Connect. Joins The "ban" Wagon... Vt Mentioned!

[LaceyUnderall]

http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=c59708f4-2763-48ff-9736-34d1e850c3b7

Blumenthal Pledges Fight For A Ban On E-Cigarettes

Attorney general disputes claim that smoking device safer than real thing

By Brian Hallenbeck Published on 8/19/2009

State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal called on consumers and retailers Tuesday to avoid electronic cigarettes, discounting claims that the devices are safer than real cigarettes.

The e-cigarettes, as they are known, are powered by batteries and produce a mist containing nicotine and propylene glycol, an organic compound. Users inhale the mist, satisfying their craving for nicotine.

”I will vigorously fight to ban e-cigarettes, unless approved by FDA, and any attempt to retail the devices in Connecticut, as well as work with federal authorities to regulate Internet sales,” Blumenthal said at a press conference in Hartford.

He cited the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's finding last month that two brands of e-cigarettes, Smoking Everywhere and NJoy, contain known carcinogens. An antifreeze ingredient, diethylene glycol, was found in a Smoking Everywhere cartridge.

Despite such warnings, some users continue to swear by the devices.

Jennifer Jarvis, 24, of New London, credits e-cigarettes with enabling her to break a 12-year-old smoking habit.

”I tried everything - patches, the gum - and I always went back to cigarettes within a week,” she said. “I've been using the e-cig since June and haven't touched a cigarette except to see what it would be like. I couldn't stand the smell. It was nasty.”

Jarvis, who was recently laid off, said she initially invested $58 plus shipping on e-cigarette equipment, including a charger, two batteries, two “atomizers,” which heat the liquid, and 10 cartridges. She also bought two bottles of liquid, which she has yet to use up, she said.

The devices are available online and at some mall kiosks, though not in Connecticut.

Stephen Benitez, also 24, said he was looking for a less expensive alternative to smoking when his research led him to the device.

”I actually believe they are a safer alternative,” said Benitez, a poker dealer at Foxwoods Resort Casino and a New London resident. “The liquid is nowhere near as dangerous (as tobacco).”

Benitez, who also makes his e-cigarette purchases online, said start-up costs can run as high as $150. Over the past three months, he said he's spent $30 on the liquid.

Both Jarvis and Benitez said they like that the e-cigarette cartridges come in different flavors, a feature opponents like Blumenthal say can make them more attractive to underage users.

”I don't see a young person spending $150 on e-cigarettes instead of video games or something,” Benitez said.

FDA warnings aside, e-cigarette users, some of whom communicate in an online forum at www.VaporTalk.com, point to physicians who have rallied behind the product, including Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor at Boston University's School of Public Health. In a blog posting Tuesday, Siegel wrote that laboratory analysis “certainly suggests that there is no major contamination of these products with carcinogens, indicating that these products are much safer than conventional cigarettes.”

[Vacker1229]

Thanks for this update... DANG!! I just knew this would happen!! the BAN wagon is absolutely spot on!! Eeek! Any updates on SE and NJoy suit against FDA? Seems it was in court on Monday, 8/17.

[LaceyUnderall]

From what I have heard the FDA was asked some hard questions and they floundered. Here is a post from BLT - http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/08/lawyers-ask-judge-to-lift-ban-on-electronic-cigarettes.html

We shall see... but I am keeping positive because I have done some more research on Judge Leon and he is quite impressive with his decisions. He has no problem picking the law over pressure AND has told federal and local governments that what they are doing is wrong and overturned earlier decisions. I also cannot find where he has ever been overturned.

[Christopher]

Wow Vapor Talk made it in the news! Awesome. Although it's an unfortunate article I hope that more people will find the forums so that we can better educate new users and media for that matter. Power by numbers.

Things are however, really starting to look grim. I think it's sad that some of the senators cannot open their minds and see the potential that vaporizers have. I agree that safety tests need to be done, but I think we can all agree that given the studies and knowledge we already have, ecigs are no where near the danger level that an analog is. People are already reporting a healthier lifestyle from persons in their 20's up to their late 80's and 90's. I get emails everyday thanking me for helping them out or introducing them to the ecig and how much better it's made their lives. Suppliers also experience this often.

But hey no big deal, if everyone get's back on analogs and the ecig is banned, it's just another 400,000 lives right? This is a rescission and we need those taxes...

[Christopher]

From what I have heard the FDA was asked some hard questions and they floundered. Here is a post from BLT - http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/08/lawyers-ask-judge-to-lift-ban-on-electronic-cigarettes.html

We shall see... but I am keeping positive because I have done some more research on Judge Leon and he is quite impressive with his decisions. He has no problem picking the law over pressure AND has told federal and local governments that what they are doing is wrong and overturned earlier decisions. I also cannot find where he has ever been overturned.

How's the SE - NJOY suite going? I try to keep up on it over on ECF but we don't get much info over here. I'd love for Sun to sign up!

Perhaps you can give them mebers a quick run down Lacy?

[LaceyUnderall]

So far so good. In a nutshell - The FDA wants to prove that the electronic cigarette is a drug delivery device and that the liquid is a "new drug". This is why they are claiming they stopped their stuff. The issue the FDA is having is proving that claims were made that would "treat, mitigate or cure" a disease. Personally, I am not following SE at all because they are having quite a poor showing. Plus they made claims so technically, if I were a judge, I would say that the FDA was in the RIGHT for stopping their stuff.

So looking at nJoy... they have made no health claims whatsoever. They have always sold their product as an alternative to tobacco and not as a quit smoking device. They are making the argument, as to which I agree, that as they aren't making claims, the FDA has no right to stop their products and should release the shipment that has been stopped.

I wrote a blog about it the other day if you want to read: http://www.e-cig.org/2009/08/18/its-not-about-quitting-its-about-an-alternative-with-the-electronic-cigarette/

I have also looked into Judge Leon's background and he is a pretty fair judge, so I am really anxious to see what he does. On several occasions he has told local and federal governments that they are wrong and overturned laws and ridiculous mandates. I also can find no instance where he has ever been over turned.

But... it is what it is and all any of us can do is stay positive, proactive and understand that we are YEARS away from final resolution on this. YEARS! So we should just all hang on, vape away... do what we can... and be happy

[Vacker1229]

Thanks so much for your opinion and interpretation. I do feel you have a clear understanding of the status of both SE and Njoy and of course Judge Leon. Keep up the great work -- as I truly appreciate your efforts.

Personally I think that SE could really screw this up as they do seem to use the "snake oil" marketing technique with means they will say whatever the user wants to hear, which is what got the shipments seized in the first place. Wondering which category would be better: tobacco product or drug?

[Christopher]

Hmm good question, both have their positives and negatives. It's to bad ecigs cant be filed under the same laws as vitamins and weight loss pills, at least until enough testing is done to prove that they are safe.

The problem is people associated the electronic cigarette...with cigarettes. It's been drilled into people brains for so long that cigarettes are bad, that they just can fathom that anything that looks like an analog can be better for you. To be honest I even IF the ecig proves 100% safe, or even 99.9% we'd still have issues. It's going to take time before people will accept them. To most people, anything that involves smoke/vapor coming out of a persons mouth = bad.

Thanks Lacy for you input, it's very much appreciated.

[KarateLobster]

I'm thinking this ban thing may be a slippery slope for the FDA and all those political type folks. Here's why, and please bear with me for a moment - to quote the above "I will vigorously fight to ban e-cigarettes, unless approved by FDA". Now, please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not believe that cigarettes are approved by the FDA. So, using that logic, this fellow should be tased in the bean bag (multiple times) because he just set a precedent to have analogue cigarettes, and the sale thereof, also banned in his state of Connecticut. Now let's look at the bigger picture - other states follow suite with banning "non approved" e-cigarettes. How can they then allow for the sale of "non approved" analogue cigarettes?

Do we have any lawyers on the forum who could put together a case with this? Maybe at a Federal level? An overall ban on e-cigs due to "non FDA approved" status would cause an immediate ban of analogues under the same statute?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Anyone?

[LaceyUnderall]

In a recent research session for a blog post I ran across some interesting information regarding lobelia inflata... which acts the same as nicotine. Now, while nicotine is not specifically mentioned anywhere on the FDA website accept in reference to gum, patches, the inhaler, and now e-cigarette warnings, they do specifically discuss lobelia inflata.

From my post: http://www.e-cig.org/2009/08/18/its-not-about-quitting-its-about-an-alternative-with-the-electronic-cigarette/

"Keeping this idea in mind that products can be on the market without FDA regulation, lets look at nicotine. Currently, there is nothing contained within the FDA website referring to nicotine. However, there is a plant out there that has many of the same effects as nicotine and that is lobelia inflata which IS specifically mentioned on the FDA website. The FDA notes in Sec. 310.544 Drug products containing active ingredients offered over-the-counter (OTC) for use as a smoking deterrent, that “Any OTC drug product that is labeled, represented, or promoted as a smoking deterrent is regarded as a new drug within the meaning of section 201(p) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), for which an approved application or abbreviated application under section 505 of the act and part 314 of this chapter is required for marketing.” But what happens if these claims are not to be made and the product clearly states that this product has not been evaluated by the FDA?"

****

What this all comes down to is claims. Plain and simple. The FDA's website is covered in claims, claims, claims.

IF this isn't the case and the FDA and government officials could just ban on a free whim, they wouldn't only have to ban the electronic cigarette, but they COULD ban all non-FDA approved vitamins, caffeine pills, COFFEE, SODA, cigarettes, EVERYTHING. Anything that contains a drug COULD be removed from the market.

You are certainly right Karate. This is an extremely slippery slope and one that could lead to a total domination by the FDA and their "suitors". The free market as we know it, would cease to exist and I fear for research and technology advancements not only in drugs but also in devices.

It is imperative that the ecig does not get banned. It sets precendent that ANYTHING, even things not making claims can be removed from the market without justification.

[KarateLobster]

Interesting, isn't it, how we can come up with this information, figure out that a precedent might be set by these muckity mucks, and yet they don't seem to understand it.

Of course it all boils down to politics. It's not about public safety, regulation, or anything like that. Politics (Who's side do I have to be on in order to not get blacklisted and have a prosperous career in the system) and money (who's going to line my pockets the most so I can be rich whilst being part of the system).

Taking the argument further (as you hinted at Lacey) one could postulate that any substance not approved by the FDA could have serious health ramification for anyone. Medicines, vitamins, foods, liquids, regardless of any age restrictions. How many medicines are prescribed by doctors which are not FDA approved? Sure, they might be controlled (in a sense) but all you have to do is ask the doctor and, chances are, if the rep from that particular company has been by to generously drop off samples, you'll get it. Medicine is no longer (and hasn't been for a while) about making people better as it is about making people money.

This makes me ill. People say "You can't complain! You didn't vote in the primaries!! It's ultimately your own fault that these people are representing you!!" You know what? Last time I checked every name on the ballot belonged to a politician. Politicians haven't represented their constituents in WAY too long. It's bad for their bottom line. It's political suicide to do so. Politics is one of the hardest, most evil games, anyone could play. Yet, we're all impacted by it.

[MorisatoIncorporated]

Personally think each state should have someone go to the media and give out info on the truth behind the fda tests and the facts about how much safer ecigs are then analogs. If enough information is circulated then we will end up with a bigger chance at preventing our safer alternative from getting banned, I really don't want to resort to going back to analogs.

BTW, hope you didn't mind VT being mentioned. Wonder how many new people will check out the boards once they read the paper :P

[KarateLobster]

Personally think each state should have someone go to the media and give out info on the truth behind the fda tests and the facts about how much safer ecigs are then analogs. If enough information is circulated then we will end up with a bigger chance at preventing our safer alternative from getting banned, I really don't want to resort to going back to analogs.

BTW, hope you didn't mind VT being mentioned. Wonder how many new people will check out the boards once they read the paper :P

While I agree I'm going to go ahead and play Devil's Advocate here. TO quote Jerry Maguire - Show me the money! In other words, where's the proof that e-cigs are "safer"?

Please, keep in mind I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. I'm looking at this from the FDA point of view (in a perfect world, I know). Once, and IF, the FDA can unequivocally prove that e-cigs are safer, even if marginally, this all goes away. Theoretically.

[Christopher]

BTW, hope you didn't mind VT being mentioned. Wonder how many new people will check out the boards once they read the paper :P

I don't think it's in the actual newspaper, but I have no probelm with VT being mentioned at all. The more people find the website the more people will learn.

I'd also like to say this is turning out to be a great thread with awesome information and views. Karate you make some very valid points and I can't agree more. The contradiction level at the FDA is insane. Has anyone noticed the amount of energy drinks kids are pounding away? Does anyone realize how much Caffeine is in those things? Around 160mg and these kids purchase about 2-3 cans a day. insane.

[MorisatoIncorporated]

Asking for proof is always a good way to go, another step is to compare an actual Scientific Analysis of the e-liquid to an analog cigerette. My usual liquid supplier has posted their tests on liquid.

http://www.totallywicked-eliquid.com/about-the-fluid/lab-reports.html

Now to find a test on analogs is a bit tougher but we have postings on the site stating the ingredients of them. Now making a comparison on the fda's actions in the past versus current one pertaining to e-cigs, they have allowed many products to be put out on the market without proper testing only later to pull them after major symptoms called for their removal, such as hydroxycut causing liver damage. Here is the part that makes the fda look like they are no longer trying to do whats in the interest of health but rather in the interest of their pockets. They allow items that have not been tested by them on the market and do not bother to pull them or test them unless a serious condition is caused by their use yet they try to ban the use of a product that has not been proven to have any serious risks.

Nor have they supplied any viable information to back up any claims that they may be harmful. Suppliers have done testing to prove the amount of what is in their liquid while the fda has only made claims to having tested two products which they were unwilling to put forth the lab results.

Now why is it that diet pills which can be harmful to the human body are not required to be tested by them but a product which is a competitor for the age old analogs that kill hundreds of thousands a year are put down and trying to be banned when they could simply ask for proper testing to prove they are of an acceptable quality for use.

I would suppose it comes down to money, its not so much that they haven't been proven safer but rather the fda doesn't want to admit that they are no matter how many lab results are put right in from of them. So I would ask, can they prove they aren't safer ? The attorney general is currently making claims that they are worse then smoking analogs but they haven't shown any proof, isn't that slander ? I thought one had to show proof in order to make such claims. BTW, I do like devil advocates, they are great for discussions

[MorisatoIncorporated]

Has anyone noticed the amount of energy drinks kids are pounding away? Does anyone realize how much Caffeine is in those things? Around 160mg and these kids purchase about 2-3 cans a day. insane.

Oh thanks for reminding me about energy drinks, they are a drug too :P

ok here is whats in my Monster 32 oz energy drink. And yes they are now making huge a** 32oz cans.

27g sugar, 180mg sodium, 1000mg taurine, 200mg ginseng, 2500mg energy blend. Yikes thats a lot of caffeine right there. Dang thing even has a warning on it saying limit to 1 can a day. Hmm, guess I need to cut back on those things if I don't want to keel over from a heart attack.

Also checked todays paper, the article was in it. This is gonna be interesting to hear about at work.

Edited August 20, 2009 by MorisatoIncorporated

[MorisatoIncorporated]

In continuation, here is some more info on how a vaporized nicotine device is far safer then the traditional cigarettes.

http://www.totallywicked-eliquid.com/news/2009/august/fda-smoke-screen-on-e-cigarettes.html

In making its distorted, incomplete and misleading statement, FDA was violating its long-cherished tradition of sticking to sound science as the basis for its policies. And in doing so, it is putting the lives and health of millions of Americans at risk.

The truthful part of the FDA statement was that e-cigarettes have not been through formal efficacy and safety tests at the FDA, and they have only been around a few years. But in the press conference, here is what the FDA did not tell you but should have:

c Traditional cigarettes are lethal not because of the trace level presence of specific "carcinogens" and "toxins," but because by using them, smokers inhale enormous amounts of smoke -- otherwise known as "products of combustion." It is the inhaled smoke that kills in so many ways -- from cancers, cardiovascular and lung disease, and more.

c The cigarette was a relatively obscure product in our society until the invention of a cigarette rolling machine, and sales rose quickly prior to World War I.

Before that, tobacco was used relatively safely -- in chew, pipes, cigars -- because little if any smoke was inhaled. Cigarettes changed all of that.

c The e-cigarette -- a cigarette-mimicking device made up of a battery, an atomizer and a cartridge -- allows smokers to inhale, getting a dose of the nicotine they crave, and then sending steam out the other end (with little or no odor) to mimic the ritual and feel of smoking normal cigarettes.

c The FDA complained that the e-cigarette was a "nicotine-delivery system." Well, it got that much right. But again, it's the smoke that kills, not the nicotine. Yes, nicotine is highly addictive, and it is what keeps the smoker hooked. But getting the nicotine without the smoke is an enormous health advantage for cigarette smokers (the nicotine inserts come in various strengths and the users can adjust them downward as they wish).

c The FDA has approved other nicotine-delivery systems in the form of gums and patches -- and they have been abysmal failures. The smoking cessation rates using these devices is less than 15 percent after one year, condemning millions of addicted smokers to a lingering death. We desperately need other alternatives. But the FDA has now joined a long list of so-called public-health organizations -- including the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids and the American Lung Association -- whose collective motto seems to be "quit or die." Not only do they reject e-cigarettes, but they also condemn other smokeless products like snus, which have a mere fraction of the health risks associated with smoking cigarettes.

c More than 1 million smokers are now using the e-cigarette -- a product that offers some, if not all, of the "social amenities" of the real thing -- holding the cigarette, taking a drag, seeing a plume of "smoke." The FDA, lacking data that e-cigarettes pose a health hazard, was so desperate, it called on consumers to phone in adverse side effects of e-cigarettes so they could begin to build a case against them and proceed with their intended ban. They neglected, however, to request smokers who successfully quit using the e-cigarette to also call in

[LaceyUnderall]

Please don't get me started on energy drinks or caffeine alone when it comes to children. If it weren't for those products, there would be a much lower need for meds to combat this ever growing attention deficit problem we are facing.

What those kids need are better diets and longer time on the playground!

It really is a shame that so much corruption surrounds the FDA. When you look back to the beginning of the FDA and some of the incidents it thwarted, it truly is a much needed agency. But, what has happened is that the FDA has been given too much power and now, can't afford to run on government funds alone and THAT is where corruption is able to sneak in. Once you have the people you are approving, footing the bill, well as Karate says, it's all about the money.

One thing is for certain, we all have to make our voices very loud so that others are very aware of what is happening with here. Put the ecig aside for a minute... Things have gotten very bad and I certainly do not think that our forefathers ever had this in mind. The people have risen before and been heard. There is no reason it can't happen again and frankly, it is time.

[KarateLobster]

While I think regulation could be a good thing, and their still is a bunch we don't know about the e-cig and the interaction of the chemicals in the juice, etc, the tactics being employed by (partly) the FDA but mostly the politicians is wrong.

Sure they should test them, lead to some quality control. Absolutely they should not be marketed to anyone who can't buy tobacco products. But calling for an outright ban is yet another example of government (Federal, State, Local, etc) thinking they somehow have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do to/with myself. I am completely capable of making my own decisions, thank you, and you (government) simply do not have the right to tell me otherwise.

[LaceyUnderall]

While I think regulation could be a good thing, and their still is a bunch we don't know about the e-cig and the interaction of the chemicals in the juice, etc, the tactics being employed by (partly) the FDA but mostly the politicians is wrong.

Sure they should test them, lead to some quality control. Absolutely they should not be marketed to anyone who can't buy tobacco products. But calling for an outright ban is yet another example of government (Federal, State, Local, etc) thinking they somehow have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do to/with myself. I am completely capable of making my own decisions, thank you, and you (government) simply do not have the right to tell me otherwise.

Totally agree with you 100%.

[VapinCT]

WTF, I finally quit cigs after 20 years, tried everything to stop. Now I find out this? So where does this leave me? I am so F'in irrate right now.

Edited December 2, 2009 by VapinCT

[Adam]

Dont worry, I think CT will be fine now that Arnold Vetoed the Ban... **** B. usually follows Calif.

Us CT people should be ok for a while!