Dr. Ross: California’s “Public Health” System Seems to be Trying to Kill Smokers

Which is more dangerous, a cigarette or a vaporized system to cure people of smoking? To the Leftists wanting to continue the stream of cigarette taxes, while proclaiming hatred of the smelly weed, the “E-cigarette” is a danger to their ideology. Greg Gutfield on “The Five” a few days ago that this was about money and fear, not science or need.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Dr. Gilbert Ross of the American Council on Science and Health, in an exclusive article for the California Political News and Views noted, “The net result of all this alarmism against e-cigs is to protect cigarette markets. Why, you may ask? I fear the reason has more to do with maintaining local budgets propped up via cigarette taxes, and for the academic centers, vast amounts of funding from the mega-rich pharmaceutical companies who purvey nearly-useless nicotine replacement patches, gums and drugs.”

This is really not about cigarettes at all. It is about the ongoing campaign to kill freedom and the right to choose how to live.


California’s “Public Health” System Seems to be Trying to Kill Smokers
Gilbert Ross, M.D. , The American Council on Science and Health 2/2/15

Special to the California Political News and Views 

Given that cigarette smoking is the most important — and preventable — public health problem our country faces, and has been for decades, I cannot help but wonder why the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) has decided to wage an all-out war – a jihad, in fact — against the most likely method to help smokers quit their deadly addiction: electronic cigarettes (e-cigs). Their latest weapon: a 20-page booklet, State Health Officer’s Report on E-Cigarettes, sub-titled A Community Health Threat.

The pervasive animus spewing from our public health establishment, fomenting baseless fear of e-cigs, follows the Big Lie template perfected by the tobacco cartel in the 1950s: the antithesis of sound public health policy. Like many wars, this campaign began in stealth, with numerous cities and counties enacting restrictions against indoor “vaping” (as using an e-cig is called), and gradually spread, by measures deeming e-cigs as tobacco products, incorporating them into “clean air” acts — although the lawmakers were well aware that e-cigs contain no tobacco, and emit no smoke. Bans on vaping in public parks and beaches ensued, based on the vague fear of “renormalization”: as if seeing someone vaping would entice naive youngsters into following suit, and then of course becoming smokers. There is zero evidence that this is a realistic concern.

These incremental steps have now become a monstrous crescendo, a mass propaganda campaign to exaggerate hypothetical risks of e-cigs while ignoring or downplaying solid evidence of both their effectiveness in helping smokers quit, and their lack of adverse effects. The font of much of this hysteria and mythology emanates from the University of California-San Francisco, where the formerly respected anti-tobacco advocate, Stanton Glantz, holds court. He and his coterie have taken over the means of communication, both of the official CDPH and even of most of the mainstream media, which parrots their increasingly shrill alarms warning desperate smokers to avoid e-cigs at all costs! In other words — given the sad fact that the FDA-approved cessation methods work less than ten percent of the time — keep on smoking!

The latest CDPH broadside follow hard upon one released two weeks ago: How to Protect Your Family From E-Cigarettes. One would think that on every corner, some underworld character was lying in wait to grab your children and entice them into a lifetime of vaping and nicotine addiction. But, what about the real enemy: cigarettes? Eh, not so much interest from Dr. Ron Chapman, the “State Health Officer” responsible for much of these travesties. He and his minions are focused, laser-like, on keeping California’s citizenry safe from e-cigs!

And he is being increasingly successful! Recent surveys have shown that smokers who were contemplating quitting (three-quarters say they plan to quit) are now avoiding trying e-cigs much more often than they were even a year ago, largely due to the fear campaign engendered in Sacramento and San Francisco. As well as from our nation’s public health establishment: the CDC and its head, Tom Frieden, are also in the vanguard of fear-mongering against e-cigs, along with local governmental officials at every level. And who is rejoicing at this success? Why, the makers of cigarettes! The net result of all this alarmism against e-cigs is to protect cigarette markets. Why, you may ask? I fear the reason has more to do with maintaining local budgets propped up via cigarette taxes, and for the academic centers, vast amounts of funding from the mega-rich pharmaceutical companies who purvey nearly-useless nicotine replacement patches, gums and drugs.

The CDPH warnings point out the attractive ads for e-cigs, and the fact that more young people are experimenting with them. True enough, but the number of teens smoking has declined simultaneously! The so-called health gurus also assert that we just don’t know the long-term dangers of e-cigs. Perhaps, but we sure as hell know the dangers of smoking, don’t we? Listen, no one wants to sell e-cigarettes to anyone who is not already addicted to nicotine, generally in the form of cigarette smoking. That is the key factor that those who oppose e-cigs always ignore: e-cigs are for helping smokers get their nicotine without the hundreds of deadly chemicals in smoke! Almost a half-million Americans die from smoking each year: none from vaping. If I had Dr. Chapman, or Glantz, or Frieden, across the table from me now, I’d ask them: doctors, what is your putative solution to the deadly problem of cigarettes in America?

I know one thing: they would not say “e-cigarettes.” And that is official public health malpractice, gross negligence, rising to the level of criminal misconduct, in my opinion. They should stop spreading lies about e-cigarettes and instead encourage America’s 43 million smokers to try vaping to help them finally escape the clutches of their lethal addiction.


About Stephen Frank

Stephen Frank is the publisher and editor of California Political News and Views. He speaks all over California and appears as a guest on several radio shows each week. He has also served as a guest host on radio talk shows. He is a fulltime political consultant.


  1. 100% agree with this article. I’ve never seen harm done by E-cigarettes I have seen several stop smoking with it. The gov is still tied to the tobacco industry I wouldn’t be surprised if they were funding the hate ads.

  2. The outcome could be as dramatic as the lefts push for super efficient autos and electric autos. A huge drop is gasoline usage, and in turn, gas tax dollars.
    Not to worry, the porkaticians are figuring out a way to resolve that problem~~tax by miles driven, which if fair to all, would apply to ALL vehicles, gas or electric. (unless they can convince the masses that electric vehicles actually float on a cushion of air instead of contact with the roadways!!)

  3. Bill Godshall says

    Gil Ross is spot on, as CA DPH (egged on by dishonest and unethical CA DPH funded e-cig prohibitionists at UCSF) is knowingly and intentionally committing public health malpractice by threatening the lives of millions of vapers and smokers.

    The scientific and empirical evidence has consistently found that e-cigarettes (aka vapor products):
    – are 99% (+/-1%) less hazardous than cigarettes,
    – have never been known to cause any disease,
    – are virtually all (i.e. >99%) consumed by smokers and by ex-smokers who switched to vaping,
    – have replaced more than 3 Billion packs of cigarettes worldwide in the past five years,
    – have helped several million smokers quit smoking, and have helped several million more sharply reduce their cigarette consumption,
    – are more effective for smoking cessation than FDA approved nicotine gums, lozenges and patches (which have a 95% failure rate),
    – pose fewer risks than FDA approved Verenicline (Chantix),
    – have never been found to create nicotine dependence in any nonsmoker (youth or adult),
    – have never been found to be a gateway to cigarette smoking for anyone,
    – emit trace levels of nontoxic aerosol that poses no harm to nonusers,
    – have never poisoned any human, and
    – have further denormalized cigarette smoking (as youth and adult smoking rates and cigarette consumption have declined every year since 2007 when vapor sales began to skyrocket).

    Back in April 2009, Obama’s FDA revealed its unscientific, unethical and inhumane policy to deceive Americans about e-cigs and defend the agency’s unlawful e-cig ban: “We don’t want the public to perceive them as a safer alternative to cigarettes.”

    Unfortunately, that not only remains the underlying e-cig policy of Obama’s DHHS, but it’s now the official policy of the CA DPH (which has received massive amounts of money from Obama’s CDC to protect cigarettes by demonizing and deceiving the public about e-cigs.

    For those who want to know the history of this massive public health by Obama’s DHHS, Big Pharma shills and other inhumane extremists who vehemently oppose smokers sharply reducing their morbidity and mortality risks, please read Smokefree Pennsylvania’s 110 pages of comments submitted to FDA’s Deeming Regulation docket analyzing all of the scientific evidence on e-cigs, exposing dozens of false and misleading fear mongering claims about e-cigs by Obama’s DHHS and its allied co-conspirators, and urging FDA to rescind its proposed Deeming Regulation (because it would protect cigarettes and threaten the lives of all vapers and smokers by banning >99.9% of e-cigs, and by giving the e-cig industry to Big Tobacco) at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FDA-2014-N-0189-80846

    Bill Godshall
    Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    1926 Monongahela Avenue
    Pittsburgh, PA 15218

  4. Thank you for a clear and concise argument for e-cigs without all the hype and false accusations. We are also seeing young men in our store who are wanting to quit dipping by changing to e-cigs ;0)
    Thank you again,
    Janelle Garton

  5. He really nailed it: “public health malpractice, gross negligence, rising to the level of criminal misconduct” — that is EXACTLY what it is, and all these “public health” menaces running around protecting cigarettes and their budgets are going to be responsible for a LOT of deaths.

  6. Angel Tibbs says

    I think if Big Tobacco weren’t playing golf with the CDPH, Big Tobacco would be suing them for slander as they blame all the vaping devices and flavors Big Tobacco DOESN’T MAKE on Big Tobacco in these ads. Big Tobacco, who sues third world countries with impunity, is not suing the CDPH….why? This tells me they are hand in glove on this.
    Additionally, CDHP SHOULD be sued for endangering children and teens in their ads, by their own flawed logic, for letting kids vape in these ads. Why isn’t anybody suing them for this?

Speak Your Mind