With so many controversies over e-cigarettes & vaping, now approaching is the pending possibility of regulating e-cigarettes and other forms of tobacco by the F.D.A, along with the their accepting comments from the public for it’s “deeming legislation”, and there are suddenly many “experts”. Enter Stanton Glantz..
Glantz has a background in tobacco control. You said in 1990 addiction helps people like you pay mortgages…. and in 1992, you stated “if the answer is yes, then we do it, and if the answer is I don’t know, then we don’t bother. That’s the criteria……. for research… wow…. Go ahead, click on it.
Some experts are popping up like dandelions in your fresh spring lawn in the arenas of public health, TV doctors, reporters, politicians, even people with no degrees at all… and people in tobacco control against e-cigarettes. Stan has been around awhile. Glantz has a background in tobacco control. It would seem obvious that any professor in tobacco control would see the benefits in using an e-cigarette as a viable way to reduce harm that, if the person chose to get off tobacco for good, a professor would be in favor of just that. That way, an alleged leader in tobacco “control” would have in essence, controlled said use of tobacco. Well, that’s not really the way it is at least out in sunny California.
Stanton Glantz, with his title of PhD and “Professor of Medicine” “Professor of Tobacco Control” (Is that a real title?) is more about “control”. A Professor of doubt, a creator of doom. Seemingly, Glantz is “all powerful and all knowing”, kind of like the wizard of odd. As a “Merchant of Doom” in a smoke filled tobacco world, he’s an expert at pretending there is no research with e-cigarettes, that there’s no results. You’d think with a PhD. , and millions of dollars in funding at his fingertips at the University of California, San Francisco, he’d have defeated tobacco by now, wouldn’t you? You’d think with all that funding from trusting people, there would be nothing but fact and truth coming out of someone’s mouth holding such a prestigious position. You’d think. Stan just posted a blog. Stan likes control. Remember how his attitude was before: “if the answer is yes, then we do it, and if the answer is I don’t know, then we don’t bother. That’s the criteria……. for research… so how different has that become years later???
No bias here………….
I will give my rebuttle in italics and bold on his blog post below on the statements from Stan’s recent blog post he “considers” with his opinion. Remember, he’s a researcher, but science, fact & opinion seem to confuse him in an uncanny way. He seem to glide seamlessly and effortlessly with his words, craftily designed like he might actually be an English teacher, but I think not. His title & a link to it if you desire to read it on it’s own. Love the “(almost)” in his title… he needs to brush it up, like I will his post.
A sensible plan for effective FDA regulation of e-cigarette marketing (almost) now http://tobacco.ucsf.edu/sensible-plan-effective-fda-regulation-e-cigarette-marketing-almost-now Submitted by sglantz on Tue, 2015-03-17 12:58 Eric Lindblom, who headed the Office of Policy in the FDA Center for Tobacco Products and is now on detail at the Georgetown University School of Law, just published “Effectively Regulating E-Cigarettes and Their Advertising— and the First Amendment” in Food and Drug Law Journal. This paper is the an amazingly creative and incisive analysis of how to get out-of-control e-cigarette marketing under control as soon as the FDA achieves authority to regulate e-cigarettes.
You make an astonishing and asinine assumption of the “e-cigarette marketing being “out of control” and I find it a creative and incisive analysis… good for you Stan…. you have tried to come up with one of your own recently? You must watch a LOT of television and see a load of print ads… The part where you say “as soon as the FDA achieves authority to regulate e-cigarettes”…. that may happen, I’m not sure, but you seem to know they will. That’s pretty arrogant. Let’s continue, shall we?
Lindbloom notes that there are two possible justifications for allowing e-cigarettes on the market:
I, along with millions, only need one justification, getting myself off cigarettes. It worked flawlessly.
1. The might help current smokers quit cigarettes. 2. The might be an effective harm reduction strategy for current smokers.
“might, according to Lindbloom, is a questionable statement. He obviously listens to you. They DO help current smokers quit. “might be effective harm reduction”…. isn’t that what ANY tobacco control professor wants? People OFF tobacco?
He notes that there are several ways in which e-cigarettes could result in increased harm:
((“could” and “increased harm”)). Really? No science to back yourself up, Stan? No studies to point to or link? Ironically, being a researcher, you have no research on your part…. man that was SO disappointing you didn’t even try. Well… you’re wrong about ‘increased harm”, Stan- there are PLENTY of studies by real researchers, doctors, scientists even, stating there is significantly LESS harm, considering it’s not combustible tobacco, but you’re the expert? Researchers (what you claim to be?) Scientists & Doctors have done plenty of research and you simply insult them – your colleagues in the field – by saying there isn’t any: E-Cigarette Research (http://www.ecigalternative.com/ecigarette-studies-research.htm))) You also tried to create a false sense of harm in your #curbit campaign. Denying the above research and keeping people on cigarettes. Is that your goal, Stan? Continued funding and job security???
Your proud moment in the #curbit campaign on Twitter, claiming toxic vapor, that e-cigs are cigarettes, and frankly misleading anyone into thinking they would be educated is ironic:
1. Kids who would not otherwise have smoked addicts start using e-cigarettes. 2. Former smokers take up e-cigarettes. 3. Former smokers relapse to smoking cigarettes again.
Face it Stan…. I’m calling you out on the “kids” thing. Children is a ploy Stan. It’s a catch all “doom” statement because you have nothing else. If all your work on tobacco control all these years was working like you profess it, then there would be no children SMOKING. See Gate? No Way! here: Gate? No Way! (Thank you Mr. Zillitron). Former smokers “taking up” e-cigarettes (Adults with choices) would keep them from and OFF combustible tobacco. (Your life’s work and goal?) Former smokers relapse on other forms of smoking cessation-quite a BIT more. Either way, they’re off tobacco… still not getting it are you, and again, you’re a researcher?
While the first two points about the potential benefits of e-cigarettes are controversial,
Not to people wanting a choice to be off of combustible tobacco in a design that works effectively, it’s not “controversial”… just to you, Stan. the last three are not. Indeed, the major challenge to e-cigarette enthusiasts is how to craft a policy/regulatory environment in which the possible benefits of e-cigarettes can occur without the collateral damage of promoting increased nicotine addiction in never or former smokers.
Your assumption with the word “possible” astounds me. Are you for it or against it? “Collateral damage”? Nicotine is something else you need to research, Stan. I thought you were a RESEARCHER! Here, buddy, here’s just one link to nicotine, I don’t want to burden you with too much information at once but would like to point out that this link is from a TOBACCO HARM REDUCTION SITE in case your assistants can’t be with you to help you see it: Nicotine FAQ’s http://tobaccoharmreduction.org/faq/nicotine.htm Please note that some people not only reduce their nicotine by choice, some go as far as to use NO nicotine! I know – it’s such a surprise! Their thought is that nicotine itself is dangerous in this form comes from people like you. I can’t imagine you need to know this, yet I need to be sure we’re clear on this: The carcinogens and chemicals in tobacco from combustion of said chemicals are what is dangerous in cigarette smoking, not the nicotine.
Lindbloom presents a sensible and practical solution: Limit e-cigarette advertising and promotion to highly targeted direct-to-consumer contact materials that only go to confirmed current smokers.
Ummmm what??? Are you nuts? You want to support a “sensible and practical” solution? Are you turning the tide on your stance, Gl ANTZ?
This is something that companies can do given their databases of current smokers.
Well, Stan, are you contributing your cash to do this? Try another #curbit campaign, that did wonders. This is something you could have done in promoting e-cigarettes rather than pretending there’s no research.
This highly focused advertising would get e-cigarette advertisements out of mass media (including the internet) and greatly reduce exposure to nonsmokers.
Are you a moonlight advertising executive and you’ve been holding out on me?
Lindbloom carefully assesses the First Amendment issues and shows how the FDA could do this discretionary enforcement authority without any new rulemaking.
I can only picture you rubbing your hands together with glee over discretionary enforcement. Control has just gone to your head now, hasn’t it…
This approach would not only allow action much faster – years faster – than using rule making, but it would also be easier to defend in court.
I think, with this statement the way it is, its just more hand rubbing…
If it turns out that e-cigarettes do not help smokers quit, keep people smoking (which I think is their actual effect)
Oh look folks, more opinion!!! I THINK it is their actual effect. ((Ugh! I think you’re an idiot!)) They DO help people quit:
or that they turn out to be a lot more dangerous than the optimists think
TURN OUT to be???? You really want people to take you seriously??? See research again Stan: E-Cigarette Research (http://www.ecigalternative.com/ecigarette-studies-research.htm)
(i.e. if assumptions 1 and/or 2 turn out to be wrong) , the FDA can adjust its rules. But the damage will only be done to current smokers and the significant collateral damage listed in items 3, 4, and 5 will have been avoided.
Are you telling the FDA they can “adjust its rules”??? You have some control issues, Stan. Have you seen a psychologist for that? Damage… well, again, refer to that research… I keep having to tell you it’s there. This is getting old. E-Cigarette Research (http://www.ecigalternative.com/ecigarette-studies-research.htm)))
Everyone at the FDA needs to study this paper with an open mind and see that the deeming rule which is now being finalized does not inadvertently make it harder to implement this plan.
“An Open Mind.” Simon Chapman hasn’t blocked me, I actually like some of his information. Engage properly with people in the twitter arena instead of insisting on your way or the highway, Stan. You might learn something. See if you can have an open mind sometime. You don’t do any research so you might as well ponder the wonders of learning.
And, while the technical details of Lindbloom’s plan are written for the US, the ideas can be easily implemented in other countries. Indeed, they may be easier to implement in countries that do not deify commercial speech the way the US Supreme Court does.
“the ideas can be easily implemented in other countries”? They may be easier??? Now you want to control the world??? You REALLY need to see a professional. Consult your Psych. Department over there at the University Of California.
Probably even more important, public health advocates need to read this paper and start pressing the FDA, their keepers in the Obama Administration, and pro-health members of Congress to make sure that this plan gets implemented.
“Probably” even more important. Is it important? You sound tired here. You must hydrate once in a while between naps. It should read something like “I implore” or “must”. Those words are strong, show you mean business and would’ve been better to get people to “start pressing the FDA” to get this implemented. What exactly IS more important? Again, get off your high horse. You are a researcher. You would think the most important goal in a TOBACCO CONTROL researcher would be to get people OFF TOBACCO. Off of cigarettes. With all the research showing it’s MUCH less harmful than cigarettes I’d think you could see that by now.
While I admit your resume’ is impressive. Your integrity is quite questionable. Your ability to try to be cute and not have any idea that research isn’t being done is stunning, but it’s getting old, but you keep at it. Pompous, self-centered and beyond your time, there are people who are helping the world. Real Researchers. Real Doctors. Real Scientists. You insult your community and dismiss, sidestep and misconstrue the very idea that e-cigarettes are safe.
Well, glANTZ, they are safe. E-cigarettes are not only safe in comparison to smoking cigarettes that they’re saving lives. They’re much safer than you trying to keep people from it. Your goal in tobacco harm reduction is to get people off of tobacco. I would presume you would be the first to know that. Do some real research, make a phone call, stop making false claims. You are endangering people and giving them the illusion that an e-cigarette is worse in your #curbit campaign. That deters people and keeps them smoking when they believe the lies you’ve spread. That is irresponsible, that is costing lives. You know, you might make a better politician than researcher. Do some research, check that out…
I’m no one important. I did do a Vaping Truth Survey – Here’s the final analysis, that by default, discredits you with no grants, staff or offices in the very things you elude to…….
Turns out I and THOUSANDS of vapers have done more research than you via E-Cigarette Research (http://www.ecigalternative.com/ecigarette-studies-research.htm)
Dear Stanton Glantz: If millions of e-cigarette users are wrong around the world by benefiting with e-cigarettes, and ONE researcher is right…… isn’t that something you should take up with your math department being statistically unsound? A concerned and much healthier e-cigarette user. As always, Keep On #Vaping On.
NZ, thank you again.