[ Just paste broken links shown in purple directly into your browser - the extra line doesn't matter. Pls. PM me if you have more recent info. about proposed/actual legislation, if you think I've missed an important story, or if you want more tweaks to the formatting program. ]
1) RETRACTION: Israel's Health Ministry doesn't have the power to unilaterally ban the sale and manufacture of vaping devices. Yesterday's unconfirmed report was incorrect - in fact the Health Dep't is only circulating a draft of legislation that will be heard by the Knesset within the next six months.
2) KY's SB 109, a simple minor sales/possession ban, whch doesn't define PVs as "tobacco products" has passed both houses over the objetions of ANTZ orgs and Gov. Beshear, who is expceted to sign it. KY appears to be out of the woods until 2015.
3) MI's health dir., Dr. Matthew Davis, says that he has had patients who quit smoking by vaping. Nevertheless he will support treating vaping like tobacco smoking for all tax and regulatory purposes, because the "safety and effectiveness of the patch is a better bet today." In other words, the good Dr. still believes that a cigarette is a cigarette is a cigarette, even when his own patients' experience contradicts this canard. (One can only assume that he would've preferred them to have continued to smoke tobacco cigarettes, until they were ready to quit using FDA-approved methods.)
4) Heads up on Louisiana - see this thread:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...possible-louisiana-e-cigarette-usage-ban.html
5) Also heads up CA - CASAA call updated:
CASAA: Call to Action! California Ban on Internet Sales (AB 1500) and Ban on E-Cigarette Usage (SB 648) AND:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ipment-e-cigarettes-anyone-california-27.html
6) Boston Globe rewrites story about the junk Gana et al. JAMA letter to incorporate Dr. Siegel's critique - before dismissing it out of hand as "fighting words."
7) SC's poison call center issued an alert, poison call center tsories continue at a slow but steady pace. I'm still collecting them, and will probably dump a large collection of them later this week.
Coverage: Israel, UK[national and Westmoreland], US states: MA, NJ, VA, AL, KY, MI, CA
Also: Dr. Siegel describes a favorable study on the VUSE, Gary Cox questions Victory's "second generation" claim, Sally Davies on "normalisation" (British style), Banzhaf's despicable press release.
Not covered: There have also been a tiny trickle of "vaping won't help with cessation" stories based on the Gana et al. junk JAMA letter, but these appear to be acts of desparation from reporters who need a story in a hurry, rather than anything removtely resembling last week's avalanche. That said, the meme seems to be just as well established now as: "BT markets vaping to children with kiddie flavors, and then the teens become regular tobacco cigarette smokers." Another mountain of lies is now part of the permanent landscape.
***
STUDIES, BLOGS, ETC
Title: Laboratory Study Shows No Detectable Carcinogens or Metals in High-Technology Electronic Cigarette Brand, Suggests that Minimal Risk E-Cigarette is Technologically Feasible
(Dr. Siegel's blog)
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/03/laboratory-study-shows-no-detectable.html
Recent study of R.J. Reynold's VUSE suggests that it's possible to engineer a cigAlike which delivers an aerosol that:
1) "... has no detectable carcinogens or metals - compounds that were of concern in a number of other e-cigarette brands."
2) "... avoid the hydrolysis products of propylene glycol."
3) "... is unlikely to pose any health risks [to bystanders]."
He concludes:
"This research should cause tobacco control practitioners to embrace electronic cigarettes as a promising device that could permanently alter the nature of the combustible tobacco product space, potentially saving more lives than any previous smoking cessation product. We have a long way to go, but embracing the promise of these products and committing to use our public resources and policies to maximize the benefits while minimizing the risks of these products is the first step."
Title: Of Victories and Generations
(ECF's InfoZone)
Of Victories and Generations - ECF InfoZone
Gary Cox on Victory's misleading claim that their new cigalikes represent the "second generation" of vaping products. On the contrary, it's tanks that are poised to outsell cigAlikes.
Title: Banzhaf press release
(Press release dump site) http://www.prlog
.org/12302884-cigarettes-increasingly-banned-in-public-causing-epidemics-among-young-children-and-teens.html
Banzhaf's press release is a cesspool of just about every ANTZ meme around:
a) Small children are being poisoned (cites NYT "selling poison by the barrel" article).
b) Teens are getting hooked on tobacco cigarettes, via the vaping "gateway" (cites Dutra & Glantz's despicable junk "study" in JAMA Pediatrics..
c) States w/o evidence that vaping will keep all smokers addicted to cigarettes because they'll be able to vape where they can't smoke.
d) Claims that inhaling proplyene glycol can cause "convulsions" as well as other things.
e) Claims that cessation claims haven't been "proved to the FDA's satisfaction" and that NRT is "safe and effective" for cessation.
f) Refuses to recognize any harm reduction value for vaping.
g) Cites "expert worries" that widespread vaping could "imperil public health."
[Well, we anticipated nothing less, right? Almost - yet inquiring minds would like to know what happened to the tin nanoparticles?]
***
ISRAEL
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Ban on electronic cigarettes to be voted on in 6 months [Rationales for legislation proposed by Health Ministry]
(Israel nat'l paper) http://www.jpost
.com/Health-and-Science/Ban-on-electronic-cigarettes-to-be-voted-on-in-6-months-347047
So it appears that Israel's public health ministry does not have the power to ban the sale or development of vaping. [Apologies there, but as I said yesterday, I only had one rather questionable source.]
In fact: Itamar Grotto, Director of Public Healt Services at the Ministry of Health has completed a final draft of legislation to be resubmitted to the Knesset (parliament) which would ban the sale or development of vaping products. The reasons cited are:
a) "Most, but not all, e-cigs contain concentrated nicotine, an addictive drug and 'medical poison,' according to the document. This causes smokers quickly to become dependent on tobacco and goes straight from the lungs into the bloodstream and the brain."
b) "[Vaping] can be 'even more dangerous' than smoking nicotine." (Yes, the article really does use the phrase "smoking nicotine" - although this isn't a quote from the document.)
c) "The ministry stated that e-cigs and related products 'pose a severe health danger to the public.' When the chemical is nicotine, it is a psychoactive stimulant, poison and addictive and releases adrenaline and dopamine. It is also used as an agricultural insecticide. As the nicotine in e-cigs is much more concentrated -- 24 mgs, during seven minutes of 'smoking' compared to 1 mg. in tobacco -- it is more poisonous, the ministry document stated. Smoking e-cig chemicals also lasts longer than a cigarette."
d) "These chemicals and others in e-cigs are not uniform or standardized among products."
e) "Leaks from cartridges have also been reported, posing a 'serious toxic risk' from exposure in the air and by being swallowed, including by children, the ministry continued. In 2012, a baby died after swallowing the content of an e-cig cartridge."
f) "Propylene glycol contained in cartridges can result in poisoning, the draft document, and cause respiratory problems in inflammation of the vocal cords. Inhaling another chemical, diethylene glycol, can cause damage to the kidneys and nervous system and has reportedly killed over 600 people in various countries. It can also cause harm when swallowed."
g) "Tobacco-specific nitrosamines are carcinogenic."
The article also states that the FDA "has banned" the sale of PVs (which is true, but misleading since the ban was overturned by a court).
Story also states that legislation proposed by the health ministry to ban tobacco advertising failed in the Knesset "a few months ago" due to "vigorous lobbying by cigarette companies."
Title: Health Ministry moves to ban electronic cigarettes
(Jerusalem-based nat'l web site) http://www.timesofisrael
.com/health-ministry-moves-to-ban-electronic-cigarettes/
And here's a totally different rationale than what we saw abouve in the Jer. Post:
"In issuing the ruling, the ministry said that 10 percent of high school students who use e-cigarettes had never smoked regular cigarettes before, showing that e-cigarettes have the potential to be a gateway to 'the world of smoking,' according to Israel daily Yedioth Ahronoth."
(Sounds similar to many US health depts - they desperately want to ban vaping, but they're not sure way. Any or all reasons will do.)
***
UK NATIONAL
Title: Don't let vaping, obesity and boozing become norms
http://www.newscientist
.com/article/dn25319-dont-let-vaping-obesity-and-boozing-become-norms.html#.UzjjBM5obfg
Interview with Sally Davies, chief medical officer for England.
1) The "biggest health challenge faced in the UK" is "normalisation." Howeer what she means by normalization is a host of other things in addition to vaping, such as obesity, insufficient exercise, and " the expectation that when people go to their doctors, they will walk out with a prescription for antibiotics, even though antimicrobial resistance is a problem."
2) Dr. Davies opposes vaping because it's not regulated as a medicine with a fixed dose of nicotine. She also says "they are often aimed at children with their flavorings" and "sold rather cheaply and many of them are made in China, so I worry about what is in them."
3) Vaping may make "smoking socially acceptable again" because the advertisments make it look "cool and chic." [I have to wonder what she wants vaping to look like? Like a medicine? An unpleasant "pill" that smokers have to "swallow?" Does she really think that what we are all craving is "treatment?"]
This last comment would warm the coccles of any American ANTZ's heart: "In the Metrocentre in Newcastle they have a vaping boutique, which looks like a perfume boutique." (How dare "they?" What nerve!)
---
UK: WESTMORELAND
Title: Urswick pub becomes one of the first in the country to ban electronic cigarettes
(Kendal WestM UK local paper) http://www.thewestmorlandgazette
.co.uk/news/11114193.Urswick_pub_becomes_one_of_the_first_in_the_country_to_ban_electronic_cigarettes/
Apparently this is unusual in the UK according to the story - insofar as it's being done on health grounds (as opposed to the alleged problem of distintinguishing between vaping and tobacco cigarette smoking). Owner says:
"We just felt it was the right way to go. We don't want nicotine in the pub." [boldface added]
***
US NATIONAL
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: The truth about e-cigarettes
(Nat'l politics web site) http://americablog.com/2014/03/truth-e-cigarettes
.html
The "truth" about this piece is that the M.D. author doesn't know a thing in the world about vaping. It begins with FDA '09, continues by citing the junk statistical analysis in Gana et al.'s JAMA letter and ends by delving into the NYT "selling poison by the barrel" article. (Googling time over, deadline approaches.) I've seen a better job done by a tumbleweed-town's rag cub reporter, and there's not one word about harm reduction until the end.
"So, is there any value in using e-cigarettes to attempt to quit smoking? There might be a slight advantage over the nicotine patches. But, as described above, the difference isn't statistically significant, and those nicotine patches are regulated by the FDA -- e-cigarettes have not been. Are e-cigarettes dangerous? Those containing nicotine can be addictive. They may also contain other substances that may be carcinogenic. And keeping the refill vial around your house, and using it, could pose serious health risks as well. Is it a good idea to stay away from products containing nicotine? Yes. Are e-cigarettes such products? Yes. [boldface added, para breaks omitted]"
One gets the sense that the author has never heard of NRT (which also contains nicotine). And also that he would've done a serious hit job if he'd had the time.
[This web site has a decent reputation that's based on trenchant reporting on - and analysis of - national US legal and political issues. Perhaps it should stay focused on what it does best.]
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: [AK Sen.] Mark Pryor Says Liquid Nicotine Poisoning Trend Playing Out in Arkansas
(Official Press Release) http://www.arkansasmatters
.com/story/d/story/mark-pryor-says-liquid-nicotine-poisoning-trend-pl/29707/GK_IC9kVzEe6na88sqfCqg
[Arkansas readers are invited to contact Sen Pryor's office.]
The content here is fairly predictable: Sen. Pryor's excuse is that he's sending a letter to the FDA demanding that they act and indicate what they're going to do in order to protect consumers, children and so forth, ad nauseum:
"'With e-cigarettes now being sold in flavors like cherry and bubble gum, we've seen a staggering number of liquid nicotine poison cases in our state, especially in our young children. We must find a solution to this dangerous problem now,' Pryor said. 'As Arkansas's Attorney General, I fought hard to protect our kids from hidden dangers, and that commitment continues today. I won't let up until I know our families are protected from the dangers of liquid nicotine poisoning.' [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
---
US: MASSACHUSETTS
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Do e-cigarettes help smokers quit? [NEW VERSION PUBLISHED ON 3/30]
(Boston MS US local paper) http://www.bostonglobe
.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2014/03/30/cigarettes-help-smokers-quit/yzMFrfhjw3ZqKbjHP2vMTL/story.html
Title: Study raises questions about if e-cigarettes help smokers quit [OLD VERSION PUBLISHED ON 3/24]
(Boston MA US local paper) http://www.bostonglobe
.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2014/03/24/evidence-that-cigarettes-help-smokers-quit/bZLVskIa6Ng8L0Tae6UldJ/story.html
These two stories had me scratching my head for quite some time, until I broke them down, paragraph-by-paragraph. The 3/24 piece was described in this space on 3/25 as uncritically accepting the Gana et al. junk letter in JAMA, which was critcized by Dr. Siegel (and many others) for generalizing based on 88 smokers who had tried vaping at some point during a year, but who had no known intention to quit. The earlier article also mixed in the poison control calls meme (which it also uncritically accepted).
The first paragraphs of both stories are identical. But from there on out, the writer has apparently spliced in Dr. Siegel's critique - and then proceeded to blithely ignore it.
PREVIOUS (3/24) VERSION: "A new study is bound to add fuel to the fire. Researchers followed nearly 1,000 smokers for a year and found that those who used e-cigarettes were no more likely to quit smoking or reduce their dependence on tobacco cigarettes compared to those who werent using the products at the beginning of the study. But the research, published Monday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine also raises more questions than answers since only 88 of the 949 smokers in the study reported using e-cigarettes.
[para break] "That small sample size makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions, admits study leader Dr. Pamela Ling, an associate professor of medicine at University of California, San Francisco. 'We also looked at a broad population of smokers,' she said, 'not just those who were specifically interested in quitting.'
[para break] "Setting those limitations aside, the study highlights the lack of evidence to determine whether e-cigarettes are a good smoking cessation aid - even though some smokers swear by them for helping them ease off their habit."
NEW (3/30) VERSION: "A new study is bound to add fuel to the fire. Researchers followed nearly 1,000 smokers for a year and found that those who used e-cigarettes were no more likely to quit smoking or reduce their dependence on tobacco cigarettes than those who werent using the products at the beginning of the study. About 14 percent of those who didnt use e-cigarettes quit smoking compared to 10 percent of those used the products.[new sentence inserted]
[para break] "But the research, published last Monday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, raises more questions than it answers because only 88 of the 949 smokers in the study reported using e-cigarettes.
[para break] "That small sample size makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions, admits study leader Dr. Pamela Ling, an associate professor of medicine at University of California, San Francisco. 'We also looked at a broad population of smokers,' she said, 'not just those who were specifically interested in quitting.'
[para break] "In fact, only 8 percent of e-cigarette users reported that they were trying to quit when they were surveyed, and only 40 percent had any intention of quitting in the next six months. [New para inserted]
[para break] "'This means that we actually know for a fact that the majority of e-cigarette users in this study were not using these products as part of a quit attempt,' Dr. Michael Siegel, a tobacco control researcher at Boston University School of Public Health, wrote in a post on his blog. 'Rather, it is a deliberate attempt on the part of the investigators to misuse data.'[New para inserted]
[para break] Setting those fighting words aside,
[In the previous version, this phrase was "Setting those limitations aside,"]
the study highlights the lack of evidence to determine whether e-cigarettes are a good smoking cessation aid - even though some smokers swear by them for helping them ease off their habit."
In other words, the writer simply substituted Dr. Siegel's objections for her own prior caveat, and then went on to conclude - as she did before - that the junk Gana et al. analysis was legitimate.
To make matters worse, the new version of the piece goes on to again embrace the poison center call hysteria.
In a final insult, it seems that the folks at Boston U. didn't realize that the writer was simply running roughshod over Dr. Siegel's objections, and linked to the story on BU's own site, underneath a picture of Dr. S.:
http://www.bu
.edu/news/2014/03/31/do-e-cigarettes-help-smokers-quit-2/
[ HB 3726 would ban vaping wherever smoking is banned, see CASAA call: CASAA: Call to Action! Massachusetts E-Cigarette Usage Ban -- HB 3726 (formerly HB 3639) (UPDATED) ]
---
US: NEW JERSEY
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Questioning the safety of 'smoking' e-cigarettes
(Pleasantville/Atlantic City NJ US local paper) http://www.pressofatlanticcity
.com/wellness/dr_nina_radcliff/questioning-the-safety-of-smoking-e-cigarettes/article_707f5dd6-63d8-5263-ada6-c40e2d1d78a8.html
Yet another brain-dead story written by an MD which says very little. That said, it doesn't contain a huge aount of "junk." In some ways, it's almost pro-vaping, because it suggests that there may be some cessation or harm reduction value. At the same time, it argues that nicotine is a carcinogen (oops) and contains this lovely zinger about cessation and nicotine:
"The truth of the matter is smokers are addicted to nicotine and e-cigarettes continue to feed into the addiction. Nicotine patches and gum slowly release small amounts into the body. However, e-cigarettes create a freebase form of nicotine that goes quickly from the lungs to the heart and brain. There is the potential of putting people in 'limbo' of wanting to quit and having this hope, but allowing them to continue utilizing nicotine and the ritual of smoking (even in places where traditional cigarettes are banned). [para breaks omitted, boldface added]
Apparently the good Dr. isn't familiar with the studies concerning nicotine blood levels. Nor is she evidently conversant with the idea that users can control the nicotine content of e-liquid. Harm reduction? It's not clear that she knows what that is.
[ NJ's house bill A1080 was originally proposed as a ban on tobacco smoking in parks and beaches, but was immediately ammended to include vaping as soon as it got on to the house floor. See: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ng-all-public-parks-beaches.html#post12349761
Also, Gov. Christie says he wants to tax vaping at the same rate as analogs, and S1867 has been introduced in the Sen. for that purpose:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ual-2-70-pack-cigarette-tax.html#post12450301
And:
CASAA: Call to Action! New Jersey's Governor Christie is Proposing a Tax on E-Cigarettes at the Same Rate as Combustible Cigarettes (Significantly UPDATED 3-27-14) ]
---
US: VIRGINIA
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: E-cigarette debate burns as usage rises
(Virginia Beach VA US local paper online site) http://hamptonroads
.com/2014/03/ecigarette-debate-burns-usage-rises
In some ways this is a model article for the boilerplate vaping piece, albeit one with a minimum of anti-vaping content for a midsized town's paper (given the current environment, anyway).
The local ALA rep. is quoted as saying some fairly mild things, such as the fact that vaping is unregulated and no long term studies have been done (that's about as far as anyone from the ALA can go, because - unlike other orgs - the ALA refuses to acknolwdge that vaping may ever have any value whatsoever for cessation or harm reduction). In fact it seems from the story that she may be oddly resigned to the fact that millions of Americans have chosen to vape in order to quit or reduce tobacco cigarette smoking. The worst thing she seems to be cited as saying is that she has a "concern" about the fact that BT is now developing vaping brands, and that this could be "a repeat of when tobacco companies touted low-tar and 'light' cigarettes as a solution for smokers worried about health effects. Rather than improve the problem, it kept people hooked, she said." But this is a far cry from what we usually hear from ALA rep.s - namely that vaping is a plot by BT to hook children on tobacco cigarettes and keep vapers smoking as many of those as possible (most ALA rep.s won't even acknowledge that there's any game in the vaping world besides BT's - that would hurt their ability to demonize vapING and vapERs).
Next, we have the pediatrician. What story about vaping would be complete, without the kid-friendly flavors such as cotton candy, the CDC statistics on minor vaping, and the e-liquid that every small child in America is chugging, as we speak? (When you think of vaping, think of little kids. That's what it's all about, right?) All of that said, these three obligatory paragraphs about the "fears, concerns and unknowns" surrounding children are handled with a minimum of incendiary language.
Next up in this survey piece, we naturally have to have some kind of oncologist, pulmunologist, cardiologist, otolaryngologist, or respiratory specialist of some kind, right? Ours is a pulmunologist who actually doesn't think that short-term usage is a bad thing: "He talks with them about the limited studies that have been done, pointing out that long-term ones will take time, just as it took years to discover the full damage caused by traditional cigarettes. 'Intuitively, they dont have as many carcinogens as tobacco, but theyre not regulated, so we dont know whats in them,' he said."[para break omitted, boldface added] (Well, that's a lot better than saying that there's "no evidence that they're safe.")
The vape store owner is said to speak "carefully" about the virtues of his product - declining to say that it has any cessation value, or even that it's "safer," merely that it's an "alternative."
This entire article is framed aruond two principal protagonists - one is the vaper who has quit, another required actor in all such stories. She's down to 0% vaping, and intends to stop vaping entirely within a year. (Judging by the size of the cloud she's putting out, Your Correspondent thinks that's not entirely likely.)
But the start of the show is psychology Prof. Thomas Eisenberg of Virginia Commenwealth U., who has $18M to spend over the next five years to evaluate various "modified risk" tobacco products. It seems likely that he's the real reason why this remarkably compact vaping article equivalent of War and Peace was composed. The prof. has some interesting things to say, such as:
'Theres not a lot of data out there, and anyone who says e-cigarettes either save lives or kill people is not referencing real data.' (Hmm, sounds like the old one about "longitudinal data," doesn't it?) Or how about:
"Eissenberg said e-cigs may be less apt to kill people with diseases caused by tobacco, but he can't say what 200 inhalations every day on an e-cig for 20 years is going to do. 'Instead of hoping for the best, we need to develop hypotheses, analyze data and get people away from rampant speculation,' he said. People often talk about e-cigarettes like they're one thing, he said, when in reality, there are hundreds of different brands and ingredients that are constantly changing, which is why public health experts are calling for FDA control. 'There's huge variety,' he said. 'Right now, you don't know when you pick one up what you are getting.'[para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
Hmm. I think most of us have a pretty good idea of what we're getting. What we don't know is what the FDA, the CDC, the NIH, and BP want us to "get." Other than the fact that we probably won't want it.
[ H218 simple minor sales ban is ready for Gov's sig. If you know anything about the other bills proposed in VA, please PM me. Also see these possibly not-current threads: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...cts-alternative-nicotine-products-minors.html *and* http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-bill-hb-26-would-ban-e-cig-sales-minors.html ]
---
US: ALABAMA
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Vaping Community Gathers for Bimonthly Meet in Madison [junk-free, positive]
(Huntsville AL US ind. radio station) http://whnt
.com/2014/03/30/vaping-community-gathers-for-bimonthly-meet-in-madison/
Brief story on a vape meet in Madison AL. No "junk" to speak of in this story, but the first sentence is rather cleverly-written, perhaps to please an editor who's afraid of the controversy:
"The electronic cigarette and vaporizer craze continues to grow here in North Alabama. Its not an FDA approved way to quit smoking cigarettes, but it is an alternative. Its also one that so many people are taking advantage of, that its becoming more than just a trend. Its about holding each other accountable."
Not too bad, really. Much of the story consists of testimonials from vapers who have quit. The end consists of this italicized paragraph:
"Note: The CDC says while it appears that e-cigarettes dont have anywhere near the toxins found in smoke from traditional cigarettes, the long term health effects of vaping e-cigs or vaporizers could take years to determine. Vaporizers contain liquid nicotine instead of tobacco which turns into vapor that smokers inhale. You can also get the fluid without any nicotine in it."
[ The AL legislature will not be back in session until 2015. ]
---
US: KENTUCKY
Title: Kentucky bans e-cigarette sales to minors
(AP) http://www.thestate
.com/2014/03/31/3359660/kentucky-bans-e-cigarette-sales.html?sp=/99/101/
Minor sales/possession ban passes Senate. This appears to be SB 109, which was opposed by the ANTZ orgs (and also by Gov. Beshear) on the grounds that it didn't define PVs as a "tobacco product").
---
US: MICHIGAN
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: E-cigarettes present new options, problems for lawmakers, smokers (audio)
(Lansing MI US public radio) http://wkar
.org/post/e-cigarettes-present-new-options-problems-lawmakers-smokers
Gives lots of time to Dr. Matt Davis, MI's Dep't of Health, who points out that e-liquid contain "nitrosamine," which is considered a carcinogen, and says: "It only takes one cancer-causing substance to cause cancer." The good Dr. neglects to mention that NRT does as well - in fact virtually all products intended to deliver nicotine do. (Actually it's only tobacco-specific nitrosamines which have been implicated, and not all e-liquid contains them.)
(Dr. Davis has inserted himself into a battle in MI between Gov. Snyder's office and the state legislature. This space reported on 3/20 and 3/24 that the Gov. wants to treat vaping products like tobacco products for tax purposes, because they "contain nicotine" and that he views the health dep't as speaking for him. Unfortunately for the Gov., the legislature isn't cooperating.)
The MI sen. has approved SB 667/8 to ban sales to minors and possession by minors, but has declined to pass a bill which defines vaping as a "tobacco product," which is what the ANTZ orgs want. So far, Gov. Snyder hasn't threatened a veto.
Amazingly, the piece ends with an interview of the former station manager, who has apparently used vaping to quit smoking. It even mentions that vapers can lower their nicotine levels. The former station manager appears to be Another Satisfied Vaper.
[But of course the story can't end there. Time to bring in the health dep't ...]
"Dr. Matt Davis has heard similar stories from his patients. But he has reservations about promoting e-cigarettes as a quit-smoking tool.
'In head-to-head trials with the nicotine patch, e-cigarettes were about equal to the patch. Not better, but not worse. So as a public health official and a primary care Dr., I have to ask myself - well, does that mean we should use e-cigarettes as a way of getting people to quit smoking? That's certainly how people are talking about them today. The problem is that I know a lot more about a nicotine patch than I do about an e-cigarette. And in my mind, the safety and effectiveness of the nicotine patch is a better bet than an e-cigarette today.'" [boldface added to audio quote]
[So-o wait a second. He's had patients quit smoking with vaping? And he still thinks vaping should be taxed as a recreational tobacco product, i.e. treated just like tobacco cigarettes? Is that a better policy for the patients who can't quit with the patch? Remember, this guy is the health dir. of the state of MI, whom the Gov. has asked to speak for him.]
The last minute of the story quotes the NYT "poison by the barrel" story, and repeats the "teaspoon of 10% can kill an adult" nonsense.
[ MI appears to have several simple minor sales bans in the works - SB 667/8 and HB 4997 5007. SB 667/8 have passed the Sen. Most significantly, MI is under threat from HB 5393, which would effectively ban vaping sales entirely:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/536975-michigan-legislation.html ]
---
US: CALIFORNIA
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Why the jury is still out on e-cigarettes
(Pasadena CA US public radio) http://www.scpr
.org/news/2014/03/31/43130/why-is-there-so-little-consensus-on-e-cigarettes/
In a nutshell, this story says that none of the questions that anyone would like to know about vaping have been answered. Zero, zip, nada. Absolutely no information whatsoever is allegedly available: in part because the technology is evolving.
Translation: the quoted public health officials refuse to say anything because there haven't been enough studies, and there are too many diferent types.
The interesting thing about this piece is that one can grab a snip from it and use it to take whatever position one would like, depending on where the burden of proof lies. If one thinks that there's enough cessation evidence to suggest that vaping may be a valuable cessation tool, then one may conclude from the story that there isn't any evidence to suggest otherwise. The same might go for "second hand vaping."
However the despicable aspect of this piece is that it states in no undertain terms that vaping may be just as dangerous as smoking tobacco cigarettes, because there's insufficient evidence of harm reduction.
I'd call that "junk."
That said, it lacks some of the usual crud that we've come to expect from the ANTZ - for example, we don't find anything in here about diethylene glycol, tin naonparticles, "more [tobacco] smoking, not less" or the minor-vaping-to-tobacco-smoking gateway.
[ CA is under threat from a wide variety of legislation, such as an internet sales ban: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...hipment-e-cigarettes-anyone-california.html See CASAA newly-updatd call to action:
CASAA: Call to Action! California Ban on Internet Sales (AB 1500) and Ban on E-Cigarette Usage (SB 648) ]
***
Google Tips
To see whether there are bad things happening where you live, try this Google search (example for Rhode Island) -
rhode site:casaa.org
(Replace rhode with a single word that describes your city, county, or state. For ex., if you live in Eau Claire, WI - you might use "Claire" to see if something is being proposed at the city level. Don't forget the : (colon), and be sure that there's nothing before or after the colon (not even spaces or tabs.)
You can also try replacing site:casaa.org with e-cigarette to find out what the media is reporting in your area. This is usually most helpful if you use the search tools to search by date. (CASAA doesn't generally issue calls or alerts until a bill is out of a state legislative committee, or is scheduled for a local city or county hearing.)
1) RETRACTION: Israel's Health Ministry doesn't have the power to unilaterally ban the sale and manufacture of vaping devices. Yesterday's unconfirmed report was incorrect - in fact the Health Dep't is only circulating a draft of legislation that will be heard by the Knesset within the next six months.
2) KY's SB 109, a simple minor sales/possession ban, whch doesn't define PVs as "tobacco products" has passed both houses over the objetions of ANTZ orgs and Gov. Beshear, who is expceted to sign it. KY appears to be out of the woods until 2015.
3) MI's health dir., Dr. Matthew Davis, says that he has had patients who quit smoking by vaping. Nevertheless he will support treating vaping like tobacco smoking for all tax and regulatory purposes, because the "safety and effectiveness of the patch is a better bet today." In other words, the good Dr. still believes that a cigarette is a cigarette is a cigarette, even when his own patients' experience contradicts this canard. (One can only assume that he would've preferred them to have continued to smoke tobacco cigarettes, until they were ready to quit using FDA-approved methods.)
4) Heads up on Louisiana - see this thread:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...possible-louisiana-e-cigarette-usage-ban.html
5) Also heads up CA - CASAA call updated:
CASAA: Call to Action! California Ban on Internet Sales (AB 1500) and Ban on E-Cigarette Usage (SB 648) AND:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ipment-e-cigarettes-anyone-california-27.html
6) Boston Globe rewrites story about the junk Gana et al. JAMA letter to incorporate Dr. Siegel's critique - before dismissing it out of hand as "fighting words."
7) SC's poison call center issued an alert, poison call center tsories continue at a slow but steady pace. I'm still collecting them, and will probably dump a large collection of them later this week.
Coverage: Israel, UK[national and Westmoreland], US states: MA, NJ, VA, AL, KY, MI, CA
Also: Dr. Siegel describes a favorable study on the VUSE, Gary Cox questions Victory's "second generation" claim, Sally Davies on "normalisation" (British style), Banzhaf's despicable press release.
Not covered: There have also been a tiny trickle of "vaping won't help with cessation" stories based on the Gana et al. junk JAMA letter, but these appear to be acts of desparation from reporters who need a story in a hurry, rather than anything removtely resembling last week's avalanche. That said, the meme seems to be just as well established now as: "BT markets vaping to children with kiddie flavors, and then the teens become regular tobacco cigarette smokers." Another mountain of lies is now part of the permanent landscape.
***
STUDIES, BLOGS, ETC
Title: Laboratory Study Shows No Detectable Carcinogens or Metals in High-Technology Electronic Cigarette Brand, Suggests that Minimal Risk E-Cigarette is Technologically Feasible
(Dr. Siegel's blog)
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/03/laboratory-study-shows-no-detectable.html
Recent study of R.J. Reynold's VUSE suggests that it's possible to engineer a cigAlike which delivers an aerosol that:
1) "... has no detectable carcinogens or metals - compounds that were of concern in a number of other e-cigarette brands."
2) "... avoid
3) "... is unlikely to pose any health risks [to bystanders]."
He concludes:
"This research should cause tobacco control practitioners to embrace electronic cigarettes as a promising device that could permanently alter the nature of the combustible tobacco product space, potentially saving more lives than any previous smoking cessation product. We have a long way to go, but embracing the promise of these products and committing to use our public resources and policies to maximize the benefits while minimizing the risks of these products is the first step."
Title: Of Victories and Generations
(ECF's InfoZone)
Of Victories and Generations - ECF InfoZone
Gary Cox on Victory's misleading claim that their new cigalikes represent the "second generation" of vaping products. On the contrary, it's tanks that are poised to outsell cigAlikes.
Title: Banzhaf press release
(Press release dump site) http://www.prlog
.org/12302884-cigarettes-increasingly-banned-in-public-causing-epidemics-among-young-children-and-teens.html
Banzhaf's press release is a cesspool of just about every ANTZ meme around:
a) Small children are being poisoned (cites NYT "selling poison by the barrel" article).
b) Teens are getting hooked on tobacco cigarettes, via the vaping "gateway" (cites Dutra & Glantz's despicable junk "study" in JAMA Pediatrics..
c) States w/o evidence that vaping will keep all smokers addicted to cigarettes because they'll be able to vape where they can't smoke.
d) Claims that inhaling proplyene glycol can cause "convulsions" as well as other things.
e) Claims that cessation claims haven't been "proved to the FDA's satisfaction" and that NRT is "safe and effective" for cessation.
f) Refuses to recognize any harm reduction value for vaping.
g) Cites "expert worries" that widespread vaping could "imperil public health."
[Well, we anticipated nothing less, right? Almost - yet inquiring minds would like to know what happened to the tin nanoparticles?]
***
ISRAEL
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Ban on electronic cigarettes to be voted on in 6 months [Rationales for legislation proposed by Health Ministry]
(Israel nat'l paper) http://www.jpost
.com/Health-and-Science/Ban-on-electronic-cigarettes-to-be-voted-on-in-6-months-347047
So it appears that Israel's public health ministry does not have the power to ban the sale or development of vaping. [Apologies there, but as I said yesterday, I only had one rather questionable source.]
In fact: Itamar Grotto, Director of Public Healt Services at the Ministry of Health has completed a final draft of legislation to be resubmitted to the Knesset (parliament) which would ban the sale or development of vaping products. The reasons cited are:
a) "Most, but not all, e-cigs contain concentrated nicotine, an addictive drug and 'medical poison,' according to the document. This causes smokers quickly to become dependent on tobacco and goes straight from the lungs into the bloodstream and the brain."
b) "[Vaping] can be 'even more dangerous' than smoking nicotine." (Yes, the article really does use the phrase "smoking nicotine" - although this isn't a quote from the document.)
c) "The ministry stated that e-cigs and related products 'pose a severe health danger to the public.' When the chemical is nicotine, it is a psychoactive stimulant, poison and addictive and releases adrenaline and dopamine. It is also used as an agricultural insecticide. As the nicotine in e-cigs is much more concentrated -- 24 mgs, during seven minutes of 'smoking' compared to 1 mg. in tobacco -- it is more poisonous, the ministry document stated. Smoking e-cig chemicals also lasts longer than a cigarette."
d) "These chemicals and others in e-cigs are not uniform or standardized among products."
e) "Leaks from cartridges have also been reported, posing a 'serious toxic risk' from exposure in the air and by being swallowed, including by children, the ministry continued. In 2012, a baby died after swallowing the content of an e-cig cartridge."
f) "Propylene glycol contained in cartridges can result in poisoning, the draft document, and cause respiratory problems in inflammation of the vocal cords. Inhaling another chemical, diethylene glycol, can cause damage to the kidneys and nervous system and has reportedly killed over 600 people in various countries. It can also cause harm when swallowed."
g) "Tobacco-specific nitrosamines are carcinogenic."
The article also states that the FDA "has banned" the sale of PVs (which is true, but misleading since the ban was overturned by a court).
Story also states that legislation proposed by the health ministry to ban tobacco advertising failed in the Knesset "a few months ago" due to "vigorous lobbying by cigarette companies."
Title: Health Ministry moves to ban electronic cigarettes
(Jerusalem-based nat'l web site) http://www.timesofisrael
.com/health-ministry-moves-to-ban-electronic-cigarettes/
And here's a totally different rationale than what we saw abouve in the Jer. Post:
"In issuing the ruling, the ministry said that 10 percent of high school students who use e-cigarettes had never smoked regular cigarettes before, showing that e-cigarettes have the potential to be a gateway to 'the world of smoking,' according to Israel daily Yedioth Ahronoth."
(Sounds similar to many US health depts - they desperately want to ban vaping, but they're not sure way. Any or all reasons will do.)
***
UK NATIONAL
Title: Don't let vaping, obesity and boozing become norms
http://www.newscientist
.com/article/dn25319-dont-let-vaping-obesity-and-boozing-become-norms.html#.UzjjBM5obfg
Interview with Sally Davies, chief medical officer for England.
1) The "biggest health challenge faced in the UK" is "normalisation." Howeer what she means by normalization is a host of other things in addition to vaping, such as obesity, insufficient exercise, and " the expectation that when people go to their doctors, they will walk out with a prescription for antibiotics, even though antimicrobial resistance is a problem."
2) Dr. Davies opposes vaping because it's not regulated as a medicine with a fixed dose of nicotine. She also says "they are often aimed at children with their flavorings" and "sold rather cheaply and many of them are made in China, so I worry about what is in them."
3) Vaping may make "smoking socially acceptable again" because the advertisments make it look "cool and chic." [I have to wonder what she wants vaping to look like? Like a medicine? An unpleasant "pill" that smokers have to "swallow?" Does she really think that what we are all craving is "treatment?"]
This last comment would warm the coccles of any American ANTZ's heart: "In the Metrocentre in Newcastle they have a vaping boutique, which looks like a perfume boutique." (How dare "they?" What nerve!)
---
UK: WESTMORELAND
Title: Urswick pub becomes one of the first in the country to ban electronic cigarettes
(Kendal WestM UK local paper) http://www.thewestmorlandgazette
.co.uk/news/11114193.Urswick_pub_becomes_one_of_the_first_in_the_country_to_ban_electronic_cigarettes/
Apparently this is unusual in the UK according to the story - insofar as it's being done on health grounds (as opposed to the alleged problem of distintinguishing between vaping and tobacco cigarette smoking). Owner says:
"We just felt it was the right way to go. We don't want nicotine in the pub." [boldface added]
***
US NATIONAL
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: The truth about e-cigarettes
(Nat'l politics web site) http://americablog.com/2014/03/truth-e-cigarettes
.html
The "truth" about this piece is that the M.D. author doesn't know a thing in the world about vaping. It begins with FDA '09, continues by citing the junk statistical analysis in Gana et al.'s JAMA letter and ends by delving into the NYT "selling poison by the barrel" article. (Googling time over, deadline approaches.) I've seen a better job done by a tumbleweed-town's rag cub reporter, and there's not one word about harm reduction until the end.
"So, is there any value in using e-cigarettes to attempt to quit smoking? There might be a slight advantage over the nicotine patches. But, as described above, the difference isn't statistically significant, and those nicotine patches are regulated by the FDA -- e-cigarettes have not been. Are e-cigarettes dangerous? Those containing nicotine can be addictive. They may also contain other substances that may be carcinogenic. And keeping the refill vial around your house, and using it, could pose serious health risks as well. Is it a good idea to stay away from products containing nicotine? Yes. Are e-cigarettes such products? Yes. [boldface added, para breaks omitted]"
One gets the sense that the author has never heard of NRT (which also contains nicotine). And also that he would've done a serious hit job if he'd had the time.
[This web site has a decent reputation that's based on trenchant reporting on - and analysis of - national US legal and political issues. Perhaps it should stay focused on what it does best.]
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: [AK Sen.] Mark Pryor Says Liquid Nicotine Poisoning Trend Playing Out in Arkansas
(Official Press Release) http://www.arkansasmatters
.com/story/d/story/mark-pryor-says-liquid-nicotine-poisoning-trend-pl/29707/GK_IC9kVzEe6na88sqfCqg
[Arkansas readers are invited to contact Sen Pryor's office.]
The content here is fairly predictable: Sen. Pryor's excuse is that he's sending a letter to the FDA demanding that they act and indicate what they're going to do in order to protect consumers, children and so forth, ad nauseum:
"'With e-cigarettes now being sold in flavors like cherry and bubble gum, we've seen a staggering number of liquid nicotine poison cases in our state, especially in our young children. We must find a solution to this dangerous problem now,' Pryor said. 'As Arkansas's Attorney General, I fought hard to protect our kids from hidden dangers, and that commitment continues today. I won't let up until I know our families are protected from the dangers of liquid nicotine poisoning.' [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
---
US: MASSACHUSETTS
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Do e-cigarettes help smokers quit? [NEW VERSION PUBLISHED ON 3/30]
(Boston MS US local paper) http://www.bostonglobe
.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2014/03/30/cigarettes-help-smokers-quit/yzMFrfhjw3ZqKbjHP2vMTL/story.html
Title: Study raises questions about if e-cigarettes help smokers quit [OLD VERSION PUBLISHED ON 3/24]
(Boston MA US local paper) http://www.bostonglobe
.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2014/03/24/evidence-that-cigarettes-help-smokers-quit/bZLVskIa6Ng8L0Tae6UldJ/story.html
These two stories had me scratching my head for quite some time, until I broke them down, paragraph-by-paragraph. The 3/24 piece was described in this space on 3/25 as uncritically accepting the Gana et al. junk letter in JAMA, which was critcized by Dr. Siegel (and many others) for generalizing based on 88 smokers who had tried vaping at some point during a year, but who had no known intention to quit. The earlier article also mixed in the poison control calls meme (which it also uncritically accepted).
The first paragraphs of both stories are identical. But from there on out, the writer has apparently spliced in Dr. Siegel's critique - and then proceeded to blithely ignore it.
PREVIOUS (3/24) VERSION: "A new study is bound to add fuel to the fire. Researchers followed nearly 1,000 smokers for a year and found that those who used e-cigarettes were no more likely to quit smoking or reduce their dependence on tobacco cigarettes compared to those who werent using the products at the beginning of the study. But the research, published Monday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine also raises more questions than answers since only 88 of the 949 smokers in the study reported using e-cigarettes.
[para break] "That small sample size makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions, admits study leader Dr. Pamela Ling, an associate professor of medicine at University of California, San Francisco. 'We also looked at a broad population of smokers,' she said, 'not just those who were specifically interested in quitting.'
[para break] "Setting those limitations aside, the study highlights the lack of evidence to determine whether e-cigarettes are a good smoking cessation aid - even though some smokers swear by them for helping them ease off their habit."
NEW (3/30) VERSION: "A new study is bound to add fuel to the fire. Researchers followed nearly 1,000 smokers for a year and found that those who used e-cigarettes were no more likely to quit smoking or reduce their dependence on tobacco cigarettes than those who werent using the products at the beginning of the study. About 14 percent of those who didnt use e-cigarettes quit smoking compared to 10 percent of those used the products.[new sentence inserted]
[para break] "But the research, published last Monday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, raises more questions than it answers because only 88 of the 949 smokers in the study reported using e-cigarettes.
[para break] "That small sample size makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions, admits study leader Dr. Pamela Ling, an associate professor of medicine at University of California, San Francisco. 'We also looked at a broad population of smokers,' she said, 'not just those who were specifically interested in quitting.'
[para break] "In fact, only 8 percent of e-cigarette users reported that they were trying to quit when they were surveyed, and only 40 percent had any intention of quitting in the next six months. [New para inserted]
[para break] "'This means that we actually know for a fact that the majority of e-cigarette users in this study were not using these products as part of a quit attempt,' Dr. Michael Siegel, a tobacco control researcher at Boston University School of Public Health, wrote in a post on his blog. 'Rather, it is a deliberate attempt on the part of the investigators to misuse data.'[New para inserted]
[para break] Setting those fighting words aside,
[In the previous version, this phrase was "Setting those limitations aside,"]
the study highlights the lack of evidence to determine whether e-cigarettes are a good smoking cessation aid - even though some smokers swear by them for helping them ease off their habit."
In other words, the writer simply substituted Dr. Siegel's objections for her own prior caveat, and then went on to conclude - as she did before - that the junk Gana et al. analysis was legitimate.
To make matters worse, the new version of the piece goes on to again embrace the poison center call hysteria.
In a final insult, it seems that the folks at Boston U. didn't realize that the writer was simply running roughshod over Dr. Siegel's objections, and linked to the story on BU's own site, underneath a picture of Dr. S.:
http://www.bu
.edu/news/2014/03/31/do-e-cigarettes-help-smokers-quit-2/
[ HB 3726 would ban vaping wherever smoking is banned, see CASAA call: CASAA: Call to Action! Massachusetts E-Cigarette Usage Ban -- HB 3726 (formerly HB 3639) (UPDATED) ]
---
US: NEW JERSEY
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Questioning the safety of 'smoking' e-cigarettes
(Pleasantville/Atlantic City NJ US local paper) http://www.pressofatlanticcity
.com/wellness/dr_nina_radcliff/questioning-the-safety-of-smoking-e-cigarettes/article_707f5dd6-63d8-5263-ada6-c40e2d1d78a8.html
Yet another brain-dead story written by an MD which says very little. That said, it doesn't contain a huge aount of "junk." In some ways, it's almost pro-vaping, because it suggests that there may be some cessation or harm reduction value. At the same time, it argues that nicotine is a carcinogen (oops) and contains this lovely zinger about cessation and nicotine:
"The truth of the matter is smokers are addicted to nicotine and e-cigarettes continue to feed into the addiction. Nicotine patches and gum slowly release small amounts into the body. However, e-cigarettes create a freebase form of nicotine that goes quickly from the lungs to the heart and brain. There is the potential of putting people in 'limbo' of wanting to quit and having this hope, but allowing them to continue utilizing nicotine and the ritual of smoking (even in places where traditional cigarettes are banned). [para breaks omitted, boldface added]
Apparently the good Dr. isn't familiar with the studies concerning nicotine blood levels. Nor is she evidently conversant with the idea that users can control the nicotine content of e-liquid. Harm reduction? It's not clear that she knows what that is.
[ NJ's house bill A1080 was originally proposed as a ban on tobacco smoking in parks and beaches, but was immediately ammended to include vaping as soon as it got on to the house floor. See: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ng-all-public-parks-beaches.html#post12349761
Also, Gov. Christie says he wants to tax vaping at the same rate as analogs, and S1867 has been introduced in the Sen. for that purpose:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ual-2-70-pack-cigarette-tax.html#post12450301
And:
CASAA: Call to Action! New Jersey's Governor Christie is Proposing a Tax on E-Cigarettes at the Same Rate as Combustible Cigarettes (Significantly UPDATED 3-27-14) ]
---
US: VIRGINIA
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: E-cigarette debate burns as usage rises
(Virginia Beach VA US local paper online site) http://hamptonroads
.com/2014/03/ecigarette-debate-burns-usage-rises
In some ways this is a model article for the boilerplate vaping piece, albeit one with a minimum of anti-vaping content for a midsized town's paper (given the current environment, anyway).
The local ALA rep. is quoted as saying some fairly mild things, such as the fact that vaping is unregulated and no long term studies have been done (that's about as far as anyone from the ALA can go, because - unlike other orgs - the ALA refuses to acknolwdge that vaping may ever have any value whatsoever for cessation or harm reduction). In fact it seems from the story that she may be oddly resigned to the fact that millions of Americans have chosen to vape in order to quit or reduce tobacco cigarette smoking. The worst thing she seems to be cited as saying is that she has a "concern" about the fact that BT is now developing vaping brands, and that this could be "a repeat of when tobacco companies touted low-tar and 'light' cigarettes as a solution for smokers worried about health effects. Rather than improve the problem, it kept people hooked, she said." But this is a far cry from what we usually hear from ALA rep.s - namely that vaping is a plot by BT to hook children on tobacco cigarettes and keep vapers smoking as many of those as possible (most ALA rep.s won't even acknowledge that there's any game in the vaping world besides BT's - that would hurt their ability to demonize vapING and vapERs).
Next, we have the pediatrician. What story about vaping would be complete, without the kid-friendly flavors such as cotton candy, the CDC statistics on minor vaping, and the e-liquid that every small child in America is chugging, as we speak? (When you think of vaping, think of little kids. That's what it's all about, right?) All of that said, these three obligatory paragraphs about the "fears, concerns and unknowns" surrounding children are handled with a minimum of incendiary language.
Next up in this survey piece, we naturally have to have some kind of oncologist, pulmunologist, cardiologist, otolaryngologist, or respiratory specialist of some kind, right? Ours is a pulmunologist who actually doesn't think that short-term usage is a bad thing: "He talks with them about the limited studies that have been done, pointing out that long-term ones will take time, just as it took years to discover the full damage caused by traditional cigarettes. 'Intuitively, they dont have as many carcinogens as tobacco, but theyre not regulated, so we dont know whats in them,' he said."[para break omitted, boldface added] (Well, that's a lot better than saying that there's "no evidence that they're safe.")
The vape store owner is said to speak "carefully" about the virtues of his product - declining to say that it has any cessation value, or even that it's "safer," merely that it's an "alternative."
This entire article is framed aruond two principal protagonists - one is the vaper who has quit, another required actor in all such stories. She's down to 0% vaping, and intends to stop vaping entirely within a year. (Judging by the size of the cloud she's putting out, Your Correspondent thinks that's not entirely likely.)
But the start of the show is psychology Prof. Thomas Eisenberg of Virginia Commenwealth U., who has $18M to spend over the next five years to evaluate various "modified risk" tobacco products. It seems likely that he's the real reason why this remarkably compact vaping article equivalent of War and Peace was composed. The prof. has some interesting things to say, such as:
'Theres not a lot of data out there, and anyone who says e-cigarettes either save lives or kill people is not referencing real data.' (Hmm, sounds like the old one about "longitudinal data," doesn't it?) Or how about:
"Eissenberg said e-cigs may be less apt to kill people with diseases caused by tobacco, but he can't say what 200 inhalations every day on an e-cig for 20 years is going to do. 'Instead of hoping for the best, we need to develop hypotheses, analyze data and get people away from rampant speculation,' he said. People often talk about e-cigarettes like they're one thing, he said, when in reality, there are hundreds of different brands and ingredients that are constantly changing, which is why public health experts are calling for FDA control. 'There's huge variety,' he said. 'Right now, you don't know when you pick one up what you are getting.'[para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
Hmm. I think most of us have a pretty good idea of what we're getting. What we don't know is what the FDA, the CDC, the NIH, and BP want us to "get." Other than the fact that we probably won't want it.
[ H218 simple minor sales ban is ready for Gov's sig. If you know anything about the other bills proposed in VA, please PM me. Also see these possibly not-current threads: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...cts-alternative-nicotine-products-minors.html *and* http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-bill-hb-26-would-ban-e-cig-sales-minors.html ]
---
US: ALABAMA
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Vaping Community Gathers for Bimonthly Meet in Madison [junk-free, positive]
(Huntsville AL US ind. radio station) http://whnt
.com/2014/03/30/vaping-community-gathers-for-bimonthly-meet-in-madison/
Brief story on a vape meet in Madison AL. No "junk" to speak of in this story, but the first sentence is rather cleverly-written, perhaps to please an editor who's afraid of the controversy:
"The electronic cigarette and vaporizer craze continues to grow here in North Alabama. Its not an FDA approved way to quit smoking cigarettes, but it is an alternative. Its also one that so many people are taking advantage of, that its becoming more than just a trend. Its about holding each other accountable."
Not too bad, really. Much of the story consists of testimonials from vapers who have quit. The end consists of this italicized paragraph:
"Note: The CDC says while it appears that e-cigarettes dont have anywhere near the toxins found in smoke from traditional cigarettes, the long term health effects of vaping e-cigs or vaporizers could take years to determine. Vaporizers contain liquid nicotine instead of tobacco which turns into vapor that smokers inhale. You can also get the fluid without any nicotine in it."
[ The AL legislature will not be back in session until 2015. ]
---
US: KENTUCKY
Title: Kentucky bans e-cigarette sales to minors
(AP) http://www.thestate
.com/2014/03/31/3359660/kentucky-bans-e-cigarette-sales.html?sp=/99/101/
Minor sales/possession ban passes Senate. This appears to be SB 109, which was opposed by the ANTZ orgs (and also by Gov. Beshear) on the grounds that it didn't define PVs as a "tobacco product").
---
US: MICHIGAN
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: E-cigarettes present new options, problems for lawmakers, smokers (audio)
(Lansing MI US public radio) http://wkar
.org/post/e-cigarettes-present-new-options-problems-lawmakers-smokers
Gives lots of time to Dr. Matt Davis, MI's Dep't of Health, who points out that e-liquid contain "nitrosamine," which is considered a carcinogen, and says: "It only takes one cancer-causing substance to cause cancer." The good Dr. neglects to mention that NRT does as well - in fact virtually all products intended to deliver nicotine do. (Actually it's only tobacco-specific nitrosamines which have been implicated, and not all e-liquid contains them.)
(Dr. Davis has inserted himself into a battle in MI between Gov. Snyder's office and the state legislature. This space reported on 3/20 and 3/24 that the Gov. wants to treat vaping products like tobacco products for tax purposes, because they "contain nicotine" and that he views the health dep't as speaking for him. Unfortunately for the Gov., the legislature isn't cooperating.)
The MI sen. has approved SB 667/8 to ban sales to minors and possession by minors, but has declined to pass a bill which defines vaping as a "tobacco product," which is what the ANTZ orgs want. So far, Gov. Snyder hasn't threatened a veto.
Amazingly, the piece ends with an interview of the former station manager, who has apparently used vaping to quit smoking. It even mentions that vapers can lower their nicotine levels. The former station manager appears to be Another Satisfied Vaper.
[But of course the story can't end there. Time to bring in the health dep't ...]
"Dr. Matt Davis has heard similar stories from his patients. But he has reservations about promoting e-cigarettes as a quit-smoking tool.
'In head-to-head trials with the nicotine patch, e-cigarettes were about equal to the patch. Not better, but not worse. So as a public health official and a primary care Dr., I have to ask myself - well, does that mean we should use e-cigarettes as a way of getting people to quit smoking? That's certainly how people are talking about them today. The problem is that I know a lot more about a nicotine patch than I do about an e-cigarette. And in my mind, the safety and effectiveness of the nicotine patch is a better bet than an e-cigarette today.'" [boldface added to audio quote]
[So-o wait a second. He's had patients quit smoking with vaping? And he still thinks vaping should be taxed as a recreational tobacco product, i.e. treated just like tobacco cigarettes? Is that a better policy for the patients who can't quit with the patch? Remember, this guy is the health dir. of the state of MI, whom the Gov. has asked to speak for him.]
The last minute of the story quotes the NYT "poison by the barrel" story, and repeats the "teaspoon of 10% can kill an adult" nonsense.
[ MI appears to have several simple minor sales bans in the works - SB 667/8 and HB 4997 5007. SB 667/8 have passed the Sen. Most significantly, MI is under threat from HB 5393, which would effectively ban vaping sales entirely:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/536975-michigan-legislation.html ]
---
US: CALIFORNIA
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Why the jury is still out on e-cigarettes
(Pasadena CA US public radio) http://www.scpr
.org/news/2014/03/31/43130/why-is-there-so-little-consensus-on-e-cigarettes/
In a nutshell, this story says that none of the questions that anyone would like to know about vaping have been answered. Zero, zip, nada. Absolutely no information whatsoever is allegedly available: in part because the technology is evolving.
Translation: the quoted public health officials refuse to say anything because there haven't been enough studies, and there are too many diferent types.
The interesting thing about this piece is that one can grab a snip from it and use it to take whatever position one would like, depending on where the burden of proof lies. If one thinks that there's enough cessation evidence to suggest that vaping may be a valuable cessation tool, then one may conclude from the story that there isn't any evidence to suggest otherwise. The same might go for "second hand vaping."
However the despicable aspect of this piece is that it states in no undertain terms that vaping may be just as dangerous as smoking tobacco cigarettes, because there's insufficient evidence of harm reduction.
I'd call that "junk."
That said, it lacks some of the usual crud that we've come to expect from the ANTZ - for example, we don't find anything in here about diethylene glycol, tin naonparticles, "more [tobacco] smoking, not less" or the minor-vaping-to-tobacco-smoking gateway.
[ CA is under threat from a wide variety of legislation, such as an internet sales ban: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...hipment-e-cigarettes-anyone-california.html See CASAA newly-updatd call to action:
CASAA: Call to Action! California Ban on Internet Sales (AB 1500) and Ban on E-Cigarette Usage (SB 648) ]
***
Google Tips
To see whether there are bad things happening where you live, try this Google search (example for Rhode Island) -
rhode site:casaa.org
(Replace rhode with a single word that describes your city, county, or state. For ex., if you live in Eau Claire, WI - you might use "Claire" to see if something is being proposed at the city level. Don't forget the : (colon), and be sure that there's nothing before or after the colon (not even spaces or tabs.)
You can also try replacing site:casaa.org with e-cigarette to find out what the media is reporting in your area. This is usually most helpful if you use the search tools to search by date. (CASAA doesn't generally issue calls or alerts until a bill is out of a state legislative committee, or is scheduled for a local city or county hearing.)
Last edited:
