E-cigarette ban is a victory for public health 3/25/2015

The writer is a resident of Kensington and a senior director at the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

http://www.gazette.net/article/20150325/OPINION/150329562/1014/e-cigarette-ban-is-a-victory-for-public-health&template=gazette

E-cigarette companies claim their products are intended for adults, but there is abundant evidence that their marketing heavily targets kids. Advertisements for e-cigarettes have proliferated on TV shows watched by teens, and kid-friendly flavors such as Cherry Crush, Creamy Milk Chocolate and Captain Crunch are readily available online.

<snip>

E-cigarettes have not been shown to be “safe” — in fact, they expose users to formaldehyde and other potentially hazardous chemicals. Public-health experts agree that more research is needed to understand the effects of e-cigarettes on their users and the nonusers around them.

Yet, a federally funded study released last year revealed that the popularity of e-cigarettes among teens is now higher than that of traditional cigarettes. This finding suggests what may be the biggest danger posed by e-cigarettes — that they are making smoking “cool” again among kids.

This much is clear: There is no reason for kids to use e-cigarettes. The Montgomery County bill, which was introduced by Councilwoman Nancy Floreen and approved unanimously, will discourage e-cigarette use and help to protect the health of our kids.

Steven Weiss, Kensington

E-cigs may be cleaner, but not necessarily safer says Mid-Atlanic ALA, timeleader.com (PA) 19 Feb 2014

http://timesleader.com/news/extras/1201037/E-cigs-may-be-cleaner-but-not-necessarily-safer

If it’s Deborah Brown, president and CEO of the American Lung Association of the Mid-Atlantic, the story behind electronic cigarettes isn’t all that rosy.

“No brand has been submitted for evaluation of their safety,” Brown said. “In some initial lab tests in 2009, the (Food and Drug Administration) did find some detectable levels of toxic, cancer-causing chemicals, including an ingredient used in anti-freeze

……

The association claims the e-cigarette industry is using marketing tactics of the tobacco industry by using celebrity spokespeople to glamorize its products, making unproven health claims, encouraging smokers to switch instead of quit, and creating candy- and fruit-flavored products to attract youth.

….

“We are faced with a deep-pocketed, ever-evolving tobacco industry that’s determined to maintain its market share at the expense of our kids and current smokers,” Brown continued.

ACS opposes bill aimed at stopping children from using electronic cigarettes, Columbus Dispatch 14 Nov 2013

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/11/14/e-cigarette-bill-passes-house-despite-criticism.html

With the sales of electronic cigarettes reaching an estimated $1.7 billion in 2013, Rep. Stephanie Kunze, R-Hilliard, said her bill is focused on banning sales of the nicotine-infused products to people younger than 18. She said a national study recently found that the number of middle- and high-school students who have tried e-cigarettes doubled in one year.

“This new product is opening up an entirely new generation that can be addicted to nicotine,” Kunze said. “There is also an alarming trend of e-cigarettes being used as the vehicle for other drugs.”

When the user inhales, an e-cigarette heats up nicotine-infused liquid inside, releasing a vapor that is inhaled and exhaled. They come in a variety of flavors, including chocolate, cotton candy and Dr Pepper.

Rep. Nickie Antonio, D-Lakewood, said keeping e-cigarettes away from children is important, but the bill defines the products under a new category that protects them from state cigarette taxes and laws such as the indoor smoking ban.

…..

Kunze said the bill does not prevent future tax changes and she doesn’t understand why groups including the American Cancer Society and heart and lung associations are opposing it when they backed a similar measure last year in Indiana.

The Cancer Society has said that it did not become aware until recently that the bills were part of a nationwide push by the tobacco industry to avoid having the products taxed like regular cigarettes.

The Cancer Society says higher taxes are more effective at keeping tobacco products away from teenagers than laws restricting sales to youths.

E-cigarettes “contain nicotine, which is highly addictive and derived from tobacco,” said Jeff Stephens of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network of Ohio. “There is no reason to give these products special treatment in the (law).”

ALA Minnesota basically admits anti-ecig position has nothing to do with lungs or health, nujournal.com 12 Feb 14

http://www.nujournal.com/page/content.detail/id/548527/Sleepy-Eye-OKs-e-cigarette-sales-moratorium.html?nav=5009

“It’s like the wild west. This is a poisonous product without regulations,” said ALA Program Manager Erin Simmons. “I could make this stuff in the trunk of my car and sell it.”

Note that the policy they were supporting was a sales ban, not quality control regulation.

ACS pretends opposition to ban on ecig sales to minors is because it might miss some, KUMN New Mexico, 6 Feb 14

http://kunm.org/post/lawmakers-advance-ban-e-cigarette-sales-minors

Sandra Adondakis is with the American Cancer Society.  She says this version of the bill might not ban every type of e-cigarette because the definition of the devices is too vague.

“It would be better for us to wait for FDA to tell us ‘no sales to minors,’” Adondakis said.  She added her group would also support a clearer legislative bill that has good definitions covering all the products that are currently on the market and that define e-cigarettes as within the definition of tobacco products.

ALA thinks that snus is a novel product and is bothered when people learn it is low risk

Click to access new-smokeless-tobacco-products.pdf

Not dated, but the references run through mid-2012. Accessed 5 Feb 14.

This is such a complete catalog of the lies about smokeless tobacco, and ALA’s trumped-up reasons for not liking it that there is no way to just pull a few quotes, so see the original if you want.  (If they memory-hole it, we have saved a copy, so let us know.)

The dishonest highlight of the document is probably the fact that this attack on smoke-free tobacco products was part of their “Smokefree Communities Project”.  The humor highlight was them listing as the three categories of novel smokeless products as: Ariva, dissolvable, snus.

ALA pretends to be anti-smoking but recycles all the lies about smokeless tobacco

http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/about-smoking/facts-figures/smokeless-tobacco-products.html

The page is not dated.  Accessed 3 Feb 14.  Most recent reference is 2008 (though it feels like it was written in 2002).

Every single health claim in this is a lie.  Note also the rhetoric about stopping smoking at the end, when the page is devoted to discouraging people from stopping smoking.

 

Smokeless Tobacco Products

Smokeless tobacco causes significant health risks and is not a safe alternative to smoking cigarettes. It contains the same addictive chemical (nicotine) that is in cigarettes, which can lead to addiction and dependence.¹  The amount of nicotine absorbed from smokeless tobacco is 3 to 4 times the amount delivered by a cigarette.² 

Key Facts About Smokeless Tobacco Use:

• Smokeless tobacco contains 28 cancer-causing agents (carcinogens) or known causes of human cancer. It also increases the risk of developing cancer of the oral cavity and pancreas.³
• There are two main types of smokeless tobacco used in the U.S., chewing tobacco and snuff. Chewing tobacco comes in loose leaf, plug and twist form. Snuff is finely ground tobacco that can be dry, moist, or in bag-like pouches. Most smokeless tobacco users place the product in the cheek or between their gum and cheek, suck on the tobacco and spit out or swallow the juices, which is why smokeless tobacco is often referred to as spit tobacco.⁴
• However, several tobacco companies have started to develop and test market new smokeless tobacco products such as snus, a product that does not require the user to spit and tobacco products that dissolve when put into the mouth.⁵
• In 2006, the five largest smokeless tobacco manufacturers spent over $354 million on advertising and promotion, the highest amount ever recorded.  The majority of these dollars (57.5%) were spent on price discounts to smokeless tobacco retailers or wholesalers to reduce the price to consumers.⁶

Smokeless Tobacco Use in the U.S.:

• In the U.S., an estimated 3.3 percent of adults are current smokeless tobacco users; use is much higher among males than females (6.5% vs. 0.4%).  Amongst specific populations, American Indian/Alaska natives have the highest use (7%) followed by white males (4.3%).⁷
• An estimated 7.4 percent of high school students are current smokeless tobacco users. Smokeless tobacco use is much more common among male then female high school students (13.4% vs. 2.3%). It is estimated that African American high school students use smokeless tobacco (1.2%) less than White (10.3%) and Hispanic (4.7%) students.⁸ 
• An estimated 2.6 percent of middle school students are current smokeless tobacco users.⁹ 

The American Lung Association has more information available on quitting smoking and our programs to help you do so, our advocacy efforts to reduce tobacco use and exposure to secondhand smoke, and tobacco use trends on our website at www.lung.org, or through the Lung HelpLine at 1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872).

American Thoracic Society creates the illusion of grassroots opposition to e-cigarettes with form letter

Not actually one of the orgs that is the focus of this blog, but upon discovering it, we felt like this astroturfing needed to be documented somewhere, and this seems like the place.

https://www.thoracic.org/advocacy/support-ats-advocacy-efforts-on-clean-air-and-tobacco.php (no date given; accessed 1 Feb 14)

Help support ATS advocacy efforts for cleaner air and tighter regulation of tobacco products by responding to reports on these issues in your local community papers and other media outlets. Letters to the editor and posting comments in these community-level outlets demonstrate support (or opposition) to a policy at local, grassroots level. Decision makers pay more attention to letters in local papers as a barometer of local opinion than they do large national papers, which tend to have a well-established world view on most issues. The goal in these letters to local outlets is not always to reach the most people but to reach the right people.

Here are some sample letters, which can and should be adapted to address the particular report.

To the Editor:

Contrary to the arguments by opponents of the ban, touting e-cigarettes as a safe aid for quitting smoking is premature, as the potential adverse health consequences of their use have not been well studied. E-cigarettes deliver nicotine just as cigarettes do, yet they are not subject to the same FDA oversight of their content and manufacture.

The American Thoracic Society has long fought in the battle against tobacco addiction and supports the urgent need for more effective therapies. In addition to the lack of clarity on the possible health effects of e-cigarettes, the ATS believes these devices are a potential gateway to smoking among young people, to whom they are heavily marketed.

The ATS recently released a policy statement on the regulation of e-cigarettes which recommends that federal, state and municipal authorities should assert jurisdiction and effectively regulate e-cigarettes, including setting age restrictions for their sale and regulating their content and advertising.

Sincerely,

Your Name
Street Address
City, State, ZIP
A member of the American Thoracic Society.

ALA aggressively discourages smokers from switching to smokeless tobacco, letter to FDA, 1 Apr 13

When attacking e-cigarette based THR, the ALA might be able to retreat into speculative (and out-and-out false) claims about some unknown threat to lung health.  But even this weak defense is not available when they attack smokeless tobacco based THR.  Despite smokeless tobacco having absolutely no impact on lung health, ALA includes innuendo against it frequently.  The attacks on smokeless tobacco make clear that ALA is opposing harm reduction per se in their campaign against e-cigarettes too.

They were a top-line signatory (along with all the other groups you might guess) to this letter (an unintentional April Fools joke) to FDA and posted it on their website http://www.lung.org/get-involved/advocate/advocacy-documents/smokeless-warning-labels-comments-final-4-1-13.pdf  The letter is an attempt to pressure FDA into continuing to keep smokers from learning about how low risk smokeless tobacco is. 

The current statutory smokeless tobacco warnings are accurate and continue to be essential to public health. The scientific evidence leaves no doubt that smokeless tobacco causes mouth cancer, gum disease and tooth loss, that it is highly addictive and that it is not a safe alternative to cigarettes.

Every single claim there is a lie.  But even setting that aside, notice there is not even a claim (here or elsewhere in the letter) that smokeless tobacco is bad for lung health.

The rest of the letter is pretty complete catalog of the anti-THR lies told about smokeless tobacco, so I will not bother to try to reprint it (and it is a matter of public record, so they cannot memory-hole it).  Consider this an outsource to the original which speaks (lies) for itself.

ALA explicitly called for ban of ecigs, letter, 1 Mar 13

Last one (for now anyway) from the SteveVape archive:

http://stevevape.com/ala-still-hates-ecigs/ outsources to http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20130302/OPINION03/303020021?nclick_check=1

Letter to the editor

A Feb. 20  online essay used our State of Tobacco Control 2013 report to try to make a case for products like e-cigarettes and so-called “reduced-harm” products.  The American Lung Association strongly encourages smokers to quit, but recommends products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as safe and effective in helping smokers quit.

It is important to remember that the FDA has not approved the use of any reduced-harm products or e-cigarettes. The Lung Association feels e-cigarettes should be removed from the marketplace until FDA determines them to be safe.

The intent of State of Tobacco Control is to evaluate key areas of tobacco control that need to be addressed by federal and state governments. Products marketed by the tobacco industry as harm-reduction are wolves in sheep’s clothing. The Lung Association will continue to work with lawmakers and government agencies like FDA to reduce the burden of tobacco on all Americans.

JEFF SEYLER

BRIGHTON

The author is president and CEO of American Lung Association of the Northeast.

ALA declares ecigs “deadly” and denigrates harm reduction, KOAM Oklahoma, 11 Mar 13

Another from the SteveVape archive

http://stevevape.com/oklahoma-proposes-ecig-tax-ala-against-it/ outsources to http://www.koamtv.com/story/21577607/oklahoma-lawmakers-consider-tighter-regulations-for-electronic-cigarettes

The Oklahoma proposal also would tax e-cigarettes like regular tobacco.  However, Oklahoma’s American Lung Association is against the bill’s new regulations writing:  “…it would effectively have the state of Oklahoma endorse and promote deadly products as ‘harm reduction’ solutions.”

Note, the first line of this (by the reporter) is wrong — the proposed tax on e-cigarettes was quite a lot lower than existing taxes on other tobacco products.  But this seems not to relate to the ALA quote, which seems to want nothing short of a ban.  Does not explain why they opposed the tax when a ban was not on the table, though.

ALA claims switching to ecigs is still smoking, KSDK Missouri, 29 Apr 13

Another from the @SteveVape archive

http://stevevape.com/tv-station-reports-acs-expert-on-definition-of-smoking/ outsources to http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/378118/3/Electronic-cigarette-health-risks-and-benefits

Critics say too little is known about the safety of electronic cigarettes because they’re not regulated. Michelle Bernth handles communications for the American Lung Association St. Louis, which opposes e-cigarettes.

“Right now there’s a lot of misinformation about electronic cigarettes,” said Bernth. “The first is that they’re not harmful to your health which is not true because nicotine which we know is harmful to your health. They also contain chemicals we don’t fully understand. Right now they’re not being regulated by the FDA. And so we want to learn more about what goes on with them before we can understand how harmful or not harmful they are to people.”

…

The American Cancer Society, like the American Lung Association, opposes e-cigarettes. “As long as you’re inhaling nicotine and other toxic chemicals into your lungs, you’re still smoking,” said Michelle Bernth.

ALA ACS AHA success in keeping RI from banning ecig sales to minors, Providence Journal 17 Jul 13

Another from the @SteveVape archive

http://stevevape.com/rhode-island-governor-prohibitionists-succeed-in-making-nicotine-available-to-minors/ outsources to http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20130717-r.i.-governor-chafee-vetoes-e-cigarette-ban-for-those-under-18.ece

PROVIDENCE — Governor Chafee has vetoed legislation prohibiting anyone under the age of 18 from purchasing e-cigarettes and other “vapor products” that heat liquid nicotine into a smokable vapor.

The American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, and other health advocacy groups, had called on Chafee to veto the measure.

…

In his veto message, Chafee said, “The sale of electronic cigarettes to children should be prohibited, but it is counter-productive to prohibit sales to children while simultaneously exempting electronic cigarettes from laws concerning regulation, enforcement, licensing or taxation.

“As a matter of public policy, electronic cigarette laws should mirror tobacco product laws, not circumvent them,” Chafee said.

ALA’s Wimmer thinks ecigs are bad if they are different from cigarettes, or if they are similar, CNN 6 Jan 14

Another from the @SteveVape archives

http://stevevape.com/cnn-gives-ton-digital-ink-ala-spread-utter-misinformation/ outsources to http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/06/opinion/wimmer-ecigarette-danger/

by Harold P. Wimmer is the president and CEO of the American Lung Association.

For the makers of electronic cigarettes, today we are living in the Wild West — a lawless frontier where they can say or do whatever they want, no matter what the consequences. They are free to make unsubstantiated therapeutic claims and include myriad chemicals and additives in e-cigarettes.

Big Tobacco desperately needs new nicotine addicts and is up to its old tricks to make sure it gets them. E-cigarettes are being aggressively marketed to children with flavors like Bazooka Bubble Gum, Cap’n Crunch and Cotton Candy. Joe Camel was killed in the 1990s, but cartoon characters are back promoting e-cigarettes.

Many e-cigarettes look like Marlboro or Camel cigarettes. Like their old-Hollywood counterparts, glamorous and attractive celebrities are appearing on TV promoting specific e-cigarette brands. Free samples are even being handed out on street corners.

The above is the rather unique part of this, but the rest is a nearly fully catalog of ALA anti-THR claims.

A report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows the promotion of e-cigarettes is reaching our children with alarming success. In just one year, e-cigarette use doubled among high school and middle school students, and 1 in 10 high school students have used an e-cigarette. Altogether, 1.78 million middle and high school students nationwide use e-cigarettes.

The three largest cigarette companies are all selling e-cigarettes. Because tobacco use kills more than 400,000 people each year and thousands more successfully quit, the industry needs to attract and addict thousands of children each day, as well as keep adults dependent to maintain its huge profits.

Nicotine is a highly addictive substance, whether delivered in a conventional cigarette or their electronic counterparts. The potential harm from exposure to secondhand emissions from e-cigarettes is unknown. Two initial studies have found formaldehyde, benzene and tobacco-specific nitrosamines (a well-known carcinogen) coming from those secondhand emissions. We commend New York City recently for banning the use of e-cigarettes indoors.

No e-cigarette has been approved by the FDA as a safe and effective product to help people quit smoking. Yet many companies are making claims that e-cigarettes help smokers quit. When smokers are ready to quit, they should call 1-800-QUIT NOW or talk with their doctors about using one of the seven FDA-approved medications proven to be safe and effective in helping smokers quit.

According to one study, there are 250 different e-cigarette brands for sale in the U.S. today. With so many brands, there is likely to be wide variation in the chemicals — intended and unintended — that each contain.

In 2009, lab tests conducted by the FDA found detectable levels of toxic cancer-causing chemicals — including an ingredient used in anti-freeze — in two leading brands of e-cigarettes and 18 various e-cigarette cartridges.

There is no safe form of tobacco. Right now, the public health and medical community or consumers have no way of knowing what chemicals are contained in an e-cigarette or what the short and long term health implications might be.

Commonsense regulation of e-cigarettes by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is urgently needed. In the absence of meaningful oversight, the tobacco industry has free rein to promote their products as “safe” without any proof.

A proposal to regulate e-cigarettes and other tobacco products has been under review at the White House Office of Management and Budget since October 1, 2013. The Obama administration must move forward with these rules to protect the health of everyone, especially our children.

ACS just wants ecig taxes, not minor sales bans, Columbus Dispatch 14 Nov 13

Another from the @SteveVape archives:

http://stevevape.com/iowa-ignores-ala-acs-decides-to-protect-kids-instead/ outsources to http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/11/14/e-cigarette-bill-passes-house-despite-criticism.html

Kunze said the bill does not prevent future tax changes and she doesn’t understand why groups including the American Cancer Society and heart and lung associations are opposing it when they backed a similar measure last year in Indiana.

The Cancer Society has said that it did not become aware until recently that the bills were part of a nationwide push by the tobacco industry to avoid having the products taxed like regular cigarettes.

The Cancer Society says higher taxes are more effective at keeping tobacco products away from teenagers than laws restricting sales to youths.

ALA and ACS basically admit goal of sneaking in rules to prevent policies from treating products differently, Columbus Dispatch 22 Jul 13

Thanks to the huge archive at stevevape.com, there are a lot to be found from this search: http://stevevape.com/?s=American+Lung+Association (e-cigarette information site, by vendor blogger @SteveVape).  The highlights will each get a separate entry for sorting purposes, starting with:

http://stevevape.com/prohibitionists-to-ohio-kids-vape-em-if-you-got-em/ outsources to http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/07/22/e-cigarette-bill-called-trojan-horse.html

(more or less an admission by ALA and ACS that their goal is to sneak in rules that prevent regulators from making thinking decisions to treat low-risk products different from cigarettes)

“When we looked at the bill title, we thought it was something we were behind,” said Jeff Stephens, director of state policy for the American Cancer Society in Ohio. “But as we looked and shared it with our national office, they said, ‘Oh my God, this is happening all over the country.”

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 state’s indoor smoking ban.

“What they’re trying to do is carve out a new definition that will muddy the waters for many other tobacco products now, and new and emerging products that we don’t know about yet,” Stephens said.

…

But others warn that data on the health effects of the 3-year-old products are incomplete. Kunze said that as a mom of two teenage daughters, she saw the legislation as a way to handle “an immediate threat to our minors and our youth.”

But Stephens and Shelly Kiser, advocacy director for the American Lung Association in Ohio, say youth-access laws are among the least-effective ways to prevent minors from getting hold of tobacco products — so tobacco companies lose little by advocating the provision. But higher taxation, they argue, is a key deterrent.

Kunze said she is surprised by the opposition, which focuses on the bill’s new definition of alternative nicotine products.

Kunze said the definition is designed to cover new tobacco-industry products without having to change the law each time. “This is generic enough to allow the things they are coming out with, like lozenges,” she said.

Nine states have passed bills similar to the one introduced in Ohio, over objections from anti-smoking groups. Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee last week vetoed a similar, but somewhat more-restrictive bill, calling it “counterproductive to prohibit sales to children while simultaneously exempting electronic cigarettes from laws concerning regulation, enforcement, licensing or taxation.”

Other states passed e-cigarette access bills before the American Cancer Society became aware of the national push.

Stephens and Kiser said they have proposed a simpler way to block the sale of e-cigarettes to minors without creating a new category of alternative nicotine products.

Kunze, pointing to a recent legal opinion from the non-partisan Legislative Service Commission, argues that the bill does not change the current tax status of e-cigarettes, and that nothing would stop advocates from pushing for a higher tax rate in the future.

Cathy Callaway, associate director of state and local campaigns for the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network, agrees, but she said the bill sets the stage for treating e-cigarettes differently from other tobacco products.

Asked if e-cigarettes should be taxed the same as regular cigarettes, Kunze said: “I don’t think there is enough information yet. We just don’t know to what extent they are more or less harmful.”

Ex-ALA chief supports ecigs, USNews 27 Sep 13

h/t @prerunne

This is not strictly on-topic, but it is worth dropping in a note here about the fact that Connor is now a THR supporter.  (And the article has shout-outs to CASAA and our research, so can’t complain about that.)

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/09/27/american-lung-association-electronic-cigarettes-regulation

(no pull quotes because there are no statements about or by ALA per se — Connor does slam the segment of the industry that is not paying him, which would be pulled if he were still ALA and saying it, ALA cannot be blamed for that)

E-cigarettes:Matt Myers (CTFK), Cynthia Hallett (ANR),‘Paul Billings (ALA):The jury’s still out’ ,Public Health Newswire, Jan 14, 2014

http://www.publichealthnewswire.org/?p=9299

Here is a collection of opinions from other anti-tobacco advocates from last week’s event.

Matthew Myers, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids: “I don’t think any of us are against e-cigarettes. Whatever potential e-cigarettes have to reduce the death and disease of tobacco use requires them to be regulated stringently by the [Food and Drug Administration], marketed to adult smokers, carefully manufactured and their use monitored and evaluated forward. … Our goal is to see that whatever potential e-cigarettes have is carefully monitored and regulated by the FDA to ensure that the potential for their use to get people to quit is realized — but the danger of becoming the next generation’s nicotine addiction is avoided.”

Paul Billings, American Lung Association: “We’re extremely concerned about some of the marketing and promotion of these products with flavors like Captain Crunch, Bazooka bubble gum, gummy bear, cotton candy. These are not products that are being marketed or promoted to adults. They’re being promoted to children and we’re seeing the exact same tactics we’ve seen for 75, 80, 100 years from the tobacco industry to promote these products with celebrity endorsements, health claims and targeting children.”

Cynthia Hallet, Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights: “One other firm position that we have as an organization is that since e-cigarettes give off a secondhand vapor — which has lead and other reproductive and carcinogenic toxins and particulates — that e-cigarettes should not be used in smoke-free environments. So if somebody wants to use an e-cigarette as a potential cessation tool … they should not be used in smoke-free environments. In fact three states currently include e-cigarettes as a product that cannot be used in a smoke-free environment and over 100 communities.”

ALA Board Chair (Lanzafame) & CEO (Wimmer) accuse “Big Tobacco” of being “happy to hook children with a gummy bear-flavored e-cigarette” – The Gilmer Mirror, October 2013

E-cigarette use among middle school children has doubled in just one year.  Last month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced that e-cigarette use also doubled among high school students in one year, and that 1 in 10 high school students have used an e-cigarette.  Altogether, 1.78 million middle and high school students nationwide use e-cigarettes.  Yet, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) still is not regulating e-cigarettes.  The absence of regulatory oversight means the tobacco industry is free to promote Atomic Fireball or cotton candy-flavored e-cigarettes to our children.  Clearly, the aggressive marketing and promotion of e-cigarettes is reaching our children with alarming success.

It is well known that nicotine is a highly addictive substance, whether delivered in a conventional cigarette or an e-cigarette.  The use of sweet flavors is an old tobacco industry trick to entice and addict young children to tobacco products, and the entrance of the nation’s largest tobacco companies into this market clearly is having an impact.   Why does Big Tobacco care about e-cigarettes?  Tobacco use kills more than 400,000 people each year and thousands more successfully quit.  To maintain its consumer ranks and enormous profits, the tobacco industry needs to attract and addict thousands of children each day, as well as keep adults dependent.   Big Tobacco is happy to hook children with a gummy bear-flavored e-cigarette, a grape flavored cigar or a Marlboro, so long as they become addicted.  We share the CDC’s concern that children who begin by using e-cigarettes may be condemned to a lifelong addiction to nicotine and cigarettes.

<snip>

The FDA has not approved e-cigarettes as a safe or effective method to help smokers quit. When smokers are ready to quit, they should call 1-800-QUIT NOW or talk with their doctors about using one of the seven FDA-approved medications proven to be safe and effective in helping smokers quit.

According to recent estimates, there are 250 different e-cigarette brands for sale in the U.S. today. With that many brands, there is likely to be wide variation in the chemicals that each contain.  In initial lab tests conducted by the FDA in 2009, detectable levels of toxic cancer-causing chemicals were found — including an ingredient used in anti-freeze — in two leading brands of e-cigarettes and 18 various e-cigarette cartridges. That is why it is so urgent for FDA to begin its regulatory oversight of e-cigarettes, which must include ingredient disclosure by e-cigarette manufacturers to the FDA.

Also unknown is what the potential harm may be to people exposed to secondhand emissions from e-cigarettes. Two initial studies have found formaldehyde, benzene and tobacco-specific nitrosamines (a well-known carcinogen) coming from those secondhand emissions. While there is a great deal more to learn about these products, it is clear that there is much to be concerned about, especially in the absence of FDA oversight.

http://www.gilmermirror.com/view/full_story/23870545/article—Cotton-Candy-and-Atomic-Fireball-flavored-electronic-cigarettes-are-forging-a-new-pathway-to-addiction–death-and-disease?instance=secondary_stories_left_column

ALA opinion on anti tobacco spending by states, Benefits Pro blog, January 27,2014

http://www.benefitspro.com/2014/01/27/lung-association-urges-states-to-spend-more-to-fig

January 27,2014

Meanwhile, the tobacco industry has been throwing a lot of marketing weight behind its latest tobacco-related product, e-cigarettes. These emerging products can be made to look exactly like cigarettes. They use batteries to vaporize nicotine (sometimes with tasty flavors) to give the user a nicotine fix without the tars present in real tobacco. Much of the marketing, the lung association said, is aimed at teenagers.

The association and others have raised concerns that e-cigarette use could lead to nicotine dependency, as well as creating the habit of having a cigarette for social status purposes. These potential outcomes of picking up the habit of e-smoking could lead to the direct use of tobacco, they suggest.

…..

“We are faced with a deep-pocketed, ever-evolving tobacco industry that’s determined to maintain its market share at the expense of our kids and current smokers,” Harold Wimmer, ALA national president and CEO, said in a statement from the group. “In the absence of any meaningful action by state and federal policymakers, an ever-changing Big Tobacco will continue to gain more customers unless our nation’s leaders step up to fund programs and enact policies proven to make tobacco history.”