Just to show you that making "healthier" claims does attract unwanted attention

[igetcha]

i know that im going to get flamed for saying this but i cant help but feel that a lot of this is a fuss over nothing.

suppliers should not advertise them as an aid to quit smoking.

well, they ARE an aid to quit smoking as proven by many, many individuals just on this forum alone. WE are the proof!

suppliers should not advertise them as a safer alternative

well, they ARE a safer alternative. sure, no one knows what the long term effects are and maybe in 10 - 20 years time we will have all grown an extra head, or developed heart and lung problems. but the facts are that many, many people have reported that their health has improved dramatically since quitting analogues and taking up vaping. so short term use without a doubt (in my opinion) DOES show its a safer alternative. WE are the proof!

suppliers should not call it an electronic cigarette

why not!? is it really a big deal? you could call them an electronic fart sucker but at the end of the day we all first made that purchase in order to try and cut down or quit smoking without the feeling we are quitting smoking. i would say that every vaper in the world purchased their original e-cig for that reason. sure, a lot of guys n gals after a period of time then wanted to disassociate themselves totally from smoking and treated vaping as a whole new experience but at the end of the day i would wager that we all started vaping in the first place in order to cut down or quit cigarettes. so regardless of what an e-cig looks like, they will still be copying the actions of a cigarette.

suppliers should not advertise them as NRT

but they ARE! my e-cigs most certainly give me my nicotine fix in the same way as a nicorette inhaler does........dont yours? the only difference is that with an inhaler you exhale air, with an e-cig you exhale vapour. but regardless they still provide the user with nicotine in exactly the same way.

please dont get me wrong, i DO fully understand why you guys feel the way you do and in many ways i feel the exactly the same way. i dont want e-cigs to get banned either!

but my whole point is that everyone seems so scared of them becoming illegal that they are starting to ignore the real facts that are proven by each and every one of us. instead people want to change its name, say it doesnt aid quitting cigarettes, say it isnt nrt, say it isnt a healthier alternative. which in some ways might even aid the case for banning them as in theory you are actually taking away all the positive things about them!

regardless of what the government or the FDA will say or think about it we shouldnt all bow down in fear of them and start changing the facts proven by us. instead we should all be getting together to defend them with every self proven piece of evidence we have. there are probably thousands of posts on this forum alone from users who have only experienced totally positive things since switching to vaping. there are probably just as many posts from users who have said that they quit cigarettes with the use of e-cigs as well.

just about all the evidence we need to prove the government or FDA wrong is contained within the walls of this forum and all the other forums out there. personal experience stories gathered together i think would be a very powerfull tool should the pen pushers ever decide to stick their noses into our business.

okay, time for me to make a swift exit..........TAXI!!

[e-pipeman]

I'm going into hospital next week for a knee op and the nurse who did the admission paperwork has written my Evo up as an NRT device!

[quote=igetcha;93432]
an electronic fart sucker

Such a tool could be useful under the duvet at night...

[igetcha]

lol, yeah i might have to patent that!

[LaceyUnderall]

I wrote this email to the poster.

I read your posting and was curious as to why you would misrepresent electronic cigarettes to your group. First, and most importantly, electronic cigarettes contain NO tobacco. They contain liquid niotine....actually many e smokers choose 0 nicotine to vaporize.....but again they contain NO tobacco. Why do you say "you have to purchase the tobacco cartridge" when that is clearly untrue. Then, you say that these devices cost "a little over $200....again NOT TRUE. Most electronic cigarettes range from $30-60...a far cry from $200, yet you make it appear that this is the cost. It is curious that when a new and hopefully healthier alternative to regular cigarettes enters the market, you mention only that it will not force smokers to quit. I thought your groups were mostly about "protecting people from secondhand smoke" This product produces no shs. The fact that it does not come from a pharmaceutical company seems to be a point of contention in this notice. I find that curious since Big Pharma created Chantix, and we all know the scourge that drug has brought to thousands who have suffered the side effects of this drug. Rather than promote your ideas with the misrepresentations in your posting, why not look at electronic cigarettes for what they are: an alternative to smoking that has no tobacco, produces no secondhand smoke, and costs less than $50. Telling the story truthfully would help. Thanks in advance for correcting the inaccuracies in your posting.

Let us know IF she responds. That will be a very interesting read I am sure. (What I am more sure of is that she will ignore your attempts to set the record straight and will continue her propaganda.)

[sherid]

I posted this on Dr. Siegel's blog also. If she does not respond, I will write again in a week or so. Perhaps a letter on PR Inside would be a good idea.

Let us know IF she responds. That will be a very interesting read I am sure. (What I am more sure of is that she will ignore your attempts to set the record straight and will continue her propaganda.)

[LaceyUnderall]

I mentioned something over at RTV...

[Kate]

Sherid said what needed to be said very well I think, hopefully the message will get through.

Igetcha, what you say is common sense and I\'m sure almost all of us would agree with you. However, commercial interests are held to higher standards of proof and rightly so, if they make money from NRT it should be pure, medical grade, tested and approved nicotine, not the rubbish we get. Likewise all the other claims, they can\'t lawfully make money from claims that have no scientific backing, that\'s just irresponsible marketing and taking advantage of peoples desire to find a magic cure for smoking. Traders are not supposed to take advantage of vulnerable and uninformed people, if they say something is safe then it should be for sure, not just probably.

[BiscuitSlayer]

If you go and read some of Debra Annand's other posts in that google group, you will see that she is on the warpath to deal with everything "cigarette" related. Based on the praise that she gives the FDA and FTC, I don't think I would waste my time trying to convey any point to her. Check out her other posts:

Google Groups

igetcha - I think you are right on a lot of levels. These companys are touting e-cigs as NRT devices, and I think to most of us that is indeed what they are. I know I didn't start buying e-cigs and other supplies so that I could continue to smoke analogs. My whole goal was to stop smoking analogs and go to something that seems healthier. (10 days smoke free now )

The bottom line is how things are phrased. E-smoking should be an alternative to real smoking. Any other claims can cause a stir with government agencies. I know that if they label these devices as NRT devices in the US, then the FDA has full authority to shut them down.

The FDA in the US did it with nicotine water in 2002, and it took 5 years for it to be approved as a tobacco product and legal for sale to anyone over the age of 18.

Edit: Left one thought out... We would make an excellent test group for electronic cigarette usage, especially since we are already doing it.

[Myk]

It's an anti-tobacco group.
All it shows me is what I already know, they're not out to save us from ourselves, they're out to make us do exactly what they want us to do or die.

I think things like this could serve to help us more than they hurt. Things like this show them for what they are. Irrational control freaks.
It doesn't matter how safe you are or how non-invasive you're being, if you're doing something they don't approve of they want it stopped.

That doesn't fly in the US. When Drew Carey had "Power of 10" even what seemed to be extremely unpopular positions would get overwhelming support if the question was worded in a manner to say it was taking away personal freedom.
SHS managed because it was pushed as taking away personal freedom. They're not going to manage that this time and they're showing their true colors.

[ZambucaLu]

Let's face it....smokers might as well be lepers as far as antis are concerned. If they had it their way, we'd probably all be shipped off to some secluded island to "poison" each other with our smoke...with no chance of release until you became a bona fide non-smoker.

Some time ago, on a totally non-related forum, when banning in bars was just coming out, some posters first suggested allowing the bar owners themselves to decide to be smoking/non-smoking, rather than the government. Of course, that was shot down.

Then some suggested why not designate a couple of bars (or even one) in whatever town/city to remain smoking while the rest would be non. Couldn't that satisfy both factions? Again, shot down by the antis.

They don't care....they don't want smokers anywhere. For some reason, the thought of a group of smokers sitting around enjoying a few drinks and some chat at some designated bar that has nothing to do with them, still bugs them.

A more closed minded group would be hard to find.

Lu