4/14-16/14 – BREAKING: 1st Apt. Bldg. vaping ban, 1st excise tax exemption; Asia, Eur., UK, Ca., US: MA,NY,DE,NJ,OH,MO,LA,TX,UT,CA

4/14/14 – 4/16/14 Media Roundup

1) <acronym title="Consumer Advocates for smoke-free Alternatives Association”>CASAA Alert: Newtown MA hearing tomorrow 7:45PM on vaping=smoking ban as well as a number of other restrictions on vaping:
CASAA: Local Alert! Newton, Massachusetts Ordinance E-Cigarette Use Ban, Flavor Ban, Restrict Place of sale, Increase Age of Purchase to 21

2) <acronym title="Consumer Advocates for smoke-free Alternatives Association”>CASAA Call: Weds April 30 hearing on CA’s AB 1500 which would (among other things) ban interstate sales:
CASAA: Call to Action! California Ban on Internet sales (AB 1500) and Ban on E-Cigarette Usage (SB 648)

3) Corte Madera CA (Marin Co.) becomes the first jurisdiction on the planet to ban indoor vaping in multifamily buildings (apartments).

4) 10 more countries in Asia (along with Singapore) support "Tobacco Free Generation" project, which has the goal of eliminating smoking – and presumably vaping – among everyone born after the year 2000.

5) NJ would exempt vapers from the tax on vaping if they have a prescription? (Response by St. Health Comm’r Mary Dowd to question at legislative hearing).

6) MO house and sen. each pass simple minor sales/possession bans, both of which explicitly exempt vaping from the tobacco excise tax.

7) Alleged "Cancer Link" stories re-appear, then get drowned out again in the excitement over the Reuters story on FDA reports of injuries from vaping (see next media summary for those). The alleged "cancer link" stories are covered in a collection at the end.

8) Suffolk Co. NY raises age for smoking (and vaping) to 21.

9) Two new "herb cookers" – VigACig is the first vitamin delivering herb vaporizer (more like a heater), and Ploom.

10) RJ Reynolds w/holds $421 from MSA payments – this is related to what it says is the failure of states to pass appropriate legislation that prevents it from being at a disadvantage relative to manufacturers who didn’t participate in the MSA.

11) Ogden UT "vaper fest" to occur June 21.

12) Smith Co. TX bans vaping from co. property because of "confusion" with smoking.

13) Tobacco Control Committee of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer recommends that patients avoid vaping.

14) Canadian reports on e-liquid poison control center calls indicates that there are very few.

Coverage: Asia, Europe, UK, Canada, MA, NY, DE, NJ, OH, MO, LA, TX, UT, CA

Collection: Collection at end covers the re-emergence of the alleged "cancer link" stories. (These stopped after the Reuters piece on FDA reports of injuries from vaping, which are covered in the next news roundup.)

Also: Dr. Siegel on the NY bill that would effectively ban vaping; Gary Cox on the "cancer link" study and the VitaCig; Your Correspondent takes apart the despicable Scientific American hit job.

***

BLOGS, STUDIES, ETC.

Title: New York State Senator Wants to Ban Most Electronic Cigarettes, While Keeping the Toxic Real Ones
(Dr. Siegel’s blog)
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/…ts-to-ban.html
Discusses SB6939, which would completely ban vaping sales in NY state. Also see this ECF thread:
<a href="!548327!http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/548327-new-york-state-s06939-prohibits-sale-e-liquid.html” target=”_blank”>http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/for…-e-liquid.html

Title: Anti-Smoking Researchers Attack Tobacco Companies for Complying with the Law
(Dr. Siegel’s blog)
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/…k-tobacco.html
A recent paper and accompanying blog in the journal Tobacco Control imply that the tobacco companies are violating the law by using colors to describe their brands. However they were merely complying with a law that was promoted by CFTFK, AHA, ALA, and ACS that required them to remove the designations "light" and "mild."
"The truth is that Bill Godshall and I predicted, years ago, that the anti-smoking groups’ were full of baloney in promising that the FDA legislation would protect children and adults. Bill and I predicted that exactly this scenario would unfold: the cigarette flavoring ban would have no effect because no cigarettes were actually affected by the ban (menthol cigarettes are exempt) and the "lights" ban would have no effect because cigarette companies would start using coloring to convey the differences between "lights" and other brands."
In other words, this was a cynical and pointless effort to raise donations without actually protecting the public:
"You see, the problem is that the anti-smoking groups were willing to talk the talk, but not willing to walk the walk. They wanted to pass legislation in order to say that they had done something. They wanted to be able to tell their constituents that they accomplished something. You see, that’s good for donations."

Title: Tank Attack
(ECF‘s InfoZone)
Tank Attack – ECF InfoZone
Gary Cox on Bonnie Herzog’s presentation regarding non-cigAlikes at the NATO conf. (Nat’l Ass’n of Tobacco Outlets).

Title: Lab conditions make all the difference
(ECF‘s InfoZone)
Lab conditions make all the difference – ECF InfoZone
More from Gary Cox on the alleged "cancer link" study (see collection at the end of this post.

Title: Nicotine free e-cig appears [VitaCig]
(ECF‘s InfoZone)
Nicotine free e-cig appears – ECF InfoZone
Gary on VitaCig. Also see penultimate article in the US national section below.

Title: Researchers from Hollings Cancer Center Participate in New Advice for E-cigarette Use by Cancer Patients [regarding guidelines issued by the Tobacco Control Committee of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer]
(Med. U. of SC, Charleston SC US) http://hcc.musc
.edu/news/iaslc.htm
Surprise, surprise …
1) "‘There are no clear data that e-cigarettes are better than proven smoking cessation strategies and health effects of e-cigarettes are currently unknown.’" [boldface added, speaker is Dr. Graham Warren, Vice Chairman for Research in Radiation Oncology, Director of the Hollings Cancer Center Tobacco Cessation Program]."
2) [Therefore] "… clinicians should advise patients who smoke to use evidence-based tobacco cessation methods such as behavioral counseling and medications. Regarding the use of e-cigarettes in cancer patients, ‘… the IASLC advises against recommending their use at this time.’"
The original study, complete with the helpful advice to avoid vaping as cessation, is here: http://journals.lww
.com/jto/Fulltext/2014/04000/E_Cigarettes_and_Cancer_Patients.6.aspx

***

ASIA

Title: 10 more countries to support "Tobacco Free Generation" project
(Singapore-based Asian English-language News Service) http://www.channelnewsasia
.com/news/singapore/10-more-countries-to/1071038.html
The goal of the "tobacco free generation" project is to adopt policies that will eliminate the consumption of tobacco products among the generation born after the year 2000. Readers of this space will recall the 3/26 report indicating that several UK NHS MDs had called for banning the sale of all tobacco products (including vaping) to anyone born after the year 2000. In a recent meeting in Goyang, S. Korea, the cancer centers of 11 countries agreed to support what is now referred to as the "Goyang Declaration," sponsored by Singapore’s National Cancer Centre. As you might anticipate, this calls for more than merely banning the sale of tobacco products to those born after 2000, but also a series of steps that will make it more difficult for them to acquire these products (which of course will affect everyone else – excise taxes, access restrictions, etc., because protection of children is the ANTZ anti-vaping "gateway"). Why precisely we haven’t heard this idea mentioned outside of the UK and Asia is unclear (certainly would make a nifty proposed legislation, plus a press release/conference, right?). For more on the declaration see:
http://www.nccs
.com.sg/Newsroom/MediaReleases/2014MediaReleases/Pages/2014Apr14.aspx
Here’s the article on the NHS MDs who called for banning the sale of cigarettes to those born after 2000: http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/health/healthnews/10722727/Ban-sale-of-cigarettes-to-anyone-born-after-2000-doctors-say.html

***

EUROPE

{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: E-cigarette poisoning figures soar as vaping habit spreads across UK
(UK nat’l paper) http://www.theguardian
.com/society/2014/apr/14/e-cigarette-poisoning-figures-soar-adults-children
As with all such reports, there’s no context – the number are presented in isolation (and of course this headline doesn’t distinguish between inquiries and adverse results. Of the 138 inquires, it appears that 36.5% (50 or 51) involved small children, and of those "10%" required hospital care (that’s five or six, by my arithmetic). While this report contains no alarmist language and (thankfully) refrains from quoting Tom Frieden at the US CDC ("skyrocketing"), the lack of context and the headline are obviously unhelpful.

***

UK

Title: Regulation of e-cigarettes will be one of tobacco’s greatest saviours
(City of London free business daily paper) http://www.cityam
.com/blog/1397659978/regulation-e-cigarettes-will-be-one-tobaccos-greatest-saviours
Writer cites three reasons why traditional tobacco products may contine to be viable:
1) "The rise of the e-cigarette has the potential to spell disaster for the tobacco industry. However, this could all be about to change, as a host of national and supranational regulators seek to exert control over the development, strength and marketing of e-cigarettes." He goes on to cite the WHO’s deeming changes to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, and the EU’s Tobacco Products Directive, both of which envision regulating vaping as tobacco cigarette smoking.
2) "Tobacco control failing to cut smoking rates" – citing countries such as Ireland and Australia.
3) "Tobacco companies and consumers are adjusting behavior." Consumers are switching to less expensive brands, and companies are ramping up their production. Other options such as pipe and RYO tobacco are being pursued by consumers.
(The writer didn’t mention the growth of black markets in untaxed cigarettes, sales of which are – to borrow a couple of phrases from our opponents – "skyrocketing" in the "wild west" of America’s patchwork of differing tax rates.)

***

CANADA

Title: Exclusive – Air Canada let man ‘vape‘ e-cigarette on board, says passenger
(Canada nat’l news network) http://www.cbc
.ca/news/canada/calgary/air-canada-let-man-vape-e-cigarette-on-board-says-passenger-1.2607622
Apparently the complaining woman didn’t report the miscreant vaper until she got off the plane. She claims that he wasn’t trying to hide it. Air Canada says that its staff didn’t notice. Evidently no one in the vicinity of the vaper cared enough to report it, either. The report contains this intriguing paragraph which seems to be consistent with many other rumors about airplane smoke detectors:
"Many e-cigarette makers advertise that their products will not set off airplane smoke alarms like traditional ignited cigarettes do, and spokespeople from both WestJet and Porter have admitted to CBC News they are not aware whether smoke detectors can detect the vapour."

Title: Ban on e-cigarettes urged in public places
(Calgary AB local paper) http://www.calgaryherald
.com/news/calgary/cigarettes+urged+public+places/9738498/story.html
Story begins with a recap of the Air Canada incident (see immediately above).
"The Canadian restaurant industry is seeking regulatory guidance and clarity from provincial and federal authorities. Until that happens, it’s ‘wait and see,’ according to Mark von Schellwitz. ‘Our position is very neutral on this — we just want to know where we stand so we can direct our customers accordingly,’ said von Schellwitz, who serves as the western Canadian vice-president for the industry group Restaurants Canada, which represents thousands of eateries, bars, cafeterias and food service organizations. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
The Canadian Cancer Society is a bit less virulent than similar org.s i the US, but …
"’We just banned flavoured tobacco. Why would we allow such things [as flavored e-liquid/cigAlikes] on the market?’ said Angeline Webb, a senior public policy adviser for the society in Alberta. ‘We want to see some regulation in terms of advertising and promotion. Even if they are approved as a cessation device, e-cigarettes still normalize smoking. The big concern is they undermine smoking bans.’ [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
Readers of this space will also recall that councilwoman Diane Colley-Urquhar of Calgary is doing everything possible to pass a municipal indoor/outdoor vaping ban (see media roundups for 3/30 and 4/1).

Title: Are e-cigarette poisonings on the rise in Canada?
(Nat’l news network) http://globalnews
.ca/news/1269453/are-e-cigarette-poisonings-on-the-rise-in-canada/
So-o the experts say that there’s a big problem, "similar" to the "skyrocketing" (to quote US CDC Dir. Tom Frieden) numbers of calls in the US:
"’In Canada, there seems to be anecdotal reports that suggest a similar trend … the general impression that we have coming from all five of our poison control centres across the country is that it’s becoming more and more frequent,’ [Dr. Martin Laliberté, director of the Canadian Association of Poison Control Centres] said. ‘There are some pretty significant amounts of calls coming in.’ [para break omitted, boldface added]"
Hmm, that’s pretty serious. Let’s see what the numbers show:
"Because Health Canada doesn’t track adverse effects stemming from an unapproved product and there isn’t a national database documenting calls, recording the number of poisonings linked to e-cigarettes is spotty. In B.C., for example, in the past two years, only 12 exposures to nicotine fluids for e-cigarettes were recorded. ‘This is just a cursory scan and may not be entirely accurate,’ the B.C. Centre for Disease Control told Global News. Alberta doesn’t have any figures singling out e-cigarettes at all: ‘We do not currently have any statistics regarding e-cigarettes as they are still relatively new,’ a spokesperson said. Ontario logged 10 calls, including two kids, two teens and six adults in the last year. The province’s poison control centre says it receives far more calls linked to children being exposed to real cigarettes. Parents leave ashtrays out, children pick up butts on the street or in the playground or they even take whole cigarettes out of purses.[para breaks omitted]"

***

US NATIONAL

Title: Under Pressure: Manufacturers Weigh In on E-Cig Deeming [by Melissa Vonder Haar]
(US Convenience store and Fuel News trade ‘zine) http://www.cspnet
.com/category-management-news-data/tobacco-news-data/articles/under-pressure-manufacturers-weigh-e-cig
Looking for some clues about the timing and nature of FDA regulation? So is everyone else. And there are precious few to be had. But this article provides some clues from a panel at a recent conference sponsored by NATO (Nat’l Ass’n of Tobacco Outlets):
1)"Although the FDA has promised that these proposed deeming regulations will be announced as soon as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) complete its review (which has been going on since October), NATO’s executive director Thomas Briant agreed with Ioos assessment. In fact NATO recently learned that the FDA requested an extension of the review process, leading Briant to believe that the agency has been asked to revise some of the proposed regulations. ‘Usually, an OMB review doesn’t take six or seven months,’ Briant said. ‘It’s usually about 90 days. We’re now into the seventh month.’ [para break omitted, boldface added]"
2) "Most recently, FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg was called out by Congress for how long it’s taking to get these deeming regulations out. Though Hamburg promised these regulations will be announced soon, the reality is it could take another 18 months to four years before these regulations go into effect, given the rulemaking process the FDA is legally obligated to adhere to.[/B] [boldface added]"
3) "Multiple panelists referenced the menthol debate as an example of how beneficial this lengthy rulemaking process can be. The FDA has been looking at menthol since 2010, reviewing hundreds of thousands of comments from manufacturers, retailers and scientists on the issue. [boldface added]"
So-o is the delay associated with the OMB (which rejected the FDA‘s initial draft of reguations), the FDA or both? Will the situation change now that Sylvia Mathews Burwell is moving OMB to HHS (assuming she’s confirmed)? No one seems to know.

{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: smokescreen: Are E-Cigarettes Safe? – Even without tobacco, the poorly regulated devices may pose unique dangers
(US national science mag. aimed at general public) http://www.scientificamerican
.com/article/smokescreen-are-e-cigarettes-safe/
[Also see Gary Cox's analysis here:]
Financial Times and Scientific American weigh in – ECF InfoZone
As one might anticipate from the title, this is a laundry list of all the reasons why the harshest imagineable taxation and regulation are needed ASAP. There is one tiny nod to cessation: "Unfettered access could leave people vulnerable to unknown health hazards, but there is also the chance that greater restrictions might hurt folks who are trying to forgo conventional – and more dangerous – tobacco products."
But after that, we get into all the reasons why vaping is public health menace – every fear, concern or unknown that the author can dredge up in order to convince the reader that this is another plot by Big Tobacco to hook children on tobacco cigarettes, poison existing smokers who turn to vaping as a form of cessation, and (of course) cause untold cancer carnage among bystanders. In short, it’s a brazen "hit job" that any professional ANTZ would admire, couched in careful, measured, pseudo-scientific language. That said, it doesn’t contain any outright lies, although the author is careful to coax as much fear of vaping products out of the reader’s emotions, without doing so with the kind of incendiary language that a professional ANTZ might prefer.
1) "The primary established danger of nicotine is that the stimulant is highly addictive, although emerging science also links it to an impaired immune system. [boldface added]"
2) "’We have little information about what happens to propylene glycol in the air,’ the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry says on its Web site. An assessment from the agency, issued in 2008, references only a couple of studies that cover inhalation exposures–all with laboratory animals rather than people. "
3) "Beyond the three main ingredients, [evidently the author has never heard of VG, nor the existence of VG-based e-liquid, or even 0% nic.] some researchers worry about by-products from heating electronic cigarettes and the solution inside them. Various studies suggest the vapors from e-cigarettes contain several cancer-causing substances, as well as incredibly tiny particles of tin, chromium, nickel and other heavy metals, which, in large enough concentrations, can damage the lungs [rather like nic. inhalers, right?]. [boldface added]"
4) "Yet another analysis [Dutra and Glantz, undoubtedly] linked e-cig use with greater odds of trying tobacco. They come in kid-friendly flavors, including chocolate, bubble gum and gummy bear. [boldface added]"
5) "As the debate blazes, deep-pocketed big tobacco investors are buying up e-cig companies, injecting millions of dollars into the market and banking on a bright future for the devices. [Ah ha. Big Tobacco is being vaping. Another reason why it's a "smokescreen," right?, boldface added]"
6) "The success of all these enterprises hinges on the claim that e-cigarettes are healthier than traditional cigarettes."
And as we’ve discovered, there’s absolutely no reason to think that vaping is any safer than smoking tobacco cigarettes. Plus it hooks minors on tobacco cigarettes. (Which is probably a good thing because we know that tobacco cigarettes may not be as dangerous as vaping.)

Title: E-Cigarette Advertising Expenditures Tripled From 2011 to 2012, Study Finds
(News collection site allegedly aimed at journalists) http://www.newswise
.com/articles/view/616068/?sc=dwhr
Title: Nowhere to Hide: Kids, Once Protected, Now Influenced by Tobacco Marketing
(News collection site allegedly aimed at journalists) http://www.newswise
.com/articles/view/616100/
Each of these newswise articles summarizes a study which is used in the article directly below (respectively). The summaries appear to be accurate and unbiased, as far as I can tell from the abstracts of the scientific papers, each of which is behind a pay wall. The original cites are:
1) "E-cigarette Advertising Expenditures in the U.S., 2011-2012" from American Jrnl of Preventive Medicine:
http://www.ajpmonline
.org/article/S0749-3797%2813%2900618-1/abstract 2) "Direct-To-Consumer Tobacco Marketing and Its Association With Tobacco Use Among Adolescents and Young Adults" from Jrnl of Adolescent Health:[/COLOR]
http://www.jahonline
.org/article/S1054-139X%2814%2900065-2/abstract
See the next article for how these studies can be used in an anti-vaping hit job (albeit a very devious one).

{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Studies trace huge jump in e-cigarette advertising [subtitle: Opponents worry young people are getting hooked on nicotine]
http://www.consumeraffairs
.com/news/studies-trace-huge-jump-in-e-cigarette-advertising-041614.html
This article is a wonderful illustration of how "factual reporting" can function as advoacy, through the subtle introduction of assumptions.
The premise of the piece seems to be that FDA regulation is required to monitor advertising, and (implicitly) this must be done to prevent minors from "getting hooked on nicotine," by the same old evildoers (BT), in the same old way.
Although the author has a wire service (AP) background, one has to wonder how much he actually knows about vaping technology, after reading this:
"Many former smokers praise e-cigarettes as a means to quit. They say e-cigarettes provide many of the pleasures of smoking, with nicotine delivered through water vapor that can be inhaled."
(Yes, that statement is literally true as written. Some vapers do talk about "water vapor." But then the Flat Earth Society President will likely deny that the earth is round.)
How do we know there’s a connection between <acronym title="Personal vaporizer”>PV advertising and minors getting hooked on nicotine? Two pices of information are provided:
1) "Eleven members of Congress released their own report this week, not only showing a spike in e-cigarette advertising but claiming the marketing efforts are aimed at young people. ‘For years, federal regulations prohibiting tobacco companies from targeting young people have helped to protect a new generation of smokers from getting hooked on nicotine,’ said Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL). ‘Now, we must close this new gateway to addiction to protect our children.’ [para break omitted, boldface added]"
2) "The [KY minor sales/possession ban just signed by Gov. Beshear] law addresses concerns that young people will be lured into using e-cigarettes and, as a result, will become addicted to nicotine. [boldface added]"
(Whoa! What happened to that wire services training? Is there any evidence cited for this? Or is it enough that at least two people have such a concern?)
At this point, readers are perhaps intended to believe that advertising of PVs causes minors to become hooked on nicotine. (Or not. But that’s the point of disguising advocacy as factual reporting, isn’t it?) Now that we know that <acronym title="Personal vaporizer”>PV advertising causes minors to become hooked on nicotine, the rest is easy.
We’re initially referred (indirectly) to this study, that indicates advertising expenditures have risen, and concludes that "federal-level efforts are needed to track e-cigarette advertising." http://www.ajpmonline
.org/article/S0749-3797%2813%2900618-1/abstract
So-o precisely why does the study conclude that we have federal-level efforts to ensure reporting of advertising expenditures? Alas, the full text is behind a pay wall.)
Finally, the author administers the coup de grâce, which is tn move seamlessly into a discussion of tobacco cigarette advertising, via an indirect citation to this study, which is entitled: Direct-To-Consumer Tobacco Marketing and Its Association With Tobacco Use Among Adolescents and Young Adults
http://www.jahonline
.org/article/S1054-139X%2814%2900065-2/abstract
Case closed, right? We need FDA regulation to prevent minors from getting hooked on nicotine, because this is what advertising does for "cigarettes" (which are all basically the same). In other words:
e-cigarette = cigarette = nicotine
and e-cigarette companies = big tobacco
and history of big tobacco and minor smoking = present situation
(Wire services training pays off, doesn’t it?)

Title: Are e-cigarettes a gateway drug for children?
(US Nat’l Business [WSJ]) http://www.marketwatch
.com/story/are-e-cigarettes-a-gateway-drug-for-children-2014-04-16
Your Correspondent was left wondering whether the writer changed his mind about the piece’s purpose, halfway in between. We begin with several paragraphs that summarize the Durbin Report, the CDC statistics on minor use (as usual, presented with no context), and the expected comments from the ALA:
"The American Lung Association is ‘very concerned’ with the increase in e-cigarette use in general, especially among children, says Erika Sward, assistant vice president for national advocacy at the ALA, a non-profit organization in Washington, D.C. ‘The e-cigarette industry does include historic big tobacco and has ripped some of its tactics from the tobacco industry’s playbook,’ like glamorizing the product with celebrity endorsements and advertising that encourages people to switch to e-cigarettes rather than quitting nicotine, she says. "
But then we transition to comments from SFATA Dir. Cynthia Cabrera concerning FDA regulation, the subject of whether vaping is less dangerous than smoking tobacco cigarettes, and why FDA treatment of vaping as tobacco cigarette smoking wouldn’t serve the cause of public health. A brief reference to the S.J. Park "cancer link" study is followed by quoting <acronym title="Consumer Advocates for smoke-free Alternatives Association”>CASAA‘s C.V. Phillips, who points out that: "Trying to take one of these [preliminary studies of] laboratory events and translate it into policy is almost always a mistake," followed by a citation to the Burstyn study (which ECF denizens often call the "Drexel Study").
At this point, the reader could be forgiven for being a little confused. Is the subject here supposed to be related to the title ("gateway drug for children"), deeming FDA reg.s, the relative dangers of vaping versus combustible tobacco, and the low level of risk to bystanders (which is what the Drexel study is about). So-o, where are we now? The answer is that we’re back to FDA ’09:
"While e-cigarette makers contend that the rush to regulate the products could have a negative impact on an industry they regard as a healthier alternative to tobacco, the FDA has found that e-cigarettes vary widely in reliability and quality, and didn’t always do what they said on the package. ‘The FDA found significant quality issues that indicate that quality control processes used to manufacture these products are substandard or nonexistent,’ the agency’s consumer advice page states. Cartridges labeled ‘no nicotine’ did contain nicotine, for instance, and three different e-cigarette cartridges with the same label emitted a markedly different amount of nicotine with each puff." [boldface added]
It seems that FDA‘s five-year-old discredited study on its almost-never-updated web page on vaping appears to be the answer to the rhetorical Q that forms the title of this article: "Are e-cigarettes a gateway drug for children?"

Title: Reynolds withholds money [$421M] from MSA payments
(Winston-salem NC US local paper) http://www.journalnow
.com/business/business_news/local/reynolds-withholds-money-from-msa-payments/article_64d3df19-afa3-59a5-8f3c-e2c9c262c4a9.html
As readers of this space know, the BT firms are embroiled in a dispute with a number of states over MSA payments. According to the Master Settlement Agreement reached with virtually every US state A/G in 1998, the OPMs (original pariticipating manufacturers) are to be protected from competition from other tobacco companies by appropriate legislation to be passed by the states that would penalize these firms for not participating in the stettlement. Recently, six states were denied $500M by a federal arbitrator, but this decision was partly overturned by a Federal Judge in the case of PA.
This report doesn’t say which states were slated to receive the $421M that R.J. Reynolds (makers of Vuse) placed in the escrow account.
As most vapers know, most states have issued bonds against the MSA payments, and used the proceeds from these amounts to augment their general revenue base (as opposed to spending them for smoking cessation programs).
vapers are also doubtless aware that anti-vaping organizations such as the ALA, CFTFK, and many Tobacco Control personnel in numerous states are paid with MSA funds.
As a practical matter, MSA funding which isn’t used for states’ general revenue funds is being increasingly used to (illegally) lobby elected officials to pass anti-vaping legislation, and also to pursuade the public to avoid vaping as a form of THR. MSA funds have been used to pay the expenses and salaries of Tobacco Control Industry professionals and 501(c)(3) organizational representatives who have directly lobbied elected officials, to fund (junk science) studies, and to pay for public relations efforts such as opinion polls – all in service of the American Tobacco Control Industry’s unstated goal of eliminating vaping which is not under the direct control of BP.

Title: Is this tiny gadget the future of smoking? [Ploom]
(US Nat’l News Network/Money) http://tech.fortune
.cnn.com/2014/04/14/is-this-tiny-gadget-the-future-of-smoking/
Gushing review of YAHC, i.e. Y(et) A(nother) (H)erb (C)ooker – the very same type of device that Altria (formerly PMI) was reported by the WSJ to be looking at, to the tune of "up to $688M." In a nutshell (according to the WSJ article):
"The user ‘lights’ the cigarette by pressing a button, activating a mechanism that heats the tobacco to a temperature high enough to turn its nicotine into vapor, but not high enough to produce smoke."
The description of Ploom’s product is essentially identical
"’Its products — small, pocketable vaporizers known as the ‘modelTwo’ and ‘Pax’ — heat tobacco without actually combusting it, providing a vapor the user can then inhale in place of smoke. The Pax, Ploom’s loose-leaf vaporizor, has become something of a cultural phenomenon, scoring celebrity shout-outs and ‘best new product’ accolades from the likes of GQ and Fast Company magazines — not least because it can vaporize not only tobacco but mar1juana as well, making it a high-tech accessory for the p0t-smoking set. (Ploom doesn’t advertise or advise any use for its products beyond tobacco consumption. ‘With Pax it will actually void your warranty,’ Monsees says.) "
The author of this otherwise junk-free piece is blissfully unaware that not all e-liquid contains nicotine, nor PG, and appears not to have heard of VG. In case you’re curious, here’s the WSJ blurb on Altria’s new Herb Cooker (if you get a pay wall message, close your browser and clear your cookies):
http://blogs.wsj
.com/corporate-intelligence/2014/03/03/how-the-cigarette-industry-plans-to-make-tobacco-grow-again/

Title: VitaCig, Inc. Launches $2 Nicotine-Free eCig Emitting Flavorful vapor + Vitamins
(site for paid press releases) http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2014/04/15/627237/10076781/en/VitaCig-Inc-Launches-2-Nicotine-Free-eCig-Emitting-Flavorful-vapor-Vitamins
.html
Yes, it’s a "vitamin nic-free <acronym title="Personal vaporizer”>PV." The overall product is similar to Green smoke‘s 0% nic. options, except there are only three flavors, and the entire thing is a disposible all-in-one cigAlike (Green smoke has a separate battery). The Youtube ad video is nifty, but the web site wasn’t finished when Your Correspondent went there on 4/16, which was supposed to be past the release date. All of that said, the vitamin thing is a new angle. We’ve heard that PVs are less dangerous than smoking … but – vitamins??
Turns out that t0hese same folks also offer an Herb Cooker (similar to the two described above), called the MCig. It will be interesting to see if these HCs catch on in the same way as PVs.
"Paging Bonnie Herzog! Ms. Herzog, please pick up your page at the courtesy desk." Also see this blog post by Gary Cox on ECF‘s InfoZone:
Nicotine free e-cig appears – ECF InfoZone

Title: United States: E-Cigarettes Light Up Controversy Among Employers
(Nat’l US Employer Labor Law Firm – Fisher & Phillips) http://www.mondaq
.com/unitedstates/x/307746/employee+rights+labour+relations/ECigarettes+Light+Up+Controversy+Among+Employers
This entire article can be summarized in one sentence:
"The arguments for allowing e-cigarettes in the workplace are few in number, and all things considered, pale in comparison to the reasons for prohibiting them in that environment."
The focus, of course, is on: (1) indoor vaping bans, i.e. the potential liability that employers could face for exposing nonsmoking/nonvaping employees to indoor vaping; as well as: (2) the situation of employers who might wish tn not hire vapers in those few states that have discrimination laws that protect smokers.
Apparently it never occured to the author that establishing a well-ventilated indoor vaping area might help cut health insurance costs, increase productivity, and enhance employee satisfaction. The author clearly regards regard vaping as tobacco smoking for all intents and purposes, and seeks to advise cautious employers to do the same.
This is a stance taken by all U.S. health insurance firms as well, perhaps because they’re advised by the US medical/public health community, which also views vaping as functionally indistinguishable from tobacco cigarette smoking.

US: MASSACHUSETTS

Title: E-Cigarettes: Are They Truly ‘Safer?’
(Suffolk U. Boston MA US student paper) http://suffolkvoice
.net/2014/04/14/e-cigarettes-are-they-truly-safer/
After recaping the CDC press release, this piece reminds the reader that:
"Although short-term e-cigarettes studies appear not to have found any evidence of significant health harms, there are currently no solid long term data regarding the effects of inhaling the vapors produced by e-cigarettes. Indeed, there are no long term observational data in actual humans using e-cigarettes.
Therefore, we can conclude that e-cigarettes are probably safer than cigarettes because they don’t likely deliver as much chemicals as tobacco cigarettes. However, there is no scientific evidence supporting the fact that e-cigarettes are an effective aid to smoking cessation. Further studies will determine the safety and efficacy of e-cigarettes."

(Para break omitted – the ending seems out of place, to say the least.)
[ HB 3726 would ban vaping wherever smoking is banned, see <acronym title="Consumer Advocates for smoke-free Alternatives Association">CASAA call: CASAA: Call to Action! Massachusetts E-Cigarette Usage Ban -- HB 3726 (formerly HB 3639) (UPDATED) ]

US: NEW YORK

Title: Suffolk County raises tobacco, e-cig age limit to 21
(NYC local paper) http://nypost
.com/2014/04/15/suffolk-county-raises-tobacco-e-cig-age-limit-to-21/
Brief note to the effect that Suffolk co. joins NYC and a number of MA municipalities in raising the purchase age for all tobacco products and vaping products (with or without nicotine) to 21. Similar proposals failed to come to fruition this year in both UT and CO.

Title: Roswell Park Researching Long-term Effects of E-Cigarettes
(Buffalo NY US ABC affiliate) http://www.wkbw
.com/video/Roswell-Park-Researching-Truth-About-E-Cigarettes–255582571.html
Another story on the latest junk study slated to come out of Roswell Park Cancer Inst. (your tax dollars at work):
"Dr. Maciej Goniewicz is leading research at Roswell Park Cancer Institute here in Buffalo. His team is trying to confirm what current evidence shows: that e-cigarette users can reduce exposure to the harmful chemicals and toxins in tobacco smoke and quit easier. They also want to explore the possible adverse effects of the chemicals used in the vapors and flavors of the electronic cigarettes. ‘The main concern right now, I think, is long term consequences of long term use of this device,’ said Dr. Maciej Goniewicz. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
As reported in this space on 3/29/14, Dr. Goniewicz is apparently unaware of the existence of nicotine-free e-liquid, despite the fact that vaping seems to be a major focus of his research career.
[ There are THREE different things going on in NY:
1) Ban the sale of e-liquid (SB 6939 - see <acronym title="Consumer Advocates for smoke-free Alternatives Association">CASAA calls in above thread)
<a href="!548327!http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/548327-new-york-state-s06939-prohibits-sale-e-liquid.html" target="_blank">http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/for...-e-liquid.html
2) Taxes covered by AB 8594 / SB 6610 (95% wholesale) OR SB 4365 / AB 7106 (75% wholesale). See this ECF thread with the <acronym title="Consumer Advocates for smoke-free Alternatives Association">CASAA call:
<a href="!549082!http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/549082-new-york-state-issues-3-bills-impose-75-95-tax-ecigs-ban-e-liquid-ban-ecig-use.html" target="_blank">http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/for...-ecig-use.html
3) Vaping=smoking indoor clean air act extension bans vaping whereever smoking is prohibited (AB 8178 / SB 6562) - <acronym title="Consumer Advocates for smoke-free Alternatives Association">CASAA call in the first thread, also discussion is here:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/for...orkplaces.html ]

US: DELAWARE

Title: Lawmakers, e-cigarette advocates agree on banning sales to kids [Quotes <acronym title="Consumer Advocates for smoke-free Alternatives Association">CASAA's Pres. Julie Woessner]
(Philadelphia-area news collection site) http://www.newsworks
.org/index.php/local/item/66897-lawmakers-e-cigarette-advocates-agree-on-banning-sales-to-kids
Short, general piece refers to the simple minor sales/possession bans passed by NJ, and more recently Philadelphia and the DE house. Of course we need to hear from the local public health people:
"’We’re taking it one step at a time. The first step is we really want to take it out of the hands of minors,’ said Karyl Rattay, director of the Delaware Division of Public Health.
[...]
‘It seems like in the public health and public policy world, every step we take to try to decrease the number of people addicted to nicotine, the industry finds clever, innovative ways to continue to keep people addicted,’ she said. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]
"
Catch that? The goal is to reduce nicotine consumption. (Hmm, are we talking about nicorette? Nicotine in vegatables? And they’ve been trying to "decrease the number of people addicted to nicotine" for how long?)
Refreshingly, the writer also decided to quote <acronym title="Consumer Advocates for smoke-free Alternatives Association”>CASAA‘s new Pres:
"’Most states are very responsibly passing legislation designed to ensure that these products — they’re adult products — are not being sold to minors. That’s something that my organization supports very strongly,’ said Julie Woessner, president of the Consumer Advocates for smoke-free Alternatives Association. Meanwhile, her nonprofit group opposes a proposal to add a ‘sin’ tax to the price of e-cigarettes in New Jersey, and Woessner said the Garden State’s existing ban on vaping indoors is ‘misguided.’ ‘Some states are trying to go further and take away rights and make these products seem less attractive to adults,’ Woessner said. ‘Sometimes governments step in a little too quickly trying to protect us from ourselves — and make a mistake.’ [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
[ DE's HB 241, a simple minor sales/possession ban, has passed the house, and is now in a sen. cmte. ]

US: NEW JERSEY

Title: State Legislators Question Benefits of Raising Tax on E-Cigarettes [General recap of testimony by Health Comm'r]
(Nonprofit news site, although one of the funding orgs is a healthcare consortium) http://www.njspotlight
.com/stories/14/04/14/legislators-question-benefits-of-raising-e-cigarette-tax/
Title: NJ Officials Debate Taxing E-Cigarettes
(Philadelphia PA US news collection site – syndicated) http://www.philly
.com/philly/news/local/20140416_N_J__officials_debate_taxing_e-cigarettes.html
Contains an interesting blow-by-blow partial recap of testimony from state Health Commissioner O’Dowd. Nost noteworthy was her claim that the state would be willing to exempt vapers if their physician prescribed vaping for smoking cessation, although perhaps that only refers to FDA-approved cessation products (i.e. it’s a disingenuous dodge):
1) "’Increasing the cost for the product is a very effective strategy to reducing utilization,’ [State Health Commissioner Mary] O’Dowd said during a discussion of the issue during the Assembly Budget Committee hearing on the proposed budget for the state Department of Health for the fiscal year starting on July 1. She said she is most concerned with the use of e-cigarettes by children … ‘Our children are using them and these are children who were not necessarily smokers before,’ O’Dowd said. ‘This is potentially a new gateway to nicotine addiction.’ [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
2) "’It seems like we’re going to catch a lot of people with this price point that will either go elsewhere to buy or will not buy it and continue to smoke a cigarette, which appears to be more harmful,’ said Assemblyman John J. Burzichelli (D-Cumberland, Gloucester and salem). Assemblyman Joseph Cryan (D-Union) said the state may ‘jump the gun’ in discouraging the use of the products through a tax when it’s possible that they could be helpful in reducing smoking. [para breaks omitted]"
3) "O’Dowd said that the state plans to have an exemption from the tax for residents who have been prescribed e-cigarettes as part of an effort to quit smoking. [boldface added]"
4) "O’Dowd said e-cigarettes are unique because they’re ‘clearly potentially harmful to a significant portion of our population, specifically related to providing a vehicle for the delivery of nicotine — a highly addictive drug.’ [And we thought the problem was that nicotine affected adolescent brain development? Boldface added]"
[ NJ's house bill A1080 was originally proposed as a ban on tobacco smoking in parks and beaches, but was immediately ammended to include vaping as soon as it got on to the house floor. Passed by the house last month, now ready for the Sen:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/for...l#post12349761
Also, Gov. Christie says he wants to tax vaping at the same rate as analogs, and S1867 has been introduced in the Sen. for that purpose:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/for...l#post12450301
And:
CASAA: Call to Action! New Jersey's Governor Christie is Proposing a Tax on E-Cigarettes at the Same Rate as Combustible Cigarettes (Significantly UPDATED 3-27-14) ]

Title: NJ should tax e-cigarettes to fund stop-smoking programs: Letter [from Jill M. Williams, professor, Rutgers-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School; chair, N.J. Breathes Coalition]
(Newark NJ US local paper) http://www.nj
.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/04/nj_should_tax_e-cigarettes_to_fund_stop-smoking_programs_letter.html
Given what we know about the Robert Wood Johnson foundation, and the position of the US medical community, this is surprising to say the least, insofar as it doesn’t argue that vaping is a public health problem and everything and anything possible should be done to discourage it:
"Cigars and smokeless tobacco are currently taxed at a lower rate than cigarettes, making them more accessible to young people. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a minimum of $72.7 million be spent in New Jersey on tobacco prevention and cessation. New Jersey remains the only state that spends zero on these cost-effective, life-saving services. We at NJ Breathes propose reinstating funding at a minimum $12 million — less than 2 cents for every dollar generated in cigarette taxes. We support the tax on e-cigarettes, but only if it includes other tobacco products and funds are used to support tobacco prevention and cessation programs. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
Note that traditional tobacco products (cigars and smokeless tobacco) are singled out in the first paragraph, but the last one refers specifically to vaping.

US: OHIO

Title: E-cigarette shop to open second location, plans four more
(Dayton bus. ‘zine) http://www.bizjournals
.com/dayton/news/2014/04/15/e-cigarette-shop-to-open-second-location-plans.html
Not one lonely syllable of junk.
[ Gov. Kasich has proposed a 49% tax on vaping, see:
CASAA: Call to Action! Ohio's Governor Kasich is Proposing a Tax on E-Cigarettes and smokeless Tobacco at an Outrageous 49% of Wholesale
and this ECF thread:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/for...ax-budget.html ]

{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: Push for Ban on E-Cigarette Public Vaping [What "concerns" does the health department have with vaping?]
(Dayton OH ABC affiliate) http://www.abc22now
.com/shared/news/top-stories/stories/wkef_vid_19643.shtml
Purpose of the report is to explain the "Concerns that the Health Department is having with vaping." (Hey, they’re here to protect us, right?) Turns out the law banning the sale/possession by minors "does not go far enough", because …
1) "Public health officials say it is still too early to determine all the risks associated with electronic cigarettes because they not yet regulated by the FDA."
(But the report never elaborates on that. But since tobacco cigarettes are reglated, there shouldn’t be a "concern" there, right?)
1) "The nicotine is inhaled through a vapor in different flavors, including cherry, cotton candy and chocolate. The Health Department says these cigarettes are targeted specifically to teens. [boldface added]"
2) "Currently, the biggest health issue involves re-fillable cartridges of liquid nicotine, which is sending more teens to the hospital. [boldface added]"
3) "[Public Health Dayton/Tobacco Prevention expert says]‘So, you have a red, a small little vial, that is red, it smells like cherry, it tastes like cherry, that’s a real cause of poisoning for kids. It’s toxic not only to injest it, but it’s extremely toxic, just when it comes into contact with the skin.’ [boldface NOT added, emphasis was in his voice]"
4) "Medical experts say just a lick of nicotine liquid can make a child sick and a teaspoon can be fatal. The calls made to the Poison Control Center from 2012 to 2013 went up to 300 percent, [sic] and [Public Health Tobacco Prevention Expert] Barcello says that number will likely double again this year. [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
5) "With traditional cigarettes, there is a concern of second-hand smoke but you may need to also take some precaution if a person is vaping next to you. [boldface added]"
Terrified yet? You should be. The Tobacco Prevention expert did a good job of spreading mindless fear with his tone, body language, and facial expressions. Not one word in the story addresses cessation or harm reduction.

US: MISSOURI

Title: Missouri to bar teenagers from buying e-cigarettes [HB 1690 - *NO* EXCISE TAX]
(AP) http://www.seattlepi
.com/news/article/Missouri-to-bar-teenagers-from-buying-e-cigarettes-5410294.php
MO house and sen. have passed HB 1690, a simple minor sales/possession ban.
"But each of the bills passed by the House and Senate would also exempt e-cigarettes from the state’s 17-cent per pack cigarette tax and state that they could not be regulated as tobacco products."
As far as Your Correspondent is aware, MO is the first jurisdiction anywhere in the world to explicitly exempt vaping from tobacco excise taxes.

US: LOUISIANA

Title: LSU students seek to ban e-cigarettes from campus
(LA St. U. student paper, Baton Rouge LA US) http://theadvocate
.com/home/8884174-125/lsu-students-seek-to-ban
Looks as if this is a done deal …
"The LSU smoke-free campus committee voted unanimously to recommend smoking electronic cigarettes — known as ‘vaping’ — be banned from campus as part of any official smoke-free initiative, committee member Judith Sylvester says. The committee submitted its final report to Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Stewart Bell in March, and it’s just a matter of time before it makes its way to LSU President F. King Alexander, she said. ‘Whether we go smoke-free or tobacco-free, e-cigarettes will be included in the ban part of that,’ Sylvester said. ‘The reason for that is very simple: They aren’t FDA approved.’ [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
So-o, inquiring minds might want to know why vaping gets conflated with combustible and/or tobacco products …
"’The evidence is not in yet, and the evidence that is coming in is tipping toward that e-cigarettes are not safe,’ Sylvester said. The research that is available shows chemicals from the plastic cartridges and metal holdings can get into the vapor, and people are at risk for breathing those in, she said. With some reluctance, Sylvester acknowledges vaping can be a successful smoking cessation aid, particularly to a lifelong smoker, but she remains adamant it has no place on a college campus. ‘There is absolutely no reason for anybody below the age of 26 to use them,’ Sylvester said. ‘It’s pure nicotine and it’s addictive. And because it’s not FDA approved, nobody really knows what they are getting in those cartridges.’ [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
(In other words, outdoor vaping is a threat to bystanders.)
Local vape store owner explains that his products are not manufactured by BT and that he knows what’s in them (at least this is all that the article mentioned.) But it looks as if the smoke-Free Campus Committee has done its homework:
"But to [committee member] Sylvester, an offering of different flavors is a ‘major red flag’ that the product is being marketed to children, adding that banning e-cigarettes from LSU’s campus will help keep them out of the hands of children at the University Laboratory School and LSU Day Care Center. ‘Those schools really are the primary targets for these things,’ Sylvester said. [para break omitted, boldface added]"
[ LA's SB 491 is an indoor clean air act vaping=smoking extension. See:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/for...er-attack.html
<acronym title="Consumer Advocates for smoke-free Alternatives Association">CASAA call at:
CASAA: Call to Action! Louisiana E-Cigarette Usage Ban Also: SB 12 - simple minor sales/possession ban has passed the sen., and is ready for the house. ]

US: TEXAS

Title: Teen E-Cigarette Use Raises Red Flags for Health Authorities
(Gilmer TX US local online ‘zine [equivalent to local paper]) http://www.gilmermirror
.com/view/full_story/24927737/article-Teen-E-Cigarette-Use-Raises-Red-Flags-for-Health-Authorities
This is the only article that I’ve ever seen which mentions the rate of teen tobacco use along with the CDC vaping statistics:
"While teen e-cigarette usage is low compared to the 23.3 percent who use tobacco, the trend is troubling on several levels."
The local health and human services MD is candid enough to say:
"There is no data on the long-term health effects of e-cigarettes, and too little information about the chemicals they contain, said Dr. Michael Huang, medical director of the Austin-Travis County Health and Human Services Department. ‘E-cigarettes are the sort of situation that should be guilty until proven innocent,’ he said."
[...]
"’There are no regulations regarding what additive chemicals are added to e-cigarettes,’ Huang said. ‘So there are all these different flavors and we don’t know what’s in every different flavor. What chemicals they are adding to these things?’ [boldface added, para break omitted]
"
Unfortunately, the writer has stumbled across FDA ’09, although the rest of the article seems to be reasonably fair. (The writer has apparently never heard of 0% e-juice, nor does the local vape shop owner tell her.)
We end up with one final dig from the health dep’t:
"He is concerned about marketing terms, such as saying that users are ‘vaporizing’ instead of smoking, and assertions that e-cigarettes are tobacco-free, even though they contain nicotine.
[ TX's legislature is out of session for the year, unless Gov. Perry calls for a special session. ]

Title: Unanimous: E-cigarettes banned from [Smith] county offices [due to "confusion" and "distraction"]
(Tyler TX US local paper) http://www.tylerpaper
.com/TP-News+Local/198227/unanimous-ecigarettes-banned-from-county-offices#.U07AuKJobfg
This is the only case that I can find in which the sole cited reason for including vaping in a prohibition against combustible tobacco use was justified exclusively because of the impression that some (ignorant) onlookers might get. Apparently it didn’t occur to any of the commissioners that some third status could be created – i.e. that it wasn’t necessary to require a 50-ft. doorway perimeter even though vaping in a court proceeding might not be deemed appropriate. Generally, the comments from county officials seemed surprisingly sympathetic towards the use of vaping as cessation.

US: UTAH

Title: Utah’s first ‘vapor Fest’ in Ogden will celebrate e-cigarettes [June 21]
(Ogden UT US local paper) http://www.standard
.net/stories/2014/04/16/utahs-first-vapor-fest-ogden-will-celebrate-e-cigarettes
Into the lion’s den? This is definitely it … UT may be one of the most anti-vaping states in the US, and was one of the original states to pass the nation’s first indoor/outdoor vaping bans. As readers of this space and/or UT vapers know, UT’s notoriously anti-vaping Rep. Ray did his absolute best to pass the US’s first internet sales ban. Most of the article is concerned with how the organizers intend to maintain compliance with both UT’s minor sales/possession bans, and also its prohibition on outdoor vaping in "playgrounds, recreational areas, amphitheaters, fairgrounds, sports fields, amusement parks, swimming pools, cemeteries, walking/running trails, skate parks, etc."
Readers of the Standard Examiner will be surprised to hear that the obligatory anti-vaping portion of the article was limited to some rather minimal cites from Consumer Reports:
"The unchecked ability of e-cigarette retailers to make broad and enticing claims that aren’t necessarily supported by evidence is but one more reason Consumer Reports thinks the FDA needs to get moving on regulations," the organization posted on its website [link included]."
[That's it? What about all the school children who are taking up tobacco smoking as a result of vaping? Have they also forgotten about the poisoned toddlers?]
Seriously, it was rather astonishing to Your Correspondent to see that Aaron Frazier of UT vapers got something akin to "equal time" in the piece, including a link to UT vapers web site. Given the S-E’s history, this article is nothing short of remarkable.
[ UT's legislature will meet again this year for a special summer session, and Rep. Ray has threatened to reintroduce HB 112, which died in a sen. cmte this year. HB 112 would ban internet sales, among other things. ]

US: NEVADA

Title: Controversy surrounds e-cigarettes as popularity grows ["Hundreds of children dangerously sick every month"]
(Las Vegas NV US CBS affiliate) http://www.8newsnow
.com/story/25256963/controversy-surrounds-e-cigarettes-as-popularity-grows
This is a poison control call center story gone bad. Although most of it is basically factual, the lead headline is not:
"Hundreds of children become dangerously sick every month in this country thanks to a product marketed as a safer alternative to tobacco cigarettes."
vape store owner doesn’t seem to be interested in correcting the confusion between calls and consequences (or may not have any idea that the producer was planning to lead with that insidious headline). Unfortunately, she may have been referencing the CDC’s public list of reported incidents, which creates the impression that 248 children became "dangerously sick" this year (which is not true):
"’Parents left the bottles around and they drank it. In all cases, all 248 cases, the children got their hands on the e-liquid bottle saw M&M or something flashy and drank it. It is poisonous. You can’t ingest it like that,’ Lewis said."
Looks as if this story was carefully put together in order to scare the daylights out of the public. (As if the CDC already didn’t do a good enough job last week.) NV:
[ NV legislature doesn't meet regularly. No current threats. ]

US: CALIFORNIA

Title: Corte Madera votes to ban smoking, e-cigarette use in multifamily housing units
(Marin Co. CA US accumulator site) http://www.marinij
.com/marinnews/ci_25575666/corte-madera-votes-ban-smoking-e-cigarette-use
That’s right. And it couldn’t have happened in a better place – Marin Co. CA, the first location on the planet to ban tobacco cigarette smoking in apartment buildings, now has the world’s first ban on vaping in a multiunit building:
"Councilwoman Carla Condon said she’s been pushing for the multifamily smoking ban for years, as secondhand smoke is a problem for people who share common walls. ‘I really think the time is right. We’re overdue to get this thing on the books,’ Condon said. ‘The only people that oppose this from the emails I got (Tuesday) were two people that lived out of town.’ [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
(So-o let’s get this straight. She’s been trying to get a ban on vaping on the books for "years?")
"[Council member] Lappert said it should be up to the state to determine whether e-cigarettes are a health hazard.
[...]
For Bailey, he wasn’t sure there was enough proof that e-cigarettes are harmful. ‘I don’t agree with the philosophy that in absence of proof, you ban something,’ Bailey said. [boldface added]
"
(That’s great. So-o what happened?)
"But after Condon, Ravasio and five members of the public spoke about the issue and referenced research on e-cigarettes, Bailey changed his tune."
(Wait a minute – these people testified that vaping had caused problems for them in a multi-unit buiding?)
"Phyllis Galanis of Corte Madera said she used to be a smoker, but believes e-cigarettes are marketed toward children and secondhand smoke can cause health problems in multifamily units. ‘I visited someone who lived around here in an apartment and the smoke kept coming in through the heater vents,’ Galanis said. ‘I shifted because I could see the benefits of people not having children becoming asthmatic.’ [para breaks omitted, boldface added]"
Does Ms. Galanis know the difference between vapor and smoke? And what does (alleged) marketing towards children have to do with the rights of adults to vape in their own apartments?
vape shop owner notes that it’s unenforceable. (Well, until some unfortunate tenant has a dispute with another person who knows that the tenant is vaping in their own apartment building. Looks as if vapers will have to shut their drapes and make sure that no one knows about it.)
Now, will any of these deep-pocketed BT/big vapor firms hire an attorney and sue the city on behalf of a vaping tenant, on the grounds that the ordinance has no rational basis, and deprives the tenant of their (leasehold) property? Nope. Guess Stephen Dorf’s and Jenny McCarthy’s paychecks are a higher priority.
[ CA is under threat from a wide variety of legislation, such as an internet sales ban: http://www.e-cigarette-forum
.com/forum/legislation-news/548077-oh-no-its-alive-ca-no-shipping-bill-ab1500-assigned-committee.html ]

***

COLLECTION: "CANCER LINK" STORIES COME AGAIN (AND AGAIN)

1) At the Third AACR-IASLC Joint Conference on the Molecular Origins of Lung Cancer on Jan 6-9 of this year, the following abstract was presented:

Title: Abstract B16: The effect of e-cigarette exposure on airway epithelial cell gene expression and transformation.
(Clinical Cancer Research – American Association for Cancer Research)
http://clincancerres.aacrjournals
.org/content/20/2_Supplement/B16.abstract

2) What vapers need to know about this "preliminary" study is that it was effectively rigged – the lung cells were kept alive artificially, and their ability to combat genetic changes was itself supressed. Furthermore, the study only showed cell changes (which occur in normal healthy tissue as well) – not cancer, nor was the vapor from an actual <acronym title="Personal vaporizer”>PV. ECF‘s Gary Cox explains here:
Unreviewed, preliminary conference paper brightens prohibitionists’ eyes – ECF InfoZone
And here:
Lab conditions make all the difference – ECF InfoZone

3) As sometimes occurs, the competition between anti-vaping headlines resulted in the alleged "cancer link" narrative being out-competed by the flap over vaping at the Golden Globes Awards ceremony, and the battle over Chicago’s vaping=smoking indoor/outdoor vaping ban.

4) Although there was a brief lull during early Feburary in which stories about child molesters who proferred e-cigarettes, battery charger fires, and a dead puppy in the UK dominated the headlines, Feb 26 marked the introduction of the PCECAA (Protect Children from Electronic Cigarette Advertising Act). This was followed shortly by the release of the Dutra & Glantz junk JAMA paper that confused causation with correlation (this is the minor-gateway-to-tobacco-cigarette smoking meme), a couple of weeks of frantic press conferences and press releases by Sen.s Schumer and Blumenthal, and of course the junk JAMA paper by Grana et al. ("e-cigarettes don’t help smokers quit"). From then on, it was a steady drip-drip-drip of poison control call center stories, culminating with the CDC statistics release in which Tom Frieden pointed out that "use of these products is skyrocketing."

4) The alleged cancer link story finally got a break when Nature magazine decided to write a blurb about the Jan 8 abstract, which was presented again at the American Association for Cancer Research annual meeting on April 6-9:
http://www.nature
.com/news/e-cigarettes-affect-cells-1.15015

5) That lead to the "second coming" of the "alleged-cancer-link" stories, some of which assumed that there were two studies, even though the original Jan 6-9th abstract hadn’t changed, and was simply re-presented at the second (April 6-9th) conference. I covered this second outbreak here:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/for…-az-ca-ak.html

6) Now, alleged cancer link stories are back again, although the third round was truncated by story about the English "granny" whose <acronym title="Personal vaporizer”>PV allegedly ignited her oxygen, and the FDA‘s release of complaints about vaping.

COLLECTION: ALLEGED CANCER LINK DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN – NYT PIECE

Title: Early Data in E-Cigarette Study May Raise Safety Concerns
(US Nat’l Paper) http://www.nytimes
.com/2014/04/16/business/e-cigarette-study-data-may-raise-concerns.html
Unfortunately the first paragraph of this story grossly misstates the results of the study:
"A laboratory study presented early this year reported that the nicotine-laced vapor generated by an electronic cigarette promoted the development of cancer in certain types of human cells much in the same way that tobacco smoke does." [boldface added]
Uh, no. The study refers to non-cancerous cell changes, the vapor wasn’t from an e-cigarette, and the changes were not "much the same" as those engendered by tobacco smoke. Plus there’s this intriguing portion, which may have piqued some interest:
"Many researchers have expressed the belief that e-cigarettes pose a far lower cancer risk than conventional cigarettes because they do not burn tobacco, a major source of carcinogens. However, the findings, which were presented in January at a meeting of lung cancer researchers, may attract the interest of federal officials who are considering how to regulate e-cigarettes. In a report to investors sent Tuesday, David J. Adelman, an industry analyst at Morgan Stanley, said the report, while preliminary, could ‘result in legitimate questions from public health officials.’ [para break omitted, boldface added]"
The rest of the piece goes on to provide a relatively fair summary of the study, and some reasonable observations by Tobacco Control Industry Researchers: "Dr. Neal L. Benowitz, a leading nicotine researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, said it was hard to apply the findings of test-tube studies to people. ‘Isolated cell systems may respond differently than organs in a person,’ he said. [para break omitted, boldface added]"
But that was enough to set off the latest round …

COLLECTION: ALLEGED CANCER LINK DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN – IRRESPONSIBLE HEADLINES/COVERAGE

Title: E-Cigs Cause Cancerous Changes in Lung Cells: Study
(Newsmax, US maximally-dumbed-down news site) http://www.newsmaxhealth
.com/Health-News/electronic-cigarettes-nicotine-cancer/2014/04/16/id/565972/
This contains all the errors of the original NYT story, plus it has this dreadful headline.

Title: Health Highlights: April 16, 2014
(Healthday via Philadelphia PA US news collection site) http://www.philly
.com/philly/health/topics/HealthDay686891_20140416_Health_Highlights__April_ 16__2014.html
Also contains all the NYT article errors.

Title: Study: Cancer Risk In E-Cigarette vapors
(Atlanda GA US CBS affiliate) http://atlanta.cbslocal
.com/2014/04/14/study-cancer-risk-in-e-cigarette-vapors/
In addition to the misleading headline, this story implies that the effects of the simulated vapor and tobacco smoke were indistinguishable. Then it seamlessly segues to the poison control center calls meme.

Title: Switching to E-Cigarettes? Read This Study First
(US "newsmax" clone site) http://www.newser
.com/story/185418/switching-to-e-cigarettes-read-this-study-first.html
(US cable co. site) http://xfinity.comcast
.net/blogs/lifestyle/2014/04/17/switching-to-e-cigarettes-read-this-study-first/
"As the FDA considers how to regulate e-cigarettes, a recent study finds very tentative reason for concern: When it comes to promoting cancer development in certain types of lung cells, it may not matter whether you’re smoking the real thing or the nicotine-laced vapor in an electronic cigarette. [boldface added]"
That "may" be true. And we "may" all be space aliens.

{Comments posted to page containing this story, &/or e-mail to Editor would be helpful.}
Title: E-cigarettes may pose cancer risk
(US Ind. nat’l web site associated w/ Clarity) http://www.examiner
.com/article/e-cigarettes-may-pose-cancer-risk
Another despicable hit job written by a sleazy MD, full of cagey language like "might pose a risk of cancer" and which completely mischaracterizes the study. It also contains this gem about a critical ingredient in FDA-approved "safe and effective" OTC therapies:
"A proven negative of e-cigarettes is the nicotine, which is a highly addictive stimulant. Nicotine causes constriction of the arteries, which can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. It also has resulted in amputation of limbs in susceptible individuals."
More siliness, to the point of aburdity:
"The flavoring agent contained in e-cigarettes also poses a public health risk because it attracts teens to the product."
Or try this statement, which would undoubtedly merit a huge expenditure of red ink from a high-school English teacher’s pen:
"Some individuals switch to e-cigarettes in an attempt to quit smoking. This [sic] is unproven because some studies have supported this concept while others refute it."
And finally we have this gem:
"Another health hazard of e-cigarettes is that one teaspoon of liquid nicotine can kill a person–the user or even a child who swallows it."
Is the writer is dumber than the editor who ran the piece, or vice-versa? Phew.

Title: Report: E-cigs may cause cancer just like cigarettes
(Phoenix AZ US ind. radio) http://ktar
.com/103/1724209/Report-Ecigs-may-cause-cancer-just-like-cigarettes
Contains essentially no information besides the headline, which is obviously beyond misleading.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>