Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
AN ANTI-SMOKING charity is to target young people in a bid to get them involved with government debate.
Edinburgh-based ASH wants youngsters to have their views considered by the Scottish Government as it processes its Tobacco Bill.
It has published a range of material particularly for teenagers, as well as creating a specific page on its website.
Jump to full article »
A few weeks ago, the FDA put out information that at first glance looked like the e cigarette was a danger to the public because of the diethylene glycol that was found in one of 18 cartridges tested.
The scare did not last long as thousands started researching the chemicals found in the test results to find that all of the chemicals listed are not only in tobacco cigarettes, but also in FDA approved cessation products and thousands of common consumer products that are on grocery store shelves.
Many have also started researching the money trail between special interest groups and those who would benefit from an FDA ban on e-cigarettes, particularly ASH, the Action on Smoking and Health. The group receives grants from Pfizer, the maker of the anti-smoking drug Chantix that has caused a disconcerting number of people who used it to commit suicide since it was released onto the market. PayPal, a popular payment processor online, recently stopped doing business with e-cigarette retailers due to whispers from ASH that the company could be held legally liable for their involvement in the processing of e-cigarette payments.
Even with all of the damage that was attempted by the FDA and special interest groups like ASH, the smokers and supporters of the product continue to sing the praises of the e cigarette in word and with their money as e cigarette sales continue to soar on a local level through retail merchants and nationally through online retailers.
A major retailer of electronic cigarettes has been sued in a multi-count civil action which seeks penalties of $25,000 for each sale as well as refunds to customers. Several other sellers of electronic cigarettes have avoided suits by entering into voluntary settlements, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), the organization which wrote to state attorneys general asking them to bring this type of legal action against the sellers.
According to the complaint, Smoking Everywhere "did not submit their electronic cigarettes to FDA for pre-approval because Defendants believed that they found a regulatory loophole that allowed them to sell electronic cigarettes without FDA approval, so long as the devices were not sold as smoking cessation devices." . . .
The complaint charges that Smoking Everywhere has engaged in the "deceptive sale and promotion of electronic cigarettes" which "causes immediate harm to public health, safety, and welfare." It says defendants made claims which were deceptive because "Defendants did not possess such evidence because such evidence does not exist." These claims included that e-cigarettes "are safer than traditional cigarettes."
The complaint also charges that Defendant wrongfully claims that its product contain "no harmful carcinogenic ingredients" and are "free of [cigarette-type] tar."
Defendants were also charged with failing to warn customers that "nicotine can cause dangerous increases in heart rate and blood pressure and should not be used by individuals with hypertension or heart disease."
ASH issued the following apology on their website on 23rd November 2007 www.newash.org.uk
ASH Apologises to Allen Carr's Easyway International. On 29th November 2006 the Director of ASH, Deborah Arnott, was interviewed by the BBC Radio 4 programme 'PM' in the context of a piece concerning the death of Allen Carr of Allen Carr's Easyway International. During the course of the interview reference was made to Allen Carr's open letter to Tony Blair which was published on www.allencarr.com and Ms Arnott was asked to express her opinion on the views expressed by Mr Carr who passed away that morning.
Despite references during the interview to the studies mentioned by Allen Carr in his letter that indicated a 53% success rate for Allen Carr's Easyway To Stop Smoking Clinics after 12 months, Ms Arnott stated that the 53% success rate had been "plucked out of the air" and "basically made up".
Following a complaint by Allen Carr's Easyway International, Ms Arnott now acknowledges that two uncontrolled, observational and retrospective studies using self-reported abstinence have been published in peer reviewed journals and have reported success rates for the Allen Carr method consistent with an estimate of 53% after twelve months. . . .
ASH and Ms Arnott accept that it was wrong for Ms Arnott to have stated that the 53% success rate claimed by Allen Carr had been "plucked out of the air" and "basically made up" and apologise unreservedly for making these statements in the national media.
Ash Ireland chairwoman Dr Angie Brown highlighted Mr Burrows links with sport and said she was surprised that "such an esteemed figure" had decided to link up with the tobacco industry.
"Mr Burrows will be well aware that millions of people die from the effects of smoking around the world each year and many of these cigarettes are developed and manufactured by BAT," she said.
"This is an industry which aggressively markets an addictive killer product - and still endeavours to maintain that passive smoke is harmless - despite it being graded as a class one carcinogen by the WHO . . .
A spokeswoman for BAT said Mr Burrows was on holidays and was therefore unable to respond to the criticism. She said there was no suggestion that Mr Burrows was going to promote smoking, or to link sport with tobacco, when he took up his new role.
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) has sent a communication which responds to a nasty letter written by an e-cigarette company. The nasty letter alleged that a news article pointing out some of the dangers of e-cigarettes reported by the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] "could lead to the deaths of smokers and electronic cigarette users." . . .
In summary, in evaluating e-cigarettes, we respectfully suggest that both your publication and your readers not rely upon the largely unsubstantiated representations of sellers (who have an obvious bias and usually no medical training or credibility), some allegedly supported by studies which have not been published in reputable medical journals and which may have been financed by the industry itself (thereby creating a clear conflict of interest).
Instead, we would urge your publication and your readers to rely upon the impartial governmental body charged by U.S. law with evaluating such products [FDA], major U.S. national health organizations which are impartial and have the necessary scientific authority and credibility to address these issues, and decisions by impartial and unbiased entities such as the Attorney General of Oregon, Facebook, etc.
In this regard you should find the links [URLs] set forth in this communication, as well as the many URLs contained in the linked documents, helpful. We urge you and your readers to consult them for the truth. The simple truth is that no reputable scientific study, much less one published in a major scientific or medical journal, has ever shown that e-cigarettes are any less dangerous than conventional tobacco cigarettes.
In an article posted on their website anti-smoking organisation ASH has attacked an electronic cigarette company, E Cigarette Direct, for writing a "nasty" letter to The Peninsula, Qatar.
In E Cigarette Direct's open letter to the Peninsula, Managing Director Jean Rasbridge had argued that the newspaper's allegation that the electronic cigarette contained 40 times more nicotine than ordinary cigarettes was incorrect, pointing out that:
"Even the highest level of nicotine (31.5 micrograms per puff) [found by the FDA commissioned report] is lower than that of regular cigarettes."
Citing the FDA commissioned report on the electronic cigarette, she also challenged the assumption that the electronic cigarette was more dangerous than conventional cigarettes based on a comparison of the ingredients between e- cigarettes and regular cigarettes.
In response, lawyer John Banzhaf III of ASH attacked E Cigarette Direct not on the basis that the facts of the letter were wrong, but because managing director Jean Rasbridge 'apparently' had no medical background. . . .
In a response to Ash published on the E Cigarette Direct website, the company alleged that ASH had not replied directly to any of the points raised by E Cigarette Direct, stating:
"We believe that ASH did not deal with the issues we raised simply because there is no logical response."
ASH recently responded to a press release from an e-cigarette supplier out of the U.K. concerning the health effects of the e-cigarette on the public, stating that they are "a non-profit tax-exempt scientific organization" in their reply, while also claiming that they are a "US legal-action antismoking organization" on their homepage.
In an apparent attempt to discredit the e-cigarette supplier, ASH, who has direct ties to the New York Mercantile Exchange and the pharmaceutical industry, threw accusations that the e-cigarette company was biased "because it is written by an entity with an obvious financial interest in the topic,"
ASH again used speculative wording in their release such as "are potentially lethal to children" and used direct attacks on the credibility and authority of the e-cigarette company while citing the same FDA that can not balance its own checkbook, and also allows and encourages dangerous "approved" drugs to remain on the market. ASH points to the FDA as a "necessary scientific authority" regardless of their inability to manage their organization or willingness to act swiftly in removing products they have approved that are now proving to be very deadly indeed, including suicide-inducing Chantix and Zyban. . . .
Considering the available information, it looks as though ASH has a lack of credibility itself on this issue in the public eye and the case will likely be decided ultimately by the federal court system in the ongoing lawsuit that is currently underway between two large e-cigarette companies that are U.S. based against the FDA.
While they are banned in some countries, such as Canada, e-cigarettes are available from a range of UK websites, with prices starting at about £39.99 for the cigarette, and nicotine cartridge refills available for less than £1 each. Some contain flavourings such as strawberry and caramel, which health campaigners fear may appeal to children.
"Electronic cigarettes are allowed on the marketplace without being subjected to the comprehensive testing required of medicinal products," said Deborah Arnott, director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). "We would recommend that anyone trying to quit should use medicinal nicotine products such as patches, gum or the inhalator, which have been tested and found to be both safe and effective, rather than electronic cigarettes."
However, anti-smoking campaigners argue that the risks posed by electronic cigarettes are still lower than those of ordinary cigarettes. "Cigarettes contain thousands of different chemicals, many of which are carcinogenic and are particularly dangerous when burnt, and kill half all long-term smokers," Ms Arnott said.
The Food and Drug Administration [FDA] has found deadly toxins and cancer-causing chemicals in the "smoke" produced by e-cigarettes and inhaled by users. The announcements comes as NBC TV Nightly News was about to blow the lid of the agency's refusal to take action, a news report which was to feature public interest law professor John Banzhaf of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) and his legal actions aimed at compelling the agency to finally act. The NBC new piece, to be aired tonight, apparently pressured the FDA into acting.
Ironically, all this comes on the same day that e-cigarette manufacturers charged critics of their product, including Banzhaf, with "libel" and "slander" for suggesting that the product posed health risks.
A further report will be issued following the airing of the NBC news report. Below is a copy of the FDA's news release. Following that are other links of interest.
The Food and Drug Administration's [FDA] media event on Wednesday ignored virtually all of the major concerns with e-cigarettes, focused on some dubious ones which might harm its credibility, and apparently was pushed into hurriedly reactivating a long-delayed press outreach effort by word that NBC-TV Nightly News was about to air a piece that evening about the agency's refusal to unambiguously apply its clear legal jurisdiction over nicotine delivery products to e-cigarettes. . . .
The principal dangers of e-cigarettes highlighted by the FDA -- that they contain "known carcinogens and toxic chemicals" -- appears overblown . . .
However, notes Professor John Banzhaf -- whose legal petition to the FDA to regulate e-cigarettes, and whose scheduled appearance on the NBC-TV news report, apparently helped trigger the agency's hurriedly-arranged news conference -- notes that the other nicotine products have been approved for sale and use by the FDA although they likewise apparently contain many of the same carcinogens. . . .
2. Current smokers at elevated risk for cardiovascular problems may switch to e-cigarettes, thinking that they are far safer. But actually any decrease in health risk relates to cancer (since e-cigarettes reportedly contain far fewer carcinogens), and not to cardiovascular problems (as to which nicotine is the main culprit).
3. E-cigarettes may be less likely to reduce nicotine dependence . . .
5. E-cigarettes -- especially those sold with flavors -- may serve as training wheels for youngsters . . .
Banzhaf emphasizes that only scientific experiments and medical studies can determine the magnitude and importance of these and other potential risks, and that they must be evaluated by an impartial and competent body like the FDA, not by Chinese manufacturers and American importers who have an obvious bias.
"The role of the FDA is not just to warn people about new drug products once their market becomes established, but rather to insure that they are not marketed until their safety have been authoritatively and impartially established, and then only with appropriate safeguards like warnings and possibly even prescription requirements," suggests Prof. Banzhaf, Executive Director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), America's first antismoking organization.
From President Barack Obama to major lobbying organizations, and increasingly in newspaper editorials, people are beginning to talk about incorporating personal responsibility into health care reform, but, so far, it doesn't seem to be reflected in legislative proposals despite overwhelming evidence that it is the most effective - and perhaps the only way - to substantially reduce health care costs, says a public interest lawyer who has saved billions in health care costs. . . .
Thus, making smokers accept personal responsibility for their lifestyle choices is not only fair - because otherwise the great majority of Americans who are nonsmokers are forced to pay them in bloated health insurance costs and higher taxes for Medicaid, Medicare, and other welfare programs - but also because increasing the costs of smoking will help millions to kick the habit and slash medical care costs for everyone.
Indeed, says Banzhaf, Executive Director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), America's first antismoking organization, charging smokers higher rates for health insurance - as a type of user fee because their actions directly increase the costs of health insurance - should be considered before higher taxes.
Senators are being urged to impose a user fee - as an alternative to tax increases - to help fund health care reform, under a plan being proposed by America’s first antismoking organization.
Subjecting smokers to “user fees” - fees imposed on those who engage in an activity which creates additional governmental costs which would otherwise be imposed on taxpayers - are fair and appropriate because smokers choose to engage in an activity that is the major preventable cause of the health care costs which otherwise are being foisted upon nonsmokers through bloated insurance rates and /or higher taxes, argues Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).
Indeed, notes ASH, requiring smokers to pay through a user fee even a portion of the unnecessary excess costs they voluntarily impose on the health system would raise as much additional revenue as many of the competing tax proposals, and do so without violating any no-new-taxes pledge or possibly reducing the incentive for investment and economic growth.
Moreover, imposing user fees - charging smokers more than nonsmokers for health insurance - will, unlike any proposed tax increases, by itself substantially reduce health care costs by providing strong incentives to help smokers quit, and thereby slash the number of heart attacks, strokes, and cancers which must be treated. It also provides a simple way for them to avoid the added cost.
“America’s approximately 46 million smokers already spend over $90 billion annually on tobacco, and their choice to use such products adds almost $200 billion in totally unnecessary health-related economic expenses to our already overburdened health care system and ailing economy,” says ASH.
At the start of the next round of international negotiations in Geneva (28 June-5 July) [1], ASH is releasing a major new report showing that if a protocol on tobacco smuggling were to be adopted, it could
- reduce smuggling in the UK by up to 80%;
- save 760 lives a year; and be
- worth £5.7bn to the UK in net present values. [2]
The report [3], commissioned by ASH and produced by Paul Johnson, a former senior economic advisor to the Treasury [4], is a cost benefit analysis of the protocol on the illicit trade in tobacco products. The report focuses on the UK, but also includes a methodology for making similar cost benefit analyses in other countries. It concludes that the benefits of adopting the illicit trade protocol far outweigh the costs of implementation. . . .
"Tobacco smuggling does not just starve the Government's coffers of much needed tax revenues, but more importantly imposes enormous economic and health costs. This study shows that international action to tackle smuggling could result in substantial economic benefits as well as reducing the toll of death and disease caused by smoking. We urge governments to take into account all these potential benefits when making decisions about the relatively modest costs of tackling smuggling through the protocol."