Vapers Digest 21st Feb
Tuesday’s News at a glance:
There Can Be No Legitimate Discussion of Our Articles Without Our Permission – Editors of Tobacco Control admit they publish indefensible junk science – Hey! Bloggers, Leave Our Junk Alone! – Vaping Regulations Should Be Based On Evidence – Vaping, E-Cigarettes, and Public Policy Toward Alternatives to Smoking – Breathe ND in danger of closing after committee votes to defund it – HR1136 – Modernizing the Predicate Date for Vapor Products – NSP Daily Digest
Michael Siegel, Tobacco Analysis
In a revelation of the religious-like character of the modern-day tobacco control movement, the journal Tobacco Control has suggested that there can be no legitimate discussion about articles it publishes without its permission; that is, on the Rapid Response forum at the journal’s own web site. All other discussion of the scientific validity of journal articles is apparently illegitimate and inappropriate.
In an unprecedented editorial (I’ve never before seen a journal argue that the only legitimate forum for discussion of its articles is in the journal itself), the journal writes
Carl V. Phillips, Anti-THR Lies
Ok, that is not exactly what they said. But it was seriously so damn close to that it is not really an exaggeration. This appears in today’s editorial by the journal’s editors, Richard O’Connor, Coral Gartner, Lisa Henriksen, Sarah Hill, Joaquin Barnoya, Joanna Cohen, and Ruth E Malone, with the bizarre title, “Blog fog? Using rapid response to advance science and promote debate”.
There has already been a fair bit written about this today, but there is oh so much more to say. The basic upshot, and what has been getting the most attention, is the declaration that all debate about the papers in Tobacco Control must take place in the pages of Tobacco Control, specifically the publisher’s (BMJ’s) “rapid response” system.
In an unintentionally amusing article yesterday, the Editor of the BMJ’s Tobacco Control Comic Journal, Ruth Malone, along with no fewer than six co-authors has expressed irritation at their policy-driven rag being criticised.
As editors of Tobacco Control we are always pleased to see readers thinking critically about what they read in this journal and using the ‘Rapid Response’ forum to engage in constructive academic debate.
However, the growing use of personal blogs to criticise published articles has led us to reflect on appropriate ways of engaging in such debate and how we as editors should respond to comments made outside the ‘Rapid Response’ forum.
Kevin Crowley, Vaping Media
The intent of the Food and Drug Administration has been to manipulate the public to believe vaping regulations protect “The children™”. They want the public to assume regulations are based on evidence and are in the best interest of public health.
If you’re not paying attention, you should be.
Dr Brad Rodu, Matthew Glans, Lindsey Stroud, The Heartland Institute
Policymakers should be mindful of the extensive research that supports tobacco harm reduction and understand that bans, excessive regulations, or high taxes on e-cigarettes could encourage smokers to stay with more-harmful traditional cigarettes.
For decades, lawmakers and regulators have used taxes, bans, and strong regulations in an attempt to reduce the negative health effects of smoking. Recently, some have sought to extend those policies to electronic cigarettes. This booklet urges policymakers to re-think that tax-and-regulate strategy.
Team member had a real dilemma, giving a talk to young LGBT & trans ppl. They wanted to use #ecigs to stop smoking. Most under 18
— Louise (@grannylouisa) February 21, 2017
Max Grossfield, KFRY TV
The voters of North Dakota helped form the Center for Tobacco Prevention and Control Policy, also known as Breathe ND, when they voted to dedicate tobacco lawsuit settlement money to preventing future use. Now, some think the group is no longer needed.
The Senate appropriations committee is sending a bill to the floor that would shutter the agency, after voting to give it $0 for the upcoming two years.
Supporters and detractors of doing away with Breath ND can agree on one thing.
The FDA Deeming Clarification Act of 2017 (HR 1136) was introduced on Thursday, February 16th. Republican Tom Cole of Oklahoma (4th district) and Democrat Sanford Bishop of Georgia (2nd district) have built on previous legislative attempts from 2015 and 2016. HR 1136 is an updated version of HR 2058 and the Cole/Bishop amendment.
Last June, CASAA’s legislative coordinator, Alex Clark, along with representatives from vapor trade associations met with Representative Cole to discuss threats to vapor products if the predicate date was not modernized. An additional point discussed was the battery standards language contained in the Cole/Bishop Amendment (an amendment that could potentially still be added in through the appropriations process for 2017).
Call to Action
Vapers in Power
There is only one council in the entire country with a decent attitude towards vaping.
Thanks to the work of Freedom to Vape we now know that the vast majority of councils lump vaping in with smoking, against the advice of both Public Health England and the Health and Safety Executive.