CEO of American Lung Association article on CNN smears E-cigarettes

[rwoodin]

How in the world do people in very high positions of influence such as this, get away with publishing patently false, highly speculative 'medical' information as if it were the absolute truth? No references sited, no data to back up claims. Nothing but reprinted dire warnings with no basis in fact. It really annoys me.

www. cnn .com/2014/01/06/opinion/wimmer-ecigarette-danger/

Opinion: FDA oversight of e-cigarettes overdue - CNN.com

 

[sbdivemaster]

The lies, and the parroting of the lies in the comments, are astounding.

 

[Papa_Lazarou]

Sooooo clearly an agenda at play. This is not about an objective, empirical approach, nor is it journalism. It's an opinion piece by someone who's head is in the other camp. That he has the position he has makes a mockery of his role.

It's worth of a Fox News piece. The problem is that if you asked 100 people if Fox News was biased and manipulative, you'd get 99 of them saying "yes", but if you asked them about this piece, you'd get a 50-50 split. It's a big deal to us. It's a big deal to BT and BP (who route their spin through the media). But it's not to most people - in other than a "oh, yes, smoking should really be stopped" checklist kind of way - and the energy they have to devote to the topic in this busy world is being dominated by 'experts' telling them what to think.

 

[justagirl]

Wow... this is such a {CRAP} rubbish article that shows exactly what we are up against. The CEO of the ALA is hating on e-cigs when they should be praising them for not causing cancer.... I question their motives. AGAIN.

 

[FearTX]

Mainstream Media = By the Sheeple for the Sheeple. It is a shame though that there are so many that take anything read on a recognized site as gospel. For most it does not even need to be a recognized site, just written somewhere on the internet.

 

[Firestorm]

I feel like punching someone every time they claim that e-liquid contains chemicals found in anti-freeze. We should all stop drinking water and beverages that contain water because it too is an ingredient found in anti-freeze.

 

[endGame]

The best I can do personally is contact the people who are making these decisions and give them my personal experience -- which has been nothing but positive.
I gotta say that I think the overall theme of that article is ok with me. He really seems primarily concerned with kids not having access and I support that.
There IS going to be some kind of regulation and there isn't 'another camp'. We all want a safe product we can be confident is going to behave as advertised and that is manufactured safely.
Yes, it's false that antifreeze is an ingredient in e-juice, but the fact remains that it WAS found in at least A sample and this is BAD.
If a standard of operation or ingredients is required to legally sell juice and that standard ensures that there will not be antifreeze in my my lungs, I'm all for it.
I really don't think we're 'up against' anything -- all of us have an opportunity to share our experiences in a reasoned and meaningful way that can and will influence this legislation.

 

[cmknight]

I think we should do a counter-article, stating the scientific facts.

 

[WarHawk-AVG]

Mainstream Media = By the Sheeple for the Sheeple. It is a shame though that there are so many that take anything read on a recognized site as gospel. For most it does not even need to be a recognized site, just written somewhere on the internet.

That is referred to as the "Bonjour" citizen

I think we should do a counter-article, stating the scientific facts.

That's the problem with the propoganda media machine..we could literally walk around with a 4" binder full of facts, pictures, the truth...and pretty much explain it one at a time to a hundred people a day...and in a 30 min segment on some news outlet they spread the disinformation to tens of thousands of viewers...and since a media outlet spewed it forth...it's swear on the bible gospel truth...of which we KNOW it not to be

The only real way to break this cycle is to teach people to think for themselves...and "trust but verify" (and NOT use snopes!!!)

I know it's preaching to the choir...but I'll put this here again
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/general-e-liquid-discussion/465485-its-not-nicotine.html

 

[rothenbj]

The best I can do personally is contact the people who are making these decisions and give them my personal experience -- which has been nothing but positive.
I gotta say that I think the overall theme of that article is ok with me. He really seems primarily concerned with kids not having access and I support that.
There IS going to be some kind of regulation and there isn't 'another camp'. We all want a safe product we can be confident is going to behave as advertised and that is manufactured safely.
Yes, it's false that antifreeze is an ingredient in e-juice, but the fact remains that it WAS found in at least A sample and this is BAD.
If a standard of operation or ingredients is required to legally sell juice and that standard ensures that there will not be antifreeze in my my lungs, I'm all for it.
I really don't think we're 'up against' anything -- all of us have an opportunity to share our experiences in a reasoned and meaningful way that can and will influence this legislation.

There was positively no antifreeze found in e liquid.

 

[Elnroth]

There was positively no antifreeze found in e liquid.

I don't know. How would you like to play a semantics game with me for about 10 posts?

 

[VapieDan]

I have often wondered what would happen if all analogue users quit immediately. I am sure a panic would result over the lost revenues. Since in a small way this is happening with Ecigs a panic is starting with BT, BP and government. They can't kill it but they sure need and excuse to tax it to replace the lost analogue taxes. This movement to tax it will start out with a little noticed minimum. Then creep up over the years until the final price to consumers is doubled or more. I wonder what the final price of a pack of analogues would be today if there were no federal or state taxes? Be prepared. Fight now. Think about this. The so called "Sin" taxes are purported to drive people to stop using a dangerous product. If it works no more taxes. That makes no sense. Also the lower income levels of a population tend to make up a higher percentage of tobacco users. Nice. Tax the poor. Duh.

 

[pamdis]

I wonder what the final price of a pack of analogues would be today if there were no federal or state taxes?

Federal tax is 1.01 per pack with a proposed increase of .94 for 2014.

Here is a list of state taxes by state:
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/cigarette.pdf

 

[Fulgurant]

The best I can do personally is contact the people who are making these decisions and give them my personal experience -- which has been nothing but positive.
I gotta say that I think the overall theme of that article is ok with me. He really seems primarily concerned with kids not having access and I support that.
There IS going to be some kind of regulation and there isn't 'another camp'. We all want a safe product we can be confident is going to behave as advertised and that is manufactured safely.
Yes, it's false that antifreeze is an ingredient in e-juice, but the fact remains that it WAS found in at least A sample and this is BAD.
If a standard of operation or ingredients is required to legally sell juice and that standard ensures that there will not be antifreeze in my my lungs, I'm all for it.
I really don't think we're 'up against' anything -- all of us have an opportunity to share our experiences in a reasoned and meaningful way that can and will influence this legislation.

The overall theme of the article is ok with you, even though basically every assertion in the piece is flat-out wrong or deliberately misleading? If our opposition doesn't exist, then why do people who claim to have an interest in cancer prevention lie so often about e-cigarettes?

Please read up a little more.

EDIT: Here's a handy breakdown, btw: http://antithrlies.com/2014/01/07/f...-alas-harold-wimmer-are-truly-champion-liars/

 

[Jman8]

I wonder what the final price of a pack of analogues would be today if there were no federal or state taxes? Be prepared. Fight now. Think about this.

Also think about impact of regulation (all packs must be labeled) and legislation (legal costs) that BT has had to face.

I'm thinking without all that, and including inflation, a pack of smokes would be around $2.50. But instead are 3 times that due to taxation and legal restrictions/regulations that have gone into costs of production. Now, my $2.50 figure is just a guess, but I honestly think it is high. I could see it being under $2 when all things are considered over period of last 40 years and politics/public perception of smoking is taken in full account.

If eCig juice must be accompanied with 'proper' packaging and proper disclosures, on top of sin taxes, I see cost per ml being easily in the 75 cent range or higher by time it his open market.

 

[DC2]

The best I can do personally is contact the people who are making these decisions and give them my personal experience -- which has been nothing but positive.
I gotta say that I think the overall theme of that article is ok with me. He really seems primarily concerned with kids not having access and I support that.
There IS going to be some kind of regulation and there isn't 'another camp'. We all want a safe product we can be confident is going to behave as advertised and that is manufactured safely.
Yes, it's false that antifreeze is an ingredient in e-juice, but the fact remains that it WAS found in at least A sample and this is BAD.
If a standard of operation or ingredients is required to legally sell juice and that standard ensures that there will not be antifreeze in my my lungs, I'm all for it.
I really don't think we're 'up against' anything -- all of us have an opportunity to share our experiences in a reasoned and meaningful way that can and will influence this legislation.

No offense intended, but I read that and I knew immediately that you were new around here.
You have a lot to learn about what we are up against.


Here is a good place to start...
FORCES International - News Portal

And here are some articles...
A Tool to Quit Smoking Has Some Unlikely Critics - New York Times
How Health Regulators Are Killing American Smokers - Forbes
Now the FDA Is Trying to Kill Smokers | Fox News

And here is some background on the kind of people that we are up against...
E-cigarettes: no smoke without ire | Lionel Shriver | Comment is free | The Guardian
Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger

 

[VapieDan]

Federal tax is 1.01 per pack with a proposed increase of .94 for 2014.

Here is a list of state taxes by state:
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/cigarette.pdf

Since I live in Michigan and the average cost per pack is $6.00 it is as I suspected 50% of the cost. Thanks for the info!

 

[ad356]

the arguement that vaping products contain antifreeze is pure drivel. the arguement come from the fact that allot of juice is made from PG, which has uses as an antifreeze. actually its used as an antifreeze substitute where ethyl glycol would not be safe to use. for example i currently work in the dairy industry. we have what is called an HTST which processes milk, it uses "glycol". im pretty sure its probably PG. PG is used where it is not safe to use antifreeze, but it is NOT the antifreeze you use in your car. you wouldnt use automotive antifreeze in the food industry and you wouldnt use PG in your car. two different products to achieve similar results. i kind of wonder what would happen if you put PG into a car

 

[ad356]

Since I live in Michigan and the average cost per pack is $6.00 it is as I suspected 50% of the cost. Thanks for the info!

$6 in MI?? lol try 9.50+ here in the "great state of NY" (sarcasm). NY is a terrible state for just about everything

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

the arguement that vaping products contain antifreeze is pure drivel. the arguement come from the fact that allot of juice is made from PG, which has uses as an antifreeze. actually its used as an antifreeze substitute where ethyl glycol would not be safe to use. for example i currently work in the dairy industry. we have what is called an HTST which processes milk, it uses "glycol". im pretty sure its probably PG. PG is used where it is not safe to use antifreeze, but it is NOT the antifreeze you use in your car. you wouldnt use automotive antifreeze in the food industry and you wouldnt use PG in your car. two different products to achieve similar results. i kind of wonder what would happen if you put PG into a car

Works well, it is used in the green antifreeze that won't kill your pets when it leaks.

PEAK | SIERRA | Antifreeze / Coolants | Auto Products

It is expensive.