E-cig Hysteria

Still on e-cigs, here’s a very relevant comment from Magnetic today:

The amount of time and effort being expended on e-cigs (to their demonization) is quite extraordinary. A flurry of “studies” and a magnifying glass on the few ingredients in e-cigs.

Consider the case of “fire safe” cigarettes (FSC). They’ve been made mandatory in a number of countries. The fire-safe “technology”, involving added glue rings to the paper, increased the chemical load of manufactured cigarettes. There were complaints of immediate symptoms from smoking these cigarettes, e.g., coughing fits, constant phlegm, wheezing, “lung burn”. Given the magnitude of scrutiny on e-gizmos concerning their safety, it could well be asked how much research went into the health effects of this fire-safe design. How much scrutiny did they attract? How much research did Tobacco Control nut cases demand before advocating this design be made mandatory? And how much research has been called for since they became mandatory?

Unlike the very considerable attention now given to e-cigs, there was NO – none, zero, zip, nada – research on the health effects of fire-safe cigarettes, before or after their introduction. It sounded like a great idea to the Tobacco Control folk. So they went right ahead and pushed for them to be made mandatory. Immediate detrimental health effects from these cigarettes? The Tobacco Control folk couldn’t care less….. as has been demonstrated.

Below I’ll post as much as I know of FSC as a reference point.

Magnetic added further comments on FSC here and here.

Still on e-cigs, I also came across this in the Telegraph:

‘I thought my e-cigarette was safe. Turns out, I was smoking the equivalent of 40-a-day’

When Rachael Lloyd took up vaping, she thought she’d stumbled across a miracle alternative to smoking. Little did she know, her ‘friendly’ e-cigarette was actually damaging her health – as the World Health Organisation is now starting to realise…

When my local chemist told me to stop vaping immediately, or risk seriously damaging my health I thought he must be having a mad half hour.

Kindly Mr Patel has always struck me a cautious man. It seemed ridiculous that he was making such a fuss.

I just couldn’t grasp that something as innocuous as an e-cigarette, widely regarded as the safe alternative to real cigarettes – and commonly used by smokers to quit – could do any lasting damage.

Now, I know that he was right all along. The World Health Organisation (WHO) this week recommended that e-cigarettes should be banned indoors, because they emit chemicals potentially as dangerous as cigarettes and have a potential passive smoking risk. Doctors are also calling for more research into the long-term dangers of vaping, which they say may be more dangerous than previously thought.

The author’s rather implausible story was that she had only been an occasional ‘social smoker’ of cigarettes, but had taken enthusiastically to e-cigarettes, even puffing away on them at work, and started spending more and more money on them – until she’d consulted her local chemist, and had quit vaping by using NRT products.

I found it implausible because my local chemist wouldn’t be the first place I’d go for advice. Why should chemists know anything about e-cigs? They don’t sell them. But they do sell competing NRT products. And as such they have a vested interest in getting customers off e-cigs and onto NRT products. Which is exactly what her chemist did.

Secondly, NRT products notoriously don’t work. So it was rather remarkable that they should somehow manage to work a treat with ‘e-cig addiction’.

The entire story simply didn’t ring true. She seemed to believe everything she was told by absolutely anybody. And it had all happened too fast, the transition from occasional cigarette smoker, to e-cig addict, to finally being rescued by her trusty local chemist in what seems to have been about 3 months. So I concluded that it was really just another anti-vaping story planted in the mainstream media in support of the ‘big push’ against e-cigs by the WHO. Because it was an anti-vaping story rather than an anti-smoking story. In fact, one was left with the sense that she’d been better off as a ‘social smoker’ until she’d been sucked into a private hell of e-cig addiction, spiralling downwards in an uncontrollable spending spree (£30 a week!), until the saintly figure of her local chemist rescued her with NRT.

There’s probably good money to be made writing fiction along these lines. But I think there ought to be some romantic interest. And a good car chase. You know the sort of thing.

About Frank Davis

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to E-cig Hysteria

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    Yep the Media Blitz began 2 days ago…………………

    • beobrigitte says:

      Harley, it’s impossible to post a reply (the moment you click on the provided space to type you are being redirected….

      Well, I’ll reply here then to:

      Steel Mill

      Great idea.. you want to smoke, do it in your home or yard.
      We have no idea of the long term effects of E cigs.

      We have no idea of the long term effects of many drugs being given to people, least of all this ‘experimental’ drug (no human trial results short term, let alone long term available!) that is currently being given to Ebola virus infected people.
      Also, there are no long term studies on e.g. Champix. Please prove that the human trial for throwing e.g. Champix/Chantix on the market lasted longer than 6 weeks.

      Are you seriously trying to tell me that you do not buy flavour/vegetable glycerin containing foods? And is propylene glycol not used as a SAFE antibacterial agent in hospitals?
      Please elaborate on your worries about e-cigs. I actual fact, start thinking about tobacco – I am a baby-boomer who is living and working longer despite starting smoking at the age of 12. You have some explaining to do. Start now.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Steel Mill

        Great idea.. you want to smoke, do it in your home or yard.
        We have no idea of the long term effects of E cigs.

        August 27, 2014 at 7:27 am Reply Report comment

        harleyrider1778

        Steel Mill

        Great idea.. you want to smoke, do it in your home or yard.
        We have no idea of the long term effects of E cigs.

        We have no idea of the long term effects of many drugs being given to people, least of all this ‘experimental’ drug (no human trial results short term, let alone long term available!) that is currently being given to Ebola virus infected people.
        Also, there are no long term studies on e.g. Champix. Please prove that the human trial for throwing e.g. Champix/Chantix on the market lasted longer than 6 weeks.

        Are you seriously trying to tell me that you do not buy flavour/vegetable glycerin containing foods? And is propylene glycol not used as a SAFE antibacterial agent in hospitals?
        Please elaborate on your worries about e-cigs. I actual fact, start thinking about tobacco – I am a baby-boomer who is living and working longer despite starting smoking at the age of 12. You have some explaining to do. Start now.

  2. beobrigitte says:

    To the subject of e-cigs a really interesting blog:
    http://vapingpoint.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/reformation-for-smokers-will-save.html

    A commenter wrote:
    You speak the truth I have recently been following more and more smoker’s rights groups even though I am now a vapor simply because it seems to be the same battle and both issues full of lies and distortions. If it was just health the powers in charge would be embracing vaping since it has none of the things tobacco control said was deadly. Now with this hard stance against vaping also so many wonder is all they say lies?

    To begin with, Vapingpoint is right. Clive Bates has a few uncomfortable questions to face.

    Quote from Clive’s Post “The objective of this Convention and its protocols is to protect present and future generations from the devastating health, social, environmental and economic consequences of tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke by providing a framework for tobacco control measures to be implemented by the Parties at the national, regional and international levels in order to reduce continually and substantially the prevalence of tobacco use and exposure to tobacco smoke”End quote

    The above is a sort of fundamentalist religious statement.

    “devastating health, social, environmental and economic consequences of tobacco consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke ” can all be challenged.

    In fact, the exaggerations, misrepresentations, economic harm, personal and individual suffering the dogma has brought on in society has been vast. This religion has seeded fear and hate. Like all successful conquering religions have done, the devotees fail to see that the act of smoking – something – anything – can never be eradicated just like conquering religions fail in accepting that not all humans will be converts.

  3. woodsy42 says:

    I have to admit that I returned for a while from vaping to tobacco and I found I smoked more cigarettes than I had before I originally changed to vaping. Probably because I vape indoors without limit whereas I traditionally rationed my cigarette use. Thus I accept there may be a slight ‘nicotine effect’ – but surely that’s why ecig liquid has different strengths (including zero)!

    • beobrigitte says:

      I am what can be called a ‘dual enjoyer’. I buy most of my tobacco in Austria (which I visit frequently) where I do find restaurants and pubs with ashtrays on the tables and/or effectively separated areas. In order to make my supply last to my next visit, I also vape.
      If I am at home, I vape a lot, so I use 6mg nicotine containing e-liquid, simply because an e-cig is not used up after 5 minutes vaping.
      Works a treat!

      • woodsy42 says:

        Sounds a similar situation, I buy tobacco on holiday and vape when it runs out, which tends to be winter and I’m indoors so I do more of it. I suppose there are people so stupid that they don’t realise if you vape non-stop you will get more nicotine than you want, but why should I have to protect them from their own stupidity? What really annoys me is the way these morons advertise their own lack of common sense.

  4. harleyrider1978 says:

    This should rile my Brit friends to no end………….

    Tea Time Might Be Over, Once World Wakes Up to Amount of Pesticides Inside Each Cup

    A new report released by Greenpeace reveals high toxin levels in tea from China…

    August 19, 2014 |

    Tea time is supposed to be a time to relax and regroup, but it could be one of the riskiest moments of the day. At least, that’s according to a new study released by Greenpeace earlier this month that found a number of popular tea brands contain high doses of pesticide residues. Some teas even tested positive for the long-banned DDT.

    Greenpeace published two reports looking at tea in China and in India. In both accounts, the levels of pesticide residues found in tea samples were disturbingly above the safe limits set by the World Health Organization.

    China and India are the first and second largest producers of tea, respectively, and a good deal of their tea is exported internationally. It’s important to note that although the United States imports almost all of its tea, tea companies are required to produce documentation that proves their compliance before being approved by the FDA and customs. Greenpeace’s studies focused on China and India, which are the largest producers, as well as the largest consumers, of tea. Their food safety regulations differ wildly from those of the United States.

    In 49 Indian tea samples tested, nearly 60 percent contained at least one pesticide above the safety limits set by the European Union. In 18 samples, the quantity of pesticides were “50 percent more than the maximum level.” A whopping 33 samples contained DDT. In the report on China’s teas, nearly 67 percent of samples (18 total) contained pesticides that have been previously banned under the Stockholm Convention. “Richun’s Tieguanyin 803 tea [from China] showed up with 17 different kinds of pesticides!” reported Greenpeace. In total, 14 samples from China contained pesticides that are known to harm unborn children or cause genetic damage.

    Brands tested were from 8 of the 11 top tea brands such as Twinings, Tata Tea, Tetley, Brooke Bond, Golden Tips, Goodricke and surprisingly, the No. 1 tea brand: Lipton. In Greenpeace’s studies, three of four Lipton samples, “contained pesticides that are banned for use on tea plants and are highly toxic. Altogether 17 different kinds of pesticides were found on the four samples.”

    “As the world’s best-selling tea brand, Lipton is taking advantage of China’s loose pesticide control measures at the expense of its Chinese customers,” Wang Jing, Greenpeace food and agriculture campaigner, told Greenpeace East Asia.

    Pesticides found through the test included a number of pesticides that Greenpeace reports are a result of “complicated and confusing” regulations. For instance:

    “As of May 2014, a total 248 chemical pesticides have been registered under section 9(3) of the Insecticides Act (1968) for use in India, for all crops. However, the rationale for permitting these remains far from clear; for example, the list contains Endosulfan, which has been subject to a separate comprehensive ban by decision of the High Court as of 2011.”

    Pesticides found included methomyl, an insecticide known for harming the nervous system; dicofol, a chemical related to DDT; and endosulfan among many others.

    To the news of the findings, Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), one of the largest companies reported in the study, said it complies with the law. “We have internal HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point) processes for all our factories,” HUL told DNA India. “Samples of raw materials and finished products are regularly sent to third-party testing laboratories. Our data does not show the presence of any unapproved chemicals and we fully comply with the Indian foods regulations as stipulated by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI).”

    HUL added it was looking to phase out pesticides with its suppliers by 2020

    http://www.alternet.org/food/tea-pesticides-3

  5. magnetic01 says:

    Another for the graveyard. This time from India.
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Man-stabbed-in-Nangloi-for-smoking/articleshow/40943317.cms

    Check out the comments, too, e.g.,

    “there should be no violence.. but i sincerely want that all the smokers who are giving cancer to passive smokers…should die.. all the smokers should just die ..they should first rot with their cancer and should die… DIE YOU SMOKERS.. DIE…

  6. Rose says:

    Little did she know, her ‘friendly’ e-cigarette was actually damaging her health – as the World Health Organisation is now starting to realise

    Now there’s a surprise.

    The vapers walked right into that one, from the start they bought into the much disputed “nicotine addiction theory” If that were true, nicotine patches and gums would work.

    If you believe you have an addiction rather than a habit you have put yourself in medical profession and Pharma territory and they won’t give you up easily to what they would probably consider as a branch of alternative medicine, and we know what they did to that.

    It’s lazy thinking to rely on anti-tobacco of all people for their information, it centres only on one single plant chemical in a complex plant.
    At least vapers now know that nicotine is not unique to tobacco, but to dismiss the rest of the plant as they do as merely “tar” and particles astounds me,I thought smoking was supposed to enhance cognitive function?

    Still too late now, they’ve given up on the rest of the plant and taken up inhaling a flavoured natural pesticide.

    It’s hard to know what to suggest in what now amounts to a territorial dispute between suppliers and their various delivery devices.

    Who ever said the customer was always right?

    WHO LAUNCHES PARTNERSHIP WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY TO HELP SMOKERS QUIT

    “The strength of the Partnership Project lies in the fact that it has brought together three major pharmaceutical companies, Glaxo Wellcome, Novartis Consumer Health and Pharmacia & Upjohn, all manufacturers of treatment products for tobacco dependence, to support a common goal that will have a significant impact on public health.”
    http://web.archive.org/web/20130530064615/http://www.who.int/inf-pr-1999/en/pr99-04.html

    Pharmaceutical companies NOT e-cigarette manufacturers.

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    E-cigarettes: no indoor smoking ban planned in England despite WHO call

    Ministers will not ban e-cigarettes indoors in England, despite the World Health Organisation urging governments to do so to combat the threat posed by the growing popularity of vaping.

    The Department of Health (DH) made clear that it does not plan to outlaw the use of the increasingly popular gadgets in enclosed public spaces in England, although Wales’s Labour government is considering doing so

    E-cigarettes: no indoor smoking ban planned in England despite WHO call

    The big cigarette company’s must be lobbying against e cigarettes as the uptake of this alternative to there products is surly having an effect on profit margins.
    It would be interesting to know what the harmful effects really are as this seams to be missing from all commentators on the subject.
    I would appreciate any comments on the harm they may cause to the users and the passive harm they are said to omit.

    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1029467/pg1

  8. harleyrider1978 says:

    Saw something interesting about mental health treatment centers from their annual meeting on smoking.

    Looks like Mass failure to me and they are admitting it:

    Saying, ‘As of tomorrow, no one can smoke’—that’s not treatment. That’s punitive.”

    Don’t let fear torpedo the effort to go smoke-free

    http://www.behavioral.net/article/dont-let-fear-torpedo-effort-go-smoke-free

    Tobacco’s once-ubiquitous presence in addiction treatment settings has been challenged considerably in recent years, as evidence has mounted that smoking hampers recovery from other addictions. Four panelists on the final day of the National Conference on Addiction Disorders (NCAD) offered much reason to believe that treatment programs can rise above staff and patient fears about going smoke-free.

    In perhaps the most surprising moment of the Aug. 26 panel session in St. Louis, fewer than half of the attendees in the conference’s main ballroom raised their hands when asked if they worked in a treatment facility that still allowed on-site smoking.

    Two of the four panelists have had recent firsthand experience in transitioning their residential treatment programs to a smoke-free environment. Brian Coon, director of clinical program services at Pavillon in North Carolina, said his facility endured some early failures before successfully implementing a smoke-free policy that takes a recovery-focused rather than punitive approach. Pavillon’s use of nicotine replacement therapies extends to offering them to center employees as a staff benefit.

    Laura F. Martin, MD, attending psychiatrist at the Center for Dependency, Addiction and Rehabilitation (CeDAR) in Colorado, said that before her center went tobacco-free, around half of its patients entered treatment as smokers and around one-third of those actually increased their tobacco use while they were in treatment.

    “The number one thing any individual can do to promote his health is to quit smoking,” said Martin. “It is the number one preventable cause of death. We also know that patients can quit, and they want to quit.”

    Regulatory action

    The other panelists for the third of three panel events held at NCAD were John Coppola, executive director of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Providers of New York State, and Phil McCabe, health educator at Rutgers University and president of NALGAP, The Association of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Addiction Professionals and Their Allies. Coppola outlined how New York state implemented regulatory action to create mandated smoke-free environments affecting the more than 100,000 individuals in treatment in the state on any given day.

    Coppola emphasized that programs received much education prior to implementation, as well as some flexibility in how to roll out the policy. The effort showed that there are many facets to going smoke-free: For example, programs had to bar their smoking employees from using tobacco while at lunch off-site, because they would return to work with the odor of tobacco.

    McCabe offered a slide presentation depicting tobacco companies’ insidious pursuit of consumers, with the latest frontier being electronic cigarettes that early research is indicating do not benefit smoking cessation. He added that when New Jersey piloted a “Drug-Free Is Tobacco-Free” initiative, staff members of treatment centers usually posed a bigger obstacle than patients.

    “It was usually the ones who had a pack of cigarettes in their pocket who said it couldn’t be done,” said McCabe, once a two-pack-a-day smoker himself.

    Coppola said New York providers, particularly those that operate detox settings where patients arrive under considerable discomfort, did experience an initial downturn in admissions after tobacco-free regulations were implemented. But this decline proved to be short-lived in New York, he said, and panelists agreed that this is usually the pattern.

    Martin said that when CeDAR implemented its policy, it did so in almost a celebratory fashion, lighting a fire into which people could toss their “goodbye notes” to cigarettes. It also did so on Valentine’s Day, she said, to commemorate doing something good for one’s health and loving oneself.

    She and Coon agreed that organizational fear often poses the greatest challenge to becoming a tobacco-free environment. Martin said staff members can be reassured that the same coping skills that patients can be taught to assist resistance to other behaviors can apply to smoking. Coon added that leadership can push the idea that a change to a smoke-free environment at least needs to be tried—it can always be adjusted if problems arise.

    Careful implementation always produces the best results, said McCabe. “Saying, ‘As of tomorrow, no one can smoke’—that’s not treatment. That’s punitive.”

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    staff members of treatment centers usually posed a bigger obstacle than patients

    Coon added that leadership can push the idea that a change to a smoke-free environment at least needs to be tried

    Id say these blaggards are ready to give up……………….

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      You work in insane asylum with varying degrees of mental instability. Whats the first thing you can do to calm somebody and gain their trust. Have a lousy smoke with them and offer them a cup of coffee……………..I had to do 2 weeks rubber room duty during xmas 1983 at NRMC Jax Hospital and the above is what the lead shrink told me to do with any new patients came in if they weren’t violent. If violent leave them in the str8 jacket until a sedative could applied. Still we had some that howled at the moon all nite,even had one that made his own moon out of a pillow and would sit like a dog and growl and then howl at it! Poor guy.

  10. harleyrider1978 says:

    Health, Mental Health, Marijuana 

    How does smoking affect your social health?

    Smoking bans destroy friendships,families and societal meeting places. The destruction caused by PROHIBITIONISTS is worldwide. From bankrupt businesses to black market tobacco operations the world over. Nobody is a social outcast not even smokers. The outcasts are those who try and force change down anyones throat who doesn’t want it thru criminal laws for doing something that isn’t criminal to begin with. Anti-smoking attitudes and laws have caused deaths of smokers in all age groups from freezing to death in outdoor environments to outright murder having to leave the security of an indoor facility.

    Smoking Bans and Punitive High taxation are the same as ALCOHOL PROHIBITION. These demented tobacco control advocates/Prohibitionists don’t care one bit the destruction their politics is causing on the world in general and its destruction of the economic culture of all places.

    Social isolation is what smoking bans do. Loneliness is the true killer here not smoking!

    http://www.answers.com/Q/How_does_smoking_affect_your_social_health

  11. harleyrider1978 says:

    BREAKING: Douglas Carswell MP defects from the “cliquey” Conservative Party… Joins ‪#‎UKIP‬!!

    Tory MP Douglas Carswell Defects To UKIP

    Tory MP Douglas Carswell has defected to UKIP in a sensational press conference in Westminster that is still taking place. He is currently Member of Parliament for Clacton, having been first elected as MP for Harwich in 2005.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/28/Douglas-Carswell-MP-Defects-To-UKIP

  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    ZEROCARE wants another BAILOUT!

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386456/sink-obamacare-bailout-deroy-murdock

    ZEROCARE SLUSH FUND IS USED TO BUY AND LOBBY FOR SMOKING BANS thru these Healthcare exchanges/front groups for the Nazis.

    OBAMACARE SLUSH FUND USED TO BUY SMOKING BANS AND LOBBYING NOW THEY WANT A BAILOUT……..

    Gautier Alters Anti-Smoking Ban

    Gautier’s new smoke free ordinance has now gone up in flames. At Tuesday night’s city council meeting, officials voted to alter the ordinance to allow smoking in restaurants and bars.

    Some business owners say the ordinance, adopted just last month, forces them to lose business from their smoking customers. Director of the Jackson County Mississippi Tobacco Free Coalition, Kelly Lamb, says getting rid of the ordinance will cost the city thousands of dollars in grants. The city will no longer qualify for cash awards from BlueCross BlueShield.

    Lamb says, “It’s a $50,000 grant that can go straight into the city, that can be used for walking trails, for schools, and then after you have been awarded that, it opens the door for you to be eligible for many other BlueCross BlueShield funding.” Officials voted five to two to change the ordinance.

    http://www.wxxv25.com/news/local/story/Gautier-Alters-Anti-Smoking-Ban/Cb_7IdEZlE-_RpI6tmjuVA.cspx

    When 50 grand is told to take a hike and freedom restored, the Nazis must be shaking in their JACKBOOTS!

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The money came str8 from the ObamaCare slush fund that was said to have been done away with by congress it was only cut from 15 billion over 10 years to 9.75 billion over ten years. BCBS is getting the lions share of that money to use as leverage to get communities in states with no bans to pass bans…………

      September 17, 2012

      Affordable Care Act Funding: An Analysis of Grant Programs under Health Care Reform

      http://www.chrt.org/publications/price-of-care/affordable-care-act-funding-an-analysis-of-grant-programs-under-health-care-reform/

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        If we destroy ZEROCARE in the states we destroy an Titan Enemy of ours right here in America along with its funding source. Lets hope Washintons politicians greed will get out the carving knife and cut the Pig up and eat it for Dinner.

      • carol2000 says:

        That link doesn’t say a damn thing about smoking or tobacco.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          It falls in under other grant terminology

          Community-based prevention programs were also awarded funding ($436 million) for a variety of programs, including nearly $108 million in Community Transformation Grants.

          Then

          Lamb says, “It’s a $50,000 grant that can go straight into the city, that can be used for walking trails, for schools, and then after you have been awarded that, it opens the door for you to be eligible for many other BlueCross BlueShield funding.” Officials voted five to two to change the ordinance.

          Its the same thing they did with the stimulus moneys but directly named it there in CPPW grants or direct anti-smoking grants. Of which they got busted over……….

          Sonow they do it via 3rd party manipulations. The health dept or another anti non-profit makes the pitch for a ban and then says if you do you qualify for the this other grant for whatever…………..that’s how they got the IG off their asses after being busted directly breaking lobbying laws on Federal grants.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          But it is still direct Lobbying………………..they just got sneakier about it.

      • carol2000 says:

        Here’s the page for the CDC’s National Prevention Council annual status reports, along with those of the other government agencies. The National Prevention Council 2014 Annual Status Report has 78 hits for “tobacco.” They boast of how many campus smoking bans they’ve coerced, etc.
        http://www.cdc.gov/policy/nps/asr/index.html
        (old) Community Transformation Grant (CTG) Program funding, 2011 and 201212
        http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dch/programs/communitytransformation/funds/

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Colleges being forced to go smokefree by Obama Administration

          The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced an initiative to ban smoking from college campuses last month. This is part of the HHS goal to create a society free of tobacco-related disease and death, according to their action plan released by the HHS in 2010.

          Colleges who fail to enact campus-wide smoking bans and other tobacco-free policies may soon face the loss of grants and contracts from the HHS, according to the plan. Western receives grants through a subdivision of the HHS called the National Institutes of Health, Acting Vice Provost for Research Kathleen Kitto said.

          http://www.westernfrontonline.net/news/article_f8068f12-0efe-11e2-8b41-001a4bcf6878.html?success=1

          Obama administration to push for eliminating smoking on college campuses

          Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/11/obama … z29zJ2V2TV

          President Barack Obama has already promised not to smoke cigarettes in the White House. If his administration has its way, American college students will soon be required to follow suit while they’re on campus.

          Howard Koh, assistant secretary for health at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, will announce a national initiative Wednesday at the University of Michigan School of Public Health to stamp out tobacco use on college campuses.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Precisely it:

          Colleges who fail to enact campus-wide smoking bans and other tobacco-free policies may soon face the loss of grants and contracts from the HHS, according to the plan. Western receives grants through a subdivision of the HHS called the National Institutes of Health, Acting Vice Provost for Research Kathleen Kitto said.

      • carol2000 says:

        CDC 2014 FY2014 budget request – p10 “Tobacco (+$13.837 million)
        The FY 2014 budget request includes an increase of $12.000 million in PPHF funding and an increase of $1.837 million in budget authority for tobacco use prevention and control. CDC will use this increase to expand the first-ever paid national campaign against smoking, “Tips from Former Smokers.” Last year the campaign prompted more than 200,000 additional calls to the 800-QUIT-Now quitline and more than 500,000 visits to a cessation support website when the campaign was aired. As a result, thousands of lives and millions of health care dollars will be saved. Because medical care of smokers costs, on average, $2,000 more than non-smokers and about $1,000 more than ex-smokers, the campaign will more than pay for itself. The request also supports expanded state quitline operations, a crucial adjunct to the media campaign. Quitlines increase quit rates by 50% and reach tobacco users in populations that historically have had the most limited access to and use of evidence-based tobacco cessation treatments. As a result, in 2012 alone, nearly 900,000 calls were handled by state quitlines, which can be projected to result in more than 100,000 successful quits, saving lives and healthcare costs.”

        p135 – “CDC’s FY 2014 request of $1,036,093,000 for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, including $415,904,000 from the Affordable Care Act Prevention and Public Health Fund is an overall decrease of $175,273,000 below the FY 2012 level. The FY 2014 request includes an increase of $13,837,000 for Tobacco Prevention and Control. The FY 2014 request also includes Affordable Care Act Prevention and Public Health Fund investments of $136,340,000 for Community Transformation Grants, $5,000,000 for the Million Hearts™ program, $4,000,000 for Let’s Move/Healthy Weight Task Force Activities, and $2,500,000 for Hospitals Promoting Breastfeeding activities.”

        p139 “Budget Proposal: CDC’s FY 2014 request for Tobacco Prevention and Control of $212,360,000 including $95,000,000 from the Affordable Care Act Prevention and Public Health Fund, is an increase of $13,837,000 above the FY 2012 level. At this funding level, CDC will continue the activities described above and invest in expanding educational efforts. CDC will use the increase to expand the national mass-media campaign to raise awareness of the health effects of tobacco use and prompt smokers to quit, as well as increase tobacco cessation quitline capacity to respond to those smokers who wish to quit. This campaign will build on the education campaign implemented in FY 2012 and FY 2013—a cost-effective way to prompt smokers to quit. With the increase in resources, CDC estimates that the campaign will prompt an additional 750,000 quit attempts, resulting in 50,000 to 64,000 quitters.
        This request also continues support for all states with tobacco control scientific and programmatic expertise. Through the National Tobacco Control Program funding cycle that began in 2009, CDC supports comprehensive programs through a five-year cooperative agreement with all 50 states, Washington, D.C., eight U.S. territories/jurisdictions, and eight tribal-serving organizations. In addition, CDC funds six national networks to reduce tobacco use among specific populations, including African Americans, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders, Hispanics/Latinos, lesbians and gays, and persons of low socioeconomic status.
        CDC will also continue to conduct and disseminate state-of-the-art tobacco prevention research, including research through CDC’s Tobacco Laboratory, which conducts critical research on toxic and addictive substances in tobacco products, tobacco smoke, and in people who use tobacco or who are exposed to secondhand smoke.
        CDC will support smoking cessation services through tobacco prevention programs in 50 states, two territories, and Washington, D.C., to maintain and augment the national network of tobacco cessation quitlines to support the increase in quit attempts due to the education campaign. Stakeholders will use National Quitline Data Warehouse data to evaluate state quitline progress. CDC will also use resources on priority areas: sustaining critical state tobacco prevention and control programs and tobacco control surveillance, as well as addressing emerging public health concerns about non-combustible and other nontraditional tobacco products.”

        p144 – “CDC currently funds 22 states and one tribe to implement quality school health programs in school districts and provide training in evidence-based interventions. These grantees work to:
        Prevent tobacco use among students.
        Budget Proposal: CDC’s FY 2014 request of $14,703,000 for School Health is an increase of $22,000 above the FY 2012 level. CDC’s School Health program specializes in this unique setting and is working with grantees over the next five years to increase quality physical activity in schools, increase the availability of nutritious foods in schools, reduce tobacco use and initiation, and increase the coordination and management of multiple chronic conditions in schools.”

        p 150 – “PRCs build sustained partnerships with public health departments and communities to ensure their research has direct application in real-world settings. For example, Not on Tobacco, a teen smoking cessation program, was developed and tested in schools by a PRC and multiple partners, including schools, the American Lung Association, and the state health department. To date, more than 150,000 teens have participated in 48 states and research shows that one in six participants quits smoking.
        Budget Proposal: CDC’s FY 2014 request of $25,041,000 for Prevention Research Centers is $3,871,000 below the FY 2012 level. In FY 2014, CDC will fund new cooperative agreement awards through a competitive peer-reviewed process. For every $1 invested in PRCs in FY 2010, the PRCs generated an average of $5.38 in additional research funds from non-federal sources. CDC anticipates funding fewer centers at higher award levels with the intent to more quickly leverage research findings to build a portfolio of promising community prevention interventions for wide dissemination.”

        Click to access FY2014_CJ_CDC_FINAL.pdf

        p152 – “CDC also co-leads the Million Hearts™ initiative with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Million Hearts™ is a national public-private initiative launched by HHS to prevent one million heart attacks and strokes by 2017. Million Hearts™ represents the first system-wide—governmental and non-governmental—commitment to drastically improve cardiovascular disease prevention. CDC provides leadership and communications support for the initiative, which includes a number of complementing public and private activities under its umbrella. Key Million Hearts™ strategies include:
        Empowering Americans to make heart-healthy choices to reduce the need for future treatment by reducing tobacco use, increasing access to smoke-free air, and reducing intake of sodium and trans-fats.”

        p159 – the National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program (NCCCP). “The NCCCP provides the evidence base to develop and implement approaches aimed at primary prevention (e.g., reducing exposure to tobacco)” Somewhere within CDC’s FY 2014 request of $329,660,000 for Cancer Prevention and Control, including $173,064,000 from the Affordable Care Act Prevention and Public Health Fund.

        p164 – more anti-tobacco within CDC’s FY 2014 request of $15,921,000 for Oral Health

        p170 – more anti-tobacco within the Community Transformation Grants (CTG) program “The University of Texas-Austin, for example, has provided protection from exposure to second hand smoke and other tobacco-related products for over 51,000 students, 24,000 faculty and staff, and annual visitors.” “The Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, a Dissemination National Network, is increasing effective dissemination of tobacco-free living strategies through training and guidance to multi-sector coalitions and national partners, which include law enforcement officials, medical professionals, local business owners, and school administrators.”

        p173 ACA funding – “The FY 2013 Prevention Fund resources are reflected in the Office of the Secretary.
        The following activities are included:
         Tobacco Campaign and Quitlines – $95,000,000 (included in the Tobacco Prevention and Control narrative)
         Community Transformation Grants – $136,340,000 (included in the Community Transformation Grants narrative)
         Million Hearts™ – $5,000,000”

        p175 – “Program: Tobacco Prevention and Control
        Performance Measures for Long Term Objective: Reduce death and disability among adults due to tobacco use.”
        [NOTE THAT THERE’S NOTHING THERE ABOUT “DEATH AND DISABILITY,” ONLY ABOUT ERADICATING SMOKING]

        p186 – more Community Transformation Grants anti-tobacco crap

        p193 – DISCRETIONARY anti-tobacco grants, by state

        p348 – FY 2014 CJ Working Capital Fund (WCF) Detail Table

        p394 – “Environmental Health Laboratory: CDC will continue to conduct and disseminate state-of-the-art tobacco prevention research, including research through CDC’s Tobacco Laboratory. CDC will allocate approximately $3.5 million from the appropriation for tobacco to the Environmental Health Laboratory in FY 2013, of the same amount as FY 2012. This will enable the laboratory to continue to conduct critical research on toxic and addictive substances present in tobacco products, tobacco smoke, and in people who use tobacco products or who are exposed to secondhand smoke. The transfer will also allow the lab to continue to support and provide technical assistance to the Food and Drug Administration as it implements components of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act that require testing of tobacco products and constituents.”

        Click to access FY2014_CJ_CDC_FINAL.pdf

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Ya it also set up about 12 new anti-tobacco so called research facilities and funded them……….The whole things a sham. But I know and everybody else knows this anti-smoking charade is going to end one day and when it does its going to leave Billions of dollars ear marked and already approved not spent…………Who you thinks already thought that bad boy out to get their hands on it in the end……………..that’s what I look at the ulterior motives.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Also we have the so called CDC FOUNDATION who even has a cdc website address yet is suppose to be separate from the group. But isn’t. You know anymore about them and getting obamacare funds or other fundings.

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    Drafting A Smoking In Cars Consultation Response

    Posted on 28 August, 2014 by Without Prejudice | Leave a comment

    by Dick Puddlecote
    http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DickPuddlecote/~3/Sdm1zHLVzwU/drafting-smoking-in-cars-consultation.html

    Drafting A Smoking In Cars Consultation Response Last month I suggested we might have a bash at the consultation on smoking in cars which ends at midnight on Wednesday. Two fellow jewel robbers have already done just that and shared their responses, but if you fancied giving the DoH a piece of your mind as well, full details and the online submission form are at this link.

    Much like our contributions to the plain packaging consultation (twice) and the one on minimum alcohol pricing, you may find it helpful to see the questions before you begin. So here they are.

    1. The regulations make it an offence to smoke in an enclosed private vehicle when there is more than one person present and a person under the age of 18 is present. This offence would fall on the person smoking regardless of their age. Do you have any comments on this approach?

    The obvious comment is that this is just the latest proof that government funded ‘charities’ and other professional bansturbators are afforded far too much respect. Last I heard there was supposed to be a distaste from this coalition about “government lobbying government” but that is exactly what this is. No-one, but no-one, apart from state-financed organisations and fellow rent-seekers demanded this ban.

    What’s more, they have done so with some of the most disgraceful junk science the tobacco control industry has ever produced, which is quite an achievement. Only the hilarious nonsense surrounding thirdhand smoke (ha!) comes even close. We’ve seen smoky cars compared with smokefree bars; deliberate misrepresentation of 24 hour ‘hazardous’ levels as being applicable for a few minutes exposure; and, of course, blatantly fabricated lies, regurgitated by serial liars which are so appalling they’re required the unusual step of quiet retraction. For that alone they should be ignored, but especially when they are trying to implement behaviour controls on privately owned property.

    You could also point out that open-topped vehicles would be exempt, but not a car with every window open and a gale blowing through it at 70mph. Apparently, that thin piece of aluminium over the top has magical properties which demand tiny smoke particles disobey the laws of physics. A more silly law it is difficult to imagine.

    There are other anomalies which big government will make a balls-up of too. Will a 17 year old smoker be fined for lighting up in their own car with their 18 year old smoking mates? Well, of course they will. Will police be tasked with stopping all cars containing smoking teens to see if one of them is underage so they can fine the driver? Of course they will. Will police be bound to stop cars with tinted windows just to check there are no asphyxiated kids in the back? Who knows? I’ll bet the police are going to be over the moon at the confusion which will reign once dozy MPs have engaged their tiny brains and passed this into law.

    By Christ, even Nick Clegg can see it’s a pitifully pointless idea which hasn’t got a chance of working! Why has so much time and taxpayer cash been wasted on it already in straitened times?

    Which leads us neatly onto …

    2. Do you have any comments regarding the proposal for the new offences to apply to caravans and motor caravans when they are being used as vehicles but not when they are being used as homes?

    Doesn’t that just make the entire thing a piece of sublime comedy?

    Think about that. It’s not dangerous to smoke in a caravan when it is stationary – or the government believe it is none of their business to intervene – but it is extremely dangerous when moving, or the government believe that private property ceases to be so when the wheels are moving. Of course, the same doesn’t apply to a car, because the proposals state that even if the car is stationary on a grass verge or in a car park the smoke is still lethal … err, unlike in a caravan. Got that? The mind boggles (or is it not really about health, whaddya reckon?).

    Their wriggling over caravans is, of course, politicians still trying to pretend that they’re not imposing on your liberties and that they wouldn’t even contemplate banning you from smoking in your own home. Except when they debate in Westminster about doing exactly that.

    3. Do you have any comments about the intentions regarding the enforcement of the proposed regulations?

    I don’t know what the “intentions” are regarding enforcement except to pander to state-funded finger-waggers and advance their illiberal denormalisation campaigns, but if there was any other intention it could well have been to introduce the precedent of the police enforcing public health industry demands for the first time in our history, as I have mentioned here before.

    The police, quite simply, should not be burdened by the increased workload of overseeing the career advancement of professional prohibitionist cranks.

    It is also scandalous that local council workers are sniffing an opportunity for a new empire to build, presumably attracted by the possibility of more taxpayer funds with which to insert themselves into our lives. So much for public sector austerity and the end of “big bossy state interference”, eh?

    4. Do you want to draw to our attention to any issues on the practicalities of implementing the regulations as drafted?

    What, apart from their being unworkable; unenforceable; laughable; and a slippery slope to banning smoking in all cars, as has been the intention all along? That even the impact assessment admits that it will lead to smokers stopping more often (cars pulling up on the hard shoulder of the M6 on bank holiday weekends, anyone?) and that there is an obvious danger of drivers shifting attention from the road to smoking covertly? I’m wondering if MPs have ever even heard the term “unintended consequences”. And for what? A zero improvement in the health of kids but a distinct possibility of handing even more power to anti-social smoke-haters and endorsing righteous road rage. Not to mention the fact that e-cigs will be included fairly soon afterwards – if not in the original drafting – to eradicate ‘confusion’ and aid enforcement.

    The bully state at its most perverse.

    5. Do you have any additional evidence that banning smoking in private vehicles when children are present would contribute to reducing health inequalities and/or help us fulfil our duties under the Equality Act 2010?

    The usual ‘equality’ question. Dear God! I remember when laws were assessed for efficacy, value for money, impact on freedom and whether it was really worth it. Now, a Tory-led government is wondering if a pointless law will unfairly affect one protected group over another.

    And how banning smoking in private vehicles will reduce health inequalities is anyone’s guess, even the impact assessment glosses over it with a sentence that basically says they haven’t much of a clue. But then, ‘health inequalities’ is only a term used by prohibitionists to mask the fact their policy suggestions are almost exclusively regressive and designed to punish working class people. Sounds better than “attacking the choices of the less well off” doesn’t it?

    6. Do you have any evidence that would inform the consultation-stage impact assessment including any evidence or information which would improve any of the assumptions or estimates we have made in the consultation-stage impact assessment?

    The impact assessment is an incredible document which starts with all the aforementioned tobacco control junk science on this issue and simply runs it all through a Casio calculator from Poundland, I recommend you brew a cuppa and read it in its entirety. My personal favourite was the assertion that only 31% of under 18s are able to ask their parents to stop smoking – I wasn’t aware that youth incompetence in the UK was so widespread!

    I can offer no more advice than to pick out whatever makes you laugh/cry/scream and put that in writing in your response.

    If you feel like making a submission, you can do so at the smokefreevehicles by midnight Wednesday (which reminds me, I think carriages are covered but not pumpkins).Sdm1zHLVzwU

    http://libertarianalliance.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/drafting-a-smoking-in-cars-consultation-response/

  14. ecigforlife72 says:

    Any orders requesting nicotine will be shipped without nicotine and treated as a valid order. This is absolute. ecigarette

  15. Pingback: Jumble Spoiler – 09/10/14 | Unclerave's Wordy Weblog

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.