Situation: The NY Senate Health Committee may consider a bill (S7234) that would ban e-cigarette sales as soon as Tuesday, April 27.

The NY Assembly may consider an identical bill (A9529) at any time.

Action requested: Call/e-mail/fax/snail mail NY Senate Health Committee members, and e-mail NY Assembly members urging them to oppose S7234 & A9529, and urging them to amend the legislation to ban e-cigarettes sales to minors.

Smokefree Pennsylvania sent the following letter to NY Senate Health Committee members (and a similar one to NY Assembly members).  Contact information for NY Senate Health Committee members and NY Assembly is below.  Please forward this e-mail to e-cigarette consumers and other tobacco harm reduction advocates ASAP.

The Honorable Thomas K. Duane, Chair

New York Senate Health Committee

430 State Capitol  Building

Albany, NY 12247

Re: Health Committee legislation to ban sales of electronic cigarettes (S7234 & A9529)

Dear Senator Duane:

Smokefree Pennsylvania strongly encourages you to OPPOSE S7234 & A9529 because they would force e-cigarette consumers (who quit smoking by switching to e-cigarettes) to either go back to smoking deadly cigarettes, or to purchase these life saving products from a newly created black market.  An even better alternative is to AMEND the legislation so it just bans e-cigarette sales to minors, as is the law with all other tobacco products.

The growing body of scientific evidence consistently indicates that e-cigarettes (also called nicotine vaporizers) are at least 99% less hazardous alternatives to smoking cigarettes, as they emit no smoke.  Since 2007, an estimated 300,000–500,000 smokers in the US (including tens of thousands of New Yorkers) have switched to e-cigarettes, which emit smokefree nicotine vapor.  The American Association of Public Health Physicians, American Council on Science and Health, and many other health policy experts agree.

Instead of protecting health (as some groups claim), S7234 & A9529 threaten public health by protecting the deadliest consumer product (cigarettes) from market competition by far less hazardous smokefree alternatives.  E-cigarette consumers and smokers have a human right to access and use far less hazardous tobacco alternatives to cigarettes.

By creating a black market for e-cigarettes, S7234 & A9529 would force e-cigarette suppliers in NY to move to other states, encourage e-cigarette consumers to buy from a black market, and waste state and local tax dollars for enforcement and adjudication.

Although the cigarette industry would be the chief beneficiary of S7234 & A9529, tobacco companies aren’t lobbying for the legislation.  Rather, drug industry funded abstinence-only anti-tobacco groups are pushing the bills because they vehemently oppose smokers reducing their health risks by switching to less hazardous smokefree tobacco alternatives.
After 25 years of advocating laws that reduced smoking, I cannot think of a more effective way to protect cigarette markets or to harm/kill hundreds of thousands of smokers than by banning sales of e-cigarettes or other smokefree alternatives, as S7234 & A9529 would do.

Once again, please reject or amend this outrageous and inhumane legislation.

Sincerely,

William T. Godshall, MPH
Executive Director

MINNEAPOLIS — The National Association of Tobacco Outlets (NATO) has announced that it has received a wave of new exhibitor commitments to the 2011 NATO Show, the inaugural trade show for the association. The latest exhibitors to sign up for the NATO Show include A&T Tobacco Imports, Bags of Bags, Bahama Mama Cigars, Beach Cigar Group, Inc./Gurhka Cigars, Cheyenne International, DWC Enterprises, Global Tobacco, Great Midwest Tube & RYO Machines, International Tobacco Partners, Liaison Sales and Marketing, M & R Holdings, National Honey Almond, Rouseco and Tantus Tobacco.

The 2011 NATO Show will be held at the Rio Hotel in Las Vegas on April 12-14. The NATO Show will feature educational seminars for retailers, the NATO Annual Awards Dinner, along with evening parties and special show deals.

Jim Colucci, senior vice president sales and marketing for Altadis USA and a member of the NATO Trade Show Committee, said, “Having a great trade show means that retailers find value in attending, and the retailers are telling manufacturers and distributors, this is the show to attend. When that happens, companies can’t wait to sign up. Also, these companies realize NATO has put more resources into fighting legislative battles than ever before, and helping support the trade show means more resources to fight anti-tobacco legislation. That’s a big point of difference between NATO and other shows which will not be using the proceeds to fight tobacco-related legislation.”

The NATO Show has already received commitments to exhibit from more than 30 manufacturers and distributors.

Companies include Nat Sherman, New Image Global, Smokey Mountain Chew, Zander-Greg and K. K. International Corp. Also Arango Cigar Co., Carolina Tobacco, Dom Rey Cigar, Inc./Cusano Cigars, Drew Estate, Harold Levinson Associates, House of Oxford, King Maker Marketing, Renegade Tobacco/House of Windsor, Smoker Friendly International, U.S. Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers and Zippo Lighter Co. And Altadis USA, Swisher International, Swedish Match, Republic Tobacco and National Tobacco Co.

Minneapolis-based NATO is a national retail trade association that focuses exclusively on state and federal tobacco legislative issues and leads the fight for all tobacco interests in the United States.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

What are your thoughts?

Have you tried the “NEW” Ariva product?

Any expectations of others to follow Star’s lead.

Will the process work? Is harm reduction going to work?

PR Newswire Feb 22 2010 BDL Filing

Interesting development in the UK.

What are your thoughts?

Do you see the FDA following suit?

The electronic cigarette carried, he estimated, around one percent of the risk of regular cigarettes.

While he acknowledged that the electronic cigarette carried traces of carcinogens, he pointed out that banning the electronic cigarette based on the very low levels of carcinogens contained within would also mean “banning half the foods available.”

Given that, he argued, the FDA’s stance on the electronic cigarette was motivated by propoganda and not by science.

You can read the full interview here: Electronic Cigarette Interview with Carl Phillips.

Can anyone shed light on this possibility? Is it a possibility? Why Ruyan? If not Ruyan then who? Or is someone just blowing a lot of smoke (vapor)? What would this do to all the competition if it became a reality? Could Marlboro one day have an electronic version? What are your thoughts? Does PMI really want in?
]]> http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2009/11/06/philip-morris-international-looking-at-the-e-cig-business/feed/ 11 http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2009/10/16/ash-uk-supports-ecigs/ http://www.tobaccotoday.info/2009/10/16/ash-uk-supports-ecigs/#comments Fri, 16 Oct 2009 14:16:15 +0000 John Rolfe http://www.tobaccotoday.info/?p=427 Prof. Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health welcomed Action on Smoking and Health UK’s statement (http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_715.pdf) supporting the use of e-cigarettes by smokers who are otherwise unable to quit smoking, as it represents one of the first major anti-smoking groups that is in favor of allowing the product on the market.  ASH UK’s statement says it supports a “harm reduction approach to tobacco,” and for those who do not wish to stop smoking or find it difficult to quit, products that deliver nicotine in a safe way should be made available. Since most of the smoking-related diseases are caused by inhaling smoke, the e-cigarettes, which deliver nicotine without the harmful toxins in cigarette smoke, are “likely to be a safer alternative to smoking,” ASH UK said. ASH’s US counterpart has called for a ban on e-cigarettes. Siegel said anti-smoking groups in the US support a policy of banning e-cigarettes, though such an approach would result in ex-smokers returning to cigarette smoking (tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com 10/15).

It is a game changer on several front and sits squarely in the front line (read firing line) of tobacco harm reduction.

Congress wants to ban it. FDA may do so – on the basis it is a drug-delivery device (nicotine) not a tobacco product.

The traditional tobacco industry sees competition as does big pharma which sees it as a threat to its highly profitable  NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy) products – which are considerably more expensive.

Public Health officials cite untested and unproven technology and efficacy. True; in the strictest sense, while completely ignoring the greater issue of protecting public health in self-protecting its own fiefdom. Even the most preliminary research shows it is likely to be considerably safer than cigarette smoking.

Most importantly comsumers want it.

Now you can have your say. Use this forum to make your case.

Use the link to particapte in this survey. Help at least keep the arena competitive, lively and provide consumers with choice.

http://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/research/survey.html 

Good luck and have fun.

According to the Professor, the stance taken by the organization was not a rational position but a moralistic one:

“There is no public health justification for denying smokers information about and access to safer sources of tobacco and nicotine. But the war against tobacco, conducted by Tobacco Free Kids and their allies, is not about public health. It has become the latest in a long line of misguided American moral crusades.”

The letter was itself a comment upon an open letter to Tobacco Free Kids, which the Professor predicted there would be no reply to. He was also gloomy on the prospects of the Kennedy tobacco bill being defeated, remarking:

“The American legislative process is closed to all but a few powerful interests, who will soon be gloating over their “success” in passing FDA regulation of tobacco.”

Ultimately, the professor thought, the actions of groups like Tobacco Free Kids and similar groups would costs lives.

“I am convinced that these anti-tobacco extremists will eventually be held partially responsible for the deaths of millions of uninformed smokers.”

We forwarded both the open letter and Brad Radu’s reply to Tobacco Free Kids, but have yet to receive a comment.

What do you think? Is the position of the bodies like Tobacco Free Kids a blind crusade against tobacco, or a practical stance taken to protect the young against the dangers of nicotine addiction?