Smoking Everwhere's new full page ad:

[kristin]

It does not matter why and what it was made for. The e-cig producers make one undisputed claim. No smoke inhalation. A lot of people have managed to wean themselves off the nicotine as well. Others are happy with their addiction to nicotine. The problem is that a lot of people want validation from the FDA that the vapor is completely harmless, without realizing that such validation threatens the availability of current e-cigs.
There is no reason why these devices should be limited to current smokers. I believe that if a non smoker wants to take on this habit they should be free to do so. Just like I was when I took on the disgusting habit of cigarette smoking.

Aditas, you are preaching to the choir here. We all agree that we are adults and should be able to decide what we want to put into our bodies and that it seems no worse than regular cigarettes and people are quitting tobacco cigarettes, etc. People here agree with you - they are just trying to tell you that just because WE believe it doesn't mean that the FDA and government will leave us alone.

The problem is that none of us are government officials nor make FDA decisions. We have no control over what the FDA decides to tries to ban nor their reasoning behind it.

E-cigs haven't been officially classified as either a tobacco product or a non-tobacco product. They haven't been officially declared a drug delivery device or a recreational use device. The FDA has decided that these are nicotine delivery devices and they are the ones who regulate non-tobacco nicotine products. Companies like Smoking Everywhere and Njoy GOT the FDAs attention when they started claiming that e-cigs help you quit smoking. That makes them smoking cessation devices and those come under the jurisdiction of the FDA. If you're going to make claims without FDA approval, you better put a disclaimer on them saying "These claims have not been evaluated by the FDA." The FDA is arguing that they, therefore, have the right to regulate e-cigarettes. You can argue with them all you want, but it isn't going to change their stance - especially since Smoking Everywhere is STILL claiming that they help you stop smoking - without the required tests showing it to be true. The FDA doesn't accept just stories from people who have tried it. They want controlled tests in labs and written studies by scientists. WE are calling for that, but the FDA is IF you want tpo call them smoking cessation devices.

The only one who can tell the FDA to back off is a judge's ruling that they AREN'T drug delivery devices intended for smoking cessation and therefore the FDA has no control over their sale and use. But that won't happen if these companies continue to openly market them as smoking cessation devices without controlled, scientific testing.

The e-cig manufacturers would have been better off if they had just kept marketing them as ALTERNATIVES and made no claims that they help you stop smoking - even if they do. By doing that, they got the FDAs attention and caused all of the problems we are having now.

[kristin]

I agree that due process should take place, but only when needed. We have indisputable proof that tobacco products kill. PERIOD.
How bad can e-cigs be? Certainly not as bad as tobacco. I was born with a brain. I can figure that out for myself without having to wait for years of BS tests to prove what anyone with a brain knows already.

Lets face it. You and I both know that if the US was not a law suit society this wouldn't even be an issue. The concern is about money.

Listen to what you are trying to sell to non-smokers, though.

Try to see it from their side and understand why they take the stance they do.

You want them to blindly approve yet ANOTHER dangerous & addicting product to be marketed freely. Now people will have tobacco cigarettes AND e-cigs to be additcted to nicotine through. E-cigs may have less carcinogens and no smoke, but nictoine addiction is hardly "healthy."

It doesn't matter to non-smokers that they may be better than actual tobacco cigarettes. First off, that hasn't been proven in scientific studies. Secondly, nicotine isn't proven "safe." It has been shown to have adverse side effects.

Their viewpoint is, sure, we already have liquor and tobacco and fatty foods - why add yet another unsafe recreational way to use nicotine? If people want to get away from the harmful effects of smoke, they should use nicotine cessation devices. And if you want to claim e-cigs as successful smoking cessation devices, you better prove to us through approved methods that they actually do what they claim.

The FDA doesn't compare the safety of one drug over another when they make approvals - they base it on the product in and of itself standing alone. Just because e-cigs MAY be less poisonous than tobacco cigarettes isn't in and of itself a reason to approve them.

Look at it this way. Say someone invented a drink that gets you drunk, but doesn't cause liver disease like alcohol. Manufactureres start calling it a way for alcoholics and drunk drivers to "quit drinking" and have a "safer" alternative to beer. Do you think MADD will care that it safer for the alcoholic's liver, when it's still getting them drunk? Even if millions of alcoholics quit alcohol, their still addicted to something that gets them drunk - do you think the FDA will stand for the companies to say it's a cure for alcoholism, because it's not actually alcohol getting them drunk?

THAT is how the FDA and non-smokers look at e-cigs.

Now, PROVE that e-cigs help you quit smoking or PROVE that there aren't any harmful chemicals other than nicotine and it's a whole other story. But no tests (other than New Zealand) have shown that they aren't harmful. And New Zealand requires a prescription for them!

[dragonpuff]

Once again, very well put kristin!!

[aditas]

You want them to blindly approve yet ANOTHER dangerous & addicting product to be marketed freely. Now people will have tobacco cigarettes AND e-cigs to be additcted to nicotine through. E-cigs may have less carcinogens and no smoke, but nictoine addiction is hardly "healthy."

Yes why not? I highlighted the word freely. If you believe that nicotine addiction is hardly healthy and commissioned an organization like the FDA to check for "healthiness" I have no problem if you can make them mandate the use of labels warning of such dangers. What I object to is their power to ban the sale of the product.

[SmokeyJoe]

You want them to blindly approve yet ANOTHER dangerous & addicting product to be marketed freely. Now people will have tobacco cigarettes AND e-cigs to be additcted to nicotine through. E-cigs may have less carcinogens and no smoke, but nictoine addiction is hardly "healthy."

And further - it is currently completely unregulated, unlike tobacco. No provisions exist to prevent its sale minors - other than the prohibitive price.

[kristin]

Yes why not? I highlighted the word freely. If you believe that nicotine addiction is hardly healthy and commissioned an organization like the FDA to check for "healthiness" I have no problem if you can make them mandate the use of labels warning of such dangers. What I object to is their power to ban the sale of the product.

Object all you want - we all do - but it's a fact we can't change unless the judge rules against the FDA.

Like I said - you're preaching to the choir here.

How about you re-direct your energy to writing your legislators, newspaper editors and the FDA itself?

[PlanetScribbles]

I realise that you are right kristin. It just annoys the hell outta me and I sometimes vent it all at once. Like Yellowstone lol
The guns of the navarone and all that
Why do we need rules and regs? We got on fine without them for a few thousand years.

[kristin]

I realise that you are right kristin. It just annoys the hell outta me and I sometimes vent it all at once. Like Yellowstone lol
The guns of the navarone and all that
Why do we need rules and regs? We got on fine without them for a few thousand years.

Yeah, we all get that way on occasion.

Not true though, as soon as there were communities, we needed rules and regs. Without them, 7 year olds would still be working factories 16 hours a day and cars wouldn't have seatbelts and Coke would still contain .......!

So, some rules and regs are good!!

[aditas]

How about you re-direct your energy to writing your legislators, newspaper editors and the FDA itself?

I do kristin, I just don't get the feedback that I get here.

[PlanetScribbles]

Yeah, we all get that way on occasion.

Not true though, as soon as there were communities, we needed rules and regs. Without them, 7 year olds would still be working factories 16 hours a day and cars wouldn't have seatbelts and Coke would still contain .......!

So, some rules and regs are good!!

True, but it is taken to ridiculous extremes now. Back in the day, if it walked like a duck, quacked like a duck and swam like a duck, it was assumed that it was a duck.
Now it would have to be fully tested under strict laboratory conditions to make sure it was a duck