The E-cigarette vs. the FDA by Paul Fetters

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/fetters1.1.1.html

Paul Fetters, if you are reading this due to my link - THANK YOU.  I have to say you are well researched, articulate, and certainly call it like you see it.

And, you are right, in all counts.

The Rest of the Story Blog entry

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

Now, I've linked to this blog on those I'm following, but this one deserves special attention, simply because Dr. Mike Siegel wrote a potent statement (below).

When a product on the market is benefiting many people and leading to marked health improvement, the burden of proof is on those who want it removed from the market to demonstrate that the product is causing harm. This is why we err on the side of leaving products on the market until they are shown to be harmful. Since electronic cigarettes are already on the market, I feel that the same standard should hold. They should be removed from the market only if it is demonstrated that they are causing adverse effects. The burden of proof is on those who want the product removed.

THIS is the crux of the issue surrounding E-Cigs....that this is ALREADY an established market in the US, with 1000's of small vendors and resellers, and a customer base above 100,000 users in the US alone.  The FDA and the other alphabet-organizations would kill this industry in totality in their bid to squash the competition these products offer against the giants at Big Pharma.

An alternative that works.  That breaks the cycle of quit, smoke, quit, smoke, quit, smoke, which lines the pockets of Pharma with its ineffective smoking cessation products, tobacco with sales of its deadly cigarettes, and our Government, which taxes heavily and uses the funds to shore up its own ineptitude in managing the rightfully-collected taxes every citizen must pay.

Wauwatosa Potential Nicotine ban

Got some potentially bad news today in the form of this article:

http://www.wauwatosanow.com/news/98420549.html

'Tosa (which isn't that far away from me) is considering strengthening their smoking policies for City Workers.  Well, that's good, to a point, but the way they're going about it has me worried...first, the inconsistencies in their approach.

They quote the damage from second-hand smoke (SHS) as their major reason for considering tightening up their policy.  Well, first, any anti-smoking ordinance is going to quote the old standby of SHS, the clean air act, and all that rot.  The SHS mythos has gotten a lot of mileage, and, while I don't deny that there are people out there who are, indeed, extremely sensitive to SHS, I seriously get tired of the exaggerations.  There are militant groups such as ASH who claim that as little as a 30 minute exposure to SHS will have an otherwise healthy individual dropping dead of a heart attack, and this is what is fueling most of the hatred.

Let's keep it real, people.  SHS is NOT as dangerous as it's being made out to be to the general population.

Need to get back on point.  The inconsistencies.  Their primary focus is SHS - but then they go on to include smokeless tobacco products and non-smoking alternatives such as my PV in their ban.  Tell me how these products affect clean air?  Anyone?

I hear crickets.

If they want to focus on the last remaining smokers to force them to quit their habit, they realistically have to look at the history of the anti-smoking movement, and see what it has done before.  Education.  Scare tactics.  Demonization and denormalization.  For the smokers that are left, die hard, loyal to their products, and more than a bit armored against all the social engineering aimed at them already, these aren't going to work...they haven't worked so far, what makes anyone think their going to work now???

These last remaining smokers are, in other terms, the antibiotic-resistant strain of bacteria, the 'super virus's' of the world of nicotine/tobacco use.  They will not give up their vice.  Period.  Some simply need the nicotine to function, some are just stubborn, and some have the whole REBEL thing down to a science.  They've taken the anti's 'quit or die' approach with zeal, and are committed to DYING for their cigs.

Clearly, the force has met the irresistible object.  Neither are willing to concede defeat...and so the dance goes on in all its macabre glory.

If this country truly wants to eliminate smoking in the US, they need to switch tactics.  The education has happened.  Everyone, everywhere, is aware of the dangers of smoking.  The health risks.  The denormalization, the demonification of these products.

We get it.....smoking is BAAAAAAAAAD.

The tobacco giants finally get it, too...they are starting to develop and sell alternate products - American snus is gaining popularity.  E-Cigs are starting to go mainstream.  Camel's putting the orbs, sticks, and strips in test markets.  ALL these products are developed as alternatives to smoking, safer by far, because none of them involve lighting a carbon-based substance on fire, and sucking the results of that combustion into your lungs, and NONE of them share those hazardous by-products with bystanders around them.

We need our Gov't to embrace these new products.  Push them as alternatives, cheaper and acceptable.  Educate the population that there are products out there that CAN still give smokers the taste, actions, and nicotine spikes in their bloodstreams that they need, want, desire, and wish to continue doing, while minimizing the risks and eliminating the social stigmas attached to smoking.

They give smokers these alternatives, and they'll see the smoking rates decline rapidly, without all those messy side effects, like death.

It's called compromise, and needs to be on both sides of the fence.  Smokers need to use these alternative products.  Gov't needs to embrace them.

CTFK CNN Opinion Piece

This article, showing up in today's CNN Opinion section, is written by Matthew Meyers, who is the President of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (CTFK).
Here's the article:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/06/29/myers.big.tobacco/

I'll take his rantings and give you my own (ok, I'm biased, and I'll admit it here, as I consider him to be one of the biggest Tobacco-haters out there, next to Banzaff at ASH) opinions.

The Supreme Court's decision puts the responsibility squarely on elected officials to eliminate the tobacco industry's harmful influence and take effective action to protect the nation's health.

Ok.  Now, this is scary.  Screaming out for the need for the members of the Hill to rise up and protect us all from the evil Tobacco Empire?  Shouldn't the consumers do that, by simple marketplace choice?  But, no, wait....we don't have that option anymore.  We're now supposed to let our elected officials do the thinking for us.  Can you say 'Nanny state?'

Congress and the Obama administration should fund a national public education and stop-smoking campaign, and the Food and Drug Administration must effectively exercise its new authority to regulate tobacco products.

Personally, I think there isn't a person on the face of this planet who DOESN'T know at this point that smoking is dangerous, addictive, and has a 50-50 chance of killing you prematurely.  Do we REALLY need to fund additional educational and stop-smoking campaigns?  Hmmm.  From the perspective of CTFK, I'd say yes....because at least a portion of that funding will go into their coffers.

And the FDA exerting its newly-gained authority to regulate tobacco products?  They've done a bang-up job of it so far...banning those dangerous 'candy-flavored cigarettes!!!' that less than 5% of the current smoking population used, restricting advertising further, and flatly refusing to educate the public on the concept of Reduced Harm Tobacco Products.

Tell me, please, how burying the truth, that not all tobacco products carry the same risk, is this protecting the public?

As smoking rates have declined and restrictions on smoking have multiplied, the industry has introduced new smokeless tobacco products and significantly increased marketing for them. Some of these products look like candy, are flavored like candy and have colorful packaging like candy. They are easily concealed in settings such as classrooms.

Even as the FDA begins to exercise its new authority over tobacco products, the industry concocts new schemes to thwart the regulations.

Far be it from me to criticize what the CFTK is telling me (no, wait.....I WILL criticize) but it sounds like the tobacco industry is simply trying to re-invent its product lines to REDUCE the harm of combustible cigarettes - just as countless other industries have done when society or technology makes their products unfavorable or obsolete.

And speaking of these new.....candy-like nicotine products....has anyone had a chance to look over the new Nicorette Mini-lozenges?  Why aren't our friends at CTFK denouncing THESE products as well...after all, they come in mint flavors, a convenient package, look like a breath mint, contain nicotine, and are available OTC.

Where are the crys of 'WE MUST PROTECT THE CHILDREN FROM THIS POISON-LACED CANDY!!!'

Oh yea, that's right...they're not being denounced because they are made by our friends at Big Pharma, and they have NOTHING but your health on their minds, don't ya know......

Pffffft!  The bias is screaming to our population.

The tobacco industry spends nearly $13 billion annually -- $35 million every single day -- to market its deadly and addictive products.

So?  How much money is dumped into advertising campaigns for new drugs, which later have to be pulled from the marketplace because of 'unforeseen adverse side-effects.'  How much money is dumped into advertising for alcohol - another highly-addictive substance sold for legal consumption to informed adults, for food products with a high-level of allergens, for automobiles that kill millions of people every year, for........well, you get my point.


I, for one, am tired of the 'damned if they do, damned if they don't' mentality of the anti-smoking crowd.  Their mission has changed for the worse.

They are hell-bent not on protecting the innocent public, but punishing the guilty Tobacco Giants.  Can you see the harm in this shift in thought?

Dr. Gupta Mentions E-Cigs in his Blog

There was an article today in Dr. Gupta's blog regarding my toys - one that I simply was moved to reply to....and I wasn't the only vaper who was so inspired.  Before I forget - here's the article:  Paging Dr. Gupta

And here's my response to his article.

Well, I'd say the FDA has certainly gotten fair value for the dollar on that alarmist press release they put out last summer. The misinformation simply continues to spread like wildfire – and everything points back to the source of things as that press release. Not the STUDY – the PRESS RELEASE.

I am not a member of CASAA. I do not get any financing from any E-Cig manufacturer, anti-smoking charity organization, tobacco manufacturer, or government agency. I am simply a consumer of these products.

Personally, I think its a shame and a tragedy that the PRESS RELEASE is what is so devastating in defining both professional and private public opinions on the E-Cig. If anyone were interested, they can find information on these products readily available on the web, and you can easily confirm that information with several different sources. But, alas, it is not the case...it is simply easier to take one small piece of misinformation and run with it.

I remember when research in this country used to mean something...that people, both in their private lives and their professional ones, would take the time to examine the situation from multiple angles BEFORE voicing a solid opinion.

Nowadays, its degenerated into nothing more than knee-jerk reactions and the parroting of misinformation created by those who would control the masses with emotionally-laden alarmist statements.

Smoke Free Wisconsin Needs Education

SmokeFree Wisconsin does not like the PV (big surprise, there) and they have a habit of not publishing comments that are unfavorable to their position on their blog. I've since become inspired again to leave a comment on their blog regarding their last entry against E-Cigarettes. Any bets on whether or not they'll allow it to be published?

Nonetheless, the words were, in my opinion (and I'm the author, so I'm biased here) powerful, and I thought I'd share them with you even if SFW doesn't feel the need to.

The post, and reply, are here:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=2397141130780617925&postID=1917467756665836296&page=1&token=1274240879376_AIe9_BFMZLr8yak8lKCZ2DhMs6rdtiibYXtk9efgSbQBQOfIPoJ2T_CQ_pyZL_B_LcTj-HJ7ql3cRYR8QcFY8VXFaa8XwRGlCOeAD3zkVQNjGNzaPAXqRW3EyhuWZlk4TlwhYsie-cAPmd_NKHy21PIWcGlM3D42_jVNmprIDT2Keh_v7I82Yx8h9l-djLT9pP_-RIMDoeMmoTAI5T9KTjgUS75JQsyiXkXTW814FnCptQbF9yLJwFXhRy0b7vA-lCkVeX_uJRi4

Basically, they are lauding CTFK's disgust at the Honorable Judge Leon's ruling for PV's in January.

And this would be my reply:

Ok, Erich. I've got a few things to point out in your Feb. 8 response to John Richards.

First and formost - disconnect E-Cigarettes from the Tobacco Giants. Completely. The E-Cig is C.O.M.P.E.T.I.T.I.O.N. to Big Tobacco. They'd like nothing more than to see a product that works for the bulk of smokers as an alternative to their deadly products removed from the market and buried completely.

Second, nicotine is not the bad guy here. Nicotine gets a bad rap because of it's traditional delivery device: Cigarettes. If nicotine was so dangerous, so horrible a chemical, would it be approved for usage by the Pharmaceutical Giants? Nicotine helps increase cognitive function, can help adults with AD/HD self-medicate their disease, and shows promising in lessening the impact of Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases. http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/other/nicotine.htm

Third, you state that these products have not been proven better or healthier. Again, there are studies, including the one by the FDA, that show that the E-Cig is, indeed, safer than the product they are intended to replace: CIGARETTES.

http://vapersclub.com/safe.html This website provides plenty of information on E-Cigs. I implore you to browse this, and come to an informed opinion of the product instead of relying on half-truths and media 'spin.'

Thank you for your time.

A New Cessation Device brought to you by Pharma

Someone pointed me in the direction of this rather interesting article:

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2010/03/11/New-cessation-therapy-more-like-smoking/UPI-18501268337795

This Pharma house is working on developing a new nicotine delivery system - all well and good, that's what a Pharma house does, continuing to develop new chemical compounds to help us all live longer, more productive lives. But I'm reading between the lines, here, and coming up with some interesting conclusions all on my own.

...have been developing a method to deliver nicotine to the lungs that recreates some of the familiar sensations pleasurable to smokers.


"We wanted to replicate the experience of smoking without incurring the dangers associated with cigarettes, and we wanted to do so more effectively than the nicotine replacement therapies currently on the market," Jed Rose, director of the Duke Center for Nicotine and Smoking Cessation Research, says in a statement.

Bully for them. A 'safer' smoking experience is what they're after, one that emulates smoking without the actual combustion, delivers nicotine deep in the lung, and gives the smoker the feel of smoking. As an aside, I'll also read into this statement admission that the current NRT's on the market have room for improvement.

Got news for them: the Electronic Cigarette already does these things, and does them well.

Let's take a look at what's in these, though:

http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20100227/new-nicotine-inhaler-may-help-smokers-quit

The device they came up with does not use fire or heat. Instead, as the smoker draws air through the cigarette-shaped device, a chemical called pyruvic acid is drawn into contact with nicotine, creating a cloud of nicotine pyruvate vapor.

Ok. Pyruvate acid. What are the known dangers of that? Let's check the MSDS (Material Safety Data Sheet)

"Potential Acute Health Effects:
Very hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation. Hazardous in case of skin contact (corrosive), of eye contact (corrosive). Liquid or spray mist may produce tissue damage
particularly on mucous membranes of eyes, mouth and respiratory tract."

Yea, I think I'd really like to be putting that in my lungs.

The new inhaler was studied by Health New Zealand, http://www.healthnz.co.nz/ - last year for Dr. Jed Rose - the results of that study are soon to be published, giving documentation needed for the Pharma House to gain approval for it through the FDA. The picture on HNZ's website shows a large, vapor-spewing device. The product hasn't even been manufactured as a cigarette-sized delivery device yet. Statements included in the study claim that the inhaler will be on the market within 3-5 years - fast-tracked through the approval process by the weight of Big Pharma.

So Pharma is developing a device that will LOOK like a cigarette, create a visible vapor LIKE A CIGARETTE, and will deliver nicotine in the lungs LIKE A CIGARETTE.

Sounds an awful lot like the PV's we use today. Where are the anti-smokers? Why aren't the ALA, the ACA, the CTFK, ASH and others denouncing these products? Oh, My, God, these might tempt children to try them. This might re-normalize the ACT of smoking. Current smokers might be confused by these cigarette-shaped objects, and light up in a non-smoking area, flooding the area with their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th hand smoke! These may become a gateway to regular tobacco use!

Not surprisingly, I hear nothing.......It's amazing what the right amount of money and influence can bring you, and these anti-smoking organizations get a LOT of money from the Pharma industry.

I'm very tired of the Corporations eliminating their competiton by using our Government as the bully to do its dirty work.