Important notice for all suppliers

[TropicalBob]

As you know, the smokeless tobacco market is the one undergoing growth in the face of growing smoking bans. I've long used Swedish snus to help keep me off cigarettes, along with my new e-smoking devices. But as for calling either a way to quit, well, this is from a Wall Street Journal article on smokeless and snus:

"Makers of smokeless tobacco don't advertise that it may help with quitting smoking. That kind of claim could prompt the Food and Drug Administration to begin regulating smokeless tobacco as a medical product. Both Swedish Match and U.S. Smokeless say they have held conversations with the FDA, and Swedish Match says it is open to the idea of clinical trials. Michael Bazinet, a spokesman for U.S. Smokeless Tobacco, says, "We would not oppose regulation if it would take into account the differences between smokeless tobacco and cigarettes, including risk."

No clinical trials? Then make no claims that can't be proved. Don't even hint at something that can't be backed up by rigorous clinical testing. It's asking for trouble.

[Soot]

My profession involves advising politicians and very much understand SmokeyJoe's view. There will be scrutiny of the e-cig business and marketing will be important. I've a few suggestions:

1. Don't use anecdotal info to suggest e-cigs are a NRT until systematic studies have shown this to be the case. Making such a case (without systematic evidence) will put the embryonic industry in to a position of defence when it isn't needed. Systematic evidence is needed before such claims should be made and there is a need for this to be collected.
2. Let politicians put 2 and 2 together and see the e-cig as a positive development. Don't get them involved in having to scrutinize bad practice - like unsubstantiated marketing claims.
3. Separate e-cigs from cigarette smoking in the language used. I don't agree with Joe that stopping smoking is necessarily tied to nicotine addiction but that is just my opinion and Joe is entitled to his. What is unhelpful is the term that is coming in to more common use "e-smoking". Smoking involves combustion and e-cigs do not burn anything. Having worked with politicians for many years can I suggest you use a different word - "vaping" perhaps.
4. E-cigs WILL soon come under political scrutiny and media comment - it has started already. Once it gets to a legislature regulation will follow. The e-cig vaping community (vendors and customers) need to be setting that agenda and not just regulating disinformation.
5. The e-vaping community needs to involve politicians on a pro-active basis in a way that can address their concerns - liquid testing for example. To do this some systematic information needs to be collected and this forum could play a part in that.

We all know that the UK/EU/US regulatory authorities will soon be looking at this. Controlling marketing excesses is a good start but mixing the concepts of smoking with vaping is also inviting trouble. This forum could be used as a way of collecting information on vaping and the opportunity shouldn't be missed.

[Shining Wit]

I agree with most of the previous post except maybe the term 'vaping'. It conjures up an impression of a sub-culture doing some kind of drug, which is basically true but not what we want to convey. I'm sure everyone has their own preference and eventually one term will become accepted, mine is Social Smoking.
Cheers.
John.

[Soot]

Fair point John - I'm not stuck on "vaping" but would advise against using any phrase that includes the word "smoking".

Think of a parliamentary committee trying to discuss this while hearing evidence that will include; the smoking ban, social smoking outside pubs & restaurants, domestic smoking at home, passive smoking, real smoking ...

I suggested "vaping" but anything that doesn't include the work "smoking" would do the same job.

[trog100]

how about a battery powered electronic drug delivery device.. just to point out there are "worse" things than smoking..

trog

[Grumpysanta]

Perhaps just refering to e-cigs as Alternative Nicotine Delivery would be more realistic. We can't claim safer in terms of health as that has not been proved, we can however claim cleaner for the environment on the basis of no ash, not requiring ashtrays and no litter (assuming that we don't throw our cartridges on the floor) and safer in terms of reduced fire risk.