom, an Asian plant, to the list of Schedule I drugs on September 30th. Unlike tobacco, Kratom actually has many potential medicinal benefits. It has helped many people, including some close to me. So they will be making criminals out of normal people who are treating themselves for chronic anxiety or pain, all over a "drug" that is no more dangerous than coffee, despite media fearmongering.
Of course, Kratom does not need to be processed, and cannot be patented, and so it does not have a massive lobbying industry. It is a perfect target for an organization like the DEA that needs to continually justify its own existence.
Meanwhile, the DEA is "protecting" the public by adding Kratom, an Asian plant, to the list of Schedule I drugs on September 30th. Unlike tobacco, Kratom actually has many potential medicinal benefits. It has helped many people, including some close to me. So they will be making criminals out of normal people who are treating themselves for chronic anxiety or pain, all over a "drug" that is no more dangerous than coffee, despite media fearmongering.
Of course, Kratom does not need to be processed, and cannot be patented, and so it does not have a massive lobbying industry. It is a perfect target for an organization like the DEA that needs to continually justify its own existence.
2
Sure. Let us get the tobacco industry to weigh in on a public health measure. It is like asking cocaine dealers to regulate what the DEA can do.
11
In fact, despite the pomp and circumstance the tobacco industry is more likely very glad for these regulations, which price most of e-cig and juice manufacturers out of business. Under the new FDA regs, big tobacco are the only ones who can afford to sell e-cig products.
7
E-cigarettes are a way to get people addicted to nicotine. If there are few regulations to restrict their sale and use, then teenagers can avail themselves of this product and become addicted. The next step is tobacco use. There is no definitive study to show that the vapor is free of the dangerous additives. The tobacco industry is defending the rights of the mom and pop shops to mix up any batch of chemicals and sell it to the users even if some of the additives may be dangerous. This is coming from an industry that knowingly sold a dangerous product for years while denying its danger. Philip Morris even changed its corporate name to the laughable Altria, like they have altruistic reasons for doing business.
For a long time cigarettes were not generally smoked in films. Then it was only the bad guys who smoked. Now smoking is back as if young people are not influenced by celebrities. I remember the surprise when Leonardo DiCaprio and Jenny McCarthy were busy vaping at an awards show at the behest of their sponsor. This is a back door to making the act of smoking seem cool again. If the tobacco companies are defending the practice you know they have evil intent to make a market for their deadly product. Very few studies show people who vape are quitting smoking. More often e-cigs are a stepping stone to the filthy habit of smoking. Ban e-cigs and their dangerous ingredients. If mom and pop places are making a living at the deadly expense of their customers, shame on them.
For a long time cigarettes were not generally smoked in films. Then it was only the bad guys who smoked. Now smoking is back as if young people are not influenced by celebrities. I remember the surprise when Leonardo DiCaprio and Jenny McCarthy were busy vaping at an awards show at the behest of their sponsor. This is a back door to making the act of smoking seem cool again. If the tobacco companies are defending the practice you know they have evil intent to make a market for their deadly product. Very few studies show people who vape are quitting smoking. More often e-cigs are a stepping stone to the filthy habit of smoking. Ban e-cigs and their dangerous ingredients. If mom and pop places are making a living at the deadly expense of their customers, shame on them.
6
There are numerous studies proving that you are wrong. Fewer teens are starting smoking than ever before. Only a very small percentage of e-cig users never smoked before, and the percentage of e-cig users who never smoked before and transitioned to using analog cigarettes is statistically zero. The VAST majority of e-cig users have come to it from smoking analog cigarettes, and most of them have managed to completely kick the analog habit and transitioned to e-cigs. It seems you are woefully uninformed, I would suggest you look into this matter further if you wish to discuss it.
16
David,
The UK public health study cited as the authoritative basis for e-cig safety specifically qualifies its findings because of a lack of valid scientific studies and its reliance on summarizing surveys and questionnaires collected from users. There are no rigorous controlled medical studies that indicate vaping isn't a gateway. Your insistent tone proves nothing other than a lack of scientific basis for any of your assertions based on anecdote and a hidden agenda.
All this manufactured self-righteousness and staged hyperventilating just makes everyone even more suspicious about what the big tobacco/poor little nicotine cabal is hiding this time. Given that it was a record-setting whopper last time, really think we're just going to roll over this time?
People are sick, tired and too many dead, from corrupt business as usual, for any of the political dirtbags like Rep. Cole and his 70 unindicted co-conspirators to expect a re-election cakewalk or to duck the political firestorm that's coming to reclaim Congress from the money-changers and their enablers.
Smug and cynical politicians who think Congress is an episode of let's make a deal and who haven't been paying attention to the political rumbling this year don't think the fire next time concerns them. That's because their smoke alarms have been dead for too long and the fire isn't next time, it's here.
The UK public health study cited as the authoritative basis for e-cig safety specifically qualifies its findings because of a lack of valid scientific studies and its reliance on summarizing surveys and questionnaires collected from users. There are no rigorous controlled medical studies that indicate vaping isn't a gateway. Your insistent tone proves nothing other than a lack of scientific basis for any of your assertions based on anecdote and a hidden agenda.
All this manufactured self-righteousness and staged hyperventilating just makes everyone even more suspicious about what the big tobacco/poor little nicotine cabal is hiding this time. Given that it was a record-setting whopper last time, really think we're just going to roll over this time?
People are sick, tired and too many dead, from corrupt business as usual, for any of the political dirtbags like Rep. Cole and his 70 unindicted co-conspirators to expect a re-election cakewalk or to duck the political firestorm that's coming to reclaim Congress from the money-changers and their enablers.
Smug and cynical politicians who think Congress is an episode of let's make a deal and who haven't been paying attention to the political rumbling this year don't think the fire next time concerns them. That's because their smoke alarms have been dead for too long and the fire isn't next time, it's here.
2
The rise in e-cig and sling in teens and young adults has actually been quantified in a number of studies. As cigarette smoking rates are dropping, many teens who have never smoked are vaping as that has not only been destigmatized but in fact "looks cool". Do some research and we all will see that it's time to slow the trend down to study outcome data and avoid a second nicotine epidemic.
The same amoral profiteers who always sold us cancer are now back at it. How many will have to die of e-cigarettes before we stop playing games with the tobacco industry and just ban it?
5
Everyone just loves to be addicted to one of the one of the worst substance on planet earth... Sure!
3
What did Representative Cole receive from lobbyists in return for going to bat for them? What did Mary Landrieu receive? Where exactly does the lobbying money go? Shouldn't these questions, and their answers, be part of this story?
2
How many people have the cigarette companies killed? And they're still selling their cigarettes??
America is run by Big Money and only the naive still think this country is a democracy. Anyone who pays taxes or joins the military is funding and serving corporations who will kill you for a dollar.
America is run by Big Money and only the naive still think this country is a democracy. Anyone who pays taxes or joins the military is funding and serving corporations who will kill you for a dollar.
3
amen
1
I find these comments about nicotine being dangerous rather hilarious. I am a biochemistry professor, have never smoked, and decided to take up vaping for the health benefits of nicotine. (1) Parkinson's disease. Smoking and smokeless tobacco reduce Parkinson's disease by 70-80%. The likely cause is the nicotine as it reduces neuroinflammation and blocks the ER stress response in cells. These are likely major contributors to the cell death that causes Parkinson's. There is at least one clinical study ongoing to test this hypothesis. (2) Weight loss. Nicotine suppresses appetite and increases the rate at which cells burn energy. I am 6'1", and since starting vaping I have gone from around 191 lbs to 179. (3) It calms you under stress. There is a reason soldiers often smoke before a battle. (4) Performance enhancer. Nicotine increases cardiac output, causes vasodilation in your skeletal muscles and slightly raises blood sugar and lipids, exactly what you want for a sport such as tennis.
There are no clear negatives to nicotine. At the doses consumed, it is completely nontoxic (If you consumed 1000-fold more it would be toxic). Unlike smoking, nicotine is only mildly addicting, based on animal studies and the fact that smoking is so hard to quit. If nicotine alone made smoking addictive, it should be easy to stop - just do nicotine replacement. However, this is not effective as smoking has other effects that make it so addicting.
There are no clear negatives to nicotine. At the doses consumed, it is completely nontoxic (If you consumed 1000-fold more it would be toxic). Unlike smoking, nicotine is only mildly addicting, based on animal studies and the fact that smoking is so hard to quit. If nicotine alone made smoking addictive, it should be easy to stop - just do nicotine replacement. However, this is not effective as smoking has other effects that make it so addicting.
11
No clear negatives to nicotine? Have you ever met a cardiologist? Tell this to all the patients with hypertension, stroke, and heart attacks? There are so many falacies in your statement, that I don't even know where to begin. For example, "Unlike smoking nicotine is only mildly addicting..." Smoking is addictive BECAUSE of nicotine. You may or may not be a biochemistry professor, but frankly I would like to examine your credentials.
1
What you say (if it's true) is all fine, but it's not the corporation's business to decide or influence regulations. If what you say comes from unbiased scientific research then that should go into the regs. Corporations are for making profit. Surprised this is not obvious to you.
@ Doug With all due respect, I suggest you look at the data before commenting. The stroke, heart attacks, etc. associated with smoking have nothing to do with the nicotine. A simple demonstration of this is to compare the health effects of smoking with those of smokeless tobacco. They generate similar levels of nicotine, yet the cardiovascular issues you note do not occur with smokeless tobacco. Likewise, there are no bad cardiovascular effects associated with nicotine replacement therapy - indeed, only benefits accrue due to the quitting smoking. Multiple data support my assertion regarding nicotine being only mildly addicting, although nicotine is the addictive agent in smoking. Besides the hundreds of clinical studies showing that nicotine replacement therapy does not make it easy to quit smoking, animal studies also show that nicotine is only mildly addictive. (The success of quitting without nicotine replacement is around 8-10% and with nicotine replacement around 13-16%.) Besides behavioral components, the addictiveness of smoking likely results because it inhibits the enzyme monoamine oxidase via an unknown mechanism. If you inhibit this enzyme in animals, then nicotine alone becomes severely addicting.
2
Do some research on nicotine. You will be surprised how many other products that we consume contain nicotine. And as far as cigarettes...it's not the nicotine that will kill you - it's the tar and other additives in cigarettes.
7
If that's true why is the tobacco industry spending a fortune on lobbying for something that is already known?
2
Here's a thought.
Why not label the cigarettes with this warning:
By purchasing and consuming this product, you agree to waive any health insurance claims shoud you develop any illness that is related to smoking.
felons can't vote, disbarred lawyers can't practice law, doctor's who have had their license revoked can't practise medicine--so why not make smokers give up rights to health insurance coverage?
MONEY
Why not label the cigarettes with this warning:
By purchasing and consuming this product, you agree to waive any health insurance claims shoud you develop any illness that is related to smoking.
felons can't vote, disbarred lawyers can't practice law, doctor's who have had their license revoked can't practise medicine--so why not make smokers give up rights to health insurance coverage?
MONEY
7
ok do the same for alcohol
2
The whole tobacco industry should be outlawed. It is an industry that profits off of addiction; and it is totally responsible for this addiction that so many suffer from. Tobacco addiction kills people slowly. Anyone who smokes tobacco becomes addicted with very few exceptions. Not the case for alcohol or marijuana. The vast profits of the tobacco industry could go a really long way to cure the diseases it has caused. This is what should be done with the profits amassed by the tobacco industry. It should be shut down and the profits used to save lives, not take them away!
4
Figures, doesn't it? They should be banned, period.
3
I was thumbing through a "Look Magazine" the other day and saw doctors, jet pilots, and soldiers recommending that we all smoke cigarettes! So maybe these tobacco industry companies are right to have us avoid these e-devices!
1
Why should there be restrictions on vapor? Where is the ACLU protecting the rights of normal people against government overreach in regulation? To tie inhaling water vapor, flavor and nicotine with inhaling the smoke from burning tobacco (much less marijuana!) is absurd. There is no known harm to the inhaler nor, obviously, to any bystanders. To have the anti smoking lobby equate these things is completely wrong and a total over reach. How about the rights of people to enjoy things that do no harm to themselves or others? Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness anyone?
9
It would be more compelling if the tobacco industry wasn't spending a fortune on lobbyists.
2
Boy, could FDA spokesperson Mitch Zeller's statement be any more slanted or alarmist? Not a lot of doubt where he comes down on e-cigarettes. Don't smoke, but I am just stunned to see posts from people from major metros complaining about what are essentially clouds of water vapor with no tars, and minuscule trace amounts of a substance found in tomatoes, eggplants and bell peppers. I grew up in NYC, and lived in SF Bay Area and Chicago for many years and saw what accumulated on my window sils, literally every couple of days. Let's face it people, what you don't like about e-cigs is the SIGHT of people enjoying themselves doing something that LOOKS like cigarette smoking.
13
The power of the the most unhealthy industry in the nation exemplifies who our government REALLY works for. It's not you and me. And as this article reminds us yet again it is Democrats as well as Republicans deeply involved in this legalized form of institutional corruption..
9
what is the penalty for lobbying without registration? Why can't Landrieu be prosecuted for this violation? Oh, she is one of the one percent, exempt from inconvenient or annoying laws.
5
Unintentionally hilarious: "could hurt public health by forcing a large share of e-cigarette companies out of business."
For one thing, most new e-cig smokers are KIDS under 18, who shouldn't be smoking anything. For another thing, studies show repeatedly that banning smoking in public places improves everyone's health, with fewer coronaries and respiratory problems.
Making the public health case on the backs of a few cigarette smokers who wean themselves onto still-damaging e-cigs is grotesque, just like hired-gun lobbyists that will argue east is west if it pays well enough.
For one thing, most new e-cig smokers are KIDS under 18, who shouldn't be smoking anything. For another thing, studies show repeatedly that banning smoking in public places improves everyone's health, with fewer coronaries and respiratory problems.
Making the public health case on the backs of a few cigarette smokers who wean themselves onto still-damaging e-cigs is grotesque, just like hired-gun lobbyists that will argue east is west if it pays well enough.
8
When it is harder for my kids to get legal tobacco that may kill them someday, compared to an illegal drug that may kill them tonight, something is wrong with the system.
When the states shared $200 billion and spent less than 1% on smoking cessation and assistance with the cancer effects, something is wrong with the system.
When Agri-business feeds us GMO food and listeria tainted fruits and vegetables legally and happily, and commit in perpetuity food for fuel (ethanol, the answer still looking for the problem) something is wrong with the system.
So these stupid vapes? After the FDA and god knows who else can get definitive tests that they are an instrument that is detriment to my health and can be made illegal, (kind of like the Corvair car) call me from the 20's (2020, that is)
When the states shared $200 billion and spent less than 1% on smoking cessation and assistance with the cancer effects, something is wrong with the system.
When Agri-business feeds us GMO food and listeria tainted fruits and vegetables legally and happily, and commit in perpetuity food for fuel (ethanol, the answer still looking for the problem) something is wrong with the system.
So these stupid vapes? After the FDA and god knows who else can get definitive tests that they are an instrument that is detriment to my health and can be made illegal, (kind of like the Corvair car) call me from the 20's (2020, that is)
3
Another law.
We have a law making marijuana illegal. THC is tested for in drug screens for many jobs, including CDL's holders.
And yet, several states are openly flaunting the Federal Law, allowing sales under a state law.
We have a law against illegal immigration, illegals flaunt the law(s)
Point? We do not need another Federal law, for anything, if it is not enforced.
We have a law making marijuana illegal. THC is tested for in drug screens for many jobs, including CDL's holders.
And yet, several states are openly flaunting the Federal Law, allowing sales under a state law.
We have a law against illegal immigration, illegals flaunt the law(s)
Point? We do not need another Federal law, for anything, if it is not enforced.
5
It seems like a regulation preventing toxic substances from being sold for consumption would be welcomed by everyone who cares about public safety.
The only people who would be against it would seem to be those trying to sell that poison. Makes sense, right? If these e-cigs are really safe then there's nothing for the industry to fear. Period.
The only people who would be against it would seem to be those trying to sell that poison. Makes sense, right? If these e-cigs are really safe then there's nothing for the industry to fear. Period.
3
Former head of the fda is facing rico charges! Altria worked with fda to get these laws passed, sat in with them for 2 years so they could get preferential treatment. Its the independent companies that are suing the fda, not big tobacco. These laws make anything on the market before 2007 subject to regs that raise the bar of entry to the point that only big tobacco could afford to play. 1,000,000$ per sku of testing. Yet, these laws say that shops (independent) cant even tell customers ecigs are better than cigs even though the fda's wording doesnt make a scientific assessment of ecigs, as opposed to the research that definitively shows ecigs are better than smoking. This article is shamefully deceptive. Big tobacco's lobbyists help wrote this law, Altria sitting in on the deeming regs is a victory for big tobacco over the ecig industry...the innovators and non big tobacco people.
7
A wise man (and great investor) once said of the tobacco industry's business model " you make for a penny, sell it for a dollar and all your customers are addicts." That's helped make Altria one of the best investments of all time. E cigs are fine. But they're chump change compared to weed. If the US is ever dumb enough to legalize that garbage, back up the truck and buy Big Tobacco like there is no tomorrow.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(15)00521-...
Enough evidence that tobacco kills . Enough evidence that e-cigs are an entry drug for other tobacco use . Not enough to suggest e-cig only way to overcome withdrawal symptoms . Money/greed/lobbying all ancillary arguments . Ignorance rampant about tobacco despite all the massive efforts . If America does not regulate e-cig it will ensure the rest of the world suffers . Those who need e-cig to quit can get a prescription perhaps . Let's not confuse enjoyment of the effects of nicotine with regulation of this dangerous drug . As a pulmonologist I see suffering every single day because of tobacco . It's just not worth it . Please sit back and think about the human impact first .
Enough evidence that tobacco kills . Enough evidence that e-cigs are an entry drug for other tobacco use . Not enough to suggest e-cig only way to overcome withdrawal symptoms . Money/greed/lobbying all ancillary arguments . Ignorance rampant about tobacco despite all the massive efforts . If America does not regulate e-cig it will ensure the rest of the world suffers . Those who need e-cig to quit can get a prescription perhaps . Let's not confuse enjoyment of the effects of nicotine with regulation of this dangerous drug . As a pulmonologist I see suffering every single day because of tobacco . It's just not worth it . Please sit back and think about the human impact first .
1
The various efforts to prevent FDA rules on E-cigarettes reminds me of the old TV ad with Ronald Reagan ....not a cough in a carload. I suppose we will have to wait until people begin to die in large number from E-cigarette use before there will be any kind of meaningful regulation. History does repeat itself.
1
Smokers addicted to nicotine, government addicted to cigarette tax receipts.
Cigarettes enrich the medical industrial complex.
Cigarettes enrich the medical industrial complex.
7
I am revolted that these companies are pushing legislation that will ensure a new generation of our society gets addicted to nicotine.
Ask your doctor. Long term cigarette / e-cig use is almost as bad as regular heroin use for your body.
As for the straw man of helping your quit, let's see some data. Everyone I know who attempted this route had a coffin nail back in their mouth within a month.
The executives of these companies should be in prison for their effect on our public health. Using because you are addicted is not making a personal choice.
Ask your doctor. Long term cigarette / e-cig use is almost as bad as regular heroin use for your body.
As for the straw man of helping your quit, let's see some data. Everyone I know who attempted this route had a coffin nail back in their mouth within a month.
The executives of these companies should be in prison for their effect on our public health. Using because you are addicted is not making a personal choice.
"Everyone I know who attempted this route had a coffin nail back in their mouth within a month."
I don't believe you. my wife stopped smoking two packs a day when she started vaping - and has never had another cigarette in three years since. I personally know five other people who did the same.
I don't believe you. my wife stopped smoking two packs a day when she started vaping - and has never had another cigarette in three years since. I personally know five other people who did the same.
1
Two points: I smoked from the age of 16 until 31. Not heavily; rarely more than two packs a week. I started vaping in March of 2016 and haven't had a cigarette since.
That anecdote aside, the problem I see is the one posed by retroactivity of the FDA regulations. That's very unfair. The costs to vape shops of compliance with these regulations would drive many of them out of business, not to mention the manufacturers and designers of vape pens, mod boxes etc. You won't impose retroactive regulations on guns but you will on vapes? What, you can't kill somebody with a vape?
Vaping has improved the quality of my life. A bill that may have the effect of killing small vape shops and mod manufacturers is probably just going to lead me back to cigarettes, or to unsafe homebrew eliquid. Don't make me do that.
That anecdote aside, the problem I see is the one posed by retroactivity of the FDA regulations. That's very unfair. The costs to vape shops of compliance with these regulations would drive many of them out of business, not to mention the manufacturers and designers of vape pens, mod boxes etc. You won't impose retroactive regulations on guns but you will on vapes? What, you can't kill somebody with a vape?
Vaping has improved the quality of my life. A bill that may have the effect of killing small vape shops and mod manufacturers is probably just going to lead me back to cigarettes, or to unsafe homebrew eliquid. Don't make me do that.
15
We're not making you do anything. Ever hear about personal responsibility? Or is this part of the paid shill choir that's trying to drown out other posted comments?
4
The fairness of the regulation costs to vape shops really depends upon what kind of risks that vaping poses to public health, I think. I would determine that before worrying about the welfare of any businesses who profit from this.
1
This is an excellent summary of recent lobbying efforts by the tobacco industry, however, for such a hard-hitting expose into the inner-workings of Congress, the author omits what is arguably the most important development to date; which is the annual inclusion of the Cole language in the House Agriculture Appropriations bill, language that is currently law and will likely remain law for Fiscal Year 2017 after Congress passes its annual appropriations bills this Fall. By not including the successful effort to block FDA regulations through the appropriations process, this article actually downplays the legislative success of the tobacco industry.
Perhaps e-cigarettes are much less harmful PER CIGARETTE than regular cigarettes (are we comparing with filtered or unfiltered as they often are in Europe?), but one can still get addicted to nicotine and some will just smoke a lot more of them, thinking they are not just safer but safe, and from what I've read, there are still 2nd hand 'smoke' dangers. If someone is using e-cigarettes to quit smoking, fine, I hope it works, but do it away from me. I spent enough of my childhood sick with asthma and allergies, and leaving parties and other smoke laden venues as an adult, and prefer not to inhale someone else's alternative to tobacco.
3
Natural almonds are bitter because contain cyanide but cultivated almonds are not bitter because the contain little cyanide so people are not poisoned by eating almonds sold commercially. But cyanide really is a deadly poison when taken in larger amounts than are present in edible almonds. Nicotine is present in a lot of plants and where the concentration is low it does no harm but nicotine is a toxin which in greater quantities will kill. The notion that nicotine taken with e-cigarettes is not harmful is a misrepresentation of the truth by rather unscrupulous business people who see a great opportunity to make lots of money and they do not care who gets hurt because they value money far more than the life of any transitory human life. That is why the F.D.A. should be regulating nicotine products, because human life is worth a lot more than the luxuries which tobacco companies, et al, consider of far more value than not hurting others.
2
I think you need to edit the sentence to say "many" rather than "some" have used or are use vaping devices and liquid vape juice to quite smoking. I was a pack a day, 20 year smoker who 1 1/2 years ago quit by switching to vaping. And I don't vape all day everyday or every time I get a chance like I did with smoking. It has improved my life immensely, my lung function is better than normal and I no longer have smokers cough. That stopped within the first week of quitting cigarettes. Stop downplaying the immense benefit these products have been for smokers. Almost everyone I know who smoked has quit. Many vape, some use nicotine gum. I don't know a single person who hasn't turned to some sort of replacement therapy. Ignoring us, and trying to make this into a "it's being marketed at kids, look at the candy flavors", is ridiculous. I don't like the candy flavors myself, but lots of adults do. Just like lots of adults like jolly ranchers. But, if they destroy the vape shops and ban flavors besides natural tobacco flavor in e-liquid, 2 years from now the Times will be writing about the huge surge in people going back to smoking. It's a win win for the tobacco industry and a big loss for vape shops and former smokers like me.
24
A nice political analysis of e-cig legislative sausage-making. A good strategy to lobby Congress includes a model bill w/hoary lingo. Industry donations. around $10,000, are the pay to play cost. It's what Madison expected, except the guns are on one side.
E-cig's are a lobby magnet. Their liquids vary. Some contain nicotine, others none. Second, 'science' is sparse. Evidence shows e-cigs are much less addictive than cigarettes. But there's little long-term data, what revealed cigarette health impacts.
Given e-cig uncertainty and variability, regulations are tendentious. E-cig opponents paint with a broad brush, so a product widely used for smoking cessation is lumped with smoking causation. E-cig supporters mock concerns about kids access and the industry's history. Devils in the details. Both sides are black and white.
Madison's idea assumes powerful interests lobby. Introduce friction to cut
'em down, with competing interests that attack. It can work, but corporate M&A undermines it. Once tobacco co's bought e-cigs, they stopped fighting to label them like tobacco.
But because they monopolize both cigarette and e-cig markets, there's no friction. It's a lesson for marijuana legalization. It's effective regulation demands tobacco giants don't monopolize pot. 100 years ago that seemed a sensible argument. Today it's kind of anomalous. But we live with a Madisonian framework, so should optimize it.
E-cig's are a lobby magnet. Their liquids vary. Some contain nicotine, others none. Second, 'science' is sparse. Evidence shows e-cigs are much less addictive than cigarettes. But there's little long-term data, what revealed cigarette health impacts.
Given e-cig uncertainty and variability, regulations are tendentious. E-cig opponents paint with a broad brush, so a product widely used for smoking cessation is lumped with smoking causation. E-cig supporters mock concerns about kids access and the industry's history. Devils in the details. Both sides are black and white.
Madison's idea assumes powerful interests lobby. Introduce friction to cut
'em down, with competing interests that attack. It can work, but corporate M&A undermines it. Once tobacco co's bought e-cigs, they stopped fighting to label them like tobacco.
But because they monopolize both cigarette and e-cig markets, there's no friction. It's a lesson for marijuana legalization. It's effective regulation demands tobacco giants don't monopolize pot. 100 years ago that seemed a sensible argument. Today it's kind of anomalous. But we live with a Madisonian framework, so should optimize it.
1
I'm a non-smoker. Rationale for banning regular cigarettes from public places is the second hand harm that smoking cigars and cigarettes impose on people who have little choice avoiding it. Makes sense.
E-cigs, however, are fundamentally different. With no 'combustion', the only thing coming out of them is evaporated water. I don't see any impact on my health from E-Cig smokers and don't see why we should limit an activity which has no negative external effect.
E-cigs, however, are fundamentally different. With no 'combustion', the only thing coming out of them is evaporated water. I don't see any impact on my health from E-Cig smokers and don't see why we should limit an activity which has no negative external effect.
11
It is NOT just water vapor! It's great that people have an option that helps them reduce or quit their use of traditional tobacco products, but those of us who don't smoke should not be forced to participate in this process. There are dozens of chemicals in these liquids, and since the providers are not closely regulated the exact composition of the vapor is unknown.
Aside from the health concerns it is incredibly rude to expect people sharing a public space, whether in a building or shared transportation, to tolerate continuously breathing in these chemicals.
I support e-cigarette use as an option to replace traditional smoke tobacco, but it needs to be managed in the same manner: outside of public buildings and transportation or in otherwise designated areas. People have a right to breathe clean air as much as you have a right to breathe your vape pen.
Aside from the health concerns it is incredibly rude to expect people sharing a public space, whether in a building or shared transportation, to tolerate continuously breathing in these chemicals.
I support e-cigarette use as an option to replace traditional smoke tobacco, but it needs to be managed in the same manner: outside of public buildings and transportation or in otherwise designated areas. People have a right to breathe clean air as much as you have a right to breathe your vape pen.
54
Chicago - any many other cities - already prohibit the use of e-cigarettes in public spaces. We didn't need the FDA for that.
R, I'm not sure where you're getting your information but I have to disagree with most of your assertions.
No, there are not dozens of chemicals in the vapor. The few legitimate studies I've seen found very few, none particularly harmful, and all in concentrations barely measureable. Vapor is cleaner than an average city's air. The study showed that unlike tobacco, vapor did not have a "second hand" effect.
Once again, vaping is not smoking. Nothing gets burned to produce all the chemicals found in tobacco smoke.
But I do agree with your point about inflicting clouds on other people. Some vapers choose to use very high power in order to produce large clouds. I've found that most juices do not produce an aroma but the fact remains that they shouldn't be infringing into your airspace.
That stated, the solution to that is simply social norms; like not using too much perfume/aftershave, controlling body odor, not passing gas...
The FDA's response is like killing mosquitos with a bazooka. Along with the general problem of the Deeming Act itself, the approach is dishonest and insulting. Nowhere is it written that ecigarettes will be outlawed, but the regualtion as issued means that none can possibly meet the standards.
No, there are not dozens of chemicals in the vapor. The few legitimate studies I've seen found very few, none particularly harmful, and all in concentrations barely measureable. Vapor is cleaner than an average city's air. The study showed that unlike tobacco, vapor did not have a "second hand" effect.
Once again, vaping is not smoking. Nothing gets burned to produce all the chemicals found in tobacco smoke.
But I do agree with your point about inflicting clouds on other people. Some vapers choose to use very high power in order to produce large clouds. I've found that most juices do not produce an aroma but the fact remains that they shouldn't be infringing into your airspace.
That stated, the solution to that is simply social norms; like not using too much perfume/aftershave, controlling body odor, not passing gas...
The FDA's response is like killing mosquitos with a bazooka. Along with the general problem of the Deeming Act itself, the approach is dishonest and insulting. Nowhere is it written that ecigarettes will be outlawed, but the regualtion as issued means that none can possibly meet the standards.
6
And yet, there are several independent scientific studies out that state exhaled vapor doesn't produce any more "chemicals" than your breath. In fact, exhaled vapor produces less on the whole, and vapers tend to pass fewer viruses because e-liquid is anti-microbial.
As for "clean air" if you really think you're breathing that with all the outgassing from inorganic materials, factory byproduct, vehicle exhaust, etc. I've got a bridge to sell you.
As for "clean air" if you really think you're breathing that with all the outgassing from inorganic materials, factory byproduct, vehicle exhaust, etc. I've got a bridge to sell you.
3
E-cigarettes are not cigarettes. Is everyone suddenly taking crazy pills? Banning or restricting e-cigarettes to reduce tobacco use is like banning water to cut alcohol consumption. It's a stupid, entirely pointless idea. What would be achieved by preventing people from using them? You can tell how flimsy the arguments are by seeing how absolutely no proof or evidence is cited of harm, just chanting the magical incantation "tobacco!" As if this proves anything. Please show some evidence of harm before you adopt this moralistic tone and demand banning of products that are completely and utterly safe. This is the same nonsensical voodoo thinking that bans God's gift to mankind, cannabis, the cure for all life's ailments.
11
Both are nicotine delivery methods. Simple enough for you? Evidence of harm? How about evidence of no harm? Before drugs can be marketed by pharmaceutical companies the FDA requires extensive testing to prove they work, work better than similar drugs, are safe, identify side effects, etc. You prefer people be guinea pigs and evidence of safety and efficacy result from consumer use after the fact? Guess what? We tried that with tobacco. Millions died as a result of their addiction which was insured by supplemental nicotine tobacco companies added to the nicotine already in cigarettes, which they steadfastly lied about, even before a congressional committee. They even knew tobacco was carcinogenic and spend millions hiding their own research.
What's to be gained by regulating it? Billions in preventable healthcare costs, millions of lives, a risk that justifies due diligence based on past deceit by tobacco companies.
You're free to smoke cannabis (which may account for your logic) or shoe leather for that matter. It doesn't qualify you to summarily declare an addictive product safe and decry any moralistic tone you allege on the part of smart citizens who don't want tobacco companies to shift billions in health costs onto taxpayers.
What's to be gained by regulating it? Billions in preventable healthcare costs, millions of lives, a risk that justifies due diligence based on past deceit by tobacco companies.
You're free to smoke cannabis (which may account for your logic) or shoe leather for that matter. It doesn't qualify you to summarily declare an addictive product safe and decry any moralistic tone you allege on the part of smart citizens who don't want tobacco companies to shift billions in health costs onto taxpayers.
2
"Evidence of harm? How about evidence of no harm?"
If that's your standard, then NRT gum and lozenges and patches would need to be taken off the market. Yes, they improve the odds of coming off nicotine entirely -- from a small percentage to a slightly larger percentage -- but they're certainly not "no harm" products.
If that's your standard, then NRT gum and lozenges and patches would need to be taken off the market. Yes, they improve the odds of coming off nicotine entirely -- from a small percentage to a slightly larger percentage -- but they're certainly not "no harm" products.
1
according to that logic, alcohol should be banned immediately. oh, wait...
1
"...The F.D.A. has blatantly ignored evidence that our products improve people’s lives..." Yeah, sure, and the earth is flat and the moon is made of green cheese. Are we going to have to listen to these guys lie again (the tobacco industry)? No nicotine is good nicotine. Tobacco in any form is unacceptable. Whether it's peoples' job or not. Nicotine is addictive and it causes cancer. What more do you need to know?
1
with all due respect to the byline of this article, what industry DOESN'T have any influence on our Congress due to the pervasive toxicity of money in politics?
2
I quit smoking using e-cigarettes. I enjoy them even when the e-liquid has no nicotine. I like certain e-liquid flavors: cheesecake torte and fruit juice flavors are my favorites. And I'm not going to stop. Bottom line to all you little Savonarola's out there is that I will become perfect on the same day you do, which means never. That's right, never.
I am polite about vaping. I don't do it in an enclosed space around other people, unless they're in my home. Nobody's ever complained, but if they have objections to it - or to the fact that I drink and serve cheap beer, have art on the walls they don't like, own cats, or display magazines they consider "left wing" and therefore objectionable - they are free to leave.
I don't do it on the street or while using any kind of public transportation. I'm always sensitive to the fact that, to some people, second-hand vape is the same as second-hand smoke (even though it isn't). So I base my actions on that sensitivity. Always be considerate.
Banning e-cigs is silly. It's already illegal for kids to buy them. Oh, they do? Well, kids also buy and consume liquor. Should we ban that, too? Oh, right. That didn't work out very well, did it?
If e-cigs are banned, I'll buy my equipment and e-liquid on the black market. And you'd better believe there will be one. And I'll use it just like I used the black market for weed when I was in my 20's and 30's.
Get real, FDA. Inspection and regulation? Fine. A ban? Nope.
I am polite about vaping. I don't do it in an enclosed space around other people, unless they're in my home. Nobody's ever complained, but if they have objections to it - or to the fact that I drink and serve cheap beer, have art on the walls they don't like, own cats, or display magazines they consider "left wing" and therefore objectionable - they are free to leave.
I don't do it on the street or while using any kind of public transportation. I'm always sensitive to the fact that, to some people, second-hand vape is the same as second-hand smoke (even though it isn't). So I base my actions on that sensitivity. Always be considerate.
Banning e-cigs is silly. It's already illegal for kids to buy them. Oh, they do? Well, kids also buy and consume liquor. Should we ban that, too? Oh, right. That didn't work out very well, did it?
If e-cigs are banned, I'll buy my equipment and e-liquid on the black market. And you'd better believe there will be one. And I'll use it just like I used the black market for weed when I was in my 20's and 30's.
Get real, FDA. Inspection and regulation? Fine. A ban? Nope.
14
Erm, they want to regulate the things - not ban them.
The industry seem to have little confidence in their products though and assume they are such an obvious hazard that the FDA will have no option than harsh regulations?
The industry seem to have little confidence in their products though and assume they are such an obvious hazard that the FDA will have no option than harsh regulations?
3
The deeming regs effectively ban 99% of the vapor products currently on the market. Big Pharma wrote the regs to protect their $5 billion nicotine replacement therapy market. This coin has two sides.
6
The FDA should share with the tobacco industry and its congressional toadies photos of Sigmund Freund ("Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar") and the oral cancer which killed him.
My dad and grandmother and aunt all died from smoking. My father planted tobacco, as did most farmers in SC, as the govt paid subsidies. But there is no reason to regulate ecigarettes in any way . Those who are going after that are just ideologically opposed to something that is 100% less dangerous than smoking burning cigarettes. It makes them sound shrill. I say to those activists go after something that matters, like to many silly rules coming from people like you and lawyers.
6
Several commenters react as if this were about legislation to ban e-cigs, but it isn't - it's about having them subject to research and regulation. FDA regulation doesn't mean that they will become unavailable, especially to cigarette addicts trying to quit - but it might mean that the corporations won't be able to use any ingredient they feel like, with no consideration of health effects. What, the tobacco companies would try to sell something unhealthy? Well, yes, actually, that's what they do. People mention research in Great Britain showing not-so-bad results for e-cigarettes - in that case, why are they fighting so hard to prevent similar research in this country?
6
This article is a sham. Altria sat in on deeming regs so they could have the fda make all products, every sku a company makes, subject to 200,000 to a million dollars in testing, raising the bar of entry for non big tobacco(independent) companies and effectively handing the industry to big tobacco's products...which are the ineffective products people left in order to buy better products from independent companies. This fda action is exactly what big tobacco wants. The "grandfathering in" clause lets all products on the market before 2007 not be subject to these regulations...but there were no products on the market before than...effectively grabbing every single product under this illegal action. The former head of the fda is facing rico charges for racketeering, bernie sanders tried to block the current head's appointment for having close ties to pharma and big business, and these deeming regs are a direct result of corruption. The marketing to kids is a lie, and calling independent companies part of big tobacco is a lie. The fda knocked it out of the park for altria and big tobacco, while leaving the companies that would destroy big tobacco in the dust. E-cigs are 95% healthier (royal college of physicians) and have fewer particulates/no second hand effects (drexel university). Enjoy all your pharma dollars nytimes, im sure you'll be running ads for smoking cessation products and gum. These regs are being sued in court by independent companies, wont be around long.
7
I agree with Representative Nita M. Lowey when she says, "“For Congress to consider going backward in how we regulate the public health hazard is simply mind-boggling,” We have done nothing but go backward since the ALEC/Wall Street/Koch brothers/ u s chamber of commerce/radical religious right/nra/major media Cartel Corporate Conglomerate got control of OUR government when they installed Ronald Reagan in the White House.
WE must demand that ALL tobacco-related corporate welfare be stopped and that all things we ingest be regulated for safety by OUR government agency - the FDA. Republicans should be leading the charge - they are supposedly so concerned about "women's health" that they have no problem passing laws - or trying to pass laws - that control women's reproductive choices. What a bunch of hypocrits
WE must demand that ALL tobacco-related corporate welfare be stopped and that all things we ingest be regulated for safety by OUR government agency - the FDA. Republicans should be leading the charge - they are supposedly so concerned about "women's health" that they have no problem passing laws - or trying to pass laws - that control women's reproductive choices. What a bunch of hypocrits
12
it's not good that the cigarette industry is able to leverage its economic power to lobby Congress for ad hoc exemptions to regulation.
I sometimes worry that anti-smoking campaigns, though, are ideologically opposed to the idea of harm reduction in tobacco use. With respect to cigarettes, that would have been a safe bet: attempts to reduce the harm of smoking cigarettes were, for the most part, farcical. (Or, where harm was reduced in one place, it increased in another: adding filters to cigarettes decreased squamous cell lung cancers but increased adenocarcinomas.) But there's some reason to think that e-cigarettes allow for a significant reduction in harm relative to normal cigarettes, and that probably makes a big difference in how they should be regulated. Again, the point isn't that e-cigarettes should be excluded from FDA jurisdiction, but it may be a good idea for the FDA to take a cautious approach to regulating them if they're really safer, as we have some reason to believe.
(A personal note: I'm trying to convince my mom to switch to e-cigarettes if she won't stop smoking.)
The popularity of e-cigarettes to underage smokers is serious, and I'm not sure what to do about that. The answer probably depends on whether or not these are people who would have smoked anyway but are now turning to e-cigarettes because they're safer, or if they're people who would not have smoked but find e-cigarettes appealing (maybe because of the marketing candy flavors).
I sometimes worry that anti-smoking campaigns, though, are ideologically opposed to the idea of harm reduction in tobacco use. With respect to cigarettes, that would have been a safe bet: attempts to reduce the harm of smoking cigarettes were, for the most part, farcical. (Or, where harm was reduced in one place, it increased in another: adding filters to cigarettes decreased squamous cell lung cancers but increased adenocarcinomas.) But there's some reason to think that e-cigarettes allow for a significant reduction in harm relative to normal cigarettes, and that probably makes a big difference in how they should be regulated. Again, the point isn't that e-cigarettes should be excluded from FDA jurisdiction, but it may be a good idea for the FDA to take a cautious approach to regulating them if they're really safer, as we have some reason to believe.
(A personal note: I'm trying to convince my mom to switch to e-cigarettes if she won't stop smoking.)
The popularity of e-cigarettes to underage smokers is serious, and I'm not sure what to do about that. The answer probably depends on whether or not these are people who would have smoked anyway but are now turning to e-cigarettes because they're safer, or if they're people who would not have smoked but find e-cigarettes appealing (maybe because of the marketing candy flavors).
11
As a cardiologist in practice 25 years let me start by saying that no good has ever come from cigarettes. However, the current prohibitionist approach taken by the anti-smoking groups and the FDA flies in the face of all the available evidence and seems to be driven by ideological zeal rather than an assessment of the science. The UK public health service recently completed a comprehensive study of the issue and made the following statement "In a nutshell, best estimates show e-cigarettes are 95% less harmful to your health than normal cigarettes, and when supported by a smoking cessation service, help most smokers to quit tobacco altogether." and "EC (e-cigarettes) should not routinely be treated in the same way as smoking. It is not appropriate to prohibit EC use in health trusts and prisons as part of smoke free policies unless there is a strong rationale to do so."
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...
79
Your focus on the relative risks has made you lose your perspective on the central question, can nicotine be treated like a harmless substance or should it be regulated in the interests of public health.
Nicotine narrows blood vessels which makes the heart have to work harder, is that not so? In some cases, people are prone to circulatory diseases which can result in inadequate blood flow which nicotine can exacerbate, is that not so? Do you not believe that the propaganda being distributed by those advocating for e-cigarettes does assert that nicotine is harmless if not taken by means of smoking cigarettes or through the use of other tobacco products?
E-cigarettes tend to encourage non-smokers to become smokers. You know that every cigarette is equally poisonous to everyone exposed to it's smoke must cope with the toxic effects. You know why some people get sick is because their bodies at some point have had enough and cannot ward off the damage done and develop very vicious diseases. The trade in tobacco helped this country prosper but we would be better off not using or trading in tobacco, at all.
Nicotine narrows blood vessels which makes the heart have to work harder, is that not so? In some cases, people are prone to circulatory diseases which can result in inadequate blood flow which nicotine can exacerbate, is that not so? Do you not believe that the propaganda being distributed by those advocating for e-cigarettes does assert that nicotine is harmless if not taken by means of smoking cigarettes or through the use of other tobacco products?
E-cigarettes tend to encourage non-smokers to become smokers. You know that every cigarette is equally poisonous to everyone exposed to it's smoke must cope with the toxic effects. You know why some people get sick is because their bodies at some point have had enough and cannot ward off the damage done and develop very vicious diseases. The trade in tobacco helped this country prosper but we would be better off not using or trading in tobacco, at all.
1
It's a summary of what they say upfront is a dearth of significant studies. They did no studies of their own. They summarized major studies related to EC use, most of them surveys of users and tobacco addicts, not controlled medical studies with significant samples. Like tobacco, the health impacts will be a decade off, and mortality rates for EC users can't be measured until folks start dropping like flies.
Another case of humans as corporate guinea pigs. Instead of proving the product is safe, the industry demands we prove it's not. By then they have their captive market of addicts, a mountain of profits, and a blizzard of scientists-for-sale churning out bogus research to undermine public health concerns.
You're a doctor (or claim you are one). Remember, first do no harm? And a little skepticism doesn't hurt: the entire bogus scare about vaccines and autism came from English docs publishing in a scientific journal. The Tories have done as well or better than GOP has at defunding public health research or freelancing it to commercial interests.
Your confidence in any claims of benign health impacts is misplaced given the powerful economic interests involved. You don't think credentialed scientists won't lie for drug companies or tobacco interests? There's a long record of exactly that. Even MDs my friend put their self-interest ahead of their ethical responsibility. You're acting with great carelessness, if you really are an MD.
Another case of humans as corporate guinea pigs. Instead of proving the product is safe, the industry demands we prove it's not. By then they have their captive market of addicts, a mountain of profits, and a blizzard of scientists-for-sale churning out bogus research to undermine public health concerns.
You're a doctor (or claim you are one). Remember, first do no harm? And a little skepticism doesn't hurt: the entire bogus scare about vaccines and autism came from English docs publishing in a scientific journal. The Tories have done as well or better than GOP has at defunding public health research or freelancing it to commercial interests.
Your confidence in any claims of benign health impacts is misplaced given the powerful economic interests involved. You don't think credentialed scientists won't lie for drug companies or tobacco interests? There's a long record of exactly that. Even MDs my friend put their self-interest ahead of their ethical responsibility. You're acting with great carelessness, if you really are an MD.
2
And what does the science say about children becoming addicted to nicotine?
You want cigarettes and vapes to remain legal? Legalize pot and we're even.
3
There is a profound lack of balance in the reporting on this issue.
While the United States seeks to remove e-cigarettes from the marketplace, Great Britain is dispensing them to smokers. The rigid, precautionary approach of the FDA neglects the 40.000,000 smokers in the USA. According to many surveys, e-cigarettes have reduced smoking or eliminated smoking entirely for millions of users. I am more prepared to believe what the consumer says rather than the FDA.
While the United States seeks to remove e-cigarettes from the marketplace, Great Britain is dispensing them to smokers. The rigid, precautionary approach of the FDA neglects the 40.000,000 smokers in the USA. According to many surveys, e-cigarettes have reduced smoking or eliminated smoking entirely for millions of users. I am more prepared to believe what the consumer says rather than the FDA.
42
If the UK is, in fact, dispensing e-cigarettes to reduce smoking, we have an answer here. If e-cigarettes are an aid to stop smoking, let them be available at cost to smokers for whom other products, as nicoderm patches, have failed.
NPR is broadcasting studies showing vaping is a gateway drug to cigarettes; for this population, e-cigarettes can only do harm.
The problem with the tobacco industry is that they need ever increasing customers to fill their bottomless coffers; if a product can be made addictive, so much the better. Vaping is most certainly a replay of the beginning of the cigarette industry in the early 1900's, during which the industry generated a nation of nicotine addicts. As a physician, I have patients facing death from emphysema, who yet cannot stop smoking. I feel for them and curse industry.
A child in the 1940's-1950's I recall full page, glossy colored ads of men in white coats, complete with stethoscopes and mirrors on head bands, proclaiming Brand X is so soothing on the throat. I would expect there will be docs who can attest to the benefits of vaping. But, let's remember, no one medication is beneficial to all persons e.g. aspirin helps prevent clots in patients with coronary artery disease but are deadly to those with bleeding strokes.
NYT: thanks of naming names. Those of us who abhor profits from tobacco, should keep a rogues list of offenders. For the California column, how about a look at tobacco lobbyists here? Who do I not vote for?
NPR is broadcasting studies showing vaping is a gateway drug to cigarettes; for this population, e-cigarettes can only do harm.
The problem with the tobacco industry is that they need ever increasing customers to fill their bottomless coffers; if a product can be made addictive, so much the better. Vaping is most certainly a replay of the beginning of the cigarette industry in the early 1900's, during which the industry generated a nation of nicotine addicts. As a physician, I have patients facing death from emphysema, who yet cannot stop smoking. I feel for them and curse industry.
A child in the 1940's-1950's I recall full page, glossy colored ads of men in white coats, complete with stethoscopes and mirrors on head bands, proclaiming Brand X is so soothing on the throat. I would expect there will be docs who can attest to the benefits of vaping. But, let's remember, no one medication is beneficial to all persons e.g. aspirin helps prevent clots in patients with coronary artery disease but are deadly to those with bleeding strokes.
NYT: thanks of naming names. Those of us who abhor profits from tobacco, should keep a rogues list of offenders. For the California column, how about a look at tobacco lobbyists here? Who do I not vote for?
1
The use of e-cigarettes has completely changed my life. I stopped smoking a year and a half ago with the use of e-cigarettes. 500,000 people in the United States alone die from smoking every year. There are a billion lives on this planet that can be saved. I'm frightened to think of the damage I've done to myself in the pack-a-day habit I had for 7 years. Non-smokers do not understand the grip this addiction can have on you. I get emotional just thinking about. For me and millions of others across this great country to have the opportunity to quit smoking with the use of e-cigarettes is an incredible blessing. I've never felt better in my entire life.
To our government - please don't let money get in the way of our population's health. What is money when there are hundreds dying every day from the poison bestowed upon them from cigarettes? I implore our congressmen and women to be on the right side of history. Do you want to leave a legacy behind 50 years from now knowing that you helped save millions of people? Or do you want to be known as the contingency that failed to act, continuing the suffering of many for monetary gain?
To our government - please don't let money get in the way of our population's health. What is money when there are hundreds dying every day from the poison bestowed upon them from cigarettes? I implore our congressmen and women to be on the right side of history. Do you want to leave a legacy behind 50 years from now knowing that you helped save millions of people? Or do you want to be known as the contingency that failed to act, continuing the suffering of many for monetary gain?
36
To the contrary, I DO understand the addictive nature of tobacco, but I also understand the very clear evidence that it was addictive and bad for you going back to the 1950s. That science was out there and widely available before you started smoking, yet I and others were exposed to second hand smoke from people like you who ignored the evidence, which triggered my allergies and asthma in the short term, not to mention the longer term dangers of second hand smoke.
2
To my mind, the problem is that e-cigarettes are a clear benefit to nicotine-addicted current smokers. At the same time they should be banned for non-smokers who will just become new nicotine addicts through their use. Maybe it should require a doctor's prescription to purchase them, just as is required for other addictive medications.
1
I'm not against e-cigs if they help long-time smokers quit. But they do seem to marketed to youth culture, especially a certain type of urban youth. Just look at the commercials. However, there are doubtless legions of young people trying these under the assumption that they're "safe." The industry touts their product as the antidote to cigarettes, but what they really want is to hook new young users. And those new users are more likely to transition to real cigarettes. So it's not clear to me that there is an overall gain.
As an Oregonian, I have the same skepticism with the nascent pot industry: I'm glad cancer and other patients find relief from pot, but I suspect very few of the habitual pot smokers use it for those purposes.
As an Oregonian, I have the same skepticism with the nascent pot industry: I'm glad cancer and other patients find relief from pot, but I suspect very few of the habitual pot smokers use it for those purposes.
18
Instead of the media click bating us with "scandalous" Trump and Clinton items, we would appreciate you all printing more articles like this one which lists out every single person in congress who allows these special interest groups to push policies and laws their way. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if they're republican, democrat, or independent. Each person elected in congress should be held accountable for their actions.
The major issues our country is facing needs to be addressed in congress. I/we can't stand up for our rights if the media is more focused on the national enquirer type of stories.
The major issues our country is facing needs to be addressed in congress. I/we can't stand up for our rights if the media is more focused on the national enquirer type of stories.
30
People who profit from products that injure others seem to have a libertarian bent as a rule. They can make the most amazing arguments against regulation, and wax eloquent about freedom. But between the lines, the message is clear.
25
Tobacco companies are probably richer today than they were before the US gave up the nasty habit. They are selling even more cancer sticks in Asia and the Middle East, than they did here. They want to make money from yucky vaping in the this country, and they have the money and the bought politicians to do exactly that. Thank goodness, people can't pull these awful things out in any public place they choose. Just shows that addictive personalities will always find a substitute.
9
I don't know why people think that American tobacco companies brought smoking to Asia and the middle east recently, once the American market started shrinking - they've been smoking French and British and other non-American tobacco company's products in both places for a very long time; I can attest to how much more they smoked than Americans, going back to at least the 1980s from my own experience.
3
Predictably people rail agains the tobacco companies for daring to try to get rules and laws that favor their positions, yet it is apparently okay for those advocating for the rules to to the same thing.
8
Their position has potentially serious public health implications, and their history is littered with millions dead from cancer, many if not most costing taxpayers for their healthcare costs. Plus they lied through their teeth about not adding extra nicotine to cigarettes to facilitate addiction. Unless you work for the tobacco/vaping interests, your point is senseless.
2
Name one of what you're talking about
I don't work for any tobacco firm, I've never smoked in my life nor do I vape. But my comment was directed at those who only think it's okay for their "approved" advocates to lobby. Against sugar, don't like people eating at McDonalds, think people shouldn't eat meat or wear fur? There are advocacy groups galore out there pushing for rules and laws to get their view of the world across. Some of the items may be potentially harmful, some not, some is really a personal choice (don't like fast food? don't go there).
The point is I find it absurd when people get on their high horse about the tobacco companies doing exactly the same as other groups on other issues. More of the daily hypocrisy we see in this country and one reason why so many citizens are so cynical about our whole system.
The point is I find it absurd when people get on their high horse about the tobacco companies doing exactly the same as other groups on other issues. More of the daily hypocrisy we see in this country and one reason why so many citizens are so cynical about our whole system.
3
"There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done ... Corporate expenditures for political purposes...have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs."
Teddy Roosevelt, 1910
TR's words are still true today. Corporate cash given to legislators is a bribe, plain and simple. Calling it a "contribution" is a half-truth at best: it is still a bribe, intended as such and understood as such.
Why else would a member of Congress agree to meet with the vile tobacco lobby? To promote the general health and welfare? Or to put cash in his/her own pocket?
Corporate money is the cancer which will be the death of this country. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the tobacco industry should be in the vanguard. It has a demonstrated history of killing Americans just to make a buck.
Teddy Roosevelt, 1910
TR's words are still true today. Corporate cash given to legislators is a bribe, plain and simple. Calling it a "contribution" is a half-truth at best: it is still a bribe, intended as such and understood as such.
Why else would a member of Congress agree to meet with the vile tobacco lobby? To promote the general health and welfare? Or to put cash in his/her own pocket?
Corporate money is the cancer which will be the death of this country. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the tobacco industry should be in the vanguard. It has a demonstrated history of killing Americans just to make a buck.
58
Corporate money also supports many arts and culture programs and charity organizations. It may not be the absolute evil you consider it.
2
Being on the same side as Altria doesn't make on equivalent to Altria. I've never been to a vape shop owned by Altria, bought an Altria-branded box mod, Altria-branded ejuice or anything like that.
Nevermind the fact that anybody with skin in the game is entitled to play. You don't like the tobacco companies? Fine, me neither, but that doesn't mean they don't get a say in the regulations affecting their industry.
I happen to be on their side this time; that's not an endorsement of their existence. But retroactive enforcement of a regulation is grossly unfair. That's the problem here. Say you invented a better kind of mousetrap and it became the industry standard. And then ten years later, the government said "not only are we going to regulate these mousetraps in such and such a way; we're going to require that all the manufacturers of mousetraps and mousetrap accessories regardless of their date of manufacture which fall within the definitions of this reg to comply, at their own cost, with a bill that just now started to exist". You'd say that was probably not cool.
Nevermind the fact that anybody with skin in the game is entitled to play. You don't like the tobacco companies? Fine, me neither, but that doesn't mean they don't get a say in the regulations affecting their industry.
I happen to be on their side this time; that's not an endorsement of their existence. But retroactive enforcement of a regulation is grossly unfair. That's the problem here. Say you invented a better kind of mousetrap and it became the industry standard. And then ten years later, the government said "not only are we going to regulate these mousetraps in such and such a way; we're going to require that all the manufacturers of mousetraps and mousetrap accessories regardless of their date of manufacture which fall within the definitions of this reg to comply, at their own cost, with a bill that just now started to exist". You'd say that was probably not cool.
3
Big tobacco kills people, lied repeatedly, even to Congress, costs taxpayers billions in health problems, and they give chump change to high profile arts organizations, that qualifies as redemption? Fell for it, didn't you? Unless your comment was bought and paid for just to remind us they sponsor arts and we should be so grateful as to forget how they make their money?
We should be careful with guilt by association. There's no doubt that the tobacco industry has a woeful reputation.
But the legislation cited is a very good thing. This topic is inundated with bad science and straw men. For instance, there is no antifreeze in ecig liquid. It's propylene glycol, which is also used as a carrier for the medicine in prescription inhalers. In vaping's case. it is the vapor carrier for the flavors.
And don't buy the "flavors attracting to kids" charge. So adults don't like (and consume) candy, fruit snacks, or bakery goods?
None of the products in question contain any tobacco at all. They may contain nicotine which is not cancer causing. In spite of that, the FDA's deemiing says they are considered tobacco products.
I smoked for over 40 years and tried everything available to quit smoking. Patches, prescriptions, cold turkey, and even hypnosis. Nothing worked until I tried e-cigarettes. I quit immediately and it has been almost three years now.
The Royal College of Surgeons has taken the position that ecigarettes are at least 95% safer than cigarettes. They took a position on the dangers of tobacoo years before the AMA.
The real issue here is harm reduction. I don't know any vapers who believe that it is totally harmless, at least until more information comes out. In the meantime, it is saving lives, for all those who were able to quit smoking.
But the legislation cited is a very good thing. This topic is inundated with bad science and straw men. For instance, there is no antifreeze in ecig liquid. It's propylene glycol, which is also used as a carrier for the medicine in prescription inhalers. In vaping's case. it is the vapor carrier for the flavors.
And don't buy the "flavors attracting to kids" charge. So adults don't like (and consume) candy, fruit snacks, or bakery goods?
None of the products in question contain any tobacco at all. They may contain nicotine which is not cancer causing. In spite of that, the FDA's deemiing says they are considered tobacco products.
I smoked for over 40 years and tried everything available to quit smoking. Patches, prescriptions, cold turkey, and even hypnosis. Nothing worked until I tried e-cigarettes. I quit immediately and it has been almost three years now.
The Royal College of Surgeons has taken the position that ecigarettes are at least 95% safer than cigarettes. They took a position on the dangers of tobacoo years before the AMA.
The real issue here is harm reduction. I don't know any vapers who believe that it is totally harmless, at least until more information comes out. In the meantime, it is saving lives, for all those who were able to quit smoking.
64
Agreed, with the exception of your contention that the issue is harm reduction. The issue here is retroactive enforcement of recently promulgated regulations w/r/t items that have been manufactured for a decade. The regulation means that manufacturers will have to go back to every component of every product they've designed or manufactured and ensure compliance. It will cost them millions.
But I basically agree that vaping is harm reduction. I assume the risk of whatever effect that inhaling this stuff will have on me. But six months after starting, and zero cigarettes, and the return of my thrice weekly five mile runs, and not coughing up bright green stuff in the shower every morning, I can say with a fair amount of confidence that my harm has been reduced quite a bit. I don't usually line up thusly but I'm all for the vape shops on this one.
But I basically agree that vaping is harm reduction. I assume the risk of whatever effect that inhaling this stuff will have on me. But six months after starting, and zero cigarettes, and the return of my thrice weekly five mile runs, and not coughing up bright green stuff in the shower every morning, I can say with a fair amount of confidence that my harm has been reduced quite a bit. I don't usually line up thusly but I'm all for the vape shops on this one.
12
You are clearly a vaper. You drank the coolaid. The VAST majority of e-cig users are kids under 18 and they are CLEARLY being targeted. Nicotine not dangerous? Don't make me laugh. It used to be used as a pesticide. You quit smoking, but you haven't quit using dangerous substances. You'd like to believe the science is bad, but you're wrong. Do you really recommend people START smoking just because e-cigs are available? Is that what you suggest to your kids and grandkids?
2
I beg your pardon? Nicotine is a contact nerve poison, developed through evolution by the tobacco plant, to poison the leaf-eating bugs that would be attracted to such a large leaf. If nicotine kills bugs and is essentially an insecticide, also the source of addiction in cigarettes. Why would the FDA approve an obvious work around by the cigarette companies to continue to try to hook people into addiction? These rational-lies are YOUR addiction talking. Quit. It's a choice just like continuing to be addicted to an insecticide is a choice.
1
I wish things were as clear-cut as the article make them out to be -- evil tobacco companies, corrupt politicians, FDA with a flaming sword protecting the nation's children from the evils of addiction.
But the actual fact is that e cigarettes were found in a british study to be 95% less harmful than tobacco cigarettes, that the increase in the percentage of kids who vape rather than smoke (to more than half) has been accompanied by an equivalent decline in the number of kids who smoke tobacco cigarettes, that states that banned youth purchases of e cigarettes did *not* experience this decline in the use of tobacco cigarettes, that for many addicted smokers, e cigarettes have literally been a life saver; and that the FDA and public health officials vehemently *fought* e cigarettes, even, remarkably, trying to ban them at one point in favor of an addictive product that is known to be the largest cause of preventable death in the nation.
To be sure, some regulation is necessary and desirable, as it is for all consumer products. Consumers shouldn't be subjected to the hazards of exploding batteries or poorly-designed devices that produce carcinogens. E liquid shouldn't contain toxic chemicals or impurities, and should be packaged in child safe packages.
But over-regulation of the kind that puts stores out of business or bans flavoring in a non-tobacco product is just plain absurd, particularly when the alternative is a product known to kill.
But the actual fact is that e cigarettes were found in a british study to be 95% less harmful than tobacco cigarettes, that the increase in the percentage of kids who vape rather than smoke (to more than half) has been accompanied by an equivalent decline in the number of kids who smoke tobacco cigarettes, that states that banned youth purchases of e cigarettes did *not* experience this decline in the use of tobacco cigarettes, that for many addicted smokers, e cigarettes have literally been a life saver; and that the FDA and public health officials vehemently *fought* e cigarettes, even, remarkably, trying to ban them at one point in favor of an addictive product that is known to be the largest cause of preventable death in the nation.
To be sure, some regulation is necessary and desirable, as it is for all consumer products. Consumers shouldn't be subjected to the hazards of exploding batteries or poorly-designed devices that produce carcinogens. E liquid shouldn't contain toxic chemicals or impurities, and should be packaged in child safe packages.
But over-regulation of the kind that puts stores out of business or bans flavoring in a non-tobacco product is just plain absurd, particularly when the alternative is a product known to kill.
28
There has to be a better way to protect the public (especially children) from e-cigarettes.
The current FDA rules basically outlaw e-cigarettes in two years time, by identifying e-cigarettes as tobacco products. I am sure there is a way to protect children while still allowing e-cigarettes especially for those that so desperately try to kick their smoking habit. The FDA should focus on the safety of e-cigarettes, control the ingredients and the devices themselves. Eliquids will evolve and become safer and the FDA can play a big role in making that happen.
The current FDA rules basically outlaw e-cigarettes in two years time, by identifying e-cigarettes as tobacco products. I am sure there is a way to protect children while still allowing e-cigarettes especially for those that so desperately try to kick their smoking habit. The FDA should focus on the safety of e-cigarettes, control the ingredients and the devices themselves. Eliquids will evolve and become safer and the FDA can play a big role in making that happen.
15
John--The "habit" is NICOTINE, and you can't kick it by using more nicotine. And, nicotine is a health hazard. Cold turkey is the only lasting way to quit. Sorry, I'm twice quit, after 30+ years of smoking, and have done cessation counseling for the ACS. These are the hard facts about quitting.
5
Some of us don't want to quit nicotine, we just want the choice to choose a harm reduction product and that is simply none of your business.
2
Chesbay, people are different. What may work for you may not work for somebody else. (and twice quit? so going cold-turkey didn't work for you the first time....)
Ecigs are helpful because they allow much more precise dosing of nicotine. One can gradually work to lower concentration liquids until eventually, there is no nicotine left. I did that myself and can attest that it made it possible to quit nicotine for good.
Ecigs are helpful because they allow much more precise dosing of nicotine. One can gradually work to lower concentration liquids until eventually, there is no nicotine left. I did that myself and can attest that it made it possible to quit nicotine for good.
2
"still wields clout in Washington."
The fact that our Congress is still corrupt is not news. News will be when our Congress is NOT corrupt.
The fact that our Congress is still corrupt is not news. News will be when our Congress is NOT corrupt.
8
We must change the way business is done in this country. That an amoral industry like big tobacco can purchase congressional support to prevent the FDA from doing its job to protect the public from dangerous products is incredible. Juxtapose this story with the one about incarceration rates for drug dealers in rural Indiana and it feels as if we have gone done the rabbit hole.
Once again Republicans lead the way in pulling our country backwards. They seek to undo all the progressive regulations that improve our lives and communities and drag us back to a dark ages of unfettered capitalism to please their corporate paymasters. That their actions may cause future illness and suffering for millions of teenagers currently being enticed to become addicted to their products matters not at all to them. Only the Democrats stand between us and those who would dismantle our successful system of regulations to increase corporate profits at the expense of the greater good. I fervently hope that the brazen behavior of Republican right wingers, going on for years now, motivates more people of good will to get out and vote in every election, federal, state and local, until we drive these perfidious fools from our government.
Once again Republicans lead the way in pulling our country backwards. They seek to undo all the progressive regulations that improve our lives and communities and drag us back to a dark ages of unfettered capitalism to please their corporate paymasters. That their actions may cause future illness and suffering for millions of teenagers currently being enticed to become addicted to their products matters not at all to them. Only the Democrats stand between us and those who would dismantle our successful system of regulations to increase corporate profits at the expense of the greater good. I fervently hope that the brazen behavior of Republican right wingers, going on for years now, motivates more people of good will to get out and vote in every election, federal, state and local, until we drive these perfidious fools from our government.
7
"Once again Republicans lead the way in pulling our country backwards. They seek to undo all the progressive regulations that improve our lives and communities "
And the government worshiping "progressive" want to add even more useless, parasitic bureaucrats to the millions of such vermin that already infest every level of government. In their ideal world, there can never be too much government, just like in the old Soviet Union where everyone worked, or pretended to work, for their great god government.
And the government worshiping "progressive" want to add even more useless, parasitic bureaucrats to the millions of such vermin that already infest every level of government. In their ideal world, there can never be too much government, just like in the old Soviet Union where everyone worked, or pretended to work, for their great god government.
3
Let me put a big surprise on my face --- the Tobacco industry blocking rules on E-cigarettes.
13
Just give us a list of the criminals in Congress who take kickbacks from the tobacco industry, and we'll take it from there.
11
These businesses have a right to kill as those who buy from them have a right to die. i don't think either have a right to expect any of us who disagree to assist them in any way. If the price tag is high enough both sellers and buyers will disappear from view.
1
The root of the of the problem is that moneyed interests can manipulate our lawmakers. This was evidenced by the British Security Coordinator's manipulation of neutral U.S. into WW II. He wed a tobacco heiress after the war.
4
No one manipulated us into World War II. The Japanese declared war and bombed us after FDR refused to lift the embargo on war produce, and Hitler followed suit with a declaration of war.
7
Read the UK BSC history. We were manipulated into sending them everything from US battleships to spam under the fantasy "lend lease" principal fabricated by their lawyers to circumvent neutral lawmakers. The British boasted of how they used us while we were "neutral". Only later did we "declare" war.
"Keep your enemy close, and your friends closer" Sun Tzu
"Keep your enemy close, and your friends closer" Sun Tzu
1
To criticize the FDA for caring about the citizens of his country (a core mission of what it has been charged to do) only to keep market share or clear a pathway to sell products that without doubt lead to smoking tobacco for some, is wrong.
Yet these lobbyists and companies are exceptionally tuned to the arguments that stir up resentment to any control of marketing, no matter how much this country and it's people have already suffered due to the rise of big tobacco.
They are striking hard and often with a large amount of money behind them to try to grab as much of this market as they can.
In reality if all tobacco products and all vapor products were to disappear, we'd be in a lot healthier situation and no one, really would be in any way worse off for it.
Yet these lobbyists and companies are exceptionally tuned to the arguments that stir up resentment to any control of marketing, no matter how much this country and it's people have already suffered due to the rise of big tobacco.
They are striking hard and often with a large amount of money behind them to try to grab as much of this market as they can.
In reality if all tobacco products and all vapor products were to disappear, we'd be in a lot healthier situation and no one, really would be in any way worse off for it.
17
"In reality if all tobacco products and all vapor products were to disappear, we'd be in a lot healthier situation and no one, really would be in any way worse off for it."
Do you really believe that if tobacco and E-cigs were banned the Mexican drug cartels would not meet the demand for them?
Do you really believe that if tobacco and E-cigs were banned the Mexican drug cartels would not meet the demand for them?
7
Tobacco, nicotine, cigarettes, cigars - all drugs dressed in leaves and ointment, all unnecessary, all addictive, all responsible for millions of deaths and 100s of millions of chronically ill persons, and what is the reason they should go unregulated??
9
Er, this is about e cigarettes, not tobacco. E cigarettes haven't killed millions of people, or left hundreds of millions chronically ill. That's rather why people use them; a recent study found them 95% safer than cigarettes.
13
Who commissioned the study? Lots of "studies" were conducted in the 50s and 60s that claimed cigarettes were no worse for you than a glass of ice water.
Also, they have not been around long enough to obtain data that can be used for strong analysis. Try again.
Also, they have not been around long enough to obtain data that can be used for strong analysis. Try again.
1
I don't really have a problem with e-cigs, but I can't understand why we haven't gone after the tobacco farmers, who continue to supply this dangerous substance. If you want to end cigarette smoking, attack the source by suing the heck out of them. We sued the cigarette manufacturers and won billions of dollars - it seems like the farmers should be the next target.
Who needs to sue when you have the Government? In Pennsylvania, they recently decided to tax the retailers a 40% wholesale tax on future and PAST wholesale purchases. As you can imagine, many of the retailers are going out of business. I never smoked, but as a small business owner, I am shocked at what PA has done to them.
2
The American Lung Association, which has spoken out in defense of the rule, accepts contributions from pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, which sell smoking-cessation products that could lose sales if e-cigarettes continue to gain market share, Mr. Stier added.
____________________
Here's your answer, folks. Big Pharma once again. Big Pharma - you know the people that advertise and sell their poisons every day. The people that have class action lawsuits against them every day for their poisons. The don't want to allow e-cigarette makers "a piece of the action."
____________________
Here's your answer, folks. Big Pharma once again. Big Pharma - you know the people that advertise and sell their poisons every day. The people that have class action lawsuits against them every day for their poisons. The don't want to allow e-cigarette makers "a piece of the action."
24
I was a cigarette smoker for 45 years. Before I quit I smoked 2 1/2 packs a day. I tried to quit many times during those 45 years but the severe withdrawal symptoms kept me from doing so. I was finally able to quit by using e-cigs about four years ago. I weaned myself off the nicotine in the e-cig by gradually reducing it to 0 which took about six months. I started with a strength of 16 ml and reduced it to the lowest (3 ml) and then slowly replaced the 3 ml with 0 ml. I didn't experience any physical or psychological withdrawal symptoms whatsoever. Since I've quit I've gotten three coworkers (two smokers and one dipper) and one family member to quit also using the same method as I did. Some still vape but using 0 nicotine only.
I wonder how many tobacco related illnesses I (and those I helped quit) avoided and how many thousands of dollars Big Pharma didn't get as a result?
I wonder how many tobacco related illnesses I (and those I helped quit) avoided and how many thousands of dollars Big Pharma didn't get as a result?
71
The lobbying issue is a complete red herring. Absolutely everything in DC is fought over by one interest group or another.
The question is - are e-cigs less harmful than any actual tobacco products. The answer is unequivocally yes - always and everywhere.
So the FDA should be ensuring safety, but not trying to back door ban most of these products. Regulation should not be an end in itself. Public health should be. The comment from the FDA - "wild, wild west", says everything you need to know about their point of view.
The question is - are e-cigs less harmful than any actual tobacco products. The answer is unequivocally yes - always and everywhere.
So the FDA should be ensuring safety, but not trying to back door ban most of these products. Regulation should not be an end in itself. Public health should be. The comment from the FDA - "wild, wild west", says everything you need to know about their point of view.
15
"unequivocally yes -- always and everywhere." Unequivocally nonsense, deceitful, unsupported, and no doubt self-serving. Hyperventilating isn't persuasive. Most learned that in kindergarten. What's your excuse? Addicted to nicotine? Is that also your authority and agenda? Got it.
2
Like everything in our nation and government, it all boils down to money and corporate greed. Profits take precedence over common sense and consumer safety. It's appalling that our elected representatives and senators can vote for death with a straight face knowing all the while that they're accepting money from Big Tobacco to function as their lapdogs.
American Exceptionalism at its finest, while we point our wagging finger of condemnation at other nations and accuse them of corruption...
American Exceptionalism at its finest, while we point our wagging finger of condemnation at other nations and accuse them of corruption...
102
Money interests aside, in this case common sense would say that something that has helped millions of Americans to quit smoking should not be regulated out of existence by a bunch of busy bodies who think the freedom of their fellow citizens is irrelevant...
6
What more can one say about our corrupt politicians at work. Very frustrating when we allow paid lobyists to give money to political campaigns and offer them jobs after they leave.
60
Years ago, I gave up smoking cigarettes and switched to e-cigs. It's been a delightful experience. I don't smell like smoke, my house and car don't smell like smoke, I no longer have cigarette burns on my carpet or clothes. In addition, it's a heckuva lot cheaper and flavorful. I haven't wanted a cigarette since. And unlike all the scare stories in this article, I've never dealt with an exploding battery. I no longer cough and wheeze.
The main point of this article is that these regulations are all about money and have little to do with consumer health. It's not the mission of the FDA or Congress to protect one industry by injuring another. And kids using e-cigs is just a way to justify over regulation. "the children, the children, think of the children." Children can't legally buy e cigarettes. They must be 18. But, sure, just like kids find ways to buy cigarettes, alcohol, weed, they'll find a way to buy anything else. When has that not been the case.
This legislative brouhaha is all about Big Money and profits, and has nothing to do with health. There have been no studies that say e cigs are bad for you; in fact, smokers switching to e cigs have improved their health profiles. But over regulation will mean that down the line, I'll be asked to pay more money for the pleasure. Once again, the working American is going to get his pocket picked by grace of our wonderful govt.
Please. Leave it alone.
The main point of this article is that these regulations are all about money and have little to do with consumer health. It's not the mission of the FDA or Congress to protect one industry by injuring another. And kids using e-cigs is just a way to justify over regulation. "the children, the children, think of the children." Children can't legally buy e cigarettes. They must be 18. But, sure, just like kids find ways to buy cigarettes, alcohol, weed, they'll find a way to buy anything else. When has that not been the case.
This legislative brouhaha is all about Big Money and profits, and has nothing to do with health. There have been no studies that say e cigs are bad for you; in fact, smokers switching to e cigs have improved their health profiles. But over regulation will mean that down the line, I'll be asked to pay more money for the pleasure. Once again, the working American is going to get his pocket picked by grace of our wonderful govt.
Please. Leave it alone.
100
Yes, "This legislative brouhaha is all about Big Money and profits, and has nothing to do with health." The nicotine companies care nothing about peoples' health, they only want to sell more nicotine so they can reap the "Big Money and profits" you mentioned.
15
I'm happy you're no longer smoking cigarettes, for your own sake. But for the sake of my health and right to live and work without exposure to possibly harmful chemical plumes, I support the FDA's regulatory measures across the board.
Until and unless we know everything about what these products contain and how they may effect health, nobody should have to dodge e-cig exhalations on the street, sit next to "vaping" passengers on a train, or work in an office where using such devices is allowed.
Personally, I'm skeptical that a billion dollar product category from Big Tobacco is going to wind up being anything close to safe for human consumption. But let's do the tests and let science be the guide, not opinion and certainly not profits.
Until and unless we know everything about what these products contain and how they may effect health, nobody should have to dodge e-cig exhalations on the street, sit next to "vaping" passengers on a train, or work in an office where using such devices is allowed.
Personally, I'm skeptical that a billion dollar product category from Big Tobacco is going to wind up being anything close to safe for human consumption. But let's do the tests and let science be the guide, not opinion and certainly not profits.
31
And those of us who do not smoke at all just love walking through the clouds of pollutants you exhale each time you take a puff on your e-cig.
52
Marijuana is safe and you go to jail if you are caught with it.
Wonder why those of us who grew up in the 60s don't believe a lot of people?
And Pence, Trump's buddy, says that tobacco doesn't cause cancer.
{PEOPLE lie to us.