Pot. Kettle. Black.
I don't normally bother with “equal time” pieces on the news roundup. I think everyone knows where I stand, so unlike “real” news outlets, I put on no charade of being unbiased. However, Stanton Glantz posted an article on a tobacco control website that sort of caught my attention. In the article Dr. Glantz attacks what he perceives as the original researchers' bias.
The reality is that the big cigarette companies now own the smokeless companies and are aggressively marketing smokeless tobacco as a way to keep people smoking despite the presence of clean indoor air laws. Our analysis of the likely effect of aggressive marketing of smokeless tobacco for harm reduction is that it is unlikely to produce any population-level benefits and could actually do harm
First of all the article supports most of its claims with links to other bits of research. Interestingly, there's no links to anything supporting the claim that big tobacco owns any Swedish snus makers, and especially no evidence showing ownership of e-cigarette companies. And of course, the article is written as if there were no influence or conflict of interest coming from the drug industry. Hmmm…
The Ashtray Blog ran another great guest piece this week, this time by Paul Bergen. In the piece, the author points out that researchers are kind of slowly figuring out what we as e-cigarette users have been hip to for quite a while now.
There is an implication that this will somehow prove to vapers that vaping is a good way to quit smoking. It is quite funny because if there is anything vapers know, and knew quite some time ago, vaping is one of the best ways of getting off tobacco cigarettes.
Now granted, science can't exactly just listen to a bunch of people's opinions and call it research. This stuff has to be proven with data and charts and test tubes and electrodes and stuff. Oh, wait, I didn't have to hook myself up to electrodes? Of course it might be easier on researchers if they did take into account what users of the devices have to say and then look at ways to support or disprove the claims in an objective manner.
If you live in Springfield, it's time to hide the trusty eGo. Voters in Springfield, MO enacted a smoking ban in their recent election. The ban's definition of smoke also included electronic cigarettes. One person noted in the letters to the editor section of the News-Leader that voters were pretty much unaware of the inclusion of e-cigarettes in the measure.
It is undoubtedly true that voters knew that a “Yes” vote would ban “smoking,” the act of inhaling burning smoke into one's lungs and exhaling it into the air, in specified public places. However, as the editors mention, smoke-free electronic cigarettes, which create only a water-like vapor and have never been shown to cause harm to bystanders, were disingenuously included in the definition of “smoking.” On Election Day, voters were not asked if they wanted to ban “smoking and the use of electronic cigarettes” in public places. Instead, voters were merely presented with a question that asked if it was their will to ban “smoking.”
e-Cigarettes are pretty much locked out for good in the city, unless voters demand that be changed. The city council had planned to consider amending the ordinance, but were blocked by one council member refusing to consider any such amendments. Unless voters suddenly become impassioned about e-cigarettes, the next big vape meet probably won't be held in Springfield.
Fox News Critical of FDA
Ok, so Fox being critical of the current administration isn't exactly news. This isn't the obvious news roundup, after all. But Fox Business radio commentator John Stossel posted a blog article in follow-up to the New York Times article I reported on earlier. Stossel takes things to the next level and points out that the FDA's actions could be killing people.
Image: Fox Business News
The American Association of Public Health Physicians wrote that E-cigarettes might “save the lives of four million of the eight million current adult American smokers.”
Millions of lives saved! Who would want to stop that?
The FDA. They say that e-cigarettes “may” contain toxic ingredients. They threaten to ban them. They sent threatening letters to manufacturers.
The FDA claims that all their regulations save lives. But they're killing smokers.
Without getting into the politics of various news outlets in the US (there are plenty of other blogs for that), I find this new round of coverage intriguing to say the least. The New York Times and Fox News are managing to agree on what is a controversial topic, that means there are a lot of nuances to the e-cigarette story. Perhaps other media outlets will get the hint and stop parroting the same talking points put out by the anti camps and you know, do a little research for once.
Deal of the Moment
My Freedom Smokes put out a few good deals in their recent newsletter. They also included an apology in their newsletter. Apparently some of their e-liquid quantities were a little bit wrong. To make up for the error they've adjusted their sizes and cut prices on e-liquid pretty much across the board. Check out their e-liquid section for current prices which start at just 4.95 for 10ml.
Tired of waiting around for news roundups? Like SKVW on Facebook and/or follow me onTwitter for links and witty insight as it hits my radar and crosses my mind. To get all SKVW articles delivered directly to your inbox, subscribe via e-mail.
Title image: worradmu / FreeDigitalPhotos.net