1) Glantz paper on the gateway effect hits JAMA – most (but not all) of the press parrots his talking points. See Dr. Siegal’s analysis below.
2) NJ Gov. Christie wants to tax vaping at the same rate as analog cigarettes.
3) Another minor ban passes the KY house (this one is simple, as opposed to SB 267 which would also tax smokeless tobacco), as does MI’s (only) simple minor ban.
4) New pro-vaping study in Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease (overshadowed by Glantz’s, it seems).
5) In case you didn’t hear, vapers are 0-3 for California recently – Long Beach fell this week was well as Los Angeles and the less-well-known Santa Maria.
Coverage: US domestic: NJ, MD, KY, MI, WI, MN, WA, CA
Also: Gary Cox on the European Free Vaping Initiative, and a pro-vaping student editorial in the UC Riverside’s campus paper.
STUDIES, BLOGS, ETC.
Title: Conclusion of New Glantz Study on Electronic Cigarettes is Junk Science
(Dr. Siegal’s Blog) http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/…-study-on.html
Link to Glantz’s JAMA paper is in the blog, for those who want to use it. Coverage – both skeptical and brain-dead – appears at the end of today’s round-up.
Title: Achieving appropriate regulations for electronic cigarettes
(Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2…?dopt=Abstract
Not a study as such, but a survey of studies. Paper addresses vaping health policy, and comes to some rather un-ANTZ-like conclusions about topics such as the role of flavors. vapers will likey enjoy reading it, although one has to wonder whether it will attract much attention in today’s climate. There are no new experiments, surveys, etc: just analysis.
Title: The European Free Vaping Initiative
(<acronym title="e-cigarette Forum”>ECF‘s InfoZone) <a href="http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/infozone/news/european-free-vaping-initiative.html” target=”_blank”>http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/inf…nitiative.html
Gary Cox on the http://www.efvi.eu/ which hopes to collect a million signatures by this fall. Eurovapers are urged to browse to the web site and read the Gary’s piece.
Title: The Moral Panic Over e-cigarettes Intensifies
(US Nat’l news web site) http://www.slate
Another no-holds-barred critical look at yesterday’s NYT article concerning "vape pens," and "e-hookahs" etc.
Title: Are e-cigarettes a tobacco product? L.A. regulation called ‘short-sighted.’
(US Nat’l paper) http://www.csmonitor
The carefully-chosen attention to statistics involving minor vaping in this piece is noteworthy, if only because it came out before today’s JAMA study. Clearly the argument that vaping will create a whole new generation of tobacco smokers was an integral part of Tuesday’s decision in LA. It appears that the reporter has carefully studied her Tobacco Control press release.
Title: e-cigarettes Are Bad Because They Look Like Cigarettes; E-Hookahs Are Worse Because They Don’t
(US Nat’l Business) http://www.forbes
Another fun piece by Jacob Sullen, makes fun of the internal inconsistencies in the ANTZ arguments.
US: NEW JERSEY
Title: New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie proposes taxing e-cigs at rate equal to $2.70/pack cigarette tax
(Bill Godshall on Legislation – just now) <a href="http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/536504-new-jersey-gov-chris-christie-proposes-taxing-e-cigs-rate-equal-2-70-pack-cigarette-tax.html#post12450301″ target=”_blank”>New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie proposes taxing e-cigs at rate equal to $2.70/pack cigarette tax
[ NJ’s house bill A1080 was originally proposed as a ban on tobacco smoking in parks and beaches, but was immediately ammended to include vaping as soon as it got on to the house floor. See: <a href="http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/532440-nj-assembly-cmte-tourism-art-amends-bill-1080-ban-vaping-well-smoking-all-public-parks-beaches.html#post12349761″ target=”_blank”>NJ Assembly Cmte on Tourism and Art amends bill (A 1080) to ban vaping (as well as smoking) at all public parks and beaches ]
Title: Opponents Of Proposed e-cigarette Ban In Maryland Speak Up
(Washington DC US public radio) http://wamu
A remarkably junk-free and balanced story from NPR. Apparently this local station "didn’t get the memo." However it says little, other than to note that hearings are happening in the MD house.
[ MD’s HB 1291 would define vaping as smoking for Indoor Clean Air act purposes. Hearing 3/5/14. <a href="http://blog.casaa.org/2014/02/call-to-action-maryland-e-cigarette.html” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow”>http://blog.casaa.org/2014/02/call-t…cigarette.html also see smokeless tobacco tax increase which will likely affect vaping next year: http://blog.casaa.org/2014/02/call-t…-to-raise.html explained here: <a href="http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/526101-maryland-bill-hb-1291-would-ban-vaping-all-workplaces-falsely-define-e-cigs-electronic-smoking-devices-hearing-march-5-a.html” target=”_blank”>Maryland bill (HB 1291) would ban vaping in all workplaces, falsely define e-cigs as “electronic smoking devices”, hearing on March 5 ]
Title: e-cigarette Ban for Minors Passes Kentucky Senate
(Frankfort KY US NPR) http://wfpl
This appears to be SB 109, which is distinct from SB 267 in that it doesn’t address smokeless tobacco.
[ KY has a Vaping=smoking bill indoor clean air act ext. proposed, as well as both a 40% and 20% tax proposal, see <acronym title="Consumer Advocates for smoke-free Alternatives Association”>CASAA call: <a href="http://blog.casaa.org/2014/01/kentucky-bills-to-ban-e-cigarette-usage.html” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow”>http://blog.casaa.org/2014/01/kentuc…tte-usage.html Also some minor ban bills – esp. HB 309 which may morph into a tax, and SB 267 which establishes burdensome reporting requirements: <a href="http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/520780-kentucky-bill-hb-267-would-ban-e-cig–sales-minors-but-require-reporting-e-cig–sales-retailers.html” target=”_blank”>Kentucky bill (HB 267) would ban e-cig sales to minors, but require reporting of e-cig sales to retailers ]
Title: Senate OKs banning e-cigarette sales to minors
SB 667/8 – simple minor sales bans, opposed by ANTZ because they don’t define vaping as smoking – have passed the senate. No junk in this AP story. Ready for MI house. A related article mentions Dr. Matthew Davis (who has apparently spent some time talking to the press) who spoke to reporters at a "media briefing," emphasizing his desire to treat vaping as smoking: http://www.mlive
and again: http://www.mlive
[ HB 4997 and 5007 are also simple minor sales bans, but still in a house cmte. ]
Title: Doctors, scientists express concerns on e-cigarette bill
(Milwaukee WI US local paper) http://www.jsonline
Junk-free piece points out that there is very little time for Wisconsin to act on the <acronym title="Consumer Advocates for smoke-free Alternatives Association”>CASAA-supported legislation before the legislature adjorns in early April.
[ WI has two bills that would explicitly exempt from the state Indoor Clean Air Act, which <acronym title="Consumer Advocates for smoke-free Alternatives Association”>CASAA strongly supports: http://blog.casaa.org/2014/02/call-t…d-support.html ]
Title: e-cigARETTES: Minn. lawmakers mull restrictions to cut kids’ use
(St. Paul MN US fox affiliate) http://www.myfoxtwincities
Very brief report on the house version of one of four MN bills – this one is only a simple minor sales ban.
[ MN wants to extend its indoor clean air act to define vaping as smoking. Covers outdoor vaping too, see: <a href="http://blog.casaa.org/2014/02/call-to-action-minnesota-e-cigarette.html” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow”>http://blog.casaa.org/2014/02/call-t…cigarette.html ]
US: WASHINGTON (STATE)
Title: Legislature considers 75% tax on e-cigarettes
(Tacoma WA US local paper) http://www.thenewstribune
Junk-free editorial is highly critial of the proposed tax.
[ Washington’s HB 2795 has been incorporated into the budget, will impose a 75% tax. See: <a href="http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/530201-washington-bill-6569-would-tax-tobacco-substitutes-including-e-cigs-95-referred-senate-ways-means-cmte.html” target=”_blank”>Washington bill (6569) would tax tobacco substitutes (including e-cigs) at 95%, referred to Senate Ways and Means Cmte and http://blog.casaa.org/2014/02/call-t…n-bill-to.html text of 2795: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/bil…Bills/2795.pdf ]
Title: Long Beach passes even stricter e-cigarette rules than L.A.
(LA CA US local paper) http://www.latimes
LB’s law stricter than LA’s because no sampling allowed in vape shops. No gratitous junk.
[ CA is under threat from a wide variety of legislation, such as an internet sales ban: <a href="http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/513980-california-assembly-bill-ban-shipment-e-cigarettes-anyone-california.html” target=”_blank”>***California Assembly bill to BAN SHIPMENT OF E CIGARETTES TO ANYONE IN CALIFORNIA*** ]
Title: e-cigarette sales higher in Lake County than state
(Lakeport CA US local paper) <a href="http://www.record-bee.com/news/ci_25285976/e-cigarette-sales-higher-lake-county-than-state” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow”>http://www.record-bee.com/news/ci_25…nty-than-state
This junk-free piece caught my eye because of its title – which references "sales" but in fact refers to the number of stores that sell PVs. A closer read indicates that the California Health Interview Survey has collected data on whether stores around the state sell certain products. It’s not clear why this article was published given that the youth smoking rate in the county has declined (as it has everywhere – despite the frenzy of orchestrated panic sweeping the US).
Title: e-cigarette skeptics unnecessarily alarmed by water vapor
(UC Riverside US student paper) http://www.highlandernews
I was surprised to find this pro-vaping editorial in the UC Riverside student paper. One can only hope that some diligent reader will cut it out, and paste it on the door of a certain researcher’s lab.
COLLECTION: JAMA STUDY
Glantz’s JAMA study (see Dr. Siegal’s analysis above), got the spotlight today in the media, and most of the coverage was pathetic parroting. However some of it was a bit more sensible …
GLANTZ’S JAMA STUDY: THOUGHTFUL (INCREDULOUS) REPORING
Title: Young Using e-cigarettes smoke Too, Study Finds
(US Nat’l Paper) http://www.nytimes
Remarkably skeptical coverage, but note that the author is Sabrina Tavernise, who also did the Sunday Times piece a couple of weeks ago w/ Siegal and Glantz.
Title: U.S. teens’ e-cigarette use associated with smoking: study
At least this piece cites Dr. Siegal.
Title: Researchers claim electronic cigarettes "gateway" to real smoking but experts unsure
(CBS Nat’l) http://www.cbsnews
Also quotes Dr. Siegal. Here’s an unexpected surprise: "’The data in this study do not allow many of the broad conclusions that it draws,’ [said] Thomas J. Glynn, a researcher at the American Cancer Society." [boldface added]
Title: e-cigarette Use Doubles Among U.S. Teens — But What’s The Connection With Cigarette Smoking?
(US Nat’l news site) http://www.huffingtonpost
And again, the cause-and-effect relationship in this study is questioned: "David Abrams, Ph.D., the executive director of the Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy Studies at the anti-smoking advocacy group Legacy, disputes Dutra’s conclusion and says the study doesn’t hold up.[para. break omitted] ‘We need balance and the rationality of science to dominate over biased ideology,’ Abrams said to The Huffington Post. ‘There is absolutely no evidence that using e-cigarettes makes [teens] more likely to use cigarettes.’"
GLANTZ’S JAMA STUDY: BRAIN-DEAD COVERAGE
A quick comparison of the press release and some of these articles indicates that a few of these reporters simply paraphrased (or in some cases just copied over) relevant sentences and in other cases entire paragraphs:
Title: His Original Press Release
(Glantz’s blog) http://www.tobacco
Title: Teens Who Try e-cigarettes Are More Likely To Try Tobacco, Too
(US Nat’l Radio) http://www.npr
Title: Are e-cigarettes encouraging conventional cigarette smoking in adolescents?
Title: Pre-teens and teens who use e-cigarettes are more likely to smoke the conventional kind, too, study shows
(Cleveland OH US local paper) http://www.cleveland