Are we losing the war?

[kev mac]

It just continues to get crazier, tonight's local news included a report on the rising count of lung afflictions and deaths "caused by vapeing".While totally ignoring the fact that the majority if not all are related to THC cartridges many of the bootleg variety.Can we say irresponsible journalism?And meanwhile our clown of a Govenoress rubs her hands in anticipation of enacting a ban to save the people from the "vapeing malady",but hey it's easier than attacking the real problems like our poor education system or crumbling infrastructure, plus it makes for great headlines. To say that we in the States have a "fake news" problem is an understatement.To illustrate the scope of this, last night I tried to order one of my favorite liquids from a site that I've been using for 3 or so yrs.and for some reason the sale wouldn't go through.Thinking perhaps my card was the problem I delved into it only to find out that the card was fine,so I sent a message to them.This morning I received an email from them apologizing and stating that because of the vapeing scare their business was off by 50% in the last month or so and coupled with a pending flavor ban they are forced to close the doors.What a shame,a small business a cornerstone of the economy unnecessarily forced to give in to the hysterical retoric pushed by the media.How many times will this scenario be repeated?It's bad over here for vapers and the industry.And I fear it will get worse still.

 

[kev mac]

Very informative @Grand Guru . Kind of brings to mind the fairytale of the Emperors new clothes, a lot of money for nothing, and scare tactics to keep the masses in mind. Now just to find the right “kid” to scream he’s wearing no clothes and show the truth.

The US is a very strange place, you can sue someone for slipping on coldrink you just threw in your boyfriends face, and actually win. Wonder what would happen if a vaper sues them for depravation of his flavoured e-liquid based on his interaction with natures finest and the mental anguish it is causing, may get some tree huggers on board as well to testify regarding the awful pain the trees have to go through to make the cigarette paper as well.

Not sure how to get the cotton growers into the mix yet, but my “warped” vaping mind will be working on that as well.

Don't tell me the U.S.of A. is strange.It's plain batf**k nuts and everyday another example of P.C. gone mad comes to light.Today I heard that the SJWs have yet scored another victory by further saving the world and officially having the A-OK hand gesture listed as a "racist gesture". Wouldn't want Scuba Divers offending a Flounder would we. Is there no end to the madness?

 

[Hooked]

It just continues to get crazier, tonight's local news included a report on the rising count of lung afflictions and deaths "caused by vapeing".While totally ignoring the fact that the majority if not all are related to THC cartridges many of the bootleg variety.Can we say irresponsible journalism?And meanwhile our clown of a Govenoress rubs her hands in anticipation of enacting a ban to save the people from the "vapeing malady",but hey it's easier than attacking the real problems like our poor education system or crumbling infrastructure, plus it makes for great headlines. To say that we in the States have a "fake news" problem is an understatement.To illustrate the scope of this, last night I tried to order one of my favorite liquids from a site that I've been using for 3 or so yrs.and for some reason the sale wouldn't go through.Thinking perhaps my card was the problem I delved into it only to find out that the card was fine,so I sent a message to them.This morning I received an email from them apologizing and stating that because of the vapeing scare their business was off by 50% in the last month or so and coupled with a pending flavor ban they are forced to close the doors.What a shame,a small business a cornerstone of the economy unnecessarily forced to give in to the hysterical retoric pushed by the media.How many times will this scenario be repeated?It's bad over here for vapers and the industry.And I fear it will get worse still.

That is sooo sad; I truly feel for them. I've seen pics & videos of shops with empty shelves now, as well as a distributing warehouse with empty shelves.

 

[kev mac]

Any U.K. vapers in the house?l just watched a segment from a recording of a session of the Michigan State Senate taking testimony on the vapeing ban proposed by the House.Some very interesting testimony by some very astute vapers.Unfortuneatly the House was dealing with a marked deck (pardon the pun) in part by hearing rebuttal testimony from some Quack named Dr.Rizzo who obviously had an agenda.When one pro vapeing advocate (a very intelligent speaking nurse ex smoker) cited the U.K.s College of Physicians study that clearly found on the pro vapeing side,he rebutted by stating that the study was flawed and not true.His reasoning was that the study took place only for 2 days and was largely by vapeing industry insiders.(to be fair I'm accurately paraphrasing) Can any of our esteemed U.K. members elucidate on this? I'd love to hear an opinion from someone that actually lives there .Things continue to get worse here in the States but I'm encouraged by the well spoken intelligent proponents of vaping that are fighting for our rights and our health.Even if the biased media tries hard to hide them from the public.

 

[Hooked]

Any U.K. vapers in the house?l just watched a segment from a recording of a session of the Michigan State Senate taking testimony on the vapeing ban proposed by the House.Some very interesting testimony by some very astute vapers.Unfortuneatly the House was dealing with a marked deck (pardon the pun) in part by hearing rebuttal testimony from some Quack named Dr.Rizzo who obviously had an agenda.When one pro vapeing advocate (a very intelligent speaking nurse ex smoker) cited the U.K.s College of Physicians study that clearly found on the pro vapeing side,he rebutted by stating that the study was flawed and not true.His reasoning was that the study took place only for 2 days and was largely by vapeing industry insiders.(to be fair I'm accurately paraphrasing) Can any of our esteemed U.K. members elucidate on this? I'd love to hear an opinion from someone that actually lives there .Things continue to get worse here in the States but I'm encouraged by the well spoken intelligent proponents of vaping that are fighting for our rights and our health.Even if the biased media tries hard to hide them from the public.

@kev mac Just for the record I'm from SA. But what I'd like to say is that I agree with Dr Risso in that a study funded or conducted by the vape industry is potentially flawed, because they have a vested interest. Likewise any study by the tobacco industry.

I don't know how this problem could be resolved, because who else is going to fund the research?

 

[RichJB]

The allegations are, unfortunately, partly true. The RCP panel wasn't "mostly industry insiders" but it was revealed that at least one of the panel was on the payroll of a vaping company at the time. It doesn't mean that his input was tainted or that his views are wrong but it's not a good look. So it was a valid concern by the medical fraternity.

The question around the "95% safer" conclusion requires unpacking. The RCP is not a research body, it is an association. There is a belief that the RCP conducted exhaustive research over many years and the "95% safer" conclusion is based on the empirical results of that research. It isn't. They got a bunch of RCP members together, who were familiar with various research papers in vaping, and asked them to assess vaping's risks based on what they'd read in the literature.

The resulting "95% safer" was an estimation, not a research result. In science, estimations are not proof. So vaping cannot say "the RCP has proven that vaping is 95% safer". They can only say "the RCP has made an educated guess that vaping is 95% safer".

Nonetheless, vaping can make certain statements. What irks me about the FDA's "we can't say vaping is safer, we'll only know in fifty years" stance is that it replaces science with religion and tries to position us as helplessly ignorant. When cavemen came upon a new foodstuff, they lacked the science to estimate in advance whether it was edible or poisonous. So the only way was to eat it and then wait and see if they got sick or not. Fortunately we have evolved since then. We now have machinery that can break any foodstuff down into its component parts. Once we know what those component parts are, we have a very good idea whether the foodstuff is edible or poisonous. We no longer have to wait and see.

So no, we don't have to wait fifty years to see if vaping makes us sick before we make any statement about it. Vapour is not some mysterious inexplicable substance and the Devil might be lurking inside. We know what vapour is. We have the machinery to break it down into its constituent parts and analyse it. We have the knowledge of how our bodies react to those constituent chemicals.

If we run tests on benzene in smoke and vapour, and there is 100x as much benzene in smoke, we have scientific proof. We know benzene is harmful for us so we can say with absolute scientific certainty that, in terms of the health risk posed by benzene, vaping is less harmful than smoking. We know this, we don't have to wait fifty years to find out if benzene is in vapour.

Of course, vaping being safer in terms of benzene (or any other chemical) isn't proof that vaping is safe or even safer overall. There exists the possibility, slight as it may be, that there is some serious risk in vaping which we have not yet discovered and therefore cannot test for or factor in. And yes, in that sense, we do need to wait fifty years to get the final, definitive answer.

But humanity doesn't wait for final, definitive answers. We don't have final, definitive answers on global warming. We will need to wait fifty or a hundred years to know with absolute certainty how warming will manifest, whether it will be the same as, worse than, or not as bad as we think it will be. But having to wait for the definitive answer doesn't mean that we can't make any statements about warming yet, and we have to wait and see whether it will be bad or not. That would just be stupid. We take the best information that science can give us, we construct models based on it, and we act according to the projections of those models. That is what the UN climate change panel does.

That is also what the RCP did. They took the known risks of smoking and the best scientific information we have available at present, they constructed a model based on that, and they advised action based on the projection of that model. That the RCP doesn't have definitive answers yet, and cannot eliminate or account for the potential unknown risks of vaping, does not invalidate their work.

No, we don't have definitive answers on vaping yet. But we don't have definitive answers on climate change yet. Does the FDA believe that we shouldn't be making ANY claims about climate change or taking ANY action because "we don't know yet, we have to wait and see". That would just be insane.

 

[Silver]

Thanks @RichJB
That was an excellent read

 

[kev mac]

The allegations are, unfortunately, partly true. The RCP panel wasn't "mostly industry insiders" but it was revealed that at least one of the panel was on the payroll of a vaping company at the time. It doesn't mean that his input was tainted or that his views are wrong but it's not a good look. So it was a valid concern by the medical fraternity.

The question around the "95% safer" conclusion requires unpacking. The RCP is not a research body, it is an association. There is a belief that the RCP conducted exhaustive research over many years and the "95% safer" conclusion is based on the empirical results of that research. It isn't. They got a bunch of RCP members together, who were familiar with various research papers in vaping, and asked them to assess vaping's risks based on what they'd read in the literature.

The resulting "95% safer" was an estimation, not a research result. In science, estimations are not proof. So vaping cannot say "the RCP has proven that vaping is 95% safer". They can only say "the RCP has made an educated guess that vaping is 95% safer".

Nonetheless, vaping can make certain statements. What irks me about the FDA's "we can't say vaping is safer, we'll only know in fifty years" stance is that it replaces science with religion and tries to position us as helplessly ignorant. When cavemen came upon a new foodstuff, they lacked the science to estimate in advance whether it was edible or poisonous. So the only way was to eat it and then wait and see if they got sick or not. Fortunately we have evolved since then. We now have machinery that can break any foodstuff down into its component parts. Once we know what those component parts are, we have a very good idea whether the foodstuff is edible or poisonous. We no longer have to wait and see.

So no, we don't have to wait fifty years to see if vaping makes us sick before we make any statement about it. Vapour is not some mysterious inexplicable substance and the Devil might be lurking inside. We know what vapour is. We have the machinery to break it down into its constituent parts and analyse it. We have the knowledge of how our bodies react to those constituent chemicals.

If we run tests on benzene in smoke and vapour, and there is 100x as much benzene in smoke, we have scientific proof. We know benzene is harmful for us so we can say with absolute scientific certainty that, in terms of the health risk posed by benzene, vaping is less harmful than smoking. We know this, we don't have to wait fifty years to find out if benzene is in vapour.

Of course, vaping being safer in terms of benzene (or any other chemical) isn't proof that vaping is safe or even safer overall. There exists the possibility, slight as it may be, that there is some serious risk in vaping which we have not yet discovered and therefore cannot test for or factor in. And yes, in that sense, we do need to wait fifty years to get the final, definitive answer.

But humanity doesn't wait for final, definitive answers. We don't have final, definitive answers on global warming. We will need to wait fifty or a hundred years to know with absolute certainty how warming will manifest, whether it will be the same as, worse than, or not as bad as we think it will be. But having to wait for the definitive answer doesn't mean that we can't make any statements about warming yet, and we have to wait and see whether it will be bad or not. That would just be stupid. We take the best information that science can give us, we construct models based on it, and we act according to the projections of those models. That is what the UN climate change panel does.

That is also what the RCP did. They took the known risks of smoking and the best scientific information we have available at present, they constructed a model based on that, and they advised action based on the projection of that model. That the RCP doesn't have definitive answers yet, and cannot eliminate or account for the potential unknown risks of vaping, does not invalidate their work.

No, we don't have definitive answers on vaping yet. But we don't have definitive answers on climate change yet. Does the FDA believe that we shouldn't be making ANY claims about climate change or taking ANY action because "we don't know yet, we have to wait and see". That would just be insane.

Excellent synopsis.One thing we do know for certain is that cigarettes kill an unbelievable amount of people yet it's vapeing getting the bans. That seems so twisted.

 

[Adephi]

Some good news..

https://www.wxyz.com/news/judge-blocks-michigans-ban-on-flavored-e-cigarettes

"Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday. She says Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's administration's delay in implementing the ban undercut its position that emergency rules were needed."

 

[CashKat88]

So the ban actually got lifted yesterday ...small victory for us


LANSING, Mich. (AP) — A Michigan judge on Tuesday blocked the state’s weeks-old ban on flavored e-cigarettes, citing evidence that adults could return to smoking more harmful than tobacco products.

Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens also said Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s administration’s delay in implementing the prohibition undercut its position that emergency rules were justified.

The lawsuit was filed by vaping businesses that said the ban, which took effect Oct. 2, will force them to close. The judge issued a preliminary injunction to stop the state from enforcing the rules.

 

[Room Fogger]

http://broadcastmedia7.novusgroup.c...l_Africa_7582a8323c3ed22c837c7b774fe81a73.mp4

Something I just saw, maybe not perfect reporting but at least more factual than other ones

 

[Hooked]

So the ban actually got lifted yesterday ...small victory for us


LANSING, Mich. (AP) — A Michigan judge on Tuesday blocked the state’s weeks-old ban on flavored e-cigarettes, citing evidence that adults could return to smoking more harmful than tobacco products.

Court of Claims Judge Cynthia Stephens also said Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s administration’s delay in implementing the prohibition undercut its position that emergency rules were justified.

The lawsuit was filed by vaping businesses that said the ban, which took effect Oct. 2, will force them to close. The judge issued a preliminary injunction to stop the state from enforcing the rules.

@CashKat88 It's a big victory because it could set a precedent.

 

[Hooked]

https://upnorthlive.com/news/local/...uling-following-temporary-block-on-vaping-ban

"Governor Gretchen Whitmer announced she would seek a Supreme Court ruling after a judge on the Court of Claims issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from enforcing its emergency vaping rules, which banned the sale of flavored vaping nicotine products among other measures in an effort to protect public health."

Hope she loses the case! @CashKat88

 

[CashKat88]

@CashKat88 It's a big victory because it could set a precedent.

You right it is a big win for us, hope she loses that case @Hooked they don't have the right to mess with our health

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Grand Guru]

Supreme Court is predominantly conservative at the moment but let’s hope.

 

[Adephi]

Supreme Court is predominantly conservative at the moment but let’s hope.

Its not the concervatives who is banning vaping. Its the liberals.

 

[RichJB]

Correct, @Adephi. And not just in the US either. In Britain, a Conservative in the House of Lords tried to get the TPD struck down, on the basis that the UK was leaving the EU and is therefore no longer subject to EU regs. The Labour Lords didn't even let it get to a vote. They told the Conservative Lord proposing the motion that they would unanimously vote against it, so he didn't even bother to proceed.

This, too, is why the FDA has imposed such ridiculous regs on the vaping industry. That all happened under Obama. Although, that said, the hope expressed by the vaping industry that Trump would support them was rank optimism. Trump is a billionaire oligarch, the only things he admires are wealth, power and bullying. The tobacco and pharma sectors have all three in spades, vaping has none of these qualities. It was a no-brainer who Trump was going to side with.

 

[CashKat88]

Another win!

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Hooked]

Some battles are being won, if not the war. Here's a summary (mine) of wins so far:

https://www.planetofthevapes.co.uk/news/vaping-news/2019-10-22_blocking-the-bans.html
22 Oct. 2019

OREGON has been granted a temporary stay, until respondents have time to reply.
"The court recognised that businesses would be forced to close “within weeks” if the ban had been allowed to go ahead before other court cases reached a decision."

NEW YORK ban blocked

MASSACHUSETTS ban blocked
"Charlie Baker’s administration has been ordered to drop the ban or implement it using established procedures because, “Governor Charlie Baker overstepped constitutional bounds”.

The judge decreed: “Input from affected industries and members of the public is a potent safeguard against executive abuse of discretion. If the executive branch avoids... input and safeguards, it unwittingly creates an echo chamber in which government officials’ own viewpoints reinforce each other, potentially causing unnecessary harm and ill-informed decisions.”

MONTANA ban blocked
The lawsuit was brought "by three Montana vape shops and an industry group"

MICHIGAN ban blocked
A Michigan judge said, “there was likely no basis for the governor to use her emergency powers.”
"The court noted that “906 Vapor” wouldn’t be able to reopen at the end of the emergency order and that “A Clean Cigarette” had been forced to close a store – and was holding more than $2 million of unsellable products. It agreed with the claim that the industry was facing “irreparable harm” as a result of Whitmer’s [the Governor's] whim."