Friday, September 21, 2012
CDC continues to twist facts for ANTZ agenda
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.)
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
Friday, August 10, 2012
Hey NAQC, your hypocrisy is showing!
Imagine this - the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives holds a tobacco harm reduction conference, which turns out to be largely sponsored by Lorillard, R.J Reynolds and Ariva. Since CASAA already promotes the use of smoke-free alternative products such as those made by these companies (e-cigarettes, strips, sticks, snus and lozenges), no big deal, right? How do you think the anti-tobacco groups would react to finding this out? Do you think we would see numerous press releases about CASAA containing phrases like "paid shills" and "conflict of interest?"
Now take a look at the original commentary and the follow up commentary by Dr. Michael Siegel, regarding the sponsorship of the North American Quitline Consortium's (NAQC) upcoming conference by three makers of nicotine addiction/cessation products: Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis. Dr. Siegel points out that the NAQC conference will "include discussion of strategies for ensuring the effectiveness of quitlines. This encompasses important issues, such as the use of nicotine replacement therapy and other smoking cessation drugs in quitline advice."
Yet, NAQC's president and CEO, Linda Bailey, practically bristles at the idea that there is any conflict of interest with "partnering" with these companies and responds that NAQC is "proud to have them on-board" and looks forward "to working with these partners in the pharmaceutical industry to advance NAQC’s mission." The conference organizers take great pains in utilizing the phrase "evidence-based quitline services," but one would naturally question who is providing the "evidence" on the effectiveness of NRT and other nicotine addiction treatments? Of course, insisting on "evidence-based" products also allows them an excuse for ignoring other products that may be better for the smoker who cannot or will not quit tobacco products.
Ms. Bailey states, "FDA-approved cessation medications are well-accepted evidence-based treatments for cessation. They are included as part of the U.S. Public Health Service’s Guideline on Tobacco Cessation Treatment. Currently, 75 percent of all U.S. quitlines provide medications along with counseling services. We hope to report 100 percent of quitlines are providing cessation medications to smokers in the near future. Providing medications as part of a quitline’s treatment protocol increases the likelihood that smokers will successfully quit." So, essentially, the goal is to get all smokers buying or receiving taxpayer-funded NRT products and pharmaceutical companies would have no interest in financially supporting this goal?
Remember that the FDA approves NRT and other nicotine addiction treatments based on submitted research and testing paid for by the company seeking drug approval and "effectiveness" is basically based upon outperforming a placebo by the smallest of margins. The drug companies pay the FDA to be tested and are usually approved. (A former FDA boss, who went on to work for a drug company, was quoted by whistle blower Dr. David Graham as stating that the drug industry is the FDA's client, not the American consumer.) It seems obvious that only after being released to the public and after numerous reports of adverse health effects does the FDA pull a drug from the market and seriously review it. (Don't forget - industry-funded testing of tobacco products which don't support the ANTZ prohibitionist agenda, including e-cigarettes, is always "suspect" and always dismissed as "biased.") Also, while participants in smoking cessation trials are typically highly motivated to quit, the vast majority still relapse back to smoking. These are the "evidenced-based treatments" NAQC promotes and defends.
While CASAA and other tobacco harm reduction advocates can show similar (and much more concrete) scientific, "evidence-based" reasons for recommending smoke-free tobacco products for harm reduction, they know that the second they take money from any tobacco company, the accusations of "paid shills" and "conflict of interest" will start flying from groups such as NAQC. (Indeed, they get such accusations even without tobacco industry funding.) Yet, NAQC's receipt of money from pharmaceutical companies is somehow different, because (apparently) the pharmaceutical industry is nothing like "Big Tobacco." The pharmaceutical industry would never put a drug on the market that harms consumers.It would never exaggerate the effectiveness of its drugs (NRT treatments fail 97% of the time.) It would never lie about that drug or deny the danger to protect its profits. The FDA would never allow a dangerous product (Chantix) on the market that needs to have "black box" warnings added after the fact, right? So, anything the pharmaceutical industry says and sells can be trusted, because it only has our best interests at heart rather than making a buck - or billions of bucks, to be more accurate.
It astounds me that they cannot see their own hypocrisy. Then again, maybe they can, but it simply better fits their ANTZ agenda to pretend it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, the rest of the public seems happy to oblige the delusion.
 |
| "Talk to the hand." says NAQC |
Yet, NAQC's president and CEO, Linda Bailey, practically bristles at the idea that there is any conflict of interest with "partnering" with these companies and responds that NAQC is "proud to have them on-board" and looks forward "to working with these partners in the pharmaceutical industry to advance NAQC’s mission." The conference organizers take great pains in utilizing the phrase "evidence-based quitline services," but one would naturally question who is providing the "evidence" on the effectiveness of NRT and other nicotine addiction treatments? Of course, insisting on "evidence-based" products also allows them an excuse for ignoring other products that may be better for the smoker who cannot or will not quit tobacco products.
Ms. Bailey states, "FDA-approved cessation medications are well-accepted evidence-based treatments for cessation. They are included as part of the U.S. Public Health Service’s Guideline on Tobacco Cessation Treatment. Currently, 75 percent of all U.S. quitlines provide medications along with counseling services. We hope to report 100 percent of quitlines are providing cessation medications to smokers in the near future. Providing medications as part of a quitline’s treatment protocol increases the likelihood that smokers will successfully quit." So, essentially, the goal is to get all smokers buying or receiving taxpayer-funded NRT products and pharmaceutical companies would have no interest in financially supporting this goal?
Remember that the FDA approves NRT and other nicotine addiction treatments based on submitted research and testing paid for by the company seeking drug approval and "effectiveness" is basically based upon outperforming a placebo by the smallest of margins. The drug companies pay the FDA to be tested and are usually approved. (A former FDA boss, who went on to work for a drug company, was quoted by whistle blower Dr. David Graham as stating that the drug industry is the FDA's client, not the American consumer.) It seems obvious that only after being released to the public and after numerous reports of adverse health effects does the FDA pull a drug from the market and seriously review it. (Don't forget - industry-funded testing of tobacco products which don't support the ANTZ prohibitionist agenda, including e-cigarettes, is always "suspect" and always dismissed as "biased.") Also, while participants in smoking cessation trials are typically highly motivated to quit, the vast majority still relapse back to smoking. These are the "evidenced-based treatments" NAQC promotes and defends.
While CASAA and other tobacco harm reduction advocates can show similar (and much more concrete) scientific, "evidence-based" reasons for recommending smoke-free tobacco products for harm reduction, they know that the second they take money from any tobacco company, the accusations of "paid shills" and "conflict of interest" will start flying from groups such as NAQC. (Indeed, they get such accusations even without tobacco industry funding.) Yet, NAQC's receipt of money from pharmaceutical companies is somehow different, because (apparently) the pharmaceutical industry is nothing like "Big Tobacco." The pharmaceutical industry would never put a drug on the market that harms consumers.It would never exaggerate the effectiveness of its drugs (NRT treatments fail 97% of the time.) It would never lie about that drug or deny the danger to protect its profits. The FDA would never allow a dangerous product (Chantix) on the market that needs to have "black box" warnings added after the fact, right? So, anything the pharmaceutical industry says and sells can be trusted, because it only has our best interests at heart rather than making a buck - or billions of bucks, to be more accurate.
It astounds me that they cannot see their own hypocrisy. Then again, maybe they can, but it simply better fits their ANTZ agenda to pretend it doesn't exist. Unfortunately, the rest of the public seems happy to oblige the delusion.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Smokers are not a lost cause
Have you ever noticed that the advice given by ANTZ and health groups is "for smokers who want to quit, use FDA-approved products?" The key words are "want to quit." They don't even bother anymore for the "lost causes" who have no intention of quitting. They always claim that 3/4 of smokers "want to quit," but they never bother to find out if those who express the desire to "quit" would really rather not, but just do not want to die. That may be a huge reason for why so many smokers who "want to quit" never even make the attempt or fail if they try.
Think of it in terms of VD or AIDS. Most people don't want to get those diseases, but they don't really want to give up sex, either. If health groups had convinced the world that the only way to avoid those diseases and the certainty of dying was complete abstinence (rather than the policy they actually took - harm reduction,) how many people would say they "want" to remain abstinent, simply meaning they want to live? How many people would succumb to social pressure of giving up something they enjoy rather than being made a pariah for their reckless and dangerous behavior of continuing to have sex?
Smokers have been socially pressured into giving up something many, if not most, enjoy and made to feel shame for admitting they enjoy it and would rather not quit. But they don't want to die, either. Yet instead of promoting harm reduction for those people, the health groups have lied to them and said their only choice is tobacco/nicotine abstinence or death. Consequently, the public believes tobacco/nicotine users are reckless and fools to even consider using any kind of tobacco or nicotine, regardless of the true risks.
It'd be like telling people using condoms (instead of abstinence) that condoms aren't a guarantee against disease and using them could lead to reckless behavior like NOT using one or that it could break, so they need to give up sex or die. Condoms are not a safe alternative! They would have basically told people who still want to have sex that it doesn't matter if they use a condom or not. The public and health groups today would see that as something ridiculous and unethical to say, yet it is exactly what they are telling people who want/need to use tobacco/nicotine.
There are millions of smoke-free tobacco users and e-cig users who still feel pressure and guilt to give up something that is low risk and that they enjoy because of the "quit or die trying" mantra of the ANTZ. You are not a bad person because you enjoy or need nicotine or the activity of "smoking." The people would have you believe that your "addiction" is somehow a testament to your "lower moral character" are hypocrites who most certainly have their own, socially accepted "crutch." Don't let them get to you.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Why do vapers still believe Big Tobacco is 'evil?'
With the recent announcement from Blu Electronic Cigarettes that it has been sold to Lorillard Tobacco company, panic seems to be spreading through the e-cigarette community. Many vapers seem to harbor a hatred for "Big Tobacco" and have expressed disgust, outrage, distrust and fear that the industry will now turn e-cigarettes into what they were trying to escape. Here are some personal thoughts about the situation that I posted on a community forum, in response to comments that Big Tobacco was not to be trusted with e-cigarettes:
Do you still buy products from the automobile industry? Did you know the automobile industry knew that seat belts and air bags would save lives, yet fought having them be mandatory in cars? Or they knew for 30 years about the problem of spontaneous acceleration, yet covered it up and continues to deny it?
Do you still buy medications - both prescription and over the counter? Yet everyone has heard of the myriad of denials and cover ups made over the years by Big Pharma - Chantix, Avandia, Paxil - were all killing people and BP lied, denied and hide the facts. Still, people do not claim BP knowingly tried to kill people.
The denials and cover up of "Big Tobacco" were no different or worse than any of those perpetrated by other industries, yet they are still vilified while other companies get a free pass time and again. The fact is, while smoking is highly dangerous, it doesn't kill every user or even most users; there are more people today who have quit smoking than smoke and anyone who has ever smoked cannot pretend that they didn't feel the negative effects of smoking on their body and believed it was still good for them or perfectly safe. Those tobacco executives who participated in that cover up and denial are long gone. It's a well-known fact that smoking can be bad for you and has been since the 1950's, but so are a lot of other things that are sold to people today. It's fully informed, personal choice now whether or not to take the risk and has been for some time. It was well known in the 1980's when I made the choice to start smoking - whether the tobacco companies admitted it was addictive or not. The tobacco companies weren't knowingly "trying to kill" me, because I shouldn't have started smoking in the first place.
Remember when opposition started coming out against e-cigarettes and everyone assumed it was big, evil tobacco trying to eliminate the competition? Remember how shocked we all were that it wasn't Big Tobacco, but all of the health groups who we thought would now be happy that we didn't smoke anymore? Remember how interesting it was to find out that so many of those opposing health groups were in the pocket of Big Pharma?
Now think of this: Once it was obvious e-cigarettes were here to stay, either Big Pharma or Big Tobacco were bound to get into the e-cigarette industry. It was inevitable. Which would you trust more to handle that business now?
An industry which was called out 30 years ago for refusing to admit what everyone already knew anyhow - that smoking wasn't good for you and was potentially addicting; has made attempts to create safer products for its consumers; is under great public scrutiny and is sympathetic to people who want to use tobacco/nicotine products recreationally and without being vilified and ostracized by society?
Or an industry that has secretly been behind all of the lies about e-cigarettes and smokeless alternatives; lied to get smokers/vapers banned from just about everywhere; financially supported groups that made smokers, tobacco users and nicotine users social pariahs in order to guilt them into buying their gums and patches and increase their profits; lied about and/or hid the relative safety of smoke-free alternatives (effectively killing millions of smokers who would have otherwise switched); perpetuated the "quit or die" standard in order to sell more gums and patches and increase their profits; lied and/or hid the dangerous effects of Chantix; lied and/or hid the fact that NRT are highly ineffective, yet continue to tell people they are "safe and effective, so use them instead of smoke-free alternatives," which is effectively keeping smokers smoking (and endangering their health) every time the gums and patches fail?
You could say "neither," but then all you would be left with the e-cigarette industry, which is unorganized, unregulated, fly-by-night; has largely refused to step up and implement the most basic manufacturing and ethical sales standards in nearly 10 years; has been largely MIA in the fight against bans, taxes and sales restrictions and has only one representative organization that is apparently willing to throw everyone else under the bus to make their business model of the pre-filled, tobacco flavored carto the FDA standard.
It baffles me how vapers continue to see Big Tobacco as some inherently untrustworthy and unethical entity knowing what Big Pharma and the ANTZ groups have perpetrated over the past 30 years - lying and covering up the facts- at the expense of public health, in order to make a billions in profits. Especially since it was the ANTZ who have worked tirelessly to provide the "evidence" to demonize the tobacco industry in the eyes of the public (for doing exactly the same thing) and giving smokers a reason not to hold themselves accountable for their own actions.
Think about it - everything you know, all of the evidence about Big Tobacco, came from the same people who are now telling the public that "Big E-cigarettes" are targeting kids with the tasty flavors that no adult would use; contain anti-freeze, other toxic chemicals and carcinogens; are possibly more addicting than cigarettes; that vapers are just underhandedly trying to circumvent smoking bans and their vapor could be harmful to bystanders, so the industry is lobbying legislators to keep it legal to use publicly. They are twisting the facts, exaggerating, guessing and even telling outright lies to protect their profits. Doesn't that make you the least bit suspicious about what they've been telling you about Big Tobacco?
Opinions posted on this blog are those solely of the author(s) and do not represent the opinon, views or policy of any organization or company with which the author(s) may be otherwise associated.
Do you still buy products from the automobile industry? Did you know the automobile industry knew that seat belts and air bags would save lives, yet fought having them be mandatory in cars? Or they knew for 30 years about the problem of spontaneous acceleration, yet covered it up and continues to deny it?
Do you still buy medications - both prescription and over the counter? Yet everyone has heard of the myriad of denials and cover ups made over the years by Big Pharma - Chantix, Avandia, Paxil - were all killing people and BP lied, denied and hide the facts. Still, people do not claim BP knowingly tried to kill people.
The denials and cover up of "Big Tobacco" were no different or worse than any of those perpetrated by other industries, yet they are still vilified while other companies get a free pass time and again. The fact is, while smoking is highly dangerous, it doesn't kill every user or even most users; there are more people today who have quit smoking than smoke and anyone who has ever smoked cannot pretend that they didn't feel the negative effects of smoking on their body and believed it was still good for them or perfectly safe. Those tobacco executives who participated in that cover up and denial are long gone. It's a well-known fact that smoking can be bad for you and has been since the 1950's, but so are a lot of other things that are sold to people today. It's fully informed, personal choice now whether or not to take the risk and has been for some time. It was well known in the 1980's when I made the choice to start smoking - whether the tobacco companies admitted it was addictive or not. The tobacco companies weren't knowingly "trying to kill" me, because I shouldn't have started smoking in the first place.
Because of the general mistrust of tobacco companies, Lorillard has to know it will be under extreme scrutiny - something other e-cigarette companies haven't had to deal with...yet. If anything, Lorillard will be motivated to produce the cleanest, safest e-liquid possible because of that scrutiny - and they'll probably promote that fact. (From my understanding, the deal with Johnson Creek is not going to end anytime soon anyhow.) Additionally, unlike with tobacco - which has thousands of NATURAL ingredients within which to hide the toxic additives people believe are added to cigarettes - it would be very difficult to add toxic chemicals to something that basically has only 3 or 4 "generally regarded as safe" ingredients without being discovered.
As far as prices, Lorillard has the ability to make much larger purchases and negotiate prices with manufacturers - which will help them compete and keep prices low. I'm sure they are well aware that the high costs of regular cigarettes, a lot due to taxation, is partly why people quit smoking or switch to e-cigarettes and keeping the cost low is a strong selling point. It also gives them incentive to fight unjustified sin taxes on e-cigarettes - something that will benefit the industry as a whole.
The whole point of e-cigarettes for most people are low health risks and low price. It would be counter-productive for Lorillard to buy into the industry and remove those two greater incentives. It would be like large food company buying a popular and successful organic health food company and changing all of the ingredients to be non-organic and full of preservatives, fat and sugar. Why would anyone buy their product then?? It just wouldn't make sense.
There is the risk that Lorillard will try to negotiate with the FDA (like Philip Morris did with the FSPTCA), resulting in regulations that could essentially wipe out anything other than a blu-style device, pre-filled cartos and tobacco flavors and acquiesce sin taxes and public use bans. I can guess that CASAA would NOT support that! I hope they truly understand how vapers are a different breed - we won't go quietly into the night like we did as smokers. Lorillard needs to understand that they have a really great market with the starter vapers and don't need to destroy the cottage companies that specialize in the upgrade devices and boutique liquids. They will see a lot of consumer backlash if they attempt to move against those types of products and I will be out front leading the charge if I have to!
There is the risk that Lorillard will try to negotiate with the FDA (like Philip Morris did with the FSPTCA), resulting in regulations that could essentially wipe out anything other than a blu-style device, pre-filled cartos and tobacco flavors and acquiesce sin taxes and public use bans. I can guess that CASAA would NOT support that! I hope they truly understand how vapers are a different breed - we won't go quietly into the night like we did as smokers. Lorillard needs to understand that they have a really great market with the starter vapers and don't need to destroy the cottage companies that specialize in the upgrade devices and boutique liquids. They will see a lot of consumer backlash if they attempt to move against those types of products and I will be out front leading the charge if I have to!
Remember when opposition started coming out against e-cigarettes and everyone assumed it was big, evil tobacco trying to eliminate the competition? Remember how shocked we all were that it wasn't Big Tobacco, but all of the health groups who we thought would now be happy that we didn't smoke anymore? Remember how interesting it was to find out that so many of those opposing health groups were in the pocket of Big Pharma?
Now think of this: Once it was obvious e-cigarettes were here to stay, either Big Pharma or Big Tobacco were bound to get into the e-cigarette industry. It was inevitable. Which would you trust more to handle that business now?
An industry which was called out 30 years ago for refusing to admit what everyone already knew anyhow - that smoking wasn't good for you and was potentially addicting; has made attempts to create safer products for its consumers; is under great public scrutiny and is sympathetic to people who want to use tobacco/nicotine products recreationally and without being vilified and ostracized by society?
 |
| Original Artwork: Mike Keefe, The Denver Post |
You could say "neither," but then all you would be left with the e-cigarette industry, which is unorganized, unregulated, fly-by-night; has largely refused to step up and implement the most basic manufacturing and ethical sales standards in nearly 10 years; has been largely MIA in the fight against bans, taxes and sales restrictions and has only one representative organization that is apparently willing to throw everyone else under the bus to make their business model of the pre-filled, tobacco flavored carto the FDA standard.
It baffles me how vapers continue to see Big Tobacco as some inherently untrustworthy and unethical entity knowing what Big Pharma and the ANTZ groups have perpetrated over the past 30 years - lying and covering up the facts- at the expense of public health, in order to make a billions in profits. Especially since it was the ANTZ who have worked tirelessly to provide the "evidence" to demonize the tobacco industry in the eyes of the public (for doing exactly the same thing) and giving smokers a reason not to hold themselves accountable for their own actions.
Think about it - everything you know, all of the evidence about Big Tobacco, came from the same people who are now telling the public that "Big E-cigarettes" are targeting kids with the tasty flavors that no adult would use; contain anti-freeze, other toxic chemicals and carcinogens; are possibly more addicting than cigarettes; that vapers are just underhandedly trying to circumvent smoking bans and their vapor could be harmful to bystanders, so the industry is lobbying legislators to keep it legal to use publicly. They are twisting the facts, exaggerating, guessing and even telling outright lies to protect their profits. Doesn't that make you the least bit suspicious about what they've been telling you about Big Tobacco?
Opinions posted on this blog are those solely of the author(s) and do not represent the opinon, views or policy of any organization or company with which the author(s) may be otherwise associated.
Friday, April 20, 2012
American Legacy Foundation Called for Removal of E-Cigarettes from Market Without Disclosing its Financial Ties to Big Pharma
Dr. Michael Siegel
Boston University School of Public Health
The American Legacy Foundation released a policy statement on electronic cigarettes, in which it called for the removal of these products from the market. The statement was entitled "The FDA Should Take Electronic Cigarettes Off The Market Until It Is Satisfied That They Are Safe and Effective."
According to the statement: "While we remain open to promising products that can help smokers quit smoking, a consideration of all of the available evidence combined with important unanswered questions strongly supports our call on the FDA to prohibit the marketing and sale of e-cigarettes unless and until the FDA is satisfied that they are safe and effective."
I have already explained why this is an inappropriate policy suggestion that would result in severe public health harm. There is little doubt that these products are helping literally thousands of people to remain smoke-free and that removing them from the market would result in thousands of ex-smokers returning to cigarette smoking because e-cigarettes are no longer available. I have also explained how this policy statement misrepresents the scientific evidence, as it suggests that electronic cigarettes present a carcinogenic risk, although the actual laboratory findings show that only trace levels of carcinogens are present in these products, comparable to the levels of carcinogens present in nicotine gum and nicotine patches -- products which the American Legacy Foundation has no concerns regarding safety. Moreover, the levels of carcinogens in electronic cigarettes are more than 1000 times lower than in Marlboros, meaning that these products can dramatically reduce a smoker's cancer risk.
This commentary, however, focuses on another issue: the question of the objectivity of the policy statement and whether or not Legacy appropriate revealed conflicts of interest that may be perceived as affecting Legacy's position and its reporting of the scientific evidence.[Read More]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
