Tobacco Harm Reduction Update - August 25th, 2016
FDA Vapor Deeming Ban, Obama’s Military War on Vaping, Indiana E-liquid Monopoly Law, Taxation, Local Laws, Vaping Bans, Outdoor Smoking Bans, Minimum Age, Turkey, THR Research, THR Advocacy And Education, THR Business, Conferences, Drug Harm Reduction, Stigmatizing Drug Users, DHHS funded Junk Science, Propaganda and Lies, More Junk Science - Propaganda - Lies.
Subscribe to THR Update email:
- send email to Bill Godshall with SUBSCRIBE as the subject:
billgodshall[AT]verizon[DOT]net [replace with @ and .net]
FDA/DOJ file 102 page cross-motion for Summary Judgment in Nicopure Labs v FDA that protects cigarettes by making many more false fear mongering claims about vaping
Jacob Sullum – FDA says nicotine free e-liquids are tobacco products in ‘certain circumstances’: Manufacturers will have to guess which circumstances those are, because the FDA won’t say.
FDA claims authority to regulate nicotine free e-cig products
Big Pharma funded CTFK/ACS/AHA/ALA/ATS/AAP, Legacy and Tobacco Control Legal Consortium file amicus brief in support of FDA’s life threatening cigarette protecting Vapor Deeming Ban in Nicopure Labs v FDA, repeat dozens of false and misleading fear mongering claims about lifesaving vapor products
Carl Phillips: FDA Center for Tobacco Products (mostly) know exactly what they are doing.
Wells Fargo’s Bonnie Herzog touts FDA deeming regulation as Big Win for Big Tobacco
Holman Jenkins – The FDA’s misguided nicotine crusade
Why is the agency trying to ban companies that have no role in smoking-related health problems?
"E-cigarettes do not contain tobacco. They contain nicotine, a chemical derived from tobacco and other plants.
Plain English was never a deterrent, though, to regulators on an empire-expanding mission. The Food and Drug Administration this week rolled out new regulations on e-cigarettes based on a 2009 law giving the agency power over products that “contain tobacco.”
That law, we’re duty-bound to add, was practically written by Philip Morris (now called Altria).
Plain English also does not authorize inclusion of e-cigarettes under the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement, the deal struck between the cigarette industry and 46 states that settled a bunch of lawsuits by imposing a government-run cartel to jack up the price of cigarettes (in the name of curbing consumption, naturally) and distribute the excess profits to the states and a handful of now-plutocrat trial lawyers.
To this day, e-cigarettes enjoy a considerable retail price advantage over products covered by the MSA. If you don’t think this fact plays a role in the move to regulate e-cigarettes, Donald Trump has some inaugural ball tickets to sell you.
Lovers of freedom and enemies of regulatory overkill do not exaggerate when they say FDA rules are designed to murder numerous small manufacturers and thousands of “vape” shops that account for about half the electronic-cigarette business.
E-cigarettes, let’s remember, operate by heating a solution containing nicotine, rather than burning tobacco. These small operators are unlikely to afford the estimated million-dollar cost of submitting each and every existing product and product variation for retroactive consideration by the FDA, as required by the law. Their trade group, the Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association, estimates that 99% of existing products therefore will exit the market during the two-year phase-in of the prohibitory new rules.
While government is laying waste to this small-business sector, expect to hear a great deal about how e-cigarettes represent unknown dangers, how they induce youngsters to smoke who wouldn’t otherwise smoke, how they aren’t really useful for smokers trying to quit or curb their usage.
As the redoubtable Jacob Sullum of Reason Magazine puts it, “The FDA’s regulatory scheme, in other words, privileges the most dangerous nicotine delivery devices (conventional cigarettes) while threatening to eliminate much safer alternatives and blocking the introduction of even better products.”
In time, what remains of the market will be consolidated in the hands of Big Tobacco companies that already dabble in e-cigarettes, i.e., Altria and Reynolds. Then expect to hear more about the benefits of e-cigs: a British study finds them 95% safer than traditional smokes; their market consists largely of smokers trying to cut down their risks.
At this point, unless we miss our guess, loud will become talk of the need to “level the playing field” with the MSA-covered brands—i.e., to bring e-cigs under the government-sponsored cartel (in the name of suppressing nicotine addiction of course) before they undercut the states’ $23 billion annual haul from Marlboro, Winston, Newport, etc.
All this will serve what purpose? To placate anti-smoking groups that have already shown themselves willing to be satisfied with “victories” over Big Tobacco that amount to big wet kisses to Big Tobacco? To assuage the need of politicians to pose as enemies of smoking while simultaneously receiving most of the profits of smoking?
Unasked will be the question: Has our nicotine prohibition gone too far now that we are trying to ban products that never caused the health problems that prompted the original smoking crackdown? Nicotine is not alcohol or even pot, which is legal in many places. Nicotine is more like caffeine or aspirin—an excellent drug, with few serious side effects (though mildly addictive) and many fine properties: It relieves bad feelings, improves concentration, calms the nerves.
Is the real problem here that many organized activists have made careers out of opposing smoking (or redistributing the revenues of smoking)? To desist would be to deprive themselves of a leverage point that can continue to pay personal and political dividends. Like an army formed to oppose a real enemy, when the war is over, instead of disbanding, it turns to plundering the people it was supposed to protect.
In the latest issue of the Yale Journal of Regulation, Case Western’s Jonathan Adler and several co-authors describe the e-cig fight in terms of classic “Baptist” and “bootlegger” coalition, in which do-gooders and self-interested parties cooperate to impose regulation that mostly benefits the self-interested parties—in this case, Big Tobacco.
Their theory perhaps needs to be updated for when the do-gooders degenerate into do-gooders manqué, existing only to prettify the market manipulations that politicians undertake on behalf of big business. What’s more, if you don’t think such activities play a role in the U.S. economy’s poor performance in recent years, Hillary Clinton has an entire economic agenda to sell you.”
Vapor Technology Association (VTA) surveys vapor companies about impact of FDA Deeming Regulation
TAA donates $50,000 to FDA lawsuit
Azarias Cordoba: FDA rules threaten Florida heritage of hand-rolled cigars
David Garofalo: Why did US Customs cut my cigars in half?
After lobbying Congress since 2002 to enact the TCA to ban new low risk smokefree tobacco products and require FDA approval of expensive PMTAs, and after lobbying FDA since 2010 to impose the Deeming Regulation, Altria now claims “FDA’s proposed pathways to bringing new products to market may hinder rather than support innovation, leading to the reverse of Congress’ intention. In some ways, FDA’s proposed pathways subject innovative new products to a more strict approach than cigarettes.”
Melissa Vonder Haar: The White House saved flavors, but for how long?
What will become of Dallas’ many vape shops after regulations favoring tobacco?
FDA sent August 19 e-mail (to hundreds or thousands of tobacco and vapor manufacturers) falsely claiming August 20, 2016 is deadline for newly deemed tobacco product manufacturers to submit “user fee information”, provided weblink to submit info at http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/FDAeSubmitter/ucm189469.htm and weblink to http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Manufacturing/default.htm that falsely claims “if you are a tobacco manufacturer, then you must report user fee information, pay user fees” and “If you mix or prepare e-liquids, make or modify vaporizers, or mix loose tobacco, and you also sell these products, you will be regulated as both a retailer and a tobacco product manufacturer.” But same FDA webpage then correctly states the August 20 deadline only applies to “cigar and pipe tobacco” as does weblink at
FDA losses lawsuit over tobacco (and vapor) labeling/packaging changes for Substantial Equivalence (SE), Judge Amit Meht’s opinion states “Finally, it is important that none of the actual terms that Congress used to define the term ‘new tobacco product’—and thus to initiate substantial equivalence review—can be read to encompass anything other the physical attributes of the product itself, as distinct from its label or the package in which it is contained.”
FDA loses lawsuit over tobacco labeling changes
Tobacco companies get partial win in FDA labeling fight
Federal judge rules label change does not make for a new tobacco product
Former US SG Antonia Novella praises FDA’s Vapor Deeming Ban, falsely insinuates vaping causes cancer, falsely claims nicotine “substantially harms your blood vessels, heart, and lungs,” falsely claims “many experts fear e-cigarettes may represent a gateway to the use of traditional cigarettes and other tobacco products,” and “if we are going to continue the quest to lower tobacco usage in adolescents, then we must curtail the use of e-cigarettes as well.”
US Navy report urges banning lifesaving vapor products, calls vaping an “unacceptable risk to Navy personnel, facilities, submarines, ships, vessels and aircraft”, cites a dozen e-cig battery explosions, fails to cite any health benefits for smokers who switch to vaping.
Federal judge grants preliminary injunction for GoodCat in its lawsuit claiming Indiana’s e-liquid monopoly law violates the US Constitution’s interstate commerce clause
FBI probing for possible corruption in Indiana vaping law
Chris Hughes: State government is killing my business (PA)
Prop 56 will increase cigarette tax and will tax vapor products at $3.37 per-unit sale (CA)
FDA/NIH funded vapor and vaping prohibitionist Stan Glantz deceitfully lobbies for Prop 56 to tax lifesaving vapor products by failing to acknowledge it taxes vapor products, and by yet again demonizing and blaming tobacco companies.
Sacramento Bee claims ad by anti vaping groups advocating Prop 56 to tax tobacco/vapor products is mostly accurate, but ad deceitfully conflates deadly cigarettes with all other tobacco products (including lifesaving vapor products), falsely insinuates that vaping imposes healthcare costs on taxpayers and that taxing it is a “user fee”
Cigarette makers fight North Dakota tobacco (and vapor) tax hike
Circuit court ruling on cigarette tax initiative expected quickly (MO)
Court ruling keeps cigarette tax ballot initiative in Missouri
Judge rules tobacco tax hike belongs on Missouri ballot, but critics vow to appeal
Colorado Secretary of State approves ballot initiative to increase tobacco tax rates
NATO’s Thomas Briant: Local restrictions multiply
8/16/2016 KQV poll finds 66% of 18,178 voters oppose proposed Allegheny County workplace vaping ban (PA)
NSW Cancer Council wants to punish smokers for switching to vaping by banning vaping
Colin Mendelsohn: Banning e-cigarettes will be a drag on public health
Bangor (ME) bans smokefree vaping in parks purportedly to protect kids from tobacco smoke exposure
Study of Vancouver smoking ban at parks and beaches finds high cost of implementation, many violations, little but very selective enforcement, $250 fines, no health improvement; but authors call the ban a success
Ann Arbor (MI) Council defies state law, ban cigarette sales to adults age 18 to 20
Cattaraugus County (NY) Committee advances bill to increase minimum age for tobacco and vapor sales to 21, County lawmakers to consider on August 24.
Bill introduced in St. Louis County (MO) to increase minimum age for sales of lifesaving vapor products, low risk OTP and deadly cigarettes to 21
Confusing smoke signals from Turkey
Premier vaping network website has been blocked for all Turkish Internet users.
Study finds about six million Europeans have quit smoking with e-cigarette use
Study finds most US doctors have talked to smoking patients about vaping, but just 40% of doctors have recommended vaping for smokers (likely to due to the massive amount of junk studies in medical journals and anti vaping propaganda by Obama’s DHHS, Big Pharma shills, medical organizations, medical journals and left wing Democrats)
2013 study found a higher percentage of people in the UK (58%) correctly believed e-cigs are a lot less harmful than cigarettes than in Australia (35%), where nicotine containing e-cigs were banned in 2008 and have been demonized by health agencies.
Indiana survey finds fewer teens vaping in 2016 than in 2015, but agency spokesperson falsely conflates lifesaving vapor products with highly addictive and deadly cigarettes
Online survey of 941 smokers who switched to vaping finds 66% reported fewer respiratory infections, 29% reported no change, 5% reported more infections
Smokers who switch to vaping may have fewer respiratory infections, study reveals
Smokers who switch to vaping have fewer lung infections: 66% report health spike after switching to e-cigarettes
NIH funded 2011 study (which took 5 years to publish) finds 45% of smokers quit smoking by vaping for 2 weeks, reconfirms that switching to vaping sharply reduced smokers’ exposure to toxicants and carcinogens; but Rosswell Park and UCSF authors falsely claim theirs is the first study to find the latter, then back track by claiming switching to vaping “may reduce” exposures for smokers and by falsely claiming lifesaving vapor products are just “potential” harm reduction devices.
Craig Boudreau: This study is the last thing anti e-cig crusaders want to see
Roswell Park study finds e-cigarettes ‘safer, less toxic’ than cigarettes
Mike Siegel: New study shows dramatic reduction in toxicant and carcinogen levels in smokers who switch to e-cigarettes
Jacob Sullum: Experiment confirms lifesaving potential of e-cigarettes
HealthDay blurb on Rosswell Park vapor study promotes Big Pharma funded ACS website that hawks ineffective and less than safe drugs ACS is paid to promote
ACSH’s Lila Abassi: E-cigarettes make smoking seem abnormal
Knight-West/Bullen: E-cigarettes for the management of nicotine addiction https://www.dovepress.com/e-cigarettes-for-the-management-of-nicotine-addiction-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-SAR
Brad Rodu: Low-tar cigarettes had merit, said American Cancer Society; So do e-cigarettes
Carl Phillips: Economics holds the smoking gun for why e-cigarettes shouldn’t be discouraged
Sen. Ron Johnson and Aaron Biebert at A Billion Lives premiere in Milwuakee
Houston & Sweanor: How unsubstantiated fears over aspartame and e-cigarettes are having a detrimental effect on public health
Reason Foundation: The Vapour Revolution – How Bottom-Up Innovation is Saving Lives
E-cigarettes can help you quit smoking says research (India)
Protestors call for right to vape in Australia
John Kiernan invites comments on health benefits/risks of vaping from 21 so-called experts, but only 8 of them (Jed Rose, Brad Rodu, Riccardo Polosa, Jason Downing, Brian Carter, Jonathan Foulds, Jeff Stier, Peter Killeen) consistently presented accurate and objective information. In sharp contrast, 9 of the so-called experts (Robert Tarran, Laura Crotty Alexander, Robert Jackler, Lena Matthias, Larry Cohen, Larry Williams, Matt Myers, Aruni Bhatgagar, Laurent Huber) protected cigarettes by grossly misrepresenting the evidence on vaping and/or by advocating anti vaping policies.
iQOS proving a sellout hit in Japanese market
PAX labs hires CEO Tyler Goldman to handle rapid growth
Smart Toothpicks markets nicotine toothpicks in three different flavors
Global Tobacco & Nicotine Forum 2016 September 27-29 in Belgium (Tobacco Industry)
SFATA to hold conference October 20/21 in Hollywood, Florida
A step towards legalizing cannabis? NHS to test marihuana based vaporiser to relieve pain
Alex Wodak: Hysteria about drugs and harm minimization. It’s always the same old story
Sarah Wakeman – Words Matter: The language of addiction and life-saving treatments
(Godshall comments on similar problems due to stigmatizing tobacco users and vapers)
FDA’s “The Facts on the FDA’s New Tobacco Rule” repeats false and misleading claims about health risks of vapor products, fails to acknowledge the rule bans the sale of all vapor product sales to adults and destroys 10,000 small vapor businesses, touts Big Pharma drugs as the only effective way to quit smoking, falsely claims purpose of rule is to protect children and public health.
CDC advocates smokeless tobacco usage bans by deceitfully conflating very low risk smokeless tobacco with deadly cigarettes, criticizing smokeless tobacco companies because sports or sporting events accounted for .4% of smokeless tobacco industry advertising/promotional expenditures in 2013, promotes WHO policy to ban all tobacco advertising (in violation of the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution), claims athletes who use smokeless tobacco at sporting events are “unpaid advertisements”.
Big Pharma & DHHS funded NRT hawk Michael Fiore deceitfully praises Obama Administration for huge decline in cigarette smoking (that was largely due to vaping) and to “tobacco-control interventions at the federal, state, nonprofit, and private-sector levels”, the TCA, ACA, AARA, HITECHA and Obama DHHS appointees Corr, Frieden, Zeller and Koh (who lobbied FDA to ban e-cigs since 2009 and lobbied for vaping bans by lying about the lifesaving products)
Big Pharma funded CTFK’s Matt Myers (who has lobbied FDA to ban vapor products since 2009) touts Fiore’s praising of Obama Administration for cigarette smoking decline (that was primarily due to vaping), which Obama’s FDA unlawfully banned e-cigs in 2009 and has falsely claimed (since then) that e-cigs are target marketed to youth, are addicting nonsmoking teens, may be as harmful as cigarettes to users and nonusers, and haven’t helped smokers quit smoking.
NCI funded study by vapor prohibitionist Thomas Wills finds e-cigs primarily used by teen smokers, but authors misrepresent their own findings (and ignore all other evidence) to conclude “e-cigarettes are recruiting lower risk adolescents to smoking”
Mike Siegel: New study purports to show that e-cigs are a gateway to smoking, but provides no evidence to support that conclusion
FDA/NIH funded vapor/vaping prohibitionist Stan Glantz repeats lie that e-cigs are target marketed to youth by citing Thomas Wills’ propaganda
For the nth time, FDA/NCI funded vapor prohibitionist Stan Glantz misrepresents scientific evidence on lifesaving vapor products to confuse, scare, lobby for more cigarette protecting vaping bans
Mike Siegel: Anti-tobacco researcher: Cardiovascular effects of e-cigarettes are nearly as big as smoking
CDC finds trace levels of caffeine in some coffee flavored e-liquids, warns about unknowns to confuse and scare, fails to compare to far more harmful cigarette smoke,
promotes state/local laws banning and testing for traces of caffeine in vapor products.
NCI awards $20.1 million to ITC project (including $8.8 million to Geoff Fong) to misrepresent scientific evidence on vaping and anti-vaping laws; OICR’s press release announcing Fong’s grant inaccurately called vaping “smoking e-cigarettes” (which was changed to “using e-cigarettes” after criticism), claims e-cigs “may” be less harmful than cigarettes and help smokers quit smoking (despite clear evidence vaping is far less harmful than smoking and has helped millions of smokers quit), and “may expose nonusers to nicotine consumption, which could lead to tobacco use” (despite no evidence of that occurring after seven years and thousands of the same fear mongering allegations) https://news.oicr.on.ca/2016/08/oicrs-geoff-fong-receives-major-funding-to-examine-e-cigarettes-and-the-impact-of-public-health-policy/
Regulator Watch: Reasoned Research – $8.8 Million E-cig Study Explained (NCI funded ITC study to tout FDA vapor/vaping prohibition policies as scientifically sound, as no one else funded by DHHS has criticized FDA’s vapor bans and anti-vaping propaganda)
Clive Bates and Gerry Stimson expose, refute many false claims by vapor prohibitionists Martin McKee and Simon Chapman
Mike Siegel: Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids is apparently indoctrinating youth to lie about e-cigarettes and downplay the health hazards of smoking
Clive Bates: Telegraph writer Sarah Knapton puts the record straight. Not really.
Lauren Millar: E-cigarettes a critical tool in the war on smoking (Canada)
British Columbia Chief Medical Officer Richard Stanwick repeats many lies about vapor products and vaping in response to Lauren Millar’s truthful statements about vaping
Vapor prohibitionist WHO names vaping prohibitionist Michael Bloomberg a “Global Ambassador for Noncommunicable Diseases” after he gave them money to conflate very low risk smokefree alternatives with deadly cigarettes and to lobby for THR bans.
Michael Bloomberg funded THR prohibitionist CTFK’s Matt Myers praises WHO for praising Bloomberg
Big Pharma funded AAP (which has lied about and lobbied to ban e-cigs since 2009) activist Rachel Dawkins and Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital protect cigarettes, commit public health malpractice by claiming “Parents should also consider vaping just as dangerous as smoking cigarettes when talking to their teens,” and by making many other false and misleading fear mongering claims about vaping
Mike Siegel: Johns Hopkins physician and vaping opponent urges parents to lie to their kids about the hazards of smoking
Mike Siegel: Vaping opponents continue to just make up the “facts”
Tobacco Control editors and Stanford vaping opponent Robert Jackler falsely accuse vapor companies of marketing to youth because unicorns appear in some ads
Snopes debunks fraudulent fear mongering about diacetyl, popcorn lung and vaping
Utah Hospital Association CEO Greg Bell falsely claims “one still ingests plenty of harmful chemicals by vaping”, claims “e-cigs may be a gateway to cigarettes” by citing a study that found no evidence e-cigs are gateways to cigarettes, lobbies for vapor taxes (all of which protect the financial interests of the healthcare industry that relies on increasing revenue from treating sick smokers, now costing $200 Billion/year in the US).
THR prohibitionist Simon Chapman urges more scientific journals to censor (refuse to publish) tobacco industry funded studies that debunk Chapman’s false accusations
Royal College of Medicine invites Snus and Vapor prohibitionists and propagandists Simon Chapman and Martin McKee to lie about THR, vaping, tobacco companies, etc. at intolerant and nonsensical prohibition (i.e. end-game) conference Sept 16 in London.
Montana government funded Sarah Shapiro accuses tobacco and vapor companies of target marketing to youth (in violation of the MSA, the FDA Deeming Rule and MT law) simply because teens are allowed in convenience stores, provides no actual evidence.
Deseret News editorial protects cigarettes by repeating anti vaping propaganda and by advocating anti-vapor and anti-vaping laws.
JAMA Internal Medicine promotes Finnish study finding some Fins living closer to a tobacco retailer were slightly less likely to quit smoking (than other Fins living further from a retailer), activist authors propose reducing number of retailers (based on one study finding a slight association, but nothing causal)
JAMA Vaping prohibitionist and drink tax activist Thomas Farley (who is now Philadelphia Health Cmsnr) advocates tobacco retailer and flavoring bans, unconstitutional tobacco advertising and display bans, unconstitutional plain packaging laws; falsely accuses tobacco industry of target marketing to youth
Press releases and news stories cite Finnish study to falsely claim that reducing the number of tobacco retailers will prompt more smokers to quit smoking
- Bill Godshall
Godshall THR update 2016-08-25