ALA Refuses to Support Legislation Prohibiting Electronic Cigarette Sales to Minors

[beebopnjazz]

ALA Refuses to Support Legislation Prohibiting Electronic Cigarette Sales to Minors

The American Lung Association (ALA) has been actively encouraging state bans on the sale of electronic cigarettes (“e-cigarettes”), despite the growing body of evidence indicating that they are a safer alternative to traditional smoking. These actions are contrary to their stated goals of preventing lung disease.

 

[Happy Domino38]

Hey BeeBop!! Haven't seen you for awhile!!

But, back to topic..are we SURPRISED here? The ALA gets A LOT of money for 'research'. If lung cancer goes away, so do their research grants.

The money MAY be bloody, but it's still MONEY.

Oh, and just because that blood is OURS, is no need for us to be ANGRY...shame on us! They're only here to HELP, after all. Right?

 

[beebopnjazz]

I've been so busy tracking the lunacy of these organizations I haven't responded much in other areas - but I've been there!

While I was aware of the antics of the ALA - it's always a little surprising to see it in print - calling it like it is.

The not-for-profits are supposed to have all their data (including contributions) available to the public. And their applications for 501(3)(c) status indicate their purpose. I believe (but am not sure) there are different types of not-for-profits - I know I filed for one for a youth orchestra and we were precluded from ANYTHING that was of a political nature or we would lose our exempt standing with the IRS.

As these groups are definitely not working from a health standpoint, i.e. reduced harm, they are operating with an agenda directly opposing whatever their paperwork on file claims they exist for.

I'm wondering if we can yank the rug out from these organizations by having their "exempt status" under review by the IRS- can you imagine an audit of the ALA or ASH? Puts a smile on my face I tell ya!

Yvilla? Are there any classifications for non-profits that ARE political?

 

[yvilla]

Yvilla? Are there any classifications for non-profits that ARE political?

Hi beebop. I wish I could tell you that the ALA and the other 3 letter abominations working against us could be brought down due to a failure to follow IRS regulations on non-profits. However, it is a common misunderstanding that 501(c)(3) orgs cannot do ANY lobbying or attempting to influence legislation.

In reality, they are allowed to do some lobbying, but just can't do more than what is allowed - measured by whether it is a "substantial part" of all their activities if they choose that test, or if they choose the "expenditure" test, they can spend about 20% of their budgets on such activities. Here is an article explaining these rules for non-profit lobbying:
NP Action - Can 501(c)(3) Nonprofit Organizations Receiving Federal Grants Lobby?

By the way, for organizations that want to be non-profit but still be allowed to do all the lobbying they want, there is 501(c)(4) status available. Our adversaries are all 501(c)(3)s though, so they do have to keep to the limits noted above. But, with the huge annual budgets they have, I seriously doubt any challenge to them on these ground would ever fly.

 

[BigJimW]

But, back to topic..are we SURPRISED here? The ALA gets A LOT of money for 'research'. If lung cancer goes away, so do their research grants.

The money MAY be bloody, but it's still MONEY.

Which is why I have preached in most of my videos that we will never see the cure for cancer, or ANY major disease for that matter. Having a disease is a bigger money maker to BP, than a one time cure all.

The American Lung Association feeds off of cancer so they can collect money to fuel their never ending quest to "cure" it and make our lives all better wetter. Do you all honestly believe for one minute that the American LUNG Association wants to stop LUNG cancer? It's their bread and butter.

Same holds true for the American CANCER Society (GOD forbid if Cancer were actually erraticated from the face of the Earth. What would they do with all their buildings if a cure were found and mankind went on its merry way? Make them MUSEUMS?)

Smoking, "Treatment", Smoking, "Treatment", Smoking, "Treatment", Smoking, "Cancer", "Chemotherapy treatment", "Still Smoking", Death, end of revenue until the next person plays..

It's what's holding up our economy right now. Little wonder why they want to ban the e-cig. Curing the disease is not a money maker. "Treating the symptoms" is.

 

[beebopnjazz]

I found it amazing that only Pfizer was listed as a major contributor (besides the Midwest ALA).

Thanks for the quick response.

 

[Drozd]

I think to fight the enemy we have to know the enemy... Those 3 letter abominations have been working for years towards total smoking bans..it's in thier playbook to avoid and not accept any exemptions or provisions such as "minors only" provisions, they'd rather not chance things to ballot measures either (because they're afraid it gives the people too much of a chance to reject it)...they'd rather walk away and have no law than what they percieve as a weak law.. it says so right in their little anti-smoker ban organizer handbook...

If elected officials are unwilling to strengthen the language
despite your best efforts, you must mobilize your forces to actively oppose the ordinance.
It is best to walk away with nothing than to be left with an ineffective ordinance that may
haunt you and undermine your efforts for years to come.
The ultimate goal is to fully protect everyone from the health hazards of secondhand
smoke at all times. In order to reach that goal, you might need to take incremental steps
(starting with smokefree non-hospitality workplaces and restaurants, then bars and
gaming facilities). But along the way, never accept a compromise that will prevent
you from reaching that ultimate goal. Preemption, ventilation, smoking areas and
accommodation compromises, for example, create roadblocks to achieving 100%
smokefree laws in the future.
Ask yourself what will happen if you accept these weaker provisions today. Often, a
community will pass a law even though the legislators weren’t happy with the details,
only to find themselves stalled when they try to strengthen the law in coming years. The
evidence is clear on this point. Again, it is better to walk away from a bad deal than to
accept a law that will prevent future progress.

And lets face it, what's one of the first things we said about e-cigs? "smoking bans don't apply to it", " it's a way around the smoking ban" and any variety of ways to state this...
So well we slapped them right across the face, we found a loophole in their legislation that they've tried so hard to ensure had no loopholes and fought for, for years......they're .........
I honestly don't think it comes down to the science and the facts or the possible reduced risk behind the e-cig at all...they're just ...... because we loopholed them and they're looking to close that loophole...

if you're interested....heres the little anti "how to get a ban" organizer handbook...worth a quick read...
http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf

and look at those names on the cover page...that list should look familiar...
American Cancer society, American Heart Association, American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, Campaign for tobacco-free Kids...

OVERVIEW page 1
I. GUIDING PRINCIPLES page 2
Begin at the local level page 2
Plan before you act page 3
Agree on “dealbreakers” page 3
Be realistic about resources page 4
Move in step with your community page 7
Start with model policy language page 7
Include expert advisors page 8
Avoid ballot measures page 8
II. DRAFTING PRINCIPLES (language) page 9
Develop clear definitions page 9
Use clear, concise, and consistent language page 10
Cover all workplaces page 10
III. NEVER AGREE TO PREEMPTION page 11
IV. DEALBREAKERS: Provisions to avoid at all costs page 12
Ventilation exemptions page 12
Red light / Green light provisions page 13
Minors Only provisions page 13
Hours provisions page 13
Consent provisions page 14
Hardship exemptions page 14
Opt Out exemptions page 14
Licensing, Permits, and Tax incentives page 15
Sunset provisions page 15
Trigger provisions page 15
V. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS TO AVOID page 16
Exemptions for membership organizations (Private Clubs) page 16
tobacco shop, cigar bar and hookah exemptions page 16
Exemptions for casinos and gaming establishments page 16
Grandfather Clauses page 17
Long phase-in provisions (over 90 days) page 17
VI. ADDITIONAL CAMPAIGN TIPS page 18

 

[pianoguy]

They are an organized bunch, aren't they!

 

[jiff]

I wonder how much of their funds those dirty three letter words spent on designing that handbook...

 

[JustJulie]

The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Heart Association, American Lung Association and the Campaign for Tobacco‐Free Kids are very concerned about the increase in the marketing and sales of electronic cigarettes or “e‐cigarettes.” Our organizations strongly support the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s assertion that the products should be regulated as drug‐delivery devices and not as tobacco products. As litigation between FDA and two e‐cigarette manufacturers works through the federal court process, the importation of e‐cigarettes is prohibited although sales continue online and at kiosks and stores. In the meantime, our organizations are issuing this joint policy guidance document to assist field staff and others.

Read the full text in the attached pdf document . . . it's an eye-opener.

When it was clear that the Illinois legislation didn't have sufficient votes to make it out of the Human Services Committee, Rep. Colvin was asked whether he would agree to amend the bill to ban sales to minors. The vapers in the audience indicated their HUGE support of that position, and it was obvious that the Committee would have been willing to recommend a ban on the sale to minors.

Rep. Colvin said he'd have to refer to Kathy Drea . . . and then Kathy Drea (the paid lobbyist for the ALA) said, "Our national office, the American Lung Association national office, as well as the American Heart Association national office, and the American Cancer Society national office have asked us to go down this avenue at this time because of the appeal that's in place right now." (It was clear from the context that this avenue meant a total ban on sales.)

I simply couldn't understand why they would rather have NO legislation than enact a ban on the sale to minors. After listening to her drone on about candy flavors, how attractive e-cigs are to minors, etc., it seemed a no-brainer to me . . . if the ALA really feels this is a danger to minors, then why not ban the sale to minors?

The attached document explains why . . . it's an all or nothing approach.

They don't really think e-cigs are a serious threat to minors. If so, they would have jumped at the opportunity to protect the children. It's just inflammatory rhetoric designed to scare people into making knee-jerk decisions.

It's a sad day indeed when you learn that "charities" that enjoy favorable tax treatment and attract millions of dollars in donations can't be trusted to tell the truth, that they'll lie and misdirect in order to further their own misguided agenda. I used to really respect these organizations. What they're doing is not only intellectually dishonest . . . it's putting at risk the very public they say they serve.

Edited to Add a link to the document housed at Vapers Coalition: http://vaperscoalition.org/FPGD.pdf

 

[PlanetScribbles]

These organizations are an utter disgrace to all that is good. An abomination. Everyone here should share the OPs link to show the complete hypocrisy they are party to.

 

[tpajames]

Hello All,

This is an email I sent to Michael Seilback of the American Lung Association about the memorandum in support of the prohibition of selling electronic cigarettes in New York and his reply.

Hello Mr. Seilback,

My name is James McRae and I live in Tampa, Florida. I am responding to
you
after having read the memorandum in support of the proposed legislature
to
prohibit the sale of electronic cigarettes in the state of New York.

I would like to let you know that these products do assist in the
ability to
quit smoking cigarettes. I have been a regular (at least a pack a day)
cigarette smoker since the age of 14 years old and am now 46 years of
age
and have successfully, with the help of the electronic cigarette,
completely
replaced regular cigarettes and their 4,000 plus harmful chemicals. I
have
not smoked a regular cigarette since my third day on the electronic
cigarettes and have never felt better in my life. The last real
cigarette I
smoked was on April 6 and honestly was only going to use the electronic
cigarette to help me cut down on regular cigarettes due to the expense.
Since beginning to use the electronic cigarette, I am breathing much
better,
have more energy, have begun to exercise and can smell things that I
have
not been able to smell in years.

Although I realize that quitting cigarettes completely would be ideal, I
feel that this product has truly been a miracle for me and could also
help
and is helping many other people kick an otherwise much more dangerous
habit.

If you are truly trying to do something to contribute to the health of
your
state, I implore you to research this matter more thoroughly before
supporting a ban on something that could be beneficial to the residents
of
New York. 

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

James McRae

And his response:

Thanks for your email.  Until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) determines that e-cigarettes are safe for consumers, the American
Lung Association urges consumers not to use these products.  

The FDA conducted one limited study in July of 2009 and found that the
products contained carcinogens and toxic chemicals, including the
ingredients found in anti-freeze.  A study conducted at Virginia
Commonwealth University and published in February 2010 found that
e-cigarettes deliver little or no nicotine to users.  

For additional information on this topic, we recommend you consult the
FDA's website at
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm173401.htm

Thank you for contacting us (and congrats on quitting).  

Sincerely,

Michael Seilback
American Lung Association in New York
(631)265-3848x16
mseilback@alany.org

 

[BigJimW]

Thanks for your email. Until the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) determines that e-cigarettes are safe for consumers, the American
Lung Association urges consumers not to use these products.

The FDA conducted one limited study in July of 2009 and found that the
products contained carcinogens and toxic chemicals, including the
ingredients found in anti-freeze. A study conducted at Virginia
Commonwealth University and published in February 2010 found that
e-cigarettes deliver little or no nicotine to users.

For additional information on this topic, we recommend you consult the
FDA's website at
FDA Warns of Health Risks Posed by E-Cigarettes

Thank you for contacting us (and congrats on quitting).

Sincerely,

Michael Seilback
American Lung Association in New York
(631)265-3848x16
mseilback@alany.org

Typical boilerplate response. Doubt they even read your email. Shows how much they truly care.

 

[tpajames]

You are probably right, but I could not resist attempting to voice my opinion and maybe if enough squeaky wheels get involved, we can make some headway.

 

[DC2]

I've been calling these organizations and asking them what their position is on the use of electronic cigarettes. I go up the ladder as high as I can, until I get someone to tell me what that position is. Whichever rung I wind up on I make it clear to the person I am speaking to that their position which was just provided to me is killing people.

I then proceed to give them as many facts as I can, and tell them why their position is not only wrong, but deadly and counter to everything they are supposed to stand for.

In the process of doing this, I clog up their 800 numbers, cost them time and money, and make myself feel a little better. Hopefully sometimes I even make someone somewhere think about what they are doing, and what they are telling people. Perhaps some of them may start to question the organization they are working for, perhaps some will discuss it with their supervisors or bosses.