Under Seige

[Uma]

The towns, cities, states, and countries are under seige. There's too many at a time to post about here. Please visit ECF legislature sub forum to keep abreast, and also please join CASAA.org for info. Even CASAA has their hands full trying to keep abreast.

ECF http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/

e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/

A few of the many facing threats:

Washington

Spain

Canada

Europe

NYC

Chicago

Beverly Hills

Your town USA & not so USA

Watch your local towns, cities, city council agenda announcements. They are sneaking in meetings with just a few days notice, called "emergency" meetings.

Why are they doing this? Namely 3 main reasons, all of them centered around money.

1. TSET (tobacco settlement endowment trust like http://www.ok.gov/tset/Grants/) whose smoke money is dwindling extremely fast as more and more smokers switch to vaping. Their programs are under threat of becoming extinct. Their pockets are drying up. The TSET divvies the money up amongst various "health" groups, such as ACA, ALA, ETC, towards tobacco control programs.

2. Smoke tax money is dwindling for the states. The states rely on smoke taxes, gas taxes, carbon taxes, etc, but the money coming in from smoke tax has extremely reduced because of the eCigs popularity. The Attorney Generals of each greedy state are trying desperately to ban the eCig, if they can't be taxed like smokes, which is why they demonize them, to prep for excessive taxes. Until they can tax them the same, they want them completely banned, to force smokers to smoke and keep the tax money rolling in. It's their cash cow, and the cow is drying up.

3. Big Pharma is also showing losses on their smoking cessation products, along with the products associated with smoking. (Allergy pills, cough Meds, etc). Companies, such as the Chantix company, are even going so far as to promote Nicotine Free world instead of smoke free world. Why? Because they promote quitting nicotine without using nicotine. Chantix is owned by Pfizer, pfizer is owned by Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson is owned by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The RWF is a foundation which gives grants to towns, cities, universities, etc, towards a nicotine free world.

4. Many of these greedy politicians, cities, are vying for grants and bonuses, smoke tax, from all of the above.

TSET, for example, has been rumored to promote 3 levels of grants, and if a city also bans eCigs, they will receive all 3 levels of grant money. (Bronze, silver, gold).

All these towns are reaching for quick financial rewards, that will dry up quickly, instead of taking their power back. They could easily fix their broken bank accounts by rolling back regulations, taxes, and more. Giving power back to individual business owners, giving spending money back to the working man by not taxing him to death, and so much more. Reason.com recently released a powerful article, explaining just this. http://reason.com/archives/2013/12/03/fixing-california-freer-markets-and-fewe

Please, jump in, visit the Legislature sub forum daily, write your congressman, city councils, sign petitions, join the Twitter bombs, ... There is a LOT each of us can do to save our right to vape.

Many of us have been doing outstanding jobs of fighting the fight, and a huge cyber hug isn't big enough to show us all the appreciation felt by every Vaper out there.

Others don't realize there is a dire fight going on. Hence the reason for this thread.

There is zero time to waste.

Let's fill this thread with the studies that prove eCigs are safer than smokes, minors are not becoming addicted to nicotine like the professional fear mongers say they do (this one is so dam laughable. Hookah pens, popular amongst curious minors, are ZERO NIC, so please, tell us again how vaping zero nic addicts people to nic).

Refutes and debunks, all needed here. A library of truths, a quick reference.

Let's get 'er done.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Uma

[Uma]

Drexel Study. http://publichealth.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/publichealth/ms08.pdf

Concludes they are safer than tradional cigarettes, by far, and are safe for bypassers as well.

I tried to copy/paste, but iPad won't let me. Maybe someone else can.

This study puts the FDA, stanton Glantz, CDC fear mongering to shame.

[Uma]

Clear Stream Air Study. http://www.utahvapers.com/clearstream.html

Passes clean air tests. Conclusion is that it is safer to be in a room with a Vaper than to breathe the typical city air while walking down the street. http://www.utahvapers.com/clearstream.html

IVAQs http://www.ivaqs.com.

Clean air study

http://www.onlineprnews.com/news/268327-1349236060-new-ecigarette-study-shows-no-risk-from-environmental-vapor-exposure.html

Shows Zero risk from environmental vapor exposure

[Uma]

Lancet Study http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)61842-5/abstract

Shows that they are an EXIT from smoking, not a gateway into smoking.

Dr, Polosa and Capennetto of the Lancet study write a letter to CDC to correct the CDC's "mistakes" the CDC blatantly published to all the media and health groups. (Lies). http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(13)70495-9/fulltext

[Uma]

CDC belatedly reveals that while vaping rose, youth smoking dropped to a record low.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/20/cdc-belatedly-reveals-that-smoking-by-te

Yet, stanton Glantz and the CDC still promote the lies they told during the partial release of the Lancet study.

[Uma]

Dr. Farsalinos of Onassis Research Center has dedicated his research time and efforts to the pros and cons of the eCig.

http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/research

The results of the study showed that e-cigarette vapor was by far less cytotoxic than tobacco cigarette smoke, with most of the samples showing absolutely no adverse effects on the cells.

http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/research/135-evaluation-of-the-cytotoxic

Acknowledging the significant potential of electronic cigarettes as smoking alternatives and based on the scientific evidence which clearly indicated that they are much safer, it is important that health authorities will regulate these products in a way that will promote rather than restrict their availability and use by smokers who are unable to quit with currently approved medical methods.

http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/research/127-no-adverse-effects

However, a significant message from this study is that the daily use of electronic cigarettes does not hinder the beneficial effects of smoking cessation.

Chronic idiopathic neutrophilia, relieved after smoking cessation with the use of electronic cigarette

http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/research/94-chronic-idiopathic-neutrophilia-relieved-after-smoking-cessation-with-the-use-of-electronic-cigarette

http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/research/100-clearstream-life-accepted-for-publication

Dr. Farsalinos is studying Flavors at the moment, and hopes to study various wires, (kanthal vs Nichocrome(sp), etc..

He is dedicated to investigating every aspect to vaping there is. Bookmark his site, sign up for the news releases.

He also has a segment which debunks unprofessional studies, he exposes lies, and more. Worth clicking on every subject link.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Uma

[Uma]

Article written, JULY 22, 2013

Ecig Bill (asking states to set age restriction) is called a Trojan Horse

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/07/22/e-cigarette-bill-called-trojan-horse.html

"Anti-smoking advocates say that below the surface of House Bill 144 is a tobacco-industry-crafted Trojan horse designed to ensure that the emerging electronic-cigarette market and other alternative nicotine products remain taxed at a lower rate than traditional cigarettes and stay outside the states indoor smoking ban".

Follow the tax money. :$

First, dear attorney generals, eCigs are NOT smokes.

Second, they pose no health threats to non-vapers.

Third, ex-smokers should not have to breathe in smoke or be tempted by smoke or smell like smoke or be treated like smokers.

Fourth, I could go on all day, but will spare you.

Edited December 4, 2013 by Uma

[Uma]

Letter signed by 37 State AGs urges FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg to quickly propose e-cig regulations

September 24, 2013

Letter signed by 37 State AGs urges FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg to quickly propose e-cig regulations, falsely claims e-cigs are unsafe and as addictive as cigarettes, falsely accuses companies of marketing to youth, fails to reveal that the “deeming” regulation would threaten the lives of vapers and smokers by banning all e-cigs and that other proposed regulations would ban 99% of e-cig products and give the e-cig industry to Big Tobacco.

http://www.naag.org/assets/files/pdf...r%20(5)(1).pdf

http://www.naag.org/assets/files/pdf/E%20Cigarette%20Final%20Letter%20(5)(1).pdf

[Uma]

I stop and rest here. Please, continue on for us. I don't know when I'll have a chance to continue this.

[Uma]

This just in.

Dr. Farsalinos discovered a letter sent to MEP's in EU, in an attempt to sway the MEP's to ban eCigs.

Dr. Farsalinos and others immediately write to the MEP's and correct the misguidance (lies) of big Pharma.

http://ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/142-scandalous-propaganda-from-a-pharmaceutical-company

Of note, Dr. Farsalinos addresses the nicotine dosage lies in this too.

[Uma]

Awesome! Bill Godshall just posted this today. It's a fact filled letter, by Joel Nitzkin with links, concerning why eCigs should be considered ok.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/media-general-news/499462-joel-nitzkin-urges-us-preventive-services-task-force-consider-thr-products-addition-fda-approved-drugs-counseling.html

ECF media forum, titled, "Joel Nizkin urges us preventive services task force consider THR products addition FDA approved drugs counseling"

(Sometimes links I post to there don't work)

[HelloMiakoda]

"Another advantage of changing the goal to smoking cessation is to enable us to meet the needs of smokers with depression, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia, for whom nicotine is very effective in helping them get through the day far fewer disturbing side effects than their prescription medications. "

This is PRECISELY what drove me to use nicotine!

I, individually, have some issues. Mostly depression and some OCD tendancies. However, the effects of prescriptions on a multiple are WILDLY different than for the general population. (If I were to take meds for my depression, my headmates can't even function, let alone have a meaningful life. So much so, the one who we put in charge banned the use of such medications. This effect is probably due to my headmates not having the condition anti-depressants would treat.)

I don't have that problem with a little nicotine. My nicotine use has had almost no affects on my headmates, yet my depression has become managable.

So... why should I not be allowed to avoid lung cancer?

[Uma]

Exactly!

This article has the most beautiful Questions & Answers I've witnessed yet. It also exposes more truths behind TSET using funding to literally bribe towns into banning eCigs. TSET is in a panic over the loss of smoke settlement funds.

http://cherokeecountygop.wordpress.com/2013/11/29/e-cigs-vaping-do-our-policy-makers-ask-real-questions-before-deciding/

[Uma]

This article by Forces International explains the hierarchy of the anarchy very clearly.

http://www.forces.org/News_Portal/news_viewer.php?id=2303

BTW, changelabsolutions solutions (RWF aka Pfizer) has set into motion the play x play for taxing sugar. (They say it causes obesity, but all us parents know it causes hyperactive brats that get told to take it outside and play), BTW, fat tax is next.

Political Bullying coming soon to every kid near you for one thing or another. Demonize, ridicule, rally, tax.

[spydre]

Pretty sure I wouldn't have gotten up to 2 packs a day if it weren't for my bipolar and my anxiety disorder. I remember, once upon a time, I used to be able to go into work, wait until my lunch break, go smoke three cigarettes, and then go back to work for the rest of the day without a problem. Couldn't do that once everything else kicked in.

[Uma]

I know, right. Lots of people need the nicotine, that's why we have a nicotine receptor in our brain. When we have the right dose, it creates well being. The ANTZ say that's the problem with nicotine, it causes well being.

Here's another article about TSET paying towns to ban eCigs.

. http://watchdog.org/115737/e-cigarette-law/#

Changelabsolutions has the plan map for banning eCigs. CLS is funded, partnered, owned, whatever, by Robert Wood Foundation aka J & J aka Pfizer Big Pharma.

Model for banning eCigs in your town

http://changelabsolutions.org/sites/default/files/CA.ECigDeviceOrdinance-CHECKLIST-FINAL-201307011_0.pdf

Taking licensing to the next level. FIGHT THE CITY COUNCIL LICENSE PROPOSALS!!!

http://changelabsolutions.org/sites/default/files/Final%20TRL%20presentation_20130628.pdf

One can go on all day about their push to have everyone on Chantix....

[HelloMiakoda]

That's the problem with humans. Most of them demand that their way to feel "well being" be the ONLY way.

Most of what keeps my headmates and I content and happy doesn't match a "normal person's" idea of content and happy.

If vaping gets banned, it will not be the first time there is a ban on something that emensely helps one or more members of my system.

There was a recreational that was legal in our state that made switching hugesly easier for us when one of us used it. That substance is now illegal. I'm fearing the day they take caffeine away from us.

... if you enjoy it, somebody wants it illegal.

[Uma]

Changelabsolutions already has many next plans laid out, with the same battle plan they used on smokers, then Vapers.

First is sugar. They call it an obesity plan. Say what? Sugar makes kids hyperactive, gets them off the couch and onto their skateboards and bikes, basketball courts and swimming holes. Sugar makes for skinny, not fat, in a normal metabolism kid.

Next is the Fat, carbs, battle plan. Surprise surprise. Take away smokes, sugar, leaves only chips and dip, which do put on the weight.

All of the above have the same plan, leading to the same excessive taxing.

There is already bullying, shaming, ridicule going on if caught with a cookie, a soda, or a hot dog. The prepping stages, if you will.

It's a hate propaganda, set in motion for an "ideal" world. Sound familiar? Yep, to me too.

Fight these morons wherever you can!!! How dare they bully us, let alone our children, all in the name of "save the children". We all know that "save the cheerleader... ooops, I mean children" slogan is really a "tax 'em high" slogan, as well as a New World Order slogan. IMHO anyway.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Uma

[Uma]

This just in today.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/eu-legislation/500232-consultants-eu-commission-proposals-under-microscope.html

The consultants of the EU commission proposals-under the microscope

[EPHA Briefing] Regulation of Nicotine Containing Products (NCPs) including electronic cigarettes - European Public Health Alliance

http://www.epha.org/a/5868

Here is an amazing analysis of the proposals-and their legal foundations (or lack of)

From Steve1962

UKVapers

Comments on EPHA Briefing note:

Regulatory Options for Nicotine Containing Products (NCP’s) in the EU, December 2013

Introduction

This commentary has been produced as an analysis of the above EPHA briefing note with particular regard to potential implications for the use of novel methods for the consumption of nicotine on consumers. It aims to highlight any inaccuracies, misuderstandings or failures of logic.

In order to undertake this review it has been necessary to understand that in recent years a new method of nicotine consumption has become available. In this respect it is important to bear in mind that the recreational use of nicotine, by adults, is not an illegal act.

In fact the recreational consumption of nicotine is aligned with the other legally sanctioned drugs, caffeine and ethanol (ethyl alcohol) or simply ‘alcohol’.

Before the invention of a method to permit the inhalation of nicotine vapour the most widespread means of consumption was through the combustion of the dried leaves of nicotine containing plants (Tobacco), the smoke of which was then inhaled.

The historical monopoly of this method of nicotine consumption has lead to a certain degree of confusion in relation to the terminology employed in the current debate. The following clarifications are a necessary pre-requisite to understanding the arguments involved.

There is confusion between Tobacco (a nicotine containing plant) and the substance nicotine. This has mainly arisen because, before the development of new technologies, tobacco was overwhelmingly the commonest means of recreational consumption of nicotine. This, however, is no longer the case and the terms should be used with a greater level of discrimination between them.

Both the use of nicotine vapour and smoking tobacco involve the inhalation of the active substance (nicotine) but they are not the same activity, smoking involves combustion and inhalation of a mixture of a large number of chemicals (some of which are known carcinogens, and others such as carbon monoxide have adverse effects on human physiological systems), whereas the use of nicotine vapour does not.

These points are significant in that the focus of the majority of public health campaigns has been ‘tobacco smoking’. As demonstrated above the vapourising of nicotine is a distinct and separate activity involving neither tobacco or smoking. Confusion has arisen as a result of superficial similarities in the two activities. Being a ‘tobacco smoker’ can no longer be considered synonymous with being a ‘nicotine consumer’, as these new methods of consumption are now becoming widely adopted.

Analysis

The following commentary aims to correct and clarify, where necessary, the briefing document. Not all sections are repeated in full, as in some cases previous comments have made subsequent sections redundant. In particular this relates to statements which are conditional on previous assertions which have failed to pass any test of logical analysis. Such cases are noted.

The numbering below follows that of the original document. Where necessary, parts of the briefing document have been copied in full. These sections are in red. Formatting has been altered to permit the insertion of a commentary (in black) to allow the progression of the analysis to be easily followed.

1. The existing legal framework for Nicotine Containing Products (NCPs)

1.1 Facts and tendencies of Nicotine Containing Products (NCPs)

The future legislation of nicotine containing products (NCPs) is part of ongoing discussion on the revision of Tobacco Products Directive (TPD).The term nicotine containing products (NCP) requires clarification. In advance of the development of new technology for the consumption of nicotine, tobacco was the primary source for recreational nicotine consumption. At that time the only other Nicotine Containing Products were used as therapeutic devices (Patches, gum etc.) to act as an aid to reduce the incidence of Tobacco Smoking (note terminology). There were no Nicotine Containing Products (i.e. non-tobacco) available for recreational use this is not now the case, and the consumption of nicotine by vapourisation for recreational use is established. By analogy any regulation on Alcohol Containing Products would need to be implemented irrespective of end use, leading to perfumes (containing alcohol) and wine (containing alcohol) being covered by identical Regulation. Therefore there is a clear need to define the end use of a substance in regulation rather than its constituent.

"Electronic cigarettes" (e-cigarettes) or electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are nicotine containing products (NCPs) which look like cigarettes but they are in fact nicotine inhalators.These products are, in fact one example of the use of the new technology used for the recreational consumption of nicotine. Others, such as ‘personal vapourisers’ bear no physical resemblance to cigarettes. The appearance of the devices described and the term e-cigarette was employed by early manufacturers to gain a market share of recreational nicotine consumption. The name, and appearance of the devices was, at that time, an intentional marketing decision rather than a functional requirement.

An e-cigarette contains pure nicotine to be inhaled. It normally does not contain tobacco therefore they cannot be considered tobacco products, even if the nicotine is retrieved from tobacco plants as with all pharmaceutical nicotine. The nicotine in these devices is diluted – the term ‘pure’ in this context does not relate to ‘concentrated’ (in the sense that ‘pure alcohol’ equates with 98% ethanol), rather it indicates that the recreational use of these devices does not result in the inhalation of the additional chemical components found in the combustion of tobacco. With this clarification the above statement is accurate. It should also be noted that the statement confirms that these products are not Tobacco Products.

Due to this agreed point it is logically concluded that these products should not be placed within the scope of the Tobacco Products Directive.

There are many types of e-cigarettes, with nicotine delivered through replaceable cartridges that are available in various concentrations (e.g. 16 mg, 11 mg, 6 mg and 0 mg). The device can be adjusted to various levels of nicotine as per the needs of the user. Other forms of the new technology use different delivery systems, and the concentration of nicotine is infinitely variable. The use of the term ‘needs of the user’ has connotations of therapeutic use. It should again be emphasised that the inhalation of vapourised nicotine is the recreational use of a legal substance. By analogy one could say alcohol is available in different strengths ‘as per the needs of the user’, which implies a condition of passive consumption. ‘According to the users desire’ is a phrase more indicative of the way in which these devices are employed.

Information provided from manufacturers regarding how many cigarettes is equivalent to one cartridge varies between 15 and 20m nevertheless, some manufacturers claim that the nicotine content is many times lower to that of a classic cigarette. The presentation of the product varies between manufacturers and retail sellers.1 Manufacturers have attempted to benchmark nicotine in new technologies with tobacco, again to obtain market share of recreational nicotine consumption. However, to all intents and purposes such comparisons are unhelpful in any objective debate, as Tobacco contains many other chemical components.

Recent estimates indicate that the electronic cigarette market is growing rapidly in the European Union, and that the total value of the market in 2011 was €400–500 million. Additional statistics confirm that the use of electronic cigarettes has grown markedly in recent years: 7% of citizens of the European Union have reported that they have at least tried electronic cigarettes,2 and in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the number of electronic cigarette owners is expected to rise from a small number in 2006 to over 1 million by 2013.It should be noted that this represents predominantly recreational use of a legal substance.

And better news, the Consultancy are now consulting with 'Vapers'

Read more here

http://ukvapers.org/Thread-EU-Wanting-Help-Important

http://ukvapers.org/Thread-EU-Wanting-Help-Important

[Bebop]

Consulting with vapers - that's good news!

[Uma]

I know, right! Let's keep our fingers crossed...

[HelloMiakoda]

You mentioned seperating "tobacco smoking" from."nicotine use".

At a job interview recently, I was asked if I'd pass a drug test. I said I only use caffeine and nicotine. She assumed I smoke. Nope, I dont even carry a lighter. No burning, no smoke, I'm not a smoker. I'm a vaper.

[Uma]

Some insurance companies are charging $50.00 extra per month, if the insurer uses nicotine. Greed and force. Big Pharma trying to force smokers onto big Pharma products, plain and simple. The culling is nigh.

[Uma]

NICOTINE STUDIES

Long term effects: weight loss. . Ouch to the politicians setting up obesity taxes eh. (Changelabsolutions)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8614291/

Direct effects of pure nic, outside a traditional cigarette. AOK

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21617206/

Addiction: unadulterated, mild dependency, like caffeine.

http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/tobacco/en/l-2/4.htm

Tumors: NADA!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11165334/

One of the studies shows Nicotine helps restore brain damage.

[HelloMiakoda]

That one about addiction....

My cigarette based "nic fits" were atrocious.

My vaping "nic fits".... Unpleasant, but not the sheer torture of my cigarette withdrawls. Its obvious to me there is something ELSE in cigarette that is either also addictive and to a much higher degree, or something that enhances the addictive properties of nicotine.