While the act of smoking has been a part of cultures around the world for thousands of years, only recently have smokers had an opportunity to smoke without the smoke. The answer is the e-cigarette and even though they are available at mall kiosks around the United States, most e-smokers get theirs through online vendors.
Touted by most e-smokers as a safer, healthier way to smoke, many health officials have stated misguided grievances with the products, such as there are no tests confirming e-cigarette safety. There have in fact been at least two separate health studies that confirm that e-cigarettes are safe for their intended purpose and are not a danger to bystanders. These studies come from New Zealand and the United Kingdom from two different e-cigarette manufacturers and both studies concluded that e-cigarettes are much safer than smoking tobacco cigarettes.
The CDC announced in 2004 that their study on the chemicals found in tobacco cigarette emissions came to the conclusion that there are over 4,800 chemicals and 69 carcinogens in tobacco smoke, but even though they contain in most cases less than 20 chemicals, the Food and Drug Administration has proclaimed an import ban on e-cigarettes.
Comments made by e-smokers on forums, news articles, and blogs indicate that e-smokers and even non-smokers alike are outraged by the FDA stance toward e-cigarettes. The lives that the products could save are astronomical, since 1 in 2 people who smoke tobacco cigarettes will die due to smoking-related illnesses. With the death rate being 1 in 2, many people are perplexed by the FDA attitude toward the breakthrough, but some are not surprised.
The United States brings in millions of dollars in cigarette tax revenue every year and e-cigarettes are definitely a cheaper alternative to tobacco, since they are not taxed above normal sales tax. In a freefalling economy, the government needs all the money it can get its hands on, but at what cost?
Others point out the effect the products could have on the pharmaceutical and anti-smoking industry. Anti-smoking coalitions will crumble after losing their reason to exist and pharmaceutical companies will no longer see a demand for the stop smoking aids they produce, such as suicide-inducing Chantix, manufactured by Pfizer.
Where does the line get drawn and what is most important to the America people? Putting money in the pockets of the now unpopular Federal Reserve private bank and death-dealing pharmaceutical companies or saving the lives of millions of people who have an addiction they were duped into years ago with cartoon camels and cowboys?
Smokefree Pennsylvania submitted the following comments to the FDA yesterday regarding tobacco regulations.
1262112202|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Published With Permission.
The following are in addition to comments previously submitted by William Godshall and Smokefree Pennsylvania (on September 29, comment tracking number 80a2e4ef) on FDA tobacco regulation.
The FDA should STOP protecting cigarettes from market competition by far less hazardous smokefree tobacco/nicotine products (including electronic cigarettes).
As delineated in Smokefree Pennsylvania’s letters and testimony to U.S. Congress during the past five years, the recently enacted Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act protects the deadliest consumer product (i.e. cigarettes) from market competition by far less hazardous smokefree tobacco products.
http://www.smokefree.net/bg-announce/messages/248038.html
http://www.smokefree.net/bg-announce/messages/247929.html
http://www.smokefree.net/bg-announce/messages/247915.html
http://www.smokefree.net/bg-announce/messages/247774.html
http://www.smokefree.net/bg-announce/messages/247583.html
http://www.smokefree.net/bg-announce/messages/247151.html
Meanwhile, existing FDA policies for electronic cigarettes and nicotine gums, lozenges, skin patches and inhalers also protect cigarettes from many aspects of market competition by these far less hazardous smokefree nicotine alternatives.
Since switching from cigarettes to smokefree tobacco/nicotine products reduces morbidity and mortality risks by nearly as much as quitting all tobacco/nicotine use, the FDA should adopt policies to inform/encourage smokers who are unwilling or not ready to quit using tobacco to switch to smokefree tobacco/nicotine products until they are willing and ready to quit using tobacco.
Based upon published calculations by Karl Fagerstrom, Smokefree Pennsylvania has estimated that the percentage of nicotine consumed in the US from smokefree tobacco/nicotine products has increased from about 10% a decade ago to about 20% in 2009, while the percentage of nicotine consumed from cigarettes has declined from about 90% a decade ago to about 80% in 2009.
The nicotine market: An attempt to estimate the nicotine intake from various sources and the total nicotine consumption in some countries, Karl Fagerstrom, Nicotine & Tobacco Research, Vol. 7, Number 3, pp 343-350, June 2005.
Furthermore, about 90% of the nicotine consumed from smokefree tobacco/nicotine products in the US is now obtained from smokeless tobacco products, while about 10% is now obtained from nicotine gums, lozenges, patches, and electronic cigarettes.
Just as less than half of all nicotine consumed in Sweden is now obtained from smokefree tobacco/nicotine products (primarily snus), less than half of all nicotine consumed in the U.S. could be obtained from smokefree tobacco/nicotine products within the next decade if the FDA adopted policies to truthfully inform smokers that smokefree tobacco/nicotine products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, to allow manufacturers and marketers to truthfully inform smokers that smokefree tobacco/nicotine products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes, and to provide other incentives to encourage manufacturers to develop and market smokefree tobacco/nicotine product to smokers as far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.
The FDA should propose reasonable and responsible regulations for Electronic Cigarettes and for Electronic Cigarette Liquid to ensure that these products remain legally accessible and less expensive than cigarettes.
Based upon my communications with dozens of electronic cigarette vendors in recent months, it appears that there are now about 200,000 e-cigarette consumers in the U.S., virtually all of whom are either exsmokers or are dual users in the process of switching. E-cigarettes also now appear to be a $200 million dollar per year industry in this country, similar to current sales of nicotine gums, lozenges and patches.
It is crucial that the FDA recognize that every dollar spent on e-cigarettes would otherwise be spent on tobacco cigarettes, and that every dose of nicotine obtained from an e-cigarettes would otherwise be obtained from inhaling hazardous tobacco smoke.
That is why the FDA’s ongoing opposition to e-cigarettes primarily protects cigarette markets at the expense of smokers and public health.
The FDA should take seriously statements by e-cigarette users, including the following.
Petition to US FDA with testimonials by thousands of e-cigarette users
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/keep-life-saving-electronic-cigarettes-available
Surveys of e-cigarette users
http://www.tobaccoharmreduction.org/wpapers/011v1.pdf
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/quitting/6470-e-cig-success-rate.html
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/general-e-smoking-discussion/50594-update-analogs-vs-vaping-poll.html
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/general-e-smoking-discussion/45062-how-long-have-you-been-using-electronic-cigarette.html
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/general-e-smoking-discussion/50464-poll-how-long-have-you-been-vaping.html
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/campaigning-discussions/42778-myth-e-cigarettes-aimed-non-smokers.html
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/nicotine/48862-does-nicotine-abstinence-screw-up-your-life-4.html
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/health-safety-e-smoking/31195-did-your-lungs-clear-up.html
While Smokefree Pennsylvania’s previously submitted comments encouraged the FDA to propose redefining electronic cigarettes as tobacco products and to reasonably regulate them as such, another option available to the FDA is to propose reasonable and responsible regulations for electronic cigarettes (and electronic cigarette liquid) as drug delivery devices.
It is critically important to note that when then Commissioner David Kessler proposed FDA regulations for tobacco products as drug delivery devices in 1995, he insisted that the FDA had no intention of removing tobacco products from the market (even though the agency has the legal authority to do so for unapproved drug delivery devices) because doing so would be a societal disaster by creating a black market for tobacco products.
Instead of proposing to remove tobacco products from the market in 1995, the FDA wisely proposed reasonable and responsible regulations to reduce tobacco industry marketing and sales to youth. Although the US Supreme Court struck down the tobacco regulations approved by the FDA in 1996 (citing Congressional failure to grant FDA authority to regulate tobacco products), David Kessler’s rationale opposing removal of tobacco products (as drug delivery devices) from the market is even more cogent as it pertains to electronic cigarettes. If it made no sense for the FDA to remove the deadliest consumer products (i.e. cigarettes) from the market, it is absurd for the FDA to now claim that far less hazardous smokefree alternatives to cigarettes (i.e. electronic cigarettes) should be removed from the market simply because the agency has recently declared them to be drug delivery devices.
That is yet another reason why the FDA should propose reasonable and responsible regulations for electronic cigarettes and electronic cigarette liquid (as either drug delivery devices or as tobacco products) to prevent their marketing and sales to youth, to ensure product safety and proper labeling via standards for manufacturers and/or importers, and to display a warning indicating that the products contain nicotine and can be addictive.
Although there is no evidence that electronic cigarettes have been or are marketed to youth (despite claims to contrary by several government officials and other tobacco harm reduction opponents), it would be wise for the FDA to prohibit the sale of electronic cigarettes and electronic cigarette liquid to minors under 18 years, to require the products be kept behind-the-counter at retail stores accessible to youth, to prohibit their advertising in publications with significant youth readership, and to prohibit their promotions via sports sponsorships. But since there is no evidence that flavored e-cigarettes are marketed to or appeal to youth, there is no justification for the FDA to ban flavorings in e-cigarettes or e-cigarette liquid (just as there is no justification for the FDA to ban flavorings in nicotine gums or lozenges).
To ensure product safety and proper labeling of electronic cigarettes and electronic cigarette liquid, the FDA should require product testing by manufacturers and/or importers (similar to those required for tobacco products by the new FDA tobacco law).
Since the nicotine in electronic cigarettes and electronic cigarette liquid can be addictive (which is one of the reasons many smokers have found the products to be desirable substitutes for cigarettes), the FDA should require a warning on e-cigarettes and e-cigarette liquid that informs consumers that the products contain nicotine and can be addictive.
It is critically important for the FDA to understand that the agency’s ongoing efforts to block shipments of e-cigarettes from entering the country have affected only a small percentage of product shipments, nearly all of which have been subsequently reshipped back into the country.
It is also critically important for the FDA to understand that future attempts by the agency to remove e-cigarettes from the market will:
- protect and preserve cigarette markets, revenues and profits,
- encourage thousands of e-cigarette users to switch back to deadly cigarettes,
- discourage millions of smokers from reducing health risks by switching to e-cigarettes,
- create a black market for e-cigarettes, and
- demonstrate that the FDA is more interested in protecting cigarettes than public health.
Feel free to contact me anytime for additional information, clarification, or collaboration in reducing this nation’s leading cause of disease, disability and death.
Since 1990, Smokefree Pennsylvania has advocated policies to reduce tobacco smoke pollution indoors, increase cigarette taxes, reduce tobacco marketing to youth, preserve civil justice remedies for those injured by cigarettes, expand smoking cessation services, and inform smokers that smokefree tobacco/nicotine products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.
William T. Godshall, MPH
Founder and Executive Director
Smokefree Pennsylvania
1926 Monongahela Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15218
412-351-5880
FAX 351-5881
smokefree@compuserve.com
FDA "Unwilling" To Compare Safety Of Electronic Cigarette To Tobacco Cigarette
1261581724|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
In an email to the FDA by a concerned user of the electronic cigarette, a serious question was brought to the table that returned a shocking response.
A concerned user of the popular electronic cigarette sent an email to the FDA worried with the reports released by the FDA concerning the safety of it. This person accidentally asked a question of the FDA that no other had asked directly to them before, and the FDA responded with one of the most shocking and revealing answers one could ever imagine.
Casting public health aside, the FDA returned an answer that proves their unwillingness to care, promote and help the people of the United States find other alternatives by refusing to even answer the questions of the general public.
"We are unwilling at this time to quantify the safety of electronic cigarettes as compared to traditional cigarettes." Was the exact quote from the FDA concerning this question. This begs the question of "why are they unwilling"? Why is the agency that is charged with protecting the health of the citizens of the United States "unwilling" to answer questions concerning a health concern.
"They do not want reality out in the public" states Tiffany Ellis, "They know that many studies by very prominent health care professionals have stated that the electronic cigarette is 100 to 1,000 times safer than traditional tobacco cigarettes, and they have to protect their special interest funders."
Are E-Cigarettes Safe For Pregnant Women?
1260095967|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
One question that e-cigarette companies are getting quite often is whether e-cigarettes are safe for pregnant women to use in place of tobacco.
“It's amazing how often we get that question over the phone and through e-mail contacts,” says Tiffany Ellis of E Cigarettes National. “But, the answer is always 'no'. We don't recommend anyone who is pregnant use any type of tobacco product, nicotine replacement therapy, or smoking alternative without consulting their doctor first. Our position is that we are not medical professionals and are not qualified to give such advice when a person is in a fragile medical state such as pregnancy or other pre-existing conditions.”
The company has a history of making sure its customers are happy with their products and according to Ellis, takes the utmost care when dealing with situations concerning customers with medical issues.
“We just can't give that kind of advice. It would be neither ethical, reasonable, or professional for a company to advise a person to go against what their doctor advises them to do,” says Ellis. “We highly discourage use of our products by pregnant women and those with medical conditions unless otherwise instructed by their doctor.”
45% Quit Tobacco Cigarettes In First Government Controlled E Cigarette Study
1258917114|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
In the first government controlled official study of the e cigarette’s effectiveness as a smoking cessation aid, e-cigs show a remarkable 45% success rate. The study, which was done in South Africa, consisted of 349 smokers. At the end of the 8 week study, 45% of those who participated had successfully quit smoking tobacco cigarettes.
Top doctors that participated in the study agree that e-cigarettes are a significantly healthier alternative to smoking traditional cigarettes. The trials showed that 6% of participating smokers quit within two weeks with an increase to 45% over 8 weeks. The majority of the participants reported increased energy levels and a visual improvement in their appearance.
Overwhelming support from the medical community that participated in the study includes that of Dr Clifford Hulley, who reported that "an e-cigarette is the most effective treatment method on the market for quitting tobacco smoking". Prof Martin Veller, Head Vascular Surgeon at the University of the Witwatersrand, added "Motivated by my wife's experience, who smoked traditional cigarettes heavily until the moment she replaced them with e cigarettes, I have advised my patients to consider the remarkable e cigarette as an alternative nicotine source."
According to Dr Kishore Deva, a Pretoria doctor who quit smoking using electronic cigarettes over a six week period, "around 10 to 15 e-cig puffs are equivalent to the same amount of nicotine delivered by a tobacco cigarette". He added that the nicotine, present in e-cigarettes, is not responsible for the health risks that tobacco cigarettes hold.
Physicians Urge FDA to Justify Condemnation of E-Cigarettes
1258910944|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
With backing from major physician groups nationwide, should the FDA reconsider its stance on the now infamous e-cigarette?
GAINESVILLE, Fla., Nov. 17 /PRNewswire/ -- In July of this year, the Food and Drug Administration released a study that condemned electronic cigarettes as an unsafe alternative for smokers, but not all physicians are convinced that the study was accurate or even completely transparent to the tax payers that fund them.
"We urge FDA to make public the laboratory data behind the July 22 condemnation of electronic cigarettes, along with comparable data on pharmaceutical nicotine products and conventional cigarettes. Then, on the basis of these data, either fully justify or retract the July 22 condemnation of electronic cigarettes," says Joel L. Nitzkin, Chair of the American Association of Public Health Physicians Tobacco Control Task Force in a letter to the FDA.
The letter specifically targets the new tobacco legislation that passed through Congress this summer which gives the FDA power to regulate tobacco products in the United States and notes that the success rate of current smokers who attempt to quit by using pharmaceutical aids is as low as 5%. Making smokers more aware of less harmful alternatives, snus and e-cigarettes included, could significantly reduce the amount of smokers who die due to tobacco-related illnesses.
"Contrary to prevailing conventional wisdom, virtually all the heart and lung disease from conventional cigarettes, and an estimated 98% of the cancer mortality, are due to direct inhalation of fresh products of combustion deep into the lung. Our best estimate (based on the work of Pankow et al and others) is that only about 2% of the cancer mortality from cigarettes is from the named carcinogens commonly found in tobacco products," says the letter. The FDA's study in July found miniscule amounts of carcinogens in a few e-cigarette cartridges, but failed to provide any data on the amount of those same carcinogens in pharmaceutical nicotine products.
The message the AAPHP is sending to the FDA is a clear one and that is that electronic cigarettes are not the wildly dangerous alternatives that they have been portrayed as in news publications and on television, but perhaps one of the best products available for current smokers to switch to. Only time will tell if the FDA will retract their July study in favor of a more complete one or if smokers will continue to be limited to only products offered by big tobacco or big pharma with no explanation.
About E Cigarettes National
E Cigarettes National is the best online retailer of e-cigarette related products. Visit their website at http://www.ecigarettesnational.com
25 Year Anti-Smoking Advocate Warned FDA of "enormous public health disaster" If FDA Bans E Cigarettes
1258906981|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
Anti-Smoking and Public Health advocate, Bill Godshall warned the FDA prior to their disasterous press release that they would create a public health disaster if they did ban the e cigarette. We would like to thank such a prominent and credible advocate for breaking away from the group and using some of his great knowledge and experience to potentialy help million from move to the smarter alternative. Used with permission from Mr. Godshall
e-mail smokesfree@compsurve.com Phone 412-351-5880 FAX 412-351-5881
(sent via e-mail)
May 1, 2009
Ms. Heather Zawalick
US Food and Drug Administration
Per your recent e-mail (below), Smokefree Pennsylvania strongly urges the FDA to cancel its planned activities next Tuesday, and to consider the enormous public health disaster the agency would create by banning smokefree nicotine inhalers called e-cigarettes.
Denying 45 million cigarette smokers access to exponentially less hazardous smokefree nicotine alternatives would result in millions of preventable deaths among smokers, millions of nonsmokers continuing to be exposed to tobacco smoke pollution, and tens of thousands of e-cigarettes users
reverting back to smoking cigarettes. It is absurd for the FDA to even contemplate protecting the deadliest nicotine products (cigarettes) from market competition by the least hazardous nicotine products.
Cigarette smoking is 100 times deadlier than smokeless tobacco use, while smokefree nicotine products pose even fewer risks. Switching from cigarettes to smokefree tobacco/nicotine alternatives reduces smoker's health risks nearly as much as quitting all tobacco/nicotine use. And millions of smokers have already sharply reduced their health risks by switching to smokefree tobacco/nicotine alternatives. Please review a report I coauthored: "Tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for inveterate smokers" at http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/3/1/37
In contrast to recent claims by e-cigarette prohibitionists, hundreds of thousands of smokers have quit smoking and/or reduced cigarette consumption by switching to e-cigarette products, and thousands have written testimonials at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/keep-life-saving-electronic-cigarettes-available and http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/ describing their experiences with these less hazardous nicotine alternatives. Meanwhile, test results on the Ruyan e-cigarette
http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport30-Oct-08.pdf found no product hazards.
Also in contrast to claims by prohibitionists, there is no evidence that e-cigarette products have been marketed to youth, nor is there evidence of youth use of e-cigarette products (most of which cost more than $100). And most e-cigarette companies do not make claims that their products are smoking cessation aids. As such, the FDA should not be classifying these products as drugs (in an thinly disguised effort to ban them).
The sensible policy solution is for US Congress to enact reasonable and responsible tobacco/nicotine regulatory policies to allow e-cigarettes and other smokefree nicotine products (that are marketed as alternatives to cigarettes) to remain on the market, and be regulated as a separate category of tobacco products. Smokefree tobacco harm reduction provisions in legislation recently introduced by Rep. Buyer (H.R. 1261) and Senators Burr/Hagan (S. 579) would achieve this policy goal. The US Senate also can amend pending FDA tobacco legislation by Rep. Waxman (H.R. 1256) or soon-to-be-introduced legislation by Senator Kennedy with these or similar harm reduction provisions.
Most e-cigarette companies support reasonable and responsible regulations for their products. If the
FDA is truly interested in reducing the leading cause of preventable disease, death and disability, it would join us in urging the US Senate to enact these sound public health policies.
Since 1990, Smokefree Pennsylvania has advocated policies to reduce tobacco smoke pollution indoors, increase cigarette taxes, reduce tobacco marketing to youth, preserve civil justice remedies for victims, expand smoking cessation services, and inform smokers that smokefree tobacco/nicotine products are far less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.
For disclosure, neither Smokefree Pennsylvania nor I have received any funding from tobacco, drug or e-cigarette companies.
Thank you for your consideration, and feel free to contact me anytime.
Sincerely,
William T. Godshall, MPH
Executive Director
- - -
From: Zawalick, Heather (CBER) [mailto:Heather.Zawalick@fda.hhs.gov&91;
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 4:08 PM
To: Zawalick, Heather (CBER)
Subject: [LIKELY_SPAM&91;FDA Outreach: FDA Takes Enforcement Action on Electronic Smoking Products, Entering Clearance
Subject/Headline: FDA Takes Enforcement Action on Electronic Smoking Products
Planned Release Date: May 5
Driving Event: Compliance action
Rollout Plan: Extensive rollout planned including press conference at HHS, press release, fact sheet, video for upload to YouTube, podcast, consumer article, consumer Q &A, key message points, internal media Q & A, Op-Ed, photos of products for posting on Internet.
Other background, hidden factors: Action involves three largest distributors. One of the distributors has just sued FDA seeking a restraining order to prevent us from holding their product at the border.
There is keen interest in this subject. E-cigarette kiosks are all over town, including Montgomery Mall. They're being advertised as a safer alternative to cigarettes. Our concern is that this might introduce nonusers to nicotine use. This is a drug delivery device. The content of the products have not been analyzed by FDA. To be sold, they would have to be approved by the agency.
Spokespersons: Janet Woodcock and Deborah Autor
Heather Zawalick
FDA/OC/Office of Legislation
301-827-0090
Heather.Zawalick@fda.hhs.gov
E Cigarettes National Adds Video Instructions For Products
1255979635|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
In a world of impersonal and automated customer service, E-Cigarettes National is raising the bar again.
E Cigarettes National, an online retailer of the ever popular e-cigarettes has added instructional videos to its product lineup. They have started the production of instructional videos to be placed on the specific product pages to show the potential customer exactly how to set up and use that specific product.
"They are really simple to use," states May Quintero, customer service manager of E Cigarettes National. "But there are subtle changes from one model to the next, and we believe this will make the transition to the e cigarette much easier for the client that is new to e cigarettes, while making the customer's buying experience easier and less stressful".
The company states that only one video was placed on a specific product page and that the sales of that specific product made a sharp increase in sales and attributes the additional sales to making the customer more comfortable with the product by seeing with their own eyes how that particular product is used and how they may use it correctly.
"We do not produce products. We just retail them, provide 5 star customer service and free shipping for the top e-cigarette brands on the market, so we have to do the job better than the competition, and making the customer more informed and more comfortable with the product is a major part of our commitment to our clients", states May.
See our No 7 Micro E Cigarette Page Video.
Arnold Schwarzenegger Vetoes E Cigarette Ban Bill In California
1255979380|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
The "Terminator" has just terminated a bill that would have outlawed the electronic cigarette.
With a bold and decisive stroke of his pen, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger may have put to rest a bill that would have banned the electronic cigarette from the state of California. This action by the Governor has put this bill back in the hands of lawmakers to either try to get to a 2/3 majority to override the veto or re-write the bill so that it just regulates the age restrictions, which would have likely passed and been signed without any problems.
"We do not mind regulation" states Tiffany Ellis of E-Cigarettes National, "We just do not want them banned, and like the Governor stated, it should be left to the discretion of the adult choosing to use them, not policy makers." Like Ellis, most suppliers and retailers claim that they do not mind regulation and age restrictions, but strongly oppose any bans to the e cigarettes that they use and market to the public.
The message sent to the lawmakers by the Governor was clear and explained his motives in full concerning the rights of the people and current litigation on the matter in a federal court or law. Below is a copy of the message sent back to state lawmakers.
To the Members of the California State Senate:
I am returning Senate Bill 400 without my signature.
While I support restricting access of electronic cigarettes to children under the age of 18, I
cannot sign a measure that also declares them a federally regulated drug when the matter is
currently being decided through pending litigation.
Items defined as “tobacco products” are legal for anyone over the age of 18. If adults want to
purchase and consume these products with an understanding of the associated health risks, they
should be able to do so unless and until federal law changes the legal status of these tobacco
products.
For this reason, I am unable to sign this bill.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger
"I believe it shows wisdom on the Governors part by understanding that just because an arm of the government "declares" something illegal does not in fact mean that it is illegal and should be banned. We applaud the Governor for acting on the understanding that the FDA does not have the ability to "declare a law", but rather, they are an instrument and enforcement arm of the laws that are made and decided on by our judicial system and lawmakers" says Ellis, " It is about time a high level politician stood up for the rights of the people of the United States, and not for government and special interest."
Only time will tell if the lawmakers of California will get the message from the people and the governor and halt any attempts at banning e cigarettes prior to a federal ruling, or pushing for a 2/3 vote to override the governor and the people of California.
ASH Agrees That The E Cigarette Is Better Alternative To Tobacco
1255978263|%e %b %Y, %H:%M %Z|agohover
In an amazing document released by ASH UK, the anti-smoking group makes some surprising statements concerning the e-cigarette.
With the U.S. version of ash holding a hard contempt for the e cigarette on the market, it's original founders in the UK have gone in a 180 degree direction from the U.S. based ASH that mimicked ASH U.K. in working to save over 400,000 smokers a year from sure and miserable death.
The U.K. ASH organization has now released a document that states that one of the few downsides of the e cigarette is that the levels of nicotine as "low", and may not give users the amount of nicotine needed to keep them using the e cigarette over the real thing. They further state their support for other alternatives to tobacco.
"ASH supports a harm reduction approach to tobacco, that is, we recognize that while efforts to help people stop smoking should remain a priority, many people either do not wish to stop smoking or find it very hard to do so. For this group, we believe that products should be made available that deliver nicotine in a safe way, without the harmful components found in tobacco. Most of the diseases associated with smoking are caused by inhaling smoke which contains thousands of toxic chemicals. By contrast, nicotine is relatively safe. Therefore, e cigarettes, which deliver nicotine without the harmful toxins found in tobacco smoke, are likely to be a safer alternative to smoking. In addition, e-cigarettes reduce secondhand smoke exposure since they do not produce smoke."
With recent studies performed by doctors showing that 45% of e cigarette users quit smoking tobacco within 8 weeks of starting with the product, along with several other studies by reputable companies around the globe stating that e cigarettes are between 100 to 1000 times safer and/or better for the user, combined with the destroyed credibility of ASH in the U.S. due to the discovery of millions of dollars in financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry, Is it any wonder that the people of the United States are expecting the e cigarette to be around a long time?
