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."