Pierce County Public Hearing on Proposed E-cigarette usage ban

What an amazing day! I honestly don't think it could have gone any better, and if we didn't defeat this ban, I don't think anything would! (Though we should of course continue to encourage people to submit comments through the website)

At the Vaporium before the meeting, Kim Thompson opened her doors for us to gather and discuss strategy and her overwhelmingly supportive family entertained visits from the media and curious passersby with snacks, drinks, and sample vapes--which incidently would be banned by the proposed ruling. I was amazed to hear Kim's story of opening The Vaporium using the money she had been saving that would have been spent on 2+ packs a day.

After the presentations from the panel, EVERYONE spoke against the proposed rulings and it was almost like watching a home run derby! When Lakewood Chamber of Commerce president Mary Ann Miller spoke, many of us thought we'd hear the first anti only to hear that the CoC had voted UNANIMOUSLY to oppose the ruling!

After the meeting we adjourned to Cheers nearby for drinks and an impromptu vape fest. Although he was unfortunately the only councilmember to attend the meeting, president Dick Muri and Mary Ann joined the party and were very definitely convinced as they witnessed even the wait staff being given disposables and vaping along with or little army trading flavors and personal stories. Both not only made it clear they were on our side, they promised to be "in the ears" of the other members as well agreeing that smoke free alternatives should be PROMOTED rather than restricted.

http://www.youtube.com/ECigUser123

¡Viva la Vapor Revolucion!

-Thad

When did Health Care move to Bizarro World?

Elaine's comment here gave me the idea that a strong class action could be made against the FDA on the grounds that they engaged in protectionist disinformation campaigns in collusion and conflict of interest with Pharmaceutical "Sponsors" to suppress information about smoke-free alternatives to Harm Reduction. Reading the Tobacco Harm Reduction 2010 yearbook, one thing becomes very clear: Harm reducing alternatives have been available in the form of improved smoke-free tobacco products and the FDA and pharmaceutical companies have taken extra-legal steps to suppress this information. Not the least of which is the change in the data collection in 2005 that made it impossible to distinguish pasteurized (and therefore carcinogen reduced) tobacco products from untreated chewing tobacco.

There is a LONG track record of the FDA restricting commercial speech, especially regarding tobacco products. Long before the "damning" report on e-cigarettes, the FDA was forcing tobacco companies to make intentionally misleading statements about their products like: "Smokeless tobacco is not a safe alternative to smoking." While this statement appears to say something that is inarguable (Nothing is a safe alternative to Anything), it is in fact so inarguable that it is hardly worth saying unless you are being intentionally misleading. If you want to sue the FDA, it seems like a winnable case could be made and it could send a powerful message...but suing the FDA is a literal money pit and I doubt we want to burn our resources trying to start that fire.

However, I suspect that if a conflict of interest can be shown with the Pharmaceutical companies that the FDA seems to be offering a form of marketplace protectionism, it might be possible to charge one or more Pharmaceutical companies with violations of antitrust statutes or sue for damages to the public health and trust from the withholding of potentially life-saving information.

I don't think it would even be difficult to find a clear paper trail of conflicting interests. The "tobacco denormalization" campaign has been SO successful that even as a vaper I still tend to distrust Tobacco companies because they admitted they had supressed damning information about the hazards of smoking...but at least the Tobacco companies had the good sense to admit it, apologize for it, start working to REDUCE harm, and *gasp* actually want to keep their customers alive. Meanwhile, Pharmaceutical companies have had all this information for just as long if not longer than the Tobacco companies and they CONTINUE to suppress data that supports a Harm Reduction approach to TC. Although Tobacco companies will continue to sell the products that most consumers demand (cigarettes), they are actually motivated to encourage smokers to switch to harm reducing alternatives as it will likely extend the lives of the customer base. Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical companies would rather you just go ahead and DIE from smoking tobacco cigarettes if you refuse to get addicted to their drugs instead--if they don't kill you on the patch before you kill yourself or someone else on Varenicline, they'll likely get you with Chemo eventually. The tables are officially turned: Tobacco companies profit from reducing harm to public health, while Pharmaceutical companies profit from increased harm.

When I joined the Board of Directors for the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA), I described myself as "The Devil's Thadvocate" because I like to grow to understand things better by looking at it from multiple angles. It can be enlightening at times, but it is starting to just get scary. Tobacco companies now have more reason to care about my health than the public, private, and government organizations that allegedly provide health care. Knowing who to trust is getting so convoluted that it can lead to despair!

No matter what your political, business social, or religious views--who isn't in favor of reducing Heart and Lung disease? The very organizations that were supposedly formed to protect public health would rather it remain legal for children to purchase unregulated nicotine products than allow adults access to electronic cigarettes--devices that simulate the smoking experience with smoke-free "vapor" allowing hundreds of thousands of people who would otherwise be unwilling or unable to stop smoking to completely eliminate all of the greatest contributors to heart and lung disease (the products of combustion)--that's who.

Although I'd like to be able to wrap up this post with a nice succinct closing, I'm afraid that might suggest there is a simple answer. Usually the truth is found not in one simple answer, but rather by looking at complicated things as simply as possible. There are a LOT of simple answers...and as much as I like sharing the ones I find, I don't want to stop looking for new ones.