[ 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. ]
4/20/14 - 4/22/14 Media Roundup
1) Watauga, Texas has Banned Sale of E-Cigarettes:
CASAA: Local Alert! Watauga, Texas has Banned Sale of E-Cigarettes.
2) Dr. Farsalinos survey of vaping is finally published.
3) US-based Victory buys UK-based VIP for £30 million ($50M US).
4) Denmark's Health Minister calls for regulations on nic-free PVs (PVs with nicotine are only available by prescription).
5) Vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor bans proposed in: Caerphilly WLS; Shasta co. CA; Hewitt TX; Glen Cove NY. Plus vapers who life in any cities in Denton and Collin co. TX should beware (see first story in Texas section).
6) Vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor bans passed in: Miramar FL (apparently to keep children from becoming tobacco cigarette smokers); and Ann Arbor MI (this was part of a general tobacco smoking ban, vaping was evidently included as a matter of course with no comment or discussion by city officials).
7) FL house modifies its simple minor sales/possession ban (HB 169) to allow local jurisdictions to pass harsher restrictions and/or more stringent display/marketing requirements.
8) Singapore cracks down on vaping sales.
9) Altria (formerly PMI) earnings not expected to improve in the near future.
Coverage: Australia; Singapore; Denmark; UK (nat'l/WLS); Canada; US States: NY, NJ, MD, PA, VA, FL, TX, IL, MI, WI, MO, ND, CA
Also: More on FDA regulation w/ C.V.; Interview w/ Prof. Gerry Stimson; Dr. Siegel on the ACS' hypocrisy re: Walgreens; Gary Cox on the Australia situation; D!ck Puddlecote reacts to the world's first apartment vaping ban.
***
BLOGS, STUDIES, ETC.
Title: Characteristics, Perceived Side Effects and Benefits of Electronic Cigarette Use: A Worldwide Survey of More than 19,000 Consumers [Dr. Farsalinos study]
(Int'l Journal of Env. Research and Pub. Health)
IJERPH | Free Full-Text | Characteristics, Perceived Side Effects and Benefits of Electronic Cigarette Use: A Worldwide Survey of More than 19,000 Consumers
Yes, this is the Dr. F. survey that we've all heard about. Also discussed in this ECF thread: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/for...tte-users.html
Title: FDA reveals its views on ecigs in new publication (part 3), and some thoughts on their new deadlines
(C.V. Phillips' blog)
FDA reveals its views on ecigs in new publication (part 3), and some thoughts on their new deadlines | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
Much of this is fairly technical, but what caught my eye were the FDA's own promises on its delay times for reviewing of MRTP (Modified Risk Tobacco Product) and SE (Substantial Equivalence) applications. This is one of the more salient aspects of FDA regulation that could effectively shut down the vaping industry as we know it today (but there are others, as noted in the series of blogs).
Title: Interview with professor Gerry Stimson about the Global Forum on Nicotine.
(Industry-sponsored site)
Interview with professor Gerry Stimson about the Global Forum on Nicotine. | Save e-cigs
I don't usually post industry-sponsored sites' links, but this one is worth a read for anyone who's concerned about the anti-vaping impact of both the EU's TPD (Tobacco Products Directive), and the WHO's proposed extensions to the FCTC (framework Convention on Tobacco Control). In both of these cases, as well as the Singapore-sponsored "Tobacaco-Free Generation" project, there is real potential for world-wide impact on the cause of vaping: in all of these cases, vaping is being treated and regarded as indistinguishable from tobacco cigarette smoking. (As readers of this space know, the 4/16 media roundup reported that 11 Asian countries had signed on to Singapore's initiative which calls for measures to be taken that will ensure that no one born after 2000 uses any form of tobacco-related product: it's a cinch that such legislation will have an impact on every adult who currently vapes, since "protection of children" is well known to be both the first and last refuge of prohibitionists.) This interview also contains some interesting observations about the upcoming Global Forum on Nicotine, to be held in Warsaw on June 27-8.
Title: What’s goin’ down down under?
(ECF's InfoZone)
What's goin' down down under? - ECF InfoZone
Gary Cox looks closely at the recent decision by a WA court that would effectively ban the sale of e-liquid.
Title: The World's First E-Cig Ban In Private Homes?
(D!ck Puddlecote's blog)
http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.com/2...n-private.html
Reacting to the decision by the city of Corte Madera's decision to ban vaping in apartment buildings - reported in this space's last news summary.
Title: American Cancer Society Sells Out Its Principles for Money
(Dr. Siegel's blog)
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/...s-out-its.html
Dr. Siegel looks at the ACS' two-faced perspective on Walgreens' decision to continue to sell tobacco cigarettes.
Title: New Article Argues that Hospitals Denying Employment to Smokers is Not Consistent with Principles of Medicine
(Dr. Siegel's blog)
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/...hospitals.html
About the moralization of health care. And although Dr. S. doesn't mention it, there are government agencies in the US that are refusing to hire anyone who fails a cotine test, even if they're NRT users.
Title: LA public vaping ban may benefit vaping lounges
(ECF's InfoZone)
LA public vaping ban may benefit vaping lounges - ECF InfoZone
Vape lounges are the new "speak-easies" of Los Angeles.
Title: The poisonous "juice" in e-cigarettes
(British Med. Jrnl which specializes in anti-vaping studies/letters/etc.)
Re: The poisonous
Excellent response to fear-mongering junk science letter. I'm astonished that it was actually published.
Title: E-Cig Wars
(ECF's InfoZone)
E-Cig Wars - ECF InfoZone
Gary Cox muses about the patent wars and soap operas in the cigAlike industry.
Title: Bill Godshall Update 2014-04-22
(Bill Godshall's blog)
Bill Godshall Update 2014-04-22
Bill's updates for 4/18 - 4/22
Title: Anti-Smoking Groups and Policy Makers Attack Big Pharma for Targeting Kids with Flavored Nicotine Replacement Products
(Dr. Siegel's blog)
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/...cy-makers.html
A little fun. Enjoy :)
***
WORLD/INDUSTRY
Title: Victory Electronic Cigarettes Corporation Closes VIP(R) Acquisition Expanding European Platform for Growth [Press Release]
(US Nat'l business) http://online.wsj
.com/article/PR-CO-20140422-907073.html
Title: VIP Electronic Cigarette, based in Radcliffe, was today bought by American firm Victory Electronic Cigarettes Corporation
(Manchester MCH UK local paper) http://www.manchestereveningnews
.co.uk/business/radcliffe-based-e-cigarette-firm-vip-been-7018006
Price is £30 million ($50M US). Note that Victory Pres. Michael Clapper is the new Chair of ECITA. Manchester-based VIP was the firm behind the now-infamous UK "I want to put it in my mouth" ad campaign.
Title: The E-Cig Market Is Still Smokin' [by Rich Duprey]
(US investor site) http://www.fool
.com/investing/general/2014/04/19/the-e-cig-market-is-still-on-fire.aspx
Finally, Motley Fool publishes another article by Rich Duprey, who is (as far as I can tell) their only writer who actually knows anything about vaping and/or the market, and who ranks with Melissa Vonder Haar of CSPNet as one of the only quasi-mainstream reporters who can be trusted to write something sensible about vaping and/or the industry. Although factual and incisive, this one won't tell knowledgeable vapers very much which wasn't already said by Wells Fargo analyst Bonnie Herzog in a recent WSJ piece - namely, that cigAlikes are still booming, but are quite likely to become yesterday's news within the near future. However there's no attempt to explain why the writer believes that the FDA will be unsuccessful when it "undoubtedly tr[ies] to snuff out the emerging electronic cigarette market when it reveals its soon-to-be-released regulations ..." other than to point to the rapid rate of evolution in the area of VTMs (personal vaporizers, tanks, and mods), viz. non-cigAlikes.
Title: Will Altria (MO) Disappoint This Earnings Season? - Analyst Blog
(Stock exchange blog site) http://www.nasdaq
.com/article/will-altria-mo-disappoint-this-earnings-season-analyst-blog-cm346340
This analyst's report is skeptical about near-term Altria (formerly PMI) earnings. No surprise that cigarette revenues are dropping, but vaping is also under siege from regulation:
"Altria has been witnessing declining volumes for the past few quarters due to growing awareness against tobacco products. Worldwide anti-tobacco campaigns and consciousness among people against the harmful effects of tobacco are shifting consumer preference away from cigarettes and other traditional tobacco products. [...] Accordingly, the company has been reporting soft top lines in both the smokeable and smokeless segments for the past few quarters because of the ongoing industrial headwinds discussed above. We do not expect these conditions to improve in the quarter. Earnings of the company have been growing regularly only due to tailwinds from lower excise tax and share buybacks - suggesting lack of significant growth in the core business. Moreover, e-cigarettes are now being considered by both the French and EU governments as tobacco products which face the same restrictions as other such products. These developments are expected to further hurt volumes of the tobacco companies. [boldface added]"
No mention of OTP (other tobacco products) or the changing nature of the vaping market (growth of non-cigAlikes, which PMI has apparently not yet considered relevant).
***
AUSTRALIA
Title: E-cigarettes' case goes up in smoke following landmark ruling in WA court
(Sydney MSW Aus.) http://www.smh
.com.au/nsw/ecigarettes-case-goes-up-in-smoke-following-landmark-ruling-in-wa-court-20140419-36xih.html#ixzz2zSxWdqY1
More coverage of the case out of WA (Western Australia) - NWS Health Ministry is "monitoring the case," and evidently preparing to go after vape outlets if the ruling is upheld. Also see:
What's goin' down down under? - ECF InfoZone
***
SINGAPORE
Title: Three prosecuted for online sales of e-cigarettes
(Singapore nat'l paper) http://www.todayonline
.com/singapore/three-prosecuted-online-sales-e-cigarettes
Is Singapore's health ministry ready to crack down on vaping sales? It seems so. Three sellers were fined an average of S$32,000 each (about US$25,000), with the highest fine being over US$50,000.
***
EUROPE
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Tobacco giants muscle in on e-cigarette market
(Eurowide TV) http://www.euronews
.com/2014/04/21/tobacco-giants-muscle-in-on-e-cigarette-market/
This very brief report notes that BT has invested heaviliy in vaping, and that there's no current quality control regimine imposed on PVs which are mostly (the report indicates) made in China. Unless one's following the market, one wouldn't have caught this one-sentence reference to what I'm calling the "herb cooker" technology:
"But the tobacco companies [sic] new products use a solid form of tobacco which some doctors say will be just as dangerous [as tobacco cigarettes."
The 187 words in this piece come to an end with no mention of cessation or harm reduction, merely this fairly typical ominous warning:
"However more and more production is coming to Europe and the USA, and slick marketing, say anti-smoking campaigners, is trying to make lighting up fashionable again. With the health implications still little-understood and the deep pockets of big tobacco hard to counter, many people are concerned."
***
DENMARK
Title: Health minister no fan of electronic cigarettes
(Copenhagen Dk local paper) http://cphpost.dk/news/health-minister-no-fan-of-electronic-cigarettes
.9290.html
Like health ministers and health department officials everywhere, Nick Hækkerup might like nothing other than a full-fledged ban on vaping products, based on CWUFs (concerns, worries, fears and unknowns) regarding both children and adults. This is true even though Denmark prohibits over-the-counter sale of vaping products that contain nicotine.
But he'll will have to settle for regulation (at least for the moment):
"'It concerns me that children are using strawberry and licorice flavoured e-cigarettes,' Hækkerup wrote in a statement to parliament's committee on health. 'It doesn't matter whether or not they contain nicotine, it is still a concern.' Hækkerup called on parliament to begin discussing possible regulation of the use of electronic cigarettes. [para break omitted, boldface added]"
This report stops short of the full-fledged fear-mongering that we've come to expect in the states:
"Studies have shown that e-cigarettes can cause damage to the respiratory tract and that they do contain small amounts of carcinogens. The research is however preliminary and Socialdemokraterne health spokesperson Flemming Møller Mortensen said that it is too soon to sound the alarm. 'It is hard to regulate when we know as little as we do now,' he told DR Nyheder. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
And naturally the local ANTZ orgs are just itching to see vaping restricted. (It used to be tobacco cigarettes, then it was nicotine, and now it's ... ?):
"Niels Them Kjær, spokesperson for Kræftens Bekæmpelse, the cancer society, welcomed Hækkerup's suggestion. 'It has been a grey area for a while, so it is a positive sign that the minister is looking to regulate it in some way,' Kjær told DR Nyheder. [para break omitted]"
***
UK NATIONAL
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Follow the science over e-cigarettes [Editorial]
(Int'l bus. mag.) http://www.ft
.com/intl/cms/s/0/d6bcc846-c61b-11e3-9839-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2zbU5Tjp2
Excellent editorial dismisses the "gateway to tobacco" argument and the "nanny" argument (nicotine is an addictive stimulent, therefore the gov't has a role in keeping us from using it). Conclusion:
"The aim of health regulation must always be to reduce harm. E-cigarettes should therefore be embraced as part of the solution to the growth of cancer worldwide. Regulators should not take narrow-minded decisions to occupy an invented moral high ground. Instead, they should follow the science. This provides overwhelming evidence that electronic cigarettes are a benefit." (Unfortunately, no similarly-respected voice of rationality within the press seems to exist outside the UK.)
Title: E-cigarettes and the vape debate
(BBC) http://www.bbc
.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27082910
This is a pointless story which seems to have been created by a combination of Googling and cutting-and-pasting variegated opinions. Although it does link to the despicable Scientific American piece (reviewed in the last news roundup), but ultimately concludes that there are no "verified risks" other than "injury by explosion" (sadly, it doesn't mention that any battery can explode).
---
UK: WALES
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: E-cigarette ban planned by Caerphilly (Wales) council
(BBC)
Council considering banning vaping on all municipal property because the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board has done so, and allowing vaping would "[re]normalise smoking" and "undermine the smoking ban."
Title: Significant public support for ban on smoking in cars carrying children
(Wales UK newspaper amalgam site) http://www.walesonline
.co.uk/news/wales-news/significant-public-support-ban-smoking-7011887
Poll shows that 81% of the Welsh public support a ban on tobacco cigarette smoking in cars containing minors. Vapers will immediately wonder whether there may also be a danger of this dovetailing Health Min. Drakeford's proposal to ban vaping in public places (including private business and public parks, etc.). However the same poll showed that 45% of the public opposes such a ban. So for now, it appears that the Welsh public do not support the idea that adults should be prohibited from vaping in cars that contain minors. Drakeford's proposal to ban vaping in private businesses open to the public is currently under consideration, and an announcement is expected in mid-May.
***
CANADA
Title: Vaping: The battle for acceptance is rising
(Toronto ON Ca. local paper) http://www.thestar
.com/news/insight/2014/04/20/vaping_the_battle_for_acceptance_is_rising.html
Title: ‘Vaping’ loyalists battle for e-cigarette acceptance
(Waterloo ON Ca. local paper) http://www.therecord
.com/news-story/4474592--vaping-loyalists-battle-for-e-cigarette-acceptance/
Title: E-cigarettes are odourless, so can you use them anywhere? [alternate title]
(Waterloo ON Ca. local paper) http://www.therecord
.com/news-story/4475149-e-cigarettes-are-odourless-so-can-you-use-them-anywhere-/
Title: ‘Vaping’ loyalists battle for e-cigarette acceptance
(London ON Ca. local paper) http://www.londoncommunitynews
.com/news-story/4474592--vaping-loyalists-battle-for-e-cigarette-acceptance/
Title: E-cigarettes are odourless, so can you use them anywhere?
(Cambridge ON Ca. local paper) http://www.cambridgetimes
.ca/news-story/4475149-e-cigarettes-are-odourless-so-can-you-use-them-anywhere-/
Spotlight on vape shop owner, a vaper, and Dr. Gopal Bhatnagar - a Toronto-area physician who has started his own cigAlike company (which currently only offers nic-free options). The good thing about this piece is that the writer provides an opportunity to vapers and the Dr. to refute all the anti-vaping falsehoods that generally pass for "scientific truth," in most articles, as well as the CWUFs (concerns, worries, fears, and unknowns).
Title: E-cigarettes in regulatory grey zone: Are they banned or aren't they?
(Nat'l news network) http://toronto.ctvnews
.ca/e-cigarettes-in-regulatory-grey-zone-are-they-banned-or-aren-t-they-1.1786365
General summary of the situation in Canada, little of which will be novel to Canadian readers. In a nutshell, Health Canada has declared the sale of any e-liquid that contains nicotine to be "unauthorized," but the ban is effectively unenforced (except occasionally and inconsistently, through border seizures). The result is that no one really knows what's going on. The first province which appears to be ready to take some action is Nova Scotia, which is looking into a province-wide vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor clean air act extension and a ban on flavors.
There's some bias and junk in the article - for ex.:
"[Melodie Tilson, policy dir. for Canada's Non-Smoker's Rights Assn] says her group is concerned about e-cigarettes in large part because they worry they could become a 'gateway' for young non-smokers to tobacco smoking. 'If they are being widely promoted like they are now and being promoted the way cigarettes were, and if they're being widely used in public places and workplaces where smoking used to be permitted, we could re-normalize the act of smoking for a new generation,' she said. [para break omitted, boldface added]"
(Vapers were never given a chance to respond to this, although members of the Electronic Cigarette Trade Assn of Canada were apparently interviewed.)
Similarly:
"Health Canada says propylene glycol is a known irritant and there are concerns might contain their own dangers. The effects of inhaling nicotine-laced vapour is even less well-understood."
and:
"So do e-cigarettes help smokers kick their habit, or re-enforce it? Again, there have not been enough high-quality research to say for sure."
(This is the usual "no information exists whatever" misleading stance.)
All of that said, Canada (like the UK) lacks the well-funded messianic puritanical and mendacious American Tobacco Control Industry, so we hear things that are often said in the UK:
"Tilson's group, like many anti-smoking advocates, believe e-cigarettes could be helpful to smokers, pointing to two high quality studies that found that e-cigarettes can be as effective as nicotine patches in helping smokers quit. "
And:
"Last year, the Canadian Lung Association issued a policy statement to say vaping was 'potentially harmful' to lungs and called for an all-out ban on the sale of e-cigarettes until their safety could be properly researched. But the group is currently re-evaluating its stance, as it investigates the devices' use as a quit-smoking aid."
***
US: FDA REGULATION
Title: FDA reveals its views on ecigs in new publication (part 3), and some thoughts on their new deadlines
(C.V. Phillips' blog)
FDA reveals its views on ecigs in new publication (part 3), and some thoughts on their new deadlines | Anti-THR Lies and related topics
Much of this is fairly technical, but what caught my eye were the FDA's own promises on its delay times for reviewing of MRTP (Modified Risk Tobacco Product) and SE (Substantial Equivalence) applications. This is one of the more salient aspects of FDA regulation that could effectively shut down the vaping industry as we know it today (but there are others, as noted in the series of blogs).
Title: E-cigarette Industry Awaits Looming Federal Regulation
(AP) http://www.boston
.com/health/2014/04/22/cig-industry-awaits-looming-federal-regulation/ufZx6l0I1CZIapGQmFVdQP/story.html
This article by AP tobacco reporter Nichael Felberbaum has been excerpted or syndicated in scores if not hundreds of US media outlets. It's also being discussed in this ECF thread: http://www.e-cigarette-forum
.com/forum/legislation-news/555206-another-news-article-fda-regs.html
Usually AP reporters are fairly careful about slanting stories, and this one contains relatively little in the way of subtle bias. Although it's certainly not free from it:
i) "Some smokers use e-cigarettes as a way to quit smoking tobacco, or to cut down."
Taken literally, this is true. There are at least two smokers on planet earth who have used vaping as smoking cessation or reduction.
But of course it implies that there are a significant proportion of vapers who have never been smokers, which (as we all know) is misleading at best.
ii) "There’s not much scientific evidence showing e-cigarettes help smokers quit or smoke less, and it’s unclear how safe they are."
Again, if we carefully qualify this statement, it's true. There are no long-term peer-reviewed studies of cessation, nor are there long-term peer-reviewed studies that precisely measure where on the scale vaping may be, as between:
a) a completely "safe" activity such as drinking a nanoliter of room temperature sterilized distilled water and
b) sitting atop a detonating 50-megaton thermonuclear bomb. In other words, "harm reduction" is a nonextant notion, which is exactly what anti-vaping advocates want the public and policymakers to believe.
That said, there are "takeaways" from this piece that appear plausible:
1) Ban sale to minors. (What's unclear is whether this will track the current regulation of tobacco cigarettes, by requiring a F2F sales requirement for e-liquid and perhaps special licenses for the purchase of high concentration water-soluable nicotine - which would essentially end vaping as we know it.)
2) "Federal regulators also are expected to set product standards and require companies to disclose their ingredients and place health warning labels on packages and other advertising." Again, the devil is in the details. Depending on how these regulations are crafted and implemented, they could result in the demise of the non-cigAlike parts of the industry.
3) The status of e-luquid flavors is unknown. (Although the story doesn't mention it, non-tobacco flavors are still permitted in "cigars" and also in pipe tobacco.)
4) Marketing and advertising restrictions are a big question mark.
5) What about equipment? Will the current fear-mongering over e-liquid poison control center calls result in a general ban on e-liquid, or perhaps a prohibition on the sale of any container that can be refilled by the vaper? This appears to be where the EU is moving, with its TPD. It's also interesting to observe that the CDC released its poison control call center data (and issued a press release) on the very same day that FDA Commissioner Hamburg was testifying in front of a congressional committee.
6) "The FDA also will decide the grandfather date that would allow electronic cigarette products to remain on the market without getting prior approval from regulators - a ruling that could force some, if not all, e-cigarettes to be pulled from store shelves while they are evaluated by the agency." This caught my eye, because I'm not sure that the FDA has the authority to change the date range for the substantial equivalence test. If not, then FDA regulation will mean exactly what the quoted sentence says: a complete ban on the sales of all e-liquid and cigAlikes (if not vaping equipment).
7) "The regulations will be a step in a long process that many believe will ultimately end up being challenged in court." (Can't argue with that.). Here's a helpful description from CSPNet:
http://www.cspnet.com/category-manag...rocess-and-fda
and this chart:
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/reginfo/Regmap/regmap.pdf
Title: Coming soon: FDA to announce e-cig regulations proposal
(BT-sponsored [?] site) http://www.tobaccoreporter
.com/2014/04/coming-soon-fda-to-announce-e-cig-regulations-proposal/
I have no idea where they get their info. from, but I thought this was quoteable:
"It is quite literally 'any day now' that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says it will release its proposal for the regulation of e-cigarettes, according to a spokesperson for the FDA. The rules could change the landscape of the tobacco and vapor industries. [boldface added]"
The short piece also contains this summary:
"The FDA will most likely ban sales to those under 18, set product standards, require companies to disclose e-juice ingredients and place health warnings on packaging and advertisements. The FDA will also decide whether there will be a grandfather date for products that are currently on the market and what it might be, in addition to proposing rules on advertising, sponsorships, Internet sales limitations and child-proof packaging requirements. [boldface added]"
(Hmm. If you DIY w/ nic., now might not be a bad time to order more high-concentration liquid.)
***
US NATIONAL
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Can e-cigarettes help you stop smoking?
(US Consumer-oriented science site) http://health.howstuffworks
.com/wellness/smoking-cessation/e-cigarettes-help-stop-smoking.htm
The title for this piece should probably be something like: Is vaping safer than smoking, is it safe, and should you try it for cessation?.
1) This article contains no junk other than the implication that some vaping opponents think that vapers who have quit smoking tobacco cigarettes are somehow exposing themselves to no less danger than they were when they were still smoking. This is nonsense - only the most irresponsible vaping opponents such as Stanton Glantz make that claim. But the author of this piece isn't quite sure how to separate those who do say this, and those who agree that vaping can be harm reduction - so she goes back and forth between the two positions (she may not even be aware of the difference, because she may never have heard of harm reduction).
2) Is vaping "safe," according to vaping opponents? The answer is that they have no evidence, but have "concerns" about nicotine (it's "addictive," the "long term effects aren't known," and vapers may "overconsume"). Plus opponents "worry" that vaping may lead to smokers not quitting in the "safe and effective" way, and/or continuing to smoke (more?) tobacco cigarettes. We've heard this all before, and we all know that every survey article about vaping has to "CWUF" multiple times (i.e. use concern/worry/fear/unknown over and over again).
3) Should the reader consider vaping as cessation? No: there are too many CWUFs (concerns, worries, unknowns and fears). Yes: many people have used it and feel a great deal better.
As general survey articles written by authors who almost certainly had no knowledge of vaping prior to getting their assignment, this isn't so terrible. But clearly the writer's only goal was to summarize anti-vaping CWUFs (concerns, worries, fears and unknowns), and report the anectdotal experiene of vapers. Your Correspondent is actually not certain that she even knows what she herself thinks. But in a world of "accidental hit jobs," a neutral piece like this beats a laundry list consisting of references to FDA '09, CDC statistics on minor vaping and poison control center call statistics, Dutra & Glantz (minor-gateway-to-smoking), and Grana et al. ("doesn't help smokers quit").
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: How Nicotine Works
(US Consumer-oriented science site) http://science.howstuffworks
.com/nicotine.htm
[This piece is by two authors, neither of whom wrote the one above that's also from "How Stuff Works."]
Although this article doesn't mention vaping, it's got a lot of junk ammo. for vaping opponents:
1) Context-free presentation of nicotine's properties as a stimulent, which are similar to caffiene.
2) No mention whatsoever of vaping as a possible cessation tool (or anything else).
3) Conflates harms from tobacco cigarette use with smokeless tobacco and vaping (in other words "nicotine = cigarettes").
4) Uses discredited information about toxicity and compares nic. to sarin gas (which is a well-known tactic among anti-vapers). 5) Mentions NRT as a cessation tool, but apparently the authors suffered from cognitive dissonance when they wrote the sections on nicotine's dangers.
Title: Are E-Cigarettes Really Safe?
(US nat'l fashion mag) http://www.cosmopolitan
.com/celebrity/news/e-cigarettes-safety
This is actually not bad:
1) No they aren't safe but less dangerous than tobacco smoking says an MD.
2) Minors are using them, we're very concerned (context-free presentation of CDC minor data ignores fact that teen smoking is way down).
3) Lancet survey cited - they're as good as the patch.
4) "Ask your doctor" (who will probably tell you that s/he can't possibly recommend anything that's not FDA-approved because the malpractice ins. co. will object and the state licensing board might use any such recommendation against him or her).
Title: Opposing view: E-cigarettes can help end smoking
(Melbourne FL US local paper) http://www.floridatoday
.com/story/opinion/2014/04/20/opposing-view-e-cigarettes-can-help-end-smoking/7874001/ Title: E-cigarettes can help end smoking: Opposing view
(US nat'l paper) http://www.usatoday
.com/story/opinion/2014/04/17/e-cigarette-njoy-smoking-editorials-debates/7847587/
Letter from Craig Weiss, Pres/founder of NJOY.
Posted in two media summaries because they keep putting a new date on it
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Smokescreen: Are E-Cigarettes Safe? - Even without tobacco, the poorly regulated devices may pose unique dangers
(US national science mag. aimed at general public) http://www.scientificamerican
.com/article/smokescreen-are-e-cigarettes-safe/
As one might anticipate from the title, this is a laundry list of all the reasons why the harshest imagineable taxation and regulation are needed ASAP. There is one tiny nod to cessation: "Unfettered access could leave people vulnerable to unknown health hazards, but there is also the chance that greater restrictions might hurt folks who are trying to forgo conventional - and more dangerous - tobacco products."
But after that, we get into all the reasons why vaping is public health menace - every fear, concern or unknown that the author can dredge up in order to convince the reader that this is another plot by Big Tobacco to hook children on tobacco cigarettes, poison existing smokers who turn to vaping as a form of cessation, and (of course) cause untold cancer carnage among bystanders. In short, it's a brazen "hit job" that any professional ANTZ would admire, couched in careful, measured, pseudo-scientific language. That said, it doesn't contain any outright lies, although the author is careful to coax as much fear of vaping products out of the reader's emotions, without doing so with the kind of incendiary language that a professional ANTZ might prefer.
1) "The primary established danger of nicotine is that the stimulant is highly addictive, although emerging science also links it to an impaired immune system. [boldface added]"
2) "'We have little information about what happens to propylene glycol in the air,' the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry says on its Web site. An assessment from the agency, issued in 2008, references only a couple of studies that cover inhalation exposures--all with laboratory animals rather than people. "
3) "Beyond the three main ingredients, [evidently the author has never heard of VG, nor the existence of VG-based e-liquid, or even 0% nic.] some researchers worry about by-products from heating electronic cigarettes and the solution inside them. Various studies suggest the vapors from e-cigarettes contain several cancer-causing substances, as well as incredibly tiny particles of tin, chromium, nickel and other heavy metals, which, in large enough concentrations, can damage the lungs [rather like nic. inhalers, right?]. [boldface added]"
4) "Yet another analysis [Dutra and Glantz, undoubtedly] linked e-cig use with greater odds of trying tobacco. They come in kid-friendly flavors, including chocolate, bubble gum and gummy bear. [boldface added]"
5) "As the debate blazes, deep-pocketed big tobacco investors are buying up e-cig companies, injecting millions of dollars into the market and banking on a bright future for the devices. [Ah ha. Big Tobacco is being vaping. Another reason why it's a "smokescreen," right?, boldface added]"
6) "The success of all these enterprises hinges on the claim that e-cigarettes are healthier than traditional cigarettes."
And as we've discovered, there's absolutely no reason to think that vaping is any safer than smoking tobacco cigarettes. Plus it hooks minors on tobacco cigarettes. (Which is probably a good thing because we know that tobacco cigarettes may not be as dangerous as vaping.)
Title: Can We Really Trust E-Cigarettes? The Good, The Bad and the Ugly
(Some US foodie site aimed towards organic food, etc.) http://ecosalon
.com/can-we-really-trust-e-cigarettes-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/
When I saw the heading, I immediately assumed that I was going to read another pathetic hit job. Actually this is more like an advertisement, since the "expert" is David Goerlitz, who used to be the photogenic model for Winston cigarettes (and who later became an anti-tobacco activist, and then subsequently turned against the hypocrisy of the anti-smoking movement without taking the side of BT). However he's now on the board of American Heritage, and is identified as such. Anyway it's nice to read a pro-vaping article that breezily dismisses all the garbage thrown at vapers. (For more on Goerlitz, you might want to have a look here, at Christopher Snowdon's site): http://www.velvetgloveironfist
.com/david-goerlitz-winston-man.php
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: E-Cigarette The Latest SCAM
(Some MD's blog) http://pediatric-house-calls.djmed
.net/e-cigarette-latest-scam/
This guy buys into every single piece of junk science that Glantz puts out. No hypothesis is too ridiculous for him to embrace, and no "study" too junky for him to quote. This piece is not only dripping with lies, it exudes hatred and loathing for vapers and smokers. At the bottom of the page, we see this:
"[ JAMA Intern Med. Published online March 24, 2014. ]" which - as near as I can tell - is a reference to the the Grana et al. letter regarding the junk cessation "study" (the one that the media picked up under the most popular title: "E-cigs don't help smokers quit.")
---
US: NEW YORK
Title: L.I. City [Glen Cove] Looks To Add E-Cigarettes To Anti-Smoking Laws Already On The Books
(NYC US CBS affiliate) http://newyork.cbslocal
.com/2014/04/21/l-i-city-looks-to-add-e-cigarettes-to-anti-smoking-laws-already-on-the-books/
Title: Call to amend law to include e-cigarettes
(Long Island NY US local paper) http://www.newsday
.com/long-island/towns/long-island-now-1.1732330/call-to-amend-law-to-include-e-cigarettes-1.7776075
Glen Cove Mayor Reginald Spinello wants a vaping=smoking extension to the city's clean air act:
"'There's been lots of reports, negative reports about abuse of e-cigarettes and some of the little cartridges, flavorings and there's some carcinogens in them,' said Spinello. 'We'd like to keep as much of smoke-free environment as we can and e-cigarettes, we believe, are a part of the smoking problem.' 'This is certainly a health issue,' said Spinello. 'It's a problem that continues to grow and we're gonna be at the forefront of this.' [para break omitted, boldface added - from the CBS story]"
CBS Story also mentions CDC poison center control calls press release (as if this is somehow relevant. Long Island Newsday also contains this quote from the mayor:
"'The hope is that when we talk about ‘no smoking' they should say that includes e-cigarettes, too,' he said. Spinello said he wanted the city to follow examples of other municipalities that have enacted similar prohibitions. [para break omitted, boldface added]"
Long Island Newsday also mentions the CDC poison center calls, and note that city atty has been asked to draft a proposal for the council.
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Tell Us: Should Glen Cove Ban E-cigarettes in No-smoking areas?
(AOL's 'zine) http://glencove.patch
.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/tell-us-should-glen-cove-ban-ecigarettes-in-nosmoking-areas
Report briefly summarizes above stories and asks for comments. It appears that they want remarks in the comments section.
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Syracuse hospital bans e-cigarettes after patient on oxygen catches fire while using one
(Syracuse NY US local paper) http://www.syracuse
.com/news/index.ssf/2014/04/syracuse_hospital_bans_e-cigarettes_after_patient_catches_fire_while_using_ one.html
Hospital VP says "there's no doubt" that the PV caused the fire. Fire dep't is still investigating. (However the patient was hooked up to oxygen, and burned on her face.) Instead of noting that any battery-operated device is a potential danger in an oxygen-rich environment, the hospital decided to ban vaping everywhere in the hospital, both indoors and outdoors. Of course the writer of the article decided to mention the CDC poison control center calls, the exploding charger story from England, and exploding PVs - presumably on the grounds that these are other bad things about vaping that everyone needs to know.
Note: knock-offs and summaries of this piece are appearing en masse, as I write this, and I won't be listing any that appear to be unremarkable.
Title: NY hospital bans e-cigarettes after fire, injury
(AP) http://bostonherald
.com/news_opinion/national/northeast/2014/04/ny_hospital_bans_e_cigarettes_after_fire_injury
Much shorter than the above, and avoids the gratuitous "other bad things you need to know about vaping" factoids added to the previous article.
Title: E-Cigarette Users Urged To Charge Device Carefully
(Some UK-based general news site) http://www.thenewsreports
.com/e-cigarette-users-urged-to-charge-device-carefully/4692/charlotteb
This was clearly written with the Syracuse hospital fire in mind, but makes the larger point that charger fires (etc.) are a result of user error, and can occur with many battery-operated devices. For some reason, the author chose not to mention any extraneous negative factoids about vaping. Although the article does refer to "the UK fire dep't."
---
US: NEW JERSEY
Title: Raising taxes on e-cigarettes makes no sense: Letter
(Newark NJ US local paper)
Excellent junk-free letter.
---
US: MARYLAND
Title: Electronic cigarettes spur local businesses
(U MD College Park MD US student paper) http://www.diamondbackonline
.com/news/article_88b10068-c9e0-11e3-8de1-0017a43b2370.html
Two vape stores opening. Not one word of junk. Amazingly, designated smoking areas still exist at U MD.
---
US: PENNSYLVANIA
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Everything You Need To Know About E-Cigarettes: Are They Really A Healthier Alternative To Smoking?
(Pittsburgh PA US local weekly) http://newpittsburghcourieronline
.com/2014/04/22/everything-you-need-to-know-about-e-cigarettes-are-they-really-a-healthier-alternative-to-smoking/ (Detroit MI US local weekly) http://michronicleonline
.com/2014/04/22/everything-you-need-to-know-about-e-cigarettes-are-they-really-a-healthier-alternative-to-smoking/
The content of this despicable piece (which has been effectively turned over to Tobacco Control scientists) has nothing at all to do with its deceptive title. The title should be: Why we don't know enough about vaping to classify it as 'safe and effective' FDA-approved therapy, and why we should be supportive of anything and everything that anti-vaping opponents propose, in order to avoid renormalizing smoking in the eyes of children.
This piece begins with a discussion with a Philadelphia vape store owner, and I was actually fairly optimistic when I read this (which is about the best one can expect from a non-vaper/non-smoker in the US press):
"So if there’s no data that proves second-hand vapor is harmful, no evidence that concludes it causes cancer, and users claim it helps smokers quit, then what’s all the fuss about?"
Well, the answer is that every single piece of random speculation and conjecture from Tobacco Control Industry scientists is what the fuss is all about, and why the author believes (but won't say) that no smoker should even consider vaping. It's the old "Well, we don't know whether vaping is more dangerous than being next to a detonating thermonuclear bomb, because there haven't been enough studies. And until we can prove that it's as safe as drinking a nanoliter of sterilized distilled room-temperature water, don't try it."
For example: "[From Elizabeth Klein, a professor in the Center of Excellence in Regulatory Tobacco Science:] 'We don't have good data as far as the risks applying those chemicals that are in e-liquids into the lungs,' she explained. 'A lot of the pulmonary tests done on the e-liquids products have suggested that there're pretty poor control on what's contained in these e-liquids. For instance, when the FDA conducted some of these studies they found that some of the e-liquids that claimed not to contain nicotine actually contained nicotine.' [boldface added]"
[Uh, that's FDA '09, which the FDA has itself repudiated. Never mind. She's a scientist, right?] And again:
"Dr. Frank T. Leone, the director of the Comprehensive Smoking Treatment Program at the University of Pennsylvania, says 'this degree of variability in itself is a risk, given that the public has no assurance from the manufacturers regarding the constituents.' In his opinion, the idea that e-cigarettes are safe is the inevitable conclusion from marketing aimed at smoker's vulnerabilities. While there appear to be very few short-term health risks, Leone said the 'products haven't been available long enough (or studied carefully enough) to know for sure that there are no long-term effects.' [boldface added]"
There's more garbage in there about PG, and a particularly illuminating couple of paragraphs in which indoor bans are justified based on the bogus minor gateway-to-tobacco argument and "renormalizing smoking."
In a nutshell, vaping isn't known to be absolutely safe, and could be as dangerous as blowing your brains out. And we should also be supportive of indoor and outdoor vaping bans, because these protect children from the renormalization of smoking. (Or taxing vaping like cigarettes. Or just banning it entirely.)
In short: that's "Everything you need to know about e-cigarettes"
---
US: VIRGINIA
Title: Virginia bans sale of e-cigarettes to minors
(Hampton Roads VA US ABC affiliate) http://www.wvec
.com/news/Virginia-bans-sale-of-e-cigarettes-to-minors-256072921.html
Brief junk-free note - VA's simple minor ban, H241 which bans minor purchase or possession of "alternative nicotine/vapor products" signed by Gov. McAuliffe two weeks ago. VA legislature is out of session for the year as of tomorrow, and won't be back until 2015.
---
US: FLORIDA
{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Miramar Bans Sales Of E-Cigarettes To Minors [and indoor/outdoor vaping by adults, too - in order to prevent vaping from becoming a gateway to tobacco cigarette smoking for minors]
(Miami FL US CBS affiliate) http://miami.cbslocal
.com/2014/04/22/miramar-bans-sales-of-e-cigarettes-to-minors/
It would be bad enough if the city of Miramar's officials merely accepted the ANTZ and Durbin Report's allegations as the absolute truth:
"'It is imperative to protect our youth from produ