ITS AN FDA WORLD AFTER ALL

Apr 23, 2012 The FDA released a document that seems to have fallen under the radar of the press and of the general population.  A press release reads:

“As our world transforms and becomes increasingly globalized, we must come together in new, unprecedented, even unexpected, ways to build a public health safety net for consumers around the world,” said FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, MD.¹ 

 

This corresponded to the release of the, “Global Engagement Report, ² detailing the many activities and strategies FDA is using to transform from a domestic to a global public health agency.”¹ It is a must read and a must re-read.  Welcome to the New World Order, Big Brother FDA.

This is a 40 page PDF file that illustrates the plan for the integration of the FDA with several other organizations throughout the world in a mission to protect the health and welfare of the people of this planet, while assuring the citizens of the United States of America that their food, medical devices and medicines are up to FDA standards.

The report has a highlighted quote in its early pages that states:

“Over the next decade, FDA will continue to transform from a predominantly domestically focused Agency, operating in a globalized economy, to an Agency fully prepared for a regulatory environment in which FDA-regulated products know no borders.”  Deborah Autor, FDA Deputy Commissioner for Global Regulatory Operations and Policy.

At first look this is a worthy and humanitarian ideology, with better, safer, standardized and uniformly regulated jargon that feels warm, fuzzy and just darn nice of us to enter into this project.  There are examples of the triumphs of the FDA in the past as it helped wage war on HIV and its less successful interventions such as the melamine tainted animal chows and heparin preparations that were substandard.

In short there is a significant message here that the United States Government is going global and if you don’t meet our standards then you will be banned from importation.  This is also to include pharmaceuticals that are now to be intercepted by postal authorities when shipped into the United States for personal use, to assure us that we are not getting substandard medications.

There is also reference to tobacco and smokeless tobacco products in one sentence and inference that they are both responsible for the thousands of deaths that have occurred to lung disease.

The report is a warning to the populace that the FDA is going to regulate and control everything it can through not only border inspection, but through direct intervention on a global scale.  The tactics of influencing the regulatory standards of the world are imperialistic at the least.  The inference that there is significant doubt as to the validity of offshore research is also made.

In its triumphant ending is the comment that there is to be leverage to assist in the implementation of the American way.  This is politely defined as cooperation, but is seen more as political and economic blackmail if looked at from another level.

The bottom line is that this is the beginning of the global microscope of the FDA and a flexing of its muscles to the world.  Along with this is the protection and adoption of a best for America nanny state that makes decisions for the populace that are based on its own ideology.  The report is highly referenced, the majority FDA or other government publications that on review are fact and data sheets with no traceable foundations other than other government documents.

It is a noble ideal to have regulation and standards that enhance the safety of the populous.  It is not a noble ideal to imply that the citizens of the United States of America are not intelligent enough to make any decisions without a regulatory stamp affixed.  The generic medications that are available from Canadian Pharmacies would be curtailed and confiscated should this be FDA’s whim. 

 

The regulators need to be overseen and not have a carte blanc check to enter into the world market and decide for us what is good for us and what is not without good reason and fairness.

In reality the ones that will benefit from this are the usual big corporate interests; Big Pharma, Big Tobacco and the Device Manufacturers in the US.  There will be a de jure monopoly for some of these companies if foreign manufacturers see upping standards and testing requirements that may be accepted in their countries, but not by the FDA, as too costly, redundant or frankly unnecessary. 

 

If there is risk and harm by all means let us minimize this risk and harm.  But to take on a theme of Manifest Destiny to the world in the health, food and medical devices frontier is arrogant and FDA like.

 

Remember this is the organization that still allows Chantix to be sold.

That in itself is enough said.

(1)    http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm301191.htm

(2)    http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/UCM298578.pdf

Corporate Ecigs- Big Brother Finally Comes Knocking

Blu, the leading e-cigarette in the USA today has been bought by Lorillard.

From the standpoint of the research and presence of this brand in the hands of a corporate giant that is well versed in dealing with the ramifications of FDA think speak, this is a potential ally in the making.  I heard many things positive, neutral and negative diatribes about this on various talk shows and in the halls of FB:

• This is a potential boon to the THR movement and will look to do the research to help prove once and for all that there is a significant Harm Reduction with e-cigarettes.
• The market to cigarette users will expand and there could be more people vaping than there will be smoking.
• From a humanitarian standpoint and THR, this is a potential vector to help combustible nicotine users change to vaping.

There was also the neutrals who expressed the usual vaping as usual rhetoric:

• They are just another player, there should be no fear.
• We will just DIY and get our juices and nicotine from China.
• We are a small part of the market, why should they care.
• It won't happen for 3-5 years anyway.

Well let us read the Lorillard take on this experience:

"blu ecigs is the best-selling e-cigarette brand, with the look and feel of traditional cigarettes – without the tobacco
smoke, ash, or smell. blu ecigs is the market leader in providing innovative technology for an improved consumer
experience that enhances the enjoyment and social aspect of e-cigarettes. blu ecigs will be a separate operating
company of Lorillard and it is Lorillard’s intention to retain blu ecigs’ current management team and its
headquarters in Charlotte, NC."

“blu ecigs are the perfect adjacency for us to participate in the smokeless market, but in a Lorillard way. That is, e-cigarettes offer many of the benefits of other smokeless products but do so in a way that is familiar and enjoyed by current adult cigarette consumers,” said Murray Kessler. “We believe that blu will benefit from Lorillard Tobacco Company's regulatory experience and sales infrastructure which are needed for it, and the category, to reach its potential in a responsible manner." (http://www.lorillard.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Q1-2012-Earnings-Release_FINAL.pdf, page 3).

Well Lorillard benefited:

Then there was the other faction:

• Squeeze out of the market, through price or regulation, our current venders.
• One company is in bed with BT, so now we all are there.
• It will draw people who don't get the satisfaction from Blu to the mod and juice venders
• We as vapers are officially associated with BT and as such are linked with the terrorism, lies, underhanded behaviors and become a link in the timeline of corruption.

And then there are the benefactors of smoking:

• Antz and their causes, what will this do to their activity.
• If the population becomes healthier, what will happen to the ALA and other lung and cancer research groups.
• Big Pharma won't have the clout it once had in cessation.
• Tax revenues from analog cigs will drop and if this is a Harm Reduction agent the taxation on them should decrease to make them more attractive.

More importantly there is a real possibility that there will be a complete paradigm shift in the perception of THR.  Vaping becomes the means to a decline in health risk (speculative and as of yet not FDA approved) with more public awareness- the Medium is the Message.

So what is this marriage- blissful and invigorating or another strike against vaping freedom?

Only time will tell.

Personally, I have my doubts and feel the time for all vapers to unite as a force to continue to show that there is a place for the individual. 

Every person grab your mods and ready them, two if by land and one if by sea, the corporations are coming and we need to be organized for our rights. 

And now there are two BT companies in the field.

How does the world of vaping react to the move by Lorillard as it purchases a well distributed  e-cigarette company Blu (which has a patent)?

There seems to be a significant apathy mixed with fear of the unknown.  This is somewhat typical of many of the legislative fights and the FDA involvement; there is either an aggressive and informed action to be proactive or there is denial.  The CASAA's of the vaping world have been the front line for advocacy in tobacco harm reduction.  This is a devoted group that has been the forefront of the keep smokeless tobacco's existence and vital importance viable in the battle against the diseases of smoke delivery nicotine products.  The role and place they go from here is one that will be vital to the framing of the vaping options available to consumers in the next years.

This is to me a mixed blessing.  Finally there is a player in the field that will push forward the research and hopefully will allow the addition of harm reduction product to e-cigarettes.  Unfortunately this depends on the approach of the BT company as it does its studies and the FDA's interpretation of the data.  Lorillard may show that vaping is safer and a harm reduction method or they may say "their" e-cigarette. patent number XXXXXXXX is safer and leave the process of vaping out of the equation.  This would leave us on the event horizon of the vaping black hole.

It is my opinion that there is no trust that needs to be given to Lorillard.  There is no financial reason for them to do anything except that which would put their product in a marketable and FDA approved safer cigarette.  In fact it is in their best interest to exclude the Provari, Silver Bullet and GLV-2 manufacturers products from their research model and implicitly state that this data is only relevant to their product. This scenario is also identical for e-liquid manufacturers.

What concerns are important to address:

• Is this a WalMart like phenomena with the larger and more efficient company with a high profit motive entering the market at the expense of the little guy and his or her product line.
• Big and profitability means that there is no need to diversify product line.  There will be no incentive for the creativity of the small manufacturer.
• Will this mean pre-filled cartridges of limited taste type with connectors that are patented and not adaptable to the current atty's and carto's available.
• Price will be up and taxation yet to be determined.
• At present there is a fairly well known population of products available for the majority of vapers.  With the introduction of a possibly regulated product the mods, juices and equipment we know now will or at least could be forced into a black market like setting and with that there is a loss of the 1:1 contacts we as vapers have and trust.
• BT has a history of divisive and extremely close to the vest and proprietary tactics.  What is the motivation for this to change?
• Do we want to have BT in control of vaping and therefore lose the intimacy of the current vendor population.
• Can we trust the FDA to act in the best interest of the vaper?  The idea that one (and there will be more) generic delivery system with non-refillable product is easier to regulate is not conducive to the time and expense of allowing the current vendors to continue; the variety of delivery systems and liquids will each need to be monitored and regulated.

I myself am concerned that this is the end of vaping as we know it, and I don't feel fine.  Whether the current vendors can band together as a force and approach this as a team is yet to be seen.

We shall see the outcome. 

It might be getting close to loading up on DIY supplies, extra mods and bricks of cartos time.  But it is not that time yet.

Take off the blinders and realize this is big corporations entering the marketplace and they are not consumer friendly, they are brand friendly. 

Personally, my GLV-2 and DIY, Boge cartos and protected batteries would rather fight than switch.

FDA and bait and switch- letter to manufacturers

 http://www.tveca.com/PDF/fda-letter.pdf

Is a link to the marvelous letter sent to elecronic cigarette and juice manufacturers.  Quoting the Tobaccolawblog from the the law firm of Troutman and Sanders  http://www.tobaccolawblog.com/  :
"The letters note that FDA has authority under the Tobacco Control Act to assert jurisdiction over e-cigarettes, and that FDA intends to do so by issuing appropriate regulations.
The letters request information regarding the following issues:

• Customer complaints and “adverse event issues.”
• Reports of “consumer misuse.”
• Descriptions of product labeling.
• Systems in place to review customer complaints and adverse events."

Based on the information requested, it appears that FDA’s letters may have been prompted by a report earlier this year of an e-cigarette exploding in a man’s mouth.

It appears that the FDA is continuing to tally data to produce a case for strict regulation and safety is an issue.  There is no mention of any material in these letters pertaining to the positive effects or reports venders are receiving.

Sad that there is only Big Tobacco and Pharma (pharmaceutical companies who make NRT's- nicotine replacement therapies) interests with the money to lobby the FDA.

very sad

Of course Vermont not banning internet sales of ecigarettes- priceless.

For the truth about tobacco harm reduction- there is the one and only CASAA-The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association  casaa.org.

Inernet Bans in Vermont; Maybe the Domino Effect Was Real

A note from my heart on H 747

In a State that has Bernie Sanders as a Senator, a true Progressive Party member, and a history of individualism and of course Ethan Allen and Ben and Jerry's, it is hard to imagine that this state would be the first to criminalize the freedom of God fearing Vermont residents for attempting to stop smoking.

I have never been told that I was able to express my thoughts and opinions in a paragraph or two, so I hope that my lengthy diatribe is not out of line. The common good is my passion and the loss of freedom and especially the hardships of this time and its effects on the hard working men and women have made that passion more fervent.

There are many facets to any subject and the most important, in my opinion, is that there is a need to protect those that have not reached the age of consent without causing harm to those of the age of consent. I fully support the Vermont actions to remove tobacco and tobacco products from the hands of children. They are our most precious resource. To never start is to never have to stop.

Bill H 747 addresses that issue well from the standpoint of protecting the child. I wish 56 years ago that such was the case for myself and others of my generation. Smoking in my youth was the water bottle of this era. Nearly everywhere was tobacco and smokers. At 12 or 13 I started and by 25 knew I needed to quit. The advent of replacement therapies gave me hope, as quitting was impossible. I had tried every agent used from gums, patches and medication therapies along with counseling. A month or two after ending the prescribed regimens; relapse.

In 2010 I was introduced to vaping, a simple means of obtaining nicotine (which I literally have been exposed to since conception). The content of the vapor is similar to FDA patches when looking at the residual carcinogenic compounds that are ingested. I have not smoked a cigarette since the first day I vaped and am actually vaping solutions that are near zero nicotine. Smoking is a behavior that is biological and psychological. That is where the 50-75 percent of smokers who keep relapsing when trying to quit fail. Nicotine free for 2 months and then smoke again is counter to any intellectual process. Vaping has improved my health, stamina and dramatically changed my life.

This is not to say that nicotine replacement therapies that are marketed have no place in society, it is not to say that smokeless tobacco does not have a place in society- it is only to say that they did not work for this person.

I do not live in Vermont, but I entertained doing my residency in Burlington when I graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill. The visit was wonderful and people delightful and progressive. If it were not for my wife's pregnancy and a desire to be near family, I would have accepted that position.

I am a retired, ex-smoking physician who has elected to go back to school to teach High School Physics and Biology. I should have known better than to start smoking but in the sixties and seventies that was the norm.

As I am returning to teach it is very apparent that children and adolescents are not developmentally able to make decisions wisely. The millions of people who have successfully stopped inhaling tobacco smoke through vaping are freeing themselves from the 4000 chemicals that include at least 50 carcinogens (nicotine not one of them) and changing, through grassroots efforts, the options for tobacco users. Unfortunately the ending of internet sales will drastically hamper the effort toward harm reduction. We know 400,000 people will die from cancer of the lung each year. Vaping has been quoted by the Boston University Department of Public Health as 98% safer than smoking. It requires credit cards, is costly and there is no evidence that adolescents are using vaping to get their nicotine.

On the other hand the expanse of your state makes vender available personal vaping devices and the liquids unfeasible to most. Internet sale elimination will make citizens that are only attempting to find a potentially safer (and legal) avenue for either use or cessation criminals. It seems counterproductive to a medical mind to block this when prescription medications that are lethal are dropped on front porches daily by health insurance companies and the VA. Internet access is essential for people like me who live in rural areas (I am in New Mexico) and inflict their greatest harm on those of the lower and middle income groups who would have to cross borders and spend their money in other states, when they could order from Vermont Vapers for example.

I urge you and your committee to stand tall and defend those who cannot make decisions and make it criminal to sell or buy any nicotine, alcohol or prescription medication for a minor. I also urge that you allow adults of age to have the ability to engage in a life changing means of tobacco harm reduction that presently requires internet and mail order for its availability.

The only jobs that will be enhanced, in my opinion, are those of the jails that will be filled with good citizens who found a way to stop smoking and postal box sales in towns outside the Vermont borders.

Please keep hope alive for those who have found it by not eliminating internet and mail order sales. People will go back to smoking and the chemical and particulate smoke that carries with it the morbidity of cigarettes will increase health costs and decrease the quality of the life of the citizens of Vermont.

Please keep the statutes that penalize those that would introduce any nicotine product to youth. This is wise and essential. To ban internet availability is to mimic prohibition and can only deter a more hopeful lifestyle.

For more information go to cassa.org.

Thank you,

John Connell, M.D. (and future educator)

Please veto HB 245 Utah Governor Gary R. Herbert

"Some men see things as they are and ask “Why?”.  I dream things that never were and ask, “Why not?" –Robert F. Kennedy.  (Paraphrasing his brother JFK).

Don’t ask me why I smoked because I really have no good reason.  I started in the sixties when everyone smoked and the thought that cigarettes might be harmful was being undermined by the tobacco lobby and glamorous jingles that I can remember to this day.  Don’t tell me I made a conscious choice to start, I was nine years old.  Don’t tell me that I was following the crowd; most of my peers didn’t smoke. Don’t tell me I was stupid, I skipped two grades and was taking college classes at 15.  RFK was prophetic, the answer is in looking at history and postulating from what is known, then going a step further into the unknown.  What if I never had a chance to make the decision?

My parents both smoked 10 years prior to my birth, so the germ cells from which I was eventually conceived were bathed in nicotine; my conception to birth was a nicotine sea as my mother smoked heavily.  I was breast fed and lived in a small house with two active smokers.  We know that nicotine evokes distinct changes in the brain, in the body and causes dependence.  I have never been successfully free of nicotine.  But I have been free of smoke.   Nicotine patches and gums did something, as I have 10 of my 45 years since the first cigarette smoke free through those agents.  They did not work because there was always something missing.  I could wean myself down to a quarter strip of a 2 mg gum- but never any further.  Why not? Because I stop being able to think clearly and my attention span is absent. I would go six months free of smoke then fall again into the lue haze.

I found e-cigarettes quite by accident, a co-worker switched at first to avoid having to take smoke breaks as vaping was allowed in the workplace.  The only awareness the rest of the center noted was he smelled better, as did his office.  I ordered them in Dec. 2010 and have not smoked a cigarette since.  My doctor visit six months later led to a discussion of how my weight, blood pressure and pulmonary function were dramatically better.  I simply told him I was off cigarettes.  I saw him last week and again and am now on no blood pressure medications and no inhalers.  I told him about the e-cigarette and being a physician expected a lecture.  He just smiled and said, my wife started those 6 weeks ago, small world.

Interestingly, before I retired to enter into teaching, I was a psychiatrist and addictionologist.  Smoking has three main features.  The first is addiction and withdrawal, the second is what some call pleasurable but I call self-medication of mood and attention span problems and the third the behavior of smoking and the physical nature of the act.  It explains a great deal to me.

E-cigarettes are vapor producing agents that contain the equivalent level of carcinogens as a patch or gum.  Both felt lower than any level dangerous per the FDA.  There is no evidence of any risk higher than that of the official nicotine replacement therapies.  But most important, there is no smoke.  Vapor produce a mist, like a kettle produces steam.  Tobacco burns and chemically emits at least 4000 compounds, 40 of which are carcinogens.  A cloth put over the spout of a kettle dampens and dries to a show no residue.  Put your mouth to a tissue and blow out smoke from a cigarette- brown residue that does not go away.

So let us dream and ask ourselves- exposed to nicotine all his life and probably for 10 years prior to conception, why would a person like me not be helped by this product.  And since it is the particulate smoke that lingers in the bronchioles in a maelstrom of carcinogenic material, how is an e-cigarette not a better and more appropriate choice? 

Associating vaping with smoking is comparing Utah Basketball to European Rugby.  They have a ball, but that is about the only association. 

Ban e-cigarette sales to minors, there isn’t much interest anyway.  Ban smoking, as an ex-smoker I am in awe of the pungent and lingering odors.  But vaping has not been shown to be an entry drug to smoking, it is not the evil empire of tobacco- it is an exit from the tobacco smoking habit.  Vapor is rapidly dissipating and not smoke.

And since it was not developed by a Pharmaceutical Company or Big Tobacco, those lobbies oppose them because they were a grass root industry that has formed to help millions across the globe and are more interested in the empathic elimination of smoking, harm reduction and choice.

When we dream of what is not obvious, find a solution and experience the amazing heath changes, we ask “Why not”.  When we see there are no toxins and no particulate smoke, we ask “Why not”.  When we see it is again American (borrowed from China) ingenuity and the American people seeking a solution to a problem that works for many more than FDA approved replacements, it is then we ask why, why eliminate a product that is less toxic to all.  The presence of vapers in public is an enticement for smokers to be exposed to a possible and most probably less harmful agent.  Like me they just might try it.  With Boston’s Department of Health stating they are 98-99% less toxic than cigarettes, think of the gains.

And the thought of being segregated with smokers in a designated area, is this not placing me in a harmful and toxic environment, the exact point the bill is attempting to free others of experiencing?

Equating vapor and smoke is not science and is not accurate, and accuracy is what leadership is all about.  Dream, be leaders and ask, as RFK did- WHY NOT?

ECIGS OCCUPY WALL STREET

[italics my own]

This article was gleaned from the internet and is unfortunately typical of the focus that is being exaggerated with little proof that a concern, other than the general moral dilemma of minors accessing electronic cigarettes, that is more emotion than reality. In a Wall Street Journal Article Mike Esterl this is unfortunately again the litany of the electronic cigarette foes that is eschewed.

 E-Cigarettes Draw Fire From Legislators -- Limits Sought on Nicotine-Mist Devices; Users Say They Eliminate Secondhand Smoke and Help Break Tobacco Addiction

  2 March 2012


There's no smoke, but there's plenty of fire.

A growing number of states are taking aim at electronic cigarettes in the absence of federal regulations, intensifying a public-health debate over the fast-growing alternative to traditional cigarettes.

Lawmakers in more than half a dozen states from Arizona to New York have introduced legislation this year that would prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes to minors. Bills in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi and Utah would extend smoking bans in public areas to include e-cigarettes, and politicians in other states have proposed special taxes and halting Internet sales.            


[Interesting the point made regarding taxes and bans. A comment in the Utah house included You Tube as one of their sources for information.]

The activity comes as more Americans turn to the battery-powered tubes, which turn nicotine-laced liquid into a vapor mist that is inhaled. Annual sales of e-cigarettes in the U.S. have grown to between $250 million and $500 million since arriving from China five years ago, according to industry estimates. That still represents a sliver of the roughly $100 billion U.S. tobacco market.

A survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicated 2.7% of U.S. adults had tried e-cigarettes by 2010, up from 0.6% a year earlier.

Anti-smoking groups seeking tight regulations on e-cigarettes say not enough is known about their health effects and that scientific studies are scant. They also say e-cigarettes are more likely to attract youth because they come in flavors like chocolate, cherry and pina colada.


[Anti-smoking groups are quite aware of the scant evidence of any direct harm from electronic cigarettes.  They are quite aware of the dangers of combustible tobacco and the difference between the two, yet do not see the risk/benefit ratios for reduction of harm.  4000+ chemicals are produced in the combustion of tobacco, 50-60 of them known carcinogens.  Nicotine is not one of the carcinogens.  Nicotine is a plant alkaloid, where are the ban tomato and eggplant outcries as they are nicotine sources?  The FDA approved smoking cessation patches and gums contain trace levels of carcinogens at about the same of slightly higher that of e-liquids.  Words are everything!  Look at this line from a Nature article (1) http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v3/n10/fig_tab/nrc1190_F1.html

Nicotine and carcinogens can also bind directly to some cellular receptors, leading to activation of the serine threonine kinase AKT (also known as protein kinase B), protein kinase A (PKA) and other factors. This, in turn, can result in decreased apoptosis, increased angiogenesis and increased cell transformation. Tobacco products also contain tumor promoters and co-carcinogens, which could activate protein kinase C (PKC), activator protein 1 (AP1) or other factors, thereby enhancing carcinogenesis. 


[Bias is the inclusion of personal views, agendas and sometimes the unconscious inference of association. Note the paragraph starts with, "Nicotine and carcinogens..., association with words but not data.  The carcinogens are in the combustible products of smoking, vaping is not smoke. In the diagram associated with the above link the figure gives the implied message that nicotine becomes the carcinogen.  Nicotine should be replaced by the word smoke.  Back to the article.]

In 2009, the Food and Drug Administration warned that e-cigarettes may pose health risks after its laboratory analysis of samples detected carcinogens and toxic chemicals. The agency said in April it planned to regulate e-cigarettes as a tobacco product, but it has yet to issue its proposal. It could be several more months or even years before federal rules are implemented.

"It's a very serious and important issue. We obviously need to learn more about potential health benefits and risks of novel products," said Lawrence Deyton, director of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products. He added the agency is moving "expeditiously" to propose e-cigarette regulations.

[Again the vials of 2009, with trace amounts of diacetyl (within the FDA's) own standards.  This is never left out of any article that needs to associate electronic cigarettes with cancer.  No further studies have been done and the trace carcinogens are again in league with the FDA approved replacement agents.  Can we move on to science.  One shot analysis is not scientific research or following the scientific method]


E-cigarette users -- so-called vapers -- and some health experts are urging regulators to tread lightly. They say e-cigarettes help nicotine addicts quit more harmful traditional cigarettes, which release most of the toxins that cause disease through combustion, and eliminate the problem of secondhand smoke.

"We finally found something that worked; we quit smoking, and they want to ban it," said Elaine Keller, president of the nonprofit Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association, a consumer group that has received funding from e-cigarette companies but is mainly supported by e-cigarette users.

"To put some sort of major obstacle in the way of its use would be really unfortunate," said Michael Siegel, a professor at Boston University School of Public Health. 

[Slight breath of fresh air, and even quotes CASAA]

Dr. Siegel said inhaling propylene glycol, a respiratory irritant found in e-cigarettes, represents a major health concern. But he also noted the FDA's initial 2009 test and more than a dozen industry-commissioned lab studies indicate e-cigarettes have far fewer carcinogens or toxins and at far lower levels than traditional cigarettes, which are linked to an estimated 443,000 deaths a year.

Even e-cigarette companies support some regulation of an industry that has sprouted hundreds of start-up brands but still lacks standardized oversight. Although a growing number of brands such as NJOY and blu Cigs can be found at major retailers like 7-Eleven, Walgreens and Wall-Mart, many are sold exclusively over the Internet. Since they aren't taxed like traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes can cost half as much, according to some estimates.

While they support age restrictions, the companies say their products shouldn't be cordoned off like traditional cigarettes or taxed at similar rates.

"We don't believe they are analogous in terms of their impact on society," said Craig Weiss, president of Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Sottera Inc., which owns the NJOY brand.

Lawmakers in Hawaii have moved to ban the sale of e-cigarettes to minors. But they backtracked last month on taxing the products at the same rate as traditional cigarettes after receiving more than 1,000 written submissions, many from e-cigarette users opposing the measure.

In Vermont, state Rep. Bill Frank has introduced a bill that would ban the sale of e-cigarettes to those under 18 years of age and make Internet-based sales punishable by up to five years of imprisonment. "If you're going to get kids hooked on nicotine, they're going to be smoking," Mr. Frank, a Democrat, said.

[And that's the fact Jack!  Mr. Frank appears to have implied the e-cigarette is an entry level agent.  We as of yet have seen evidence that the e-cigarette is an attractant of the youth (even pina colada).  But under 18 or 19 consumption is not supported by venders or those that have switched]

Senators in Utah are weighing a House-approved bill that would extend bans on smoking in public areas to e-cigarettes. New Jersey already has such a law in place, as do some cities, including Boston and Seattle. Many anti-smoking groups say e-cigarettes, which often look like traditional cigarettes, spark confusion in nonsmoking areas, undermining bans.

[Undermining bans.... why is it always a way to circumvent cigarette use. Bias]

"I would rather err on the side of caution," said state Rep. Susan Westrom, a Democrat who sponsored a similar bill in Kentucky, a major tobacco producer. She thinks too little is still known about e-cigarettes.

[And of course since there are significant issues with the multitude of personal stories that are evident in people who could not stop the known carcinogenic cigarette and have switched to e-cigarettes- and reported significant improvements in their self perception of their health.  Err to caution- 400,000 deaths per year and no significant change with billions of dollars that go to Pharma for replacement therapies... insanity defined in a new way, ban a promising agent that may help.  70% of smokers want to quit... many cannot.  Many do with e-cigarettes, some to abstinence, some to no nicotine vaping. Nice article, at least it included 2 paragraphs from real experts]

Real Life Episodes in Vaping

It is not unusual to see one person vape or one person berate you for some untrue and mythical quote straight out of FDA "facts".

But to have three in one day is a beautiful thing, so much that I gave one of the three a new Boge atty and a charged 650 mah battery and told him about Route 66, our local vapor who seems to delight in kiosk rebuking. 

The first was at work, a new hire who was just gawking at my joy ego.  I talked to him and sent him to one of three online sites that we will talk about in the morning. Wanted to know what a Pearveeriw was sic).  Suggested to start with a different mod and we'll go over options.  Beginning to feel like an AA sponsor.

The second was a good Samaritan using her Iphone to locate the class that they had changed room numbers today.  Nothing like being 30 minutes for your first class.  We were sitting on the steps outside one of the buildings (my Blackberry won't work on their email.  I pulled out my ego-T and she said, where did you get that, all I ever use comes from a convenience store or Walgreens.  I had an extra tank and tip and gave here that to puff on while she looked up the unforsaken hall- which turned out to be 2 minutes across the street, but 20 minutes because there is a fence that runs 2 miles to keep the students from Jay Walking.Suggested three websites, which she googled on her Iphone and bought a Halo kit for 70 dollars less than the equivalent in the kiosk.

Best of all as I was walking to my class, I was puffing on the ego-T and a University Policeman stopped me and told me to put the cigarette out (College has select smoking areas that seem to be placed near dumpsters and the like).  I told him it was not smoke but vapor and that it was free of the toxic levels of carcinogens.  I told him I could put it away, but not out. He started asking me what they were and pulled out a Marlboro Red ( the benefit of being a King you know).  I t0ld him to try an e-cig, and gave him joy ego and one of my new cartos.  I had Papa Smurf and Home made green tea.  He was impressed and offered me a ride across campus- really one mile down and one mile back by fence. I left the ego, my ice tea DIY and the atty by mistake in his campus cop car.  He was right there in front of the building my class was in to return it with 1/2 the juice gone.  Told him about a couple places, but to keep the atty and battery,  Told him to check out route 66 and that I was here Tuesdays and Thursdays.  10 to one he will be there to return them.  Wanted some more of the ice tea and if 20 was enough for a 15 ml bottle. I told him 5 ml for 3, and I'd bring him a couple flavors some time.  He looked like the cat that had eaten the canary.

I wasn't late for class anyway- they moved it back 45 minutes.

Nice feeling to meet vapors spontaneously.  He also said they were thinking of banning the hiring of smokers at the Hospital where he moonlights.

I don't think he will be very active against vapors.

I just feel blessed and inspired.  Nice day to all I hope and keep your eye on CASAA!

Now if I could just get the Major of Indianapolis to cooperate......

Marion County- e-cigarettes are Not Smoke

"Some men see things as they are and ask “Why?”.  I dream things that never were and ask, “Why not?" –Robert F. Kennedy.  (Paraphrasing his brother JFK).

Don’t ask me why I smoked because I really have no good reason.  I started in the sixties when everyone smoked and the thought that cigarettes might be harmful was being undermined by the tobacco lobby and glamorous jingles that I can remember to this day.  Don’t tell me I made a conscious choice to start, I was nine years old.  Don’t tell me that I was following the crowd; most of my peers didn’t smoke. Don’t tell me I was stupid, I skipped two grades and was taking college classes at 15.  RFK was prophetic, the answer is in looking at history and postulating from what is known, then going a step further into the unknown.  What if I never had a chance to make the decision?

My parents both smoked 10 years prior to my birth, so the germ cells from which I was eventually conceived were bathed in nicotine; my conception to birth was a nicotine sea as my mother smoked heavily.  I was breast fed and lived in a small house with two active smokers.  We know that nicotine evokes distinct changes in the brain, in the body and causes dependence.  I have never been successfully free of nicotine.  But I have been free of smoke.   Nicotine patches and gums did something, as I have 10 of my 45 years since the first cigarette smoke free through those agents.  They did not work because there was always something missing.  I could wean myself down to a quarter strip of a 2 mg gum- but never any further.  Why not? Because I stop being able to think clearly and my attention span is absent. I would go six months free of smoke then fall again into the lue haze.

I found e-cigarettes quite by accident, a co-worker switched at first to avoid having to take smoke breaks as vaping was allowed in the workplace.  The only awareness the rest of the center noted was he smelled better, as did his office.  I ordered them in Dec. 2010 and have not smoked a cigarette since.  My doctor visit six months later led to a discussion of how my weight, blood pressure and pulmonary function were dramatically better.  I simply told him I was off cigarettes.  I saw him last week and again and am now on no blood pressure medications and no inhalers.  I told him about the e-cigarette and being a physician expected a lecture.  He just smiled and said, my wife started those 6 weeks ago, small world.

Interestingly, before I retired to enter into teaching, I was a psychiatrist and addictionologist.  Smoking has three main features.  The first is addiction and withdrawal, the second is what some call pleasurable but I call self-medication of mood and attention span problems and the third the behavior of smoking and the physical nature of the act.  It explains a great deal to me.

E-cigarettes are vapor producing agents that contain the equivalent level of carcinogens as a patch or gum.  Both felt lower than any level dangerous per the FDA.  There is no evidence of any risk higher than that of the official nicotine replacement therapies.  But most important, there is no smoke.  Vapor produce a mist, like a kettle produces steam.  Tobacco burns and chemically emits at least 4000 compounds, 40 of which are carcinogens.  A cloth put over the spout of a kettle dampens and dries to a show no residue.  Put your mouth to a tissue and blow out smoke from a cigarette- brown residue that does not go away.

So let us dream and ask ourselves- exposed to nicotine all his life and probably for 10 years prior to conception, why would a person like me not be helped by this product.  And since it is the particulate smoke that lingers in the bronchioles in a maelstrom of carcinogenic material, how is an e-cigarette not a better and more appropriate choice? 

Associating vaping with smoking is comparing Utah Basketball to European Rugby.  They have a ball, but that is about the only association. 

Ban e-cigarette sales to minors, there isn’t much interest anyway.  Ban smoking, as an ex-smoker I am in awe of the pungent and lingering odors.  But vaping has not been shown to be an entry drug to smoking, it is not the evil empire of tobacco- it is an exit from the tobacco smoking habit.  Vapor is rapidly dissipating and not smoke.

And since it was not developed by a Pharmaceutical Company or Big Tobacco, those lobbies oppose them because they were a grass root industry that has formed to help millions across the globe and are more interested in the empathic elimination of smoking, harm reduction and choice.

When we dream of what is not obvious, find a solution and experience the amazing heath changes, we ask “Why not”.  When we see there are no toxins and no particulate smoke, we ask “Why not”.  When we see it is again American (borrowed from China) ingenuity and the American people seeking a solution to a problem that works for many more than FDA approved replacements, it is then we ask why, why eliminate a product that is less toxic to all.  The presence of vapers in public is an enticement for smokers to be exposed to a possible and most probably less harmful agent.  Like me they just might try it.  With Boston’s Department of Health stating they are 98-99% less toxic than cigarettes, think of the gains.

And the thought of being segregated with smokers in a designated area, is this not placing me in a harmful and toxic environment, the exact point the bill is attempting to free others of experiencing?

Equating vapor and smoke is not science and is not accurate, and accuracy is what leadership is all about.  Dream, be leaders and ask, as RFK did- WHY NOT?

Canadian Ecigarette Hockey Results

Hockey Scores- Calgary Alberta:


E-Cig All stars  4-  Health Canada 0

In one of the most intriguing and unexpected results of the day the E-Cigarette All-Stars crushed Health Canada in a game broadcast on:

The Rob Breakenridge Show on CHQR AM radio in Calgary.

His guest was Jesse Kline, author of the article E-smoke'em if you got them a boldly written history and expose of Health Canada's stance on the E-cigarette.  CHQR aired the talk show subject last night with three callers all expressing their gratitude for quitting combustible and carcinogen laden cigarettes for the e-cigarette, a product that produces a nicotine vapor that has drastically changed the lives of countless former cigarette users- and from their standpoint for the better.  The text of the article is linked below.  Mr. Breakenridge did a thorough job of questioning and exploring the actions (or more appropriately deemed the inaction of Health Canada in addressing an issue they put on the table in 2009). 

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/02/jesse-kline-e-smoke-em-if-you-got-em/

In the segment aired 1/2/2012 entitles, Why Won't Health Canada Allow E-Cigarettes?  Mr Breckenridge posed straight and direct questions to Mr. Klein about the

real issues of why this method of nicotine use was being undermined in a country which is thought to be a leader among prevention of disease and harm reduction.  In his interview he talked openly with Mr. Klein about the question of why Health Canada would not allow adults to use a product that is tobacco, but in a means that is safer (his words) than smoking.  He opened up with the significant differences between the e-cigarette and the smoked tobacco.

Link to podcast  http://www.qr77.com/Station/Episodes.aspx?PID=1022

Major points:

1. Health Canada is taking no action except to prevent the import of nicotine into the country.
2. It has gone after, through the RCMP's (short form Mounties), producers in Canada and shut them down.
3. The e-cigarette device is not illegal and 0 nicotine juices are legal.
4. He points out that there is a high revenue base from taxation of cigarettes that may be diluted by this product.
5. Demonizing of cigarettes is evident in Canada yet the harm reduction potential of the e-cigarette have been neglected.  The patches and gums just do not have the same feel for the smoker and with the advent of a product that seems to mimic smoking nothing except active government resistance is evident.
6. On one hand the government is taking measures to stop smoking but is hooked on the tobacco money and does not want to go all the way.
7. Klein reports that the electronic cigarette is used as a replacement method as opposed to the patch that is looked upon as a short term quit.
8. His conclusion is that the incentive for the government of Canada is not for this to become a real option from a revenue standpoint.

Several callers (not on the podcast) expressed views that this has been helpful and life changing.  Greg commented on the effects on health and re-emphasized the illusion that this is somehow not a change in the smoker's world.  Another caller related that he had slowly transitioned over several months to e-cigarettes with health benefits, but that he related it to a replacement for the cigarette that he felt was beneficial.  The last caller Kristin related that there was evidence of safety, that there was a group CASAA (cassa.org) that was actively involved in attempting to get truthful information about the product, 

Overall this was a phenomenal interview with a glimpse into the politics of money verses the general good of the Canadian.  It focused on the ability of adults to purchase carcinogen filled tobacco and yet not obtain a harm reduction product.

Read the article, listen to the podcast, and sit back- smoker, e-cigarette user or nonsmoker and judge for yourself the real reason tobacco is smokeable but nicotine not vapable.

Then try to think of a good reason for these not to be available.

Good job Mr. Breakenridge, smashing article Mr. Klein and excellent viewpoints by the callers.

My thoughts- in the next Tobacco Harm Reduction Blog.