Every day I scour Google News for new news articles about anything related to restricting e-cigarettes and I have probably read well over 300 articles in the past month... On a few articles (probably only 3 or so) they have spoken about a 30-day deadline for the FDA... But I cannot find any information on when that started and when it ends, if in fact it actually even exists. Does anyone have any information about this?
for example:
With the CDC no closer to identifying a sole culprit (or even culprits) behind the epidemic, and with the 30-day deadline for the FDA’s revision of its guidelines removing flavored e-cigarettes from the market rapidly approaching, here’s what we know so far about the three different tracks of the vaping health crisis, and what public health officials are doing to try to slow the trains down.
Click to expand...
There’s Not Just One Vape Crisis — There’s Three
Takes a different angle... it’s the metals which have caused irreparable damage on a woman’s lungs...
in California though
The article goes on to say;
“Professor John Britton, director of the UK Centre for Tobacco & Alcohol Studies and consultant in respiratory medicine at the University of Nottingham, suggested that the conclusions were not all they seemed.
He said there was no evidence of any cobalt particles in the lung samples and that claims made about vaping were wrong.
He added: “There is nothing in this new paper that should change advice to smokers. If you smoke, switch. If you don’t smoke, don’t vape. And just as you wouldn’t buy unlicensed alcoholic drinks, don’t vape cannabis or other bootleg products.”
In an email from Innokin today, was a link to today's Vaping Weekly by Benedict Jones. In addition to more news about Canada's up-coming restrictions on most flavored vape products...the following was included, about Washington, DC:
"On Tuesday, June 15, The District of Columbia Council voted to prohibit the sale of flavoured vaping and tobacco products (including menthol cigarettes and cigars).
The bill will be voted on a second time Tuesday, June 29, but it is expected to pass this stage without significant change. After the second vote, the bill must be approved by the mayor, and pass a 30-day congressional review period before the law takes effect.
The bill also covers synthetic nicotine products, which have, at times, been suggested as a way of side-stepping legislation which restricts “tobacco products” in the U.S. Since synthetic nicotine products are covered by the bill, it would appear that other next-generation nicotine products, such as pouches, will be affected by the flavour ban."
So, little by little it continues....
tomorrow in Massachusetts I was told by Gary at MVS during the 4 month ban of vape gear while investigating why people in the US have gotten very sick or died from vaping NON VAPING related marijuana oil products.
So find your friends out of state or get online tonight to order your coils and juices.
Maybe the investigation should be why people in other countries haven’t been getting sick and why this is JUST happening now after a couple of decades of people vaping e juice. Could be something to do with the government and politicians trading in a multi billion dollar industry and let’s not forget the lobbyists errr donors.
And yes I emailed and called my knee jerk reacting guv Baker to express my embarrassment that one of the states with the highest quality Universities aren’t asking for FACTS.
Big Tobacco (and Pharm) and the governments reason of losing $7 billion dollars to people switching from known carcinogenic cigarettes to less harmful vaping products.
As more bans get put into place and more people get sick or die from contaminated black market ejuice and THC products.
Just as planned so they can point their fingers and scream - we told you it was dangerous!!
Found this on the web today.
"In a shocking report, NBC News tested 10 THC vape pens from unlicensed dealers and all 10 tested positive for a myclobutanil, pesticide that can turn into hydrogen cyanide when burned..."
Tests show bootleg marijuana vapes tainted with hydrogen cyanide
Cyanide detected in bootleg marijuana vape pens: report
I don't believe that the sudden rash of vaping illnesses and deaths was random. The timing and short duration of the outbreak has a pattern. Vaping has been around for a long time - more than a decade. The recent tragedies-with the media and government hype, has been used as a weapon against vaping. The outbreak was very short, but hurt a lot of young people. Not one long term smoker turned vaper was affected. And almost all who were sickened were young and admitted to using eliquid from black market cartridges with THC from Dank Vapes to try to get high. But the media didn't release that important fact for months. Meanwhile, they and the government - including the CDC - actively warned against all vaping, and have implemented more laws against vaping.
I find it odd that after finally getting to the common denominator of the cause of the deaths and illnesses, the government and media still has not identified who owns Dank, and how that company managed to distribute for only a few months the deadly THC eliquid vape that harmed so many people in such a short amount of time? And Dank was the only company identified? Then it suddenly stopped? And it was national news? If this was a systemic epidemic in the vaping industry, then all distributors would be front and center. But it was only Dank. Out of the hundreds of eliquid vendors, it was just one?
I'm pretty good at tracking down owners of corporations and businesses, but I've had no success in identifying the owners of the one supplier mentioned. And if there were multiple suppliers of the deadly THC vape liquid, it would be published.
Does anyone have any good or bad experience with this seller? Apparently they "partner" with other sellers to sell products. They are located in the state of Washington. Their site has a blog, guides, and a club. Here's what they say about themselves.
The #1 Vapor Website Online
Vape Store US is the best online portal to quality e-cig and vaping. Check our information on atomizers, rechargeable vaping batteries, replacement coils, e-cigarettes, e-juices, e-liquids, vape battery mods, and other vaping accessories.
Affiliate Publishing
Vape Store US operates as an affiliate publisher.
An affiliate publisher promotes advertiser products or services (creative content) in exchange for earned commissions.
Advertisers contractually agree to work with a publisher, then provide the publisher with technical methods (content delivery) to incorporate into the media they publish and distribute.
Vape Store US does not keep an inventory, take orders, or ship products.
Instead, we partner with the largest e-cigarette manufacturers and advertisers in order to get our visitors quality vape content.
Vape Store US does not make any guarantees or representations about any transactions with third parties.
Contact Information
If you have any questions, concerns, comments, or suggestions please contact our offices. We’d love to hear from you!
Email us:
shop@vape-store.us
Write to us:
Vape Store US
PO Box 25373
Federal Way, Washington USA 98093-2373
I was pretty upset with the wired article and wrote a lengthy response for my blog. Thought I'd share.
[h=2]Wired: http://www. wired. com/2015/04/war-vapings-health-risks-getting-dirty/"
The War Over Vaping’s Health Risks Is Getting Dirty“ - My Response to this Misleading Article[/h]I was really bothered by how misleading this article was, so I’m gonna break it down.
Before I begin, a clarification: There are many issues regarding ecig or “vaporizer” usage, and on many of them, there’s no disagreement between anti-vapers and pro-vapers. For instance, both groups do not want children getting ecigs. However, many people - like in this wired article - muddle a bunch of the issues together, so I’ll be teasing them apart.
For nicotine enthusiasts, 2015 will be remembered as part of a golden era. Less than 10 years after they were introduced in the United States, e-cigarettes have gone relatively unregulated by health agencies, with companies and users making their own rules in a nicotine-laced Wild West. E-cigarette companies have been advertising their products to adults and children alike, claiming to help smokers quit while simultaneously promoting lollipop-flavored liquids…
Reminiscent of glamorous smoking ads of the last century, many of the ads feature celebrity endorsements; in a Blu ad, Jenny McCarthy flirts with the camera while rejoicing that she can now smoke without scaring guys away with her smell. And many of them seem shockingly child-centric…
1. Advertising to adults: This is a legitimate question. Personally, I’m leaning toward lighter regulations for ecig ads bc numerous studies have shown they are much safer than cigarettes (American Heart Association, x, x, x, x, x ) and can act as an effecting smoking cessation aid, though they are not yet approved for that purpose (American Heart Association, x, x ). But again, a legitimate question.
2. Advertising to kids: No-one wants that. Furthermore, no-one has done that! When critics like the author of the wired article allege that is happening, they almost always are referring to the non-tobacco flavors offered. However, the reason sweet, fruity, and candy flavors are offered is because they are extremely popular amongst adult vapers (x, x). Saying they’re marketed to children is like saying sweet alcoholic drinks are marketed for children because all adults would obviously prefer bourbon. It’s ludicrous. Adults like sweet flavors too.
2b. On a related note: Some have been concerned that ecigs may increase teen use of cigarettes, but the evidence thus far says otherwise. (x, x).
…Last week, the California Department of Public Health launched a anti-vaping campaign called Still Blowing Smoke. And in January, the San Francisco Department of Health launched #CurbIt, pointing out the dangers of e-cigs and their brazen plays to hook kids while warning residents that vaping is only allowed in the same places as smoking.
There’s plenty of evidence behind the campaigns’ claims—studies that link e-cigs to asthma, lung inflammation, MRSA infection risk and exposure to harmful chemicals. But with scant data on the long-term health effects of e-cigarettes and their usefulness as a quitting tool, the ads use a number of classic psychological strategies to help beat back the ire of pro-vapers…
3. The Still Blowing Smoke ads were themselves blowing smoke. I’d like to discuss three of their main tv ads.
3a. One suggested that ecigs are marketed for kids bc of the flavors, as discussed above.
3b. Another suggested (or rather, alleges) that vaping is a “Big Tobacco” conspiracy! While it’s true that Big Tobacco has bought in to some ecig production, the vast majority of vape businesses are small businesses, such as the brick-and-mortar “vape shops” that are emerging. Perhaps more importantly, this is guilt by association. If Big Tobacco owned Chantix, a popular smoking cessation aid, would that automatically mean it’s evil? And unlike the vast, vast majority of small vape businesses, Big Tobacco has an incentive to make cigs fail: Users are more likely to continue smoking! (Not to mention the very impressive revenue that states gain from tobacco sales, which vaping threatens. x, x)
3c. Finally, they aired a commercial with a small toddler reaching for a vape, presenting that as a risk. Which it is, of course - just like with any other chemical left around the house, be it alcohol, cleaning supplies, or whatever! That isn’t a vaping issue; it’s a parenting issue.
More info on those ads here.
4. The #CurbIt campaign (x) similarly suggests that vapes are part of a Big Tobacco conspiracy and marketed to children (sigh).
4a.What bothered me most was the phrasing they used in one particular ad: “We know e-cigarettes are harmful, just like cigarettes.” While one could argue that it merely meant, “ecigs are also harmful”, it seems to me to be implying that they are just as harmful, which is patently false.
4b. And as others have pointed out: One is likely inhaling more toxic fumes from the curb than from vaping!
4c. Of course, that does leave the question of second-hand-vape exposure, which #CurbIt also alerts the public to. However, the evidence for second-hand vpe exposure is still very thin, with many experts thinking it has a minimal effect if any. (x, x ).
5. To be sure, no-one thinks that vaporizers are completely harmless. Almost nothing is! The question is relative harm (as well as harm-reduction). Are ecigs bad for asthmatics - well, how bad? Certainly they’re better than cigarettes. Might ecigs cause some lung inflammation? Very possibly, but are we going to outlaw every activity or product poses any amount of tissue inflammation?! Clearly that’s an absurd approach. We need to look at overall health, relative health, and common standards in other areas. (For instance, caffeine is addictive, but the public has no qualms with allowing people to use it.)
6. I’ll add that in addition to the lack of studies demonstrating long-term adverse affects, the research on short-term affects are mixed, with many indicating that it is very safe in general, and particularly in contrast to cigarettes.
One CDC ad relies on anecdotal evidence to make its point. It features a story from an e-cigarette user, a 35-year-old wife and mother named Kristy from Tennessee who says she started smoking e-cigarettes hoping to quit combustible cigarettes. Instead, she began to smoke both, until her lung collapsed. The American Vaping Association reportedly called the ad “patently dishonest,” saying that it implies vaping led to lung disease, when in reality Kristy had gone back to smoking cigarettes alone in the months before her lung collapsed. California’s anti-vaping campaign lists toxins that humans once thought were safe—arsenic-laced powdered wigs, radium therapy, and of course cigarettes—and compares them to e-cigs, using a deceptive associative tactic that we’ve called out before.
7. This is one of the few points where the piece describes one obvious instance of misleading advertising - and the vaping community’s obvious and necessary response to such deception. (And for what it’s worth, there are thousands and thousands of people who credit ecigs with saving their lives #VapingSavedMyLife). But even here, the article’s authors don’t really take the anti-vaping activists to task for it. In fact, they almost seem to endorse that very same tactic:
The problem is, as in the early days of campaigns against cigarettes, there isn’t definitive evidence that e-cigarettes cause long-term harm—a point that pro-vapers will be quick to remind you of. But there also isn’t definitive evidence that they’re safe. And there are many good reasons to assume they’ll be found in time to increase cancer and heart and lung disease.
The Wired article doesn’t explain what those reasons are… just that it’s a good assumption! (I guess they also think they’re like arsenic-laced powdered wigs.)
What firm science there is to rest on is fairly obvious: E-cigarettes are almost certainly less toxic and carcinogenic than regular cigarettes. But that doesn’t mean that they’re not a health hazard. “We already know you’re breathing in a lot of toxic chemicals, which is bad,” says Glantz. “You’re breathing in a lot of toxic particles, which is bad. You’re taking in nicotine, which is bad. A cigarette is by far and away the most dangerous consumer product ever invented. So to say it’s not as bad as a cigarette is not saying very much.”
8. This was, to me, perhaps the most balanced paragraph in the article, but even here I’d challenge some aspects. In essence, of course breathing anything other than air isn’t going to be good for you, but it’s a matter of degree for the general public, and relative health for smokers. This might be a good time to mention that the studies thus far indicate that 99% of vapers are smokers or ex-smokers (x, x ). That is, they switched from “the most dangerous consumer product ever invented” to something less harmful, perhaps much, much less harmful, for at least part of the time.
In the absence of incontrovertible evidence, then, public health agencies have to continue to play a little dirty themselves to get citizens to pay attention. In a couple of years, researchers will begin to do association studies to pull out long-term health effects. Until that science rolls in, the, prepare to sit back and enjoy the show. These two camps will be hashing it out for a while.
9. This another area where I disagree: If there is a lack of evidence, don’t treat it like a deadly substance. If the evidence suggests that it’s getting many people off of a horribly injurious habit, then definitely don’t treat it like a deadly substance.
All in all, very disappointed in the article. It basically boasted propaganda for a cause that may further harm millions. It presents very little actual information, and seems to ignore the information which extols the virtues of vaping over smoking. To be sure, we need more studies, as many of the study’s done so far have been faulty (like the popularized “formaldehyde” study - x) or contain a conflict of interest. Still, much of the evidence thus far is positive, and legislating as though it were negative is unfair to vapers and the millions suffering from tobacco cigarette addiction.
All Wired really seemed to care about discussing is the social media attention the debate is getting - and probably just trying to cash in on that by stirring the pot.
P.s. Of Interest: List of studies related to ecigs and vaping. (x)
Juul threw millions of dollars at Washington. It hasn’t bought much.
Juul Labs has spent millions of dollars on lobbying, hired high-profile Trump administration officials, and blanketed Washington with ads touting its efforts against underage vaping.
None of that was enough to keep President Donald Trump from moving to ban flavored e-cigarettes on Wednesday, delivering a blow to the dominant vaping company and its rivals.
“Vaping has become a very big business as I understand it, a giant business in a very short period of time,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, sitting alongside Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar. “But we can't allow people to get sick and we can't have our youth be so affected.”
Neither Trump nor Azar mentioned Juul in their remarks. But Scott Gottlieb, who pressed for greater regulation of vaping as Trump’s Food and Drug Administration commissioner before stepping down earlier this year, said the move would have an outsize impact on the San Francisco-based company.
“This problem was largely created by the cartridge-based Juul products in my opinion,” Gottlieb said in a statement to POLITICO.