Friday, September 28, 2012

ANTZ CHECK #2: E-cigarette "candy" flavors target children

Follow my "ANTZ Check" Series as I "fact check" the various ways the ANTZ (Anti Nicotine and Tobacco Zealots) deceive the public about smoke-free alternatives. Each ANTZ Check will be for one specific lie to keep it short and simple (and easy to link to if you are in a debate or just looking for facts.)

Health groups, legislators and the FDA say e-cigarette liquids with flavors such as chocolate, grape and bubble gum are meant to entice youth into using the product. Of course, adult smokers are not interested in such sweet flavors.

ANTZ CHECK #1: E-cigarettes Contain Antifreeze

Follow my new "ANTZ Check" Series as I "fact check" the various ways the ANTZ (Anti Nicotine and Tobacco Zealots) deceive the public about smoke-free alternatives. Each ANTZ Check will be for one specific lie to keep it short and simple (and easy to link to if you are in a debate or just looking for facts.)

The Toxic Shocker: Using negative comparisons and analogy to make something sound more dangerous than it really is. Often uses scary-sounding chemical names.
In July 2009, the FDA held media briefing regarding the results of tests they performed on two brands of electronic cigarettes. Dr. Jonathan Samet, Director for the Institute for Global Health at the University of Southern California, stated, " one sample there the diethylene glycol (DEG) the presence of diethylene glycol was detected and this is a toxic of material somewhat akin to what is the ethylene glycols in antifreeze."

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

Imagine what would happen if all companies sold products like tobacco

In a  recent post, on the Legacy website, President and CEO of the Legacy Dr. Healton laments that there are no graphic label warnings in sight for tobacco products and writes, "One of my favorite truth® spots asks the American public to imagine what would happen if all companies sold products like tobacco. In such a world, the consumer protections we expect on items from lead paint in children’s toys to toxic ingredients would disappear. Yet, just when it seems like policy makers are making bold, historic moves to change the way our nation addresses our No. 1 preventable and needless cause of death, tobacco products continue to be treated as the exception to the basic principles of consumer protection."

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Glantz the ANTZ provides argument against his own agenda

Today I'm just sharing this excellent blog post by my fellow CASAA director, Dr. Carl Phillips:

Stanton Glantz declares that hospitality workers' exposure to ETS is not "involuntary"
[Note: This is a spinoff of this post at the anti-THR Lies blog, but (a) was slightly off topic for that blog and (b) deserves its own post. See the other post for complete background.]

In a recent blog post, Stanton Glantz, one of the most prolifically dishonest proponents of banning smoking everywhere, regardless of private preferences, declared "OSHA PEL is not an appropriate standard for involuntary exposure". He was arguing that OSHA workplace standards for chemical exposures are irrelevant to determining the acceptable level of environmental exposure from electronic cigarettes. In so doing he was grossly misrepresenting the arguments he was responding to (see the Lies post), but his statement, per se, was a valid one.

Funny thing though: The trouble with being willing to say anything to further one's political aims, regardless of whether it is honest or accurate, is that you eventually contradict yourself. Few people have the intelligence and intellectual discipline to lie all the time that without tripping themselves up.

Read full post > >

Friday, September 21, 2012

CDC continues to twist facts for ANTZ agenda

The CDC recently posted this on its Facebook page. I've never even tried a hookah and it only took me 10 minutes of research to find this out. I'm not trying to advocate for using hookahs, but the CDC should be telling people the TRUTH in their messages, not twisting it for its agenda. If it keeps doing this, people may no longer trust what they say at all.

Monday, September 17, 2012

Governments continue to support Big Pharma interests

Tobacco and e-cigarette users, who will be in violation of yet another proposed anti-tobacco consumer law, could face a maximum fine of $50 for a first offense and up to $100 for additional offenses committed within one year of a prior offense for using tobacco products and e-cigarettes on county property, including county vehicles and outdoors within 20 feet of an entrance.

A public hearing regarding the proposed law will be held at 6:30 p.m. Monday, Sept. 17 at 48 Court St., St. Lawrence County, New York. Products restricted under the law include any manufactured product containing tobacco or nicotine, including but not limited to cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, snuff, chewing tobacco, dipping tobacco, bidis, snus, dissolvable tobacco products, and electronic cigarette cartridges (but do not include nicotine products sold by pharmaceutical companies.)

According to the resolution, the law is designed to "protect public health, safety and general welfare by eliminating exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke and tobacco residue." ("Tobacco residue" is apparently the new code phrase for "third-hand smoke," which is a ridiculous theory that there is a significant health risk from smoke residue left on clothing, walls and furniture. However, the residue must first be mixed with a very specific chemical in order to become "activated" and potentially harmful.) Yet smoke-free products and e-cigarettes do not expose bystanders to second hand tobacco smoke or leave "tobacco residue."

Anti-smoking laws are seriously moving beyond the scope of scientific basis and the original intent of smoking bans. Anti-smoker groups justified smoking bans by using targeted research "proving" potential harm to bystanders from second-hand smoke. There is absolutely no scientific evidence of potential harm to bystanders to provide a basis for banning adult use of smoke-free tobacco and recreational nicotine products indoors, let alone outdoors. If a tobacco lozenge or snus packet kept inside the mouth created such risks to bystanders, would the same not apply to pharmaceutical nicotine lozenges and gums?

Additionally, it is common knowledge that pharmaceutical nicotine gums and lozenges are already frequently used as a tobacco substitute at times when smoking is prohibited. This means that they are no longer being used as a treatment, but in the same manner as any other recreational nicotine or tobacco product and that creates another lucrative market for pharmaceutical companies. Essentially, banning the use of smoke-free tobacco and e-cigarettes, but not pharmaceutical nicotine products, is akin to prohibiting the serving of vodka in favor of whiskey. Therefore, it is becoming increasingly obvious that these laws against smoke-free tobacco products and e-cigarettes are aimed solely at protecting pharmaceutical business interests, not public health.

Laws designed to protect public health are supposed to be based on at least some kind of scientific evidence or else corporate lobbyists and campaign contributions could easily pressure legislators and governments into passing laws which favor their products over a competitor's. Yet governments all over the country are banning public use of smoke-free tobacco products and e-cigarettes without any evidence they are a risk to bystanders, while still allowing the use of pharmaceutical nicotine products. This is a very slippery slope to be on. If you don't think that this unscientific behavior could transfer over to other products just go to New York, where you can no longer buy a 32 ounce soda, but you can still get a big ole' cup of apple juice (which contains just as much sugar and more calories than Coca-Cola.)

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

For 9/11

This is still one of the most endearing and iconic images for me of a horrible event.