A company with sound governance must adhere to a code of ethics! A good company faces ethical dilemma when confronted by tough decisions such as what is in the best interest of shareholders and what is best for the wellbeing of its stakeholders! There is a huge difference between the two. Companies that take into consideration the best interest of both shareholders and stakeholders do not necessarily need to lay off employees and lay the burden on those it spares! Companies that have the capital and the power to slash jobs and reward CEOs with big bonuses need to look at their own weaknesses in being incompetent by not being able to innovate and create value for their shareholders and not by being indifferent to those employees who gave all they could to their companies by working hard and investing time and energy in keeping their companies profitable. Moreover, companies do well when their employees do well. CEOs' compensation should be based on how well a company does by promoting its goods and services to its customers who make the largest and the most important component of its stakeholders, including its employees. Now that's ethics at work! Outside a sound corporate governance and solid ethical conduct, GREED becomes King and ruthless PROFITEERS rule by DECREE!
No, they do not compare them to real cigarettes because cigarettes are not a "smoking cessation" device, but tell me this: how many people do you think are going to use ecigs to try to quit the patch? How many do you think will use them to try and get off of their nicotine gum addiction? Both of those (FDA approved) smoking cessation devices have "TSNA"s which are **T**obacco **S**pecific Nitrosamines. All items with nicotine in them have them and many other items were approved by the FDA. Cigarettes (having tobacco) have them and are sold over the counter. Since we are not using these to quit the patch or the gum, they should be compared to what we are coming from. I have not smoked a cigarette in over a month because of this and I could care less if they WERE as bad as a cigarette because if NOTHING else they are cheaper. A step down is a step down no matter how you look at it and these are definately a step down.
The DE (diethylene glycol) that was found was probably either a contaminate (looking at the picture of the test equipment in the FDA's pdf file, it was probably a cleaning chemical from the hands of the tester) or a product of bad USP propylene glycol (United States Pharmacopeia) used in the mixture that made the the nicotine liquid. No doubt in any "vapers" mind that we need more regulation on this, but that is not what the FDA wants. They want to ban all sales of them until Phillip Morris or RJ Reynolds can start production because those companies are big enough to give billion dollar payoffs for allowing them.
Also does anyone else find it funny that one of the 2 brands that were tested was the company that is suing the FDA?
The FDA also warns that these are being marketed at children because they have flavors like "chocolate" but did they mention that they are approving "cinnamon" flavored nicotine lozenges (fancy name for nicotine candy)? Bet you wont see that one being destroyed in the news by the FDA. Why? Well, the reason is because its being marketed by a pharmaceutical company that is willing to pay off the right people.
Larry C,
I'm not trying to poison the well and say anything from this or that person or place is worthless because of associations - but it certainly has to be taken into consideration. Or are you that naive?
Certainly, I have my bias' - as we all do, but I am not going to sit here and pretend that think tanks like the Manhattan Institute or Cato Institute have my best interests at stake. Or do you need to be schooled in what it is think tanks do?
As for the said statistics - I'm sure those statistics make a case for Graetzer's point - statistics have a funny way of doing that while being neutral to political or social matters. Statistics also have a funny thing about them - mainly that they can't tell the entire story by their numbers alone - like the fact that the primary reason for wait times in Canada is that the system itself as a whole is under-funded - one of the biggest problems of any government run program (not that its a problem that can't be solved).
So you can pretend that as long as someone has cited certain statistics in their arguments that that makes whoever helps put money in their pockets as something irrelevant, but I choose to consider the notion when evaluating someone's argument. It's nothing emotional - its rather rational - especially considering the function of think tanks themselves.
Wendell, thank you so much for the good work you do. You've turned your experience in the belly of the beast into a valuable weapon in the fight for health care reform. I'm so glad you're out there.
Examine the systems in Canada, the UK, France and The Netherlands. Two have what you think is most desirable; two combine public and private plans. You may change your mind.
When you say "democratically accountable" why do I think of the Post Office, Fannie and Freddie, Amtrak, Medicare and Medicaid? The USA sure doesn't have much of a track record in the accountability department. Maybe Mark Twain was correct that the US Congress is our only natural criminal class.
No, they do not compare them to real cigarettes because cigarettes are not a "smoking cessation" device, but tell me this: how many people do you think are going to use ecigs to try to quit the patch? How many do you think will use them to try and get off of their nicotine gum addiction? Both of those (FDA approved) smoking cessation devices have "TSNA"s which are **T**obacco **S**pecific Nitrosamines. All items with nicotine in them have them and many other items were approved by the FDA. Cigarettes (having tobacco) have them and are sold over the counter. Since we are not using these to quit the patch or the gum, they should be compared to what we are coming from. I have not smoked a cigarette in over a month because of this and I could care less if they WERE as bad as a cigarette because if NOTHING else they are cheaper. A step down is a step down no matter how you look at it and these are definately a step down.
The DE (diethylene glycol) that was found was probably either a contaminate (looking at the picture of the test equipment in the FDA's pdf file, it was probably a cleaning chemical from the hands of the tester) or a product of bad USP propylene glycol (United States Pharmacopeia) used in the mixture that made the the nicotine liquid. No doubt in any "vapers" mind that we need more regulation on this, but that is not what the FDA wants. They want to ban all sales of them until Phillip Morris or RJ Reynolds can start production because those companies are big enough to give billion dollar payoffs for allowing them.
Also does anyone else find it funny that one of the 2 brands that were tested was the company that is suing the FDA?
The FDA also warns that these are being marketed at children because they have flavors like "chocolate" but did they mention that they are approving "cinnamon" flavored nicotine lozenges (fancy name for nicotine candy)? Bet you wont see that one being destroyed in the news by the FDA. Why? Well, the reason is because its being marketed by a pharmaceutical company that is willing to pay off the right people.
Pages