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 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 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.

ACS, AHA, IPHA oppose bill banning sales to minors because it doesn’t tax e-cigs, Des Moines Register 1/29/2014

h/t Alex Clark

Regarding a bill proposed in Iowa that would ban sales of e-cigarettes to minors:

Lobbyists for the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and the Iowa Public Health Association formally opposed the bills, telling lawmakers e-cigarettes should be regulated just like traditional tobacco products — with higher taxes, a ban on use in the enclosed spaces and other restrictions.

The bill, while prohibiting access for children, actually makes further regulation more difficult, they said, because it contains definitions for “alternative nicotine products” and “vapor products” that create a legal difference between an e-cigarette and other tobacco products.

“Not including electronic smoking devices in the definition of tobacco products sets the stage for these products to be treated differently than other tobacco products here in Iowa,” said Jeneane Moody, executive director of the Iowa Public Health Association. “IPHA opposes attempts to change laws for e-cigarettes that could in the short or long term undermine existing effective tobacco controls.”

The proliferation of e-cigarettes could erode the social norms that have developed since Iowa’s statewide smoking ban was passed in 2008, Moody and others said, confusing smokers and nonsmokers alike on what is allowed under the law.

Supporters of the bill:

Rep. Chip Baltimore, R-Boone and chairman of the House subcommittee that considered the bill, dismissed those arguments.

“To try to define this as a tobacco product is simply an effort to pull it into a smoke-free act or a taxation scheme that I don’t think is necessarily appropriate,” he said.

<snip>

Baltimore also questioned whether applying tobacco taxes and regulations to e-cigarettes was good policy at all.

“Given the choice between smoking a carcinogenic cigarette or a non-carcinogenic e-cigarette I think that we ought to, in the interest of public health, preserve the financial incentives that would drive consumers toward e-cigarettes,” Baltimore said.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20140129/NEWS10/301290064/-1/content/Health-advocates-say-e-cigarette-bills-fall-short

To get this started (ALA et al articles at antiTHRlies.com)

Please see the About page for details of what this blog is.

To reference existing material with analysis (which, as you will learn at the About page, will not exist here), check out the following tags at the antiTHRlies.com blog:

http://antithrlies.com/tag/ala/

http://antithrlies.com/tag/acs/

antithrlies.com/tag/aha/