Wisconsin smokers are quitting. The solution? Tax non-smokers.

In 1999, Wisconsin received $5.9 billion dollars in the national tobacco lawsuit and within 4 years it was all gone. That's because the state, facing the worst fiscal crisis in its history, had sold 25 years of tobacco payments for $1.3 billion to balance a single year's budget.

Since 2003, the percentage of adult smokers in Wisconsin has reduced from 22% to 20.6%. From 2005 to 2010, the net cigarette taxes collected more than doubled from $289 million to $595 million, while the total number of cigarette packs sold dropped from 414 million to 298 million. According to a 2011 report by the University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Control Program, no other source of state revenue has increased at that rate. "Revenue from tobacco (exclusive of revenue from tobacco bonds) is the fourth largest source of state revenue after sales, income and corporate taxes."

Today is World Vaping Day

E-cigarettes are saving adult smokers' lives. TODAY, 9/19/13, is World Vaping Day. Spread the TRUTH about e-cigarettes in your own way and show your support for fellow vapors around the world! http://www.world-vaping-day.com/

CASAA: New study confirms that chemicals in electronic cigarettes pose minimal health risk

PHILADELPHIA, Aug. 8, 2013/PRNewwire-USNewswire -- E-cigarette users can breathe a little easier today.  A study just released by Professor Igor Burstyn, Drexel University School of Public Health, confirms that chemicals in electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) pose no health concern for users or bystanders.  This is the first definitive study of e-cigarette chemistry and finds that there are no health concerns based on generally accepted exposure limits.  

E-cigarettes are devices that heat a nicotine solution to create an aerosol (called “vapor”) that the user inhales, similar to smoking a cigarette.  They are used as a low-risk substitute for smoking by millions of former smokers, and their increasing popularity seems to account for the current downward trend in smoking in the U.S. and some other countries.  While experts agree that the risks posed by e-cigarettes are significantly less than those posed by smoking, there had been some debate about how much lower the risk was.  

Are nicotine e-cigarettes a tobacco product?

I frequently see vapers arguing that e-cigarettes are not a "tobacco product," because they do not actually contain tobacco. They argue that nicotine e-cigarettes are not the same as tobacco or smoking cessation products and should have a classification all of their own.

However, nicotine isn't regulated in the U.S. by what form it takes, but instead by "intended use."

If the nicotine is contained in a product with an "intended use" as a smoking cessation or other treatment, it is then regulated as a "drug" and must go through clinical trials, studies, etc., and the product must meet strict manufacturing protocols before release to the public. If the nicotine is contained in a product with an intended use of "recreational" (ie. intended for human consumption but not as a treatment of any kind) it is regulated as a tobacco product. (A third classification is a pesticide, but that form of nicotine is not allowed for human consumption.)

Please. Just smoke already and quit lying.

Guns & Roses guitarist, DJ Ashba, reported to his fans on webstagram that the e-cigarette he bought at a Polish mall, which he reports he used for 9 months, contained "antifreeze which kills people;" and that his doctors told him to start smoking again, because "the nicotine intake that was going into [his] body" from the smoke-free e-cigarettes "was equivalent to smoking 33 packs of cigarettes a day."

Is distrusting the MHRA's regulation of e-cigarettes "conspiracy theories?"

Recently on a forum for e-cigarette enthusiasts, a commenter said he "saw no harm" in the move to regulate electronic cigarettes as medicine in the U.K., if what the MHRA was saying about just wanting to have e-cigarette companies "apply for licensing and to make sure the nic juices deliver consistent amounts of nicotine as advertised" was true. Apparently expecting doubt from other commenters that the MHRA was being forthright, the commenter said, "Conspiracy theorists have at it."

How is it a conspiracy theory, I asked? These people have 30 years of lying to the public about tobacco, nicotine and low risk alternatives as evidence they have no interest in telling the truth.

France: people still smoking, so ban using smoke-free e-cigarettes

"France will ban electronic cigarette smoking in public places by imposing the same curbs enforced since 2007 to combat tobacco smoking, Health Minister Marisol Touraine said on Friday." (Reuters)

Really? The 2007 smoking ban has been able to "combat tobacco smoking?" As usual, I did some research. (Unfortunately, it seemed impossible to find the French adult smoking rates from 2000 - 2012 online, so I went with the number of cigarettes sold as an indicator.)

From 2002 to 2007, the number of cigarettes sold in France declined 37.9%. Since the smoking ban was imposed in 2007, the number of cigarettes sold has declined only 7.5%, as of 2012. For the five years before the ban, the average drop in cigarette sales was 6.3% per year. After the ban, the annual decline has been 1.3% on average. (Source: French Observatory of Drugs and Drug Addiction, 2013 Edition) 

EU politician shows what governments really fear about e-cigarettes

Giancarlo Scottà, a member of the European Parliament from Italy, recently posted this question to his fellow EU  politicians:

"The consumption of traditional cigarettes provides the Member States with sizeable revenues, as a result of the substantial taxes to which they are subject. 

According to a recent report by ANSA (Italian news agency) of 21 April 2013, in the first two months of 2013 alone, Italy’s coffers registered a loss of EUR 132 million, corresponding to a fall in revenue from duty on tobacco of approximately 7.6%. Of course, this shortfall cannot be completely blamed on the increasing use of electronic cigarettes, but it is certainly partly responsible.  

In light of the above, can the Council state what action it intends to take to address the differences in tax revenue materialising in State coffers following the proliferation of electronic cigarettes, which currently appear to be free from any form of duty?"

E-cigarettes: the bad news is...
people are buying fewer cigarettes.

FDA: The hypocrisy continues

Below is an excerpt from a good article by Dr. Michael Siegel whose blog - "The Rest of the Story, Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary" often covers smoking harm reduction topics.

---

The Rest of the Story

Not only is the FDA spouting old tobacco industry propaganda for which the anti-smoking groups and federal government attacked the companies, but it is taking that deception of the American public to an even higher level. While the cigarette companies merely suggested that major changes in their products could make a cigarette safer, the FDA is stating that minuscule changes in a cigarette can make it safer than others on the market.

The ultimate irony here is that if the cigarette companies made precisely the same claim as the FDA, the agency and anti-smoking groups would be blasting the companies and probably would be preparing a lawsuit against them for racketeering and fraud....

Read Full Article >

The ANTZ smoking rate shell game

In 1990, the number of smokers was 45.8 million (25.5%). The Surgeon General announced the goal of reducing the smoking rate to 15% by 2000.
Cigarette Smoking Among Adults -- United States, 1990

By 2000, the number of smokers was 46.5 million (an increase of 700,000 smokers) but the "prevalence" or "rate" (percentage of adults smoking) was "reduced" to 23.3%. The ANTZ claimed their efforts were working - because the smoking rate was reduced from 25.5% to 23.3% - but they needed billions more in funding because the goal of 15% was still not reached. So a goal of a 12% smoking rate was set for 2010.
Cigarette Smoking Among Adults --- United States, 2000

Hard to stand on that imaginary 'slippery slope'

In 2006, Americans for Non-Smokers' Rights published a document titled "What To Expect From The Tobacco Industry." In it, the group claimed a "tactic" of the tobacco industry and it's supporters would be to "introduce other issues in a smoke-free air campaign to imply that the real problem is something other than secondhand smoke, and/or that the creation of smoke-free air is a “slippery slope” of government regulation. Smoke=free opponents will often exclaim, “What’s next? Cheeseburgers?” Cheeseburgers do not cause disease and death in non-cheeseburger eaters. The issue isn't about cheeseburgers, or even about smoking, per se. It’s about smoking in ways that harm other people. It’s about protecting innocent people who are being exposed to a leading cause of preventable death and disease."

New nicotine product shows ANTZ e-cigarette "hazards" hypocrisy

There are a few countries that have issued warnings or even banned electronic cigarettes for having potential public health hazards in the ingredients. Many use specific reasons as to why e-cigarettes pose such a risk:

Health Canada issued a warning about e-cigarettes stating that the device "delivers a liquid chemical mixture that may be composed of various amounts of nicotine, propylene glycol, and other chemicals. Nicotine is a highly addictive and toxic substance, and the inhalation of propylene glycol is a known irritant."

Vapers will need to step up now more than ever before

Despite the incredible promise that e-cigarettes hold for the millions of smokers in the U.S., the FDA has been decidedly hostile towards e-cigarettes and other reduced harm alternatives to smoking. The FDA attempted to characterize e-cigarettes as pharmaceutical products ,which would have resulted in a de facto ban. When that didn’t work, the FDA continued its war against tobacco harm reduction, misinforming the
public about the relative risks associated with e-cigarette use.

The FDA has announced that in April it will issue guidance on e-cigarettes and will regulate them as tobacco products. Depending on its approach, the FDA could effectively decimate the e-cigarette industry through excessive regulations. In light of the actions of the FDA to date, vapers should hold little hope that the FDA's proposed regulations will be reasonable.

Should people use e-cigarettes in public?

Yes!

The only way we'll get "the masses" to understand just how different e-cigarettes are from traditional cigarettes is for them to experience them up close and personal. Otherwise, all they have are pictures, which can't possibly convey how the vapor is non-irritating and basically odorless in an open setting where smoke may still bother them (ie., bar, restaurant, mall, park, pool, office.)

If you think of the fact that 99% of the support for laws against second hand smoke were passed based solely on the fact that people find it annoying (rather than any real proof of health risks,) it's the lack of annoyance factors that will "sell" e-cigarettes to non-smokers more than anything else. The only way to convince them that e-cigarette vapor won't annoy them is for them to actually experience it, because pictures and video just seem to show "smoking."