Some common sense words from Dr Farsalinos

[Painter_]

While I do not completely agree with it the good Dr. has a point that perception is reality.

Irresponsible marketing by parts of the e-cigarette industry requires immediate measures

 

[zoiDman]

I am sure you will get some Very Strong Opinions about this Painter.

 

[Painter_]

I am sure you will get some Very Strong Opinions about this Painter.

I agree.

I am of the group that vaping does not need regulation and as a whole the vape community has done a fantastic job of self regulation, but unfortunately the regulators do not think this. They go after every little thing without understanding it. The colorful cartoon packaging just feeds their spin.

... for the children of course ...

 

[zoiDman]

I agree.

I am of the group that vaping does not need regulation and as a whole the vape community has done a fantastic job of self regulation, but unfortunately the regulators do not think this. They go after every little thing without understanding it. The colorful cartoon packaging just feeds their spin.

... for the children of course ...

Yeah... Sometimes when I look at things like this, I see them as being in Two Realms.

The Good/Bad - Fair/Unfair - Common Sense/Irrational Realm. And the How they will be Treated/Perceived in the Agenda - Political - Regulatory Realm.

Unfortunately, there is currently Not a lot Overlap in these Two Realms.

But the Later is what Dictates just what can be Bought and Sold in the USA.

 

[Lessifer]

I get the argument, I really do.

I still don't support "health" regulations with no basis in scientific fact. It is illegal to sell vapor products to minors in the US, in some states even young adults. Marketing like this is not going to cause anyone to START vaping, it MAY influence their choice of products. We're also talking about products with no discernible health issues, and no evidence of addictive properties.

Of course, for having this opinion I am both a monster who wants children vaping, and an irresponsible vaper who doesn't understand that if we just don't make waves, the powers that be will leave us alone.

 

[snork]

Some years ago I participated in a thread in which I relayed a story: I met a lady who was a friend of a friend. She had started vaping. She had a ten year old son who was pestering her for his own vape, for whatever ten year old reason he had. She was a particularly indecisive person, undisciplined etc. She asked me what I thought, I told her sure, why not. That landed me in extremely hot water with friend #1.
Last I heard he is 14 and smokes.
Dammit.
Every case is different, but I often wonder what would have happened if he had just been allowed to vape?

 

[Lessifer]

Some years ago I participated in a thread in which I relayed a story: I met a lady who was a friend of a friend. She had started vaping. She had a ten year old son who was pestering her for his own vape, for whatever ten year old reason he had. She was a particularly indecisive person, undisciplined etc. She asked me what I thought, I told her sure, why not. That landed me in extremely hot water with friend #1.
Last I heard he is 14 and smokes.
Dammit.
Every case is different, but I often wonder what would have happened if he had just been allowed to vape?

I absolutely believe a case could be made for vaping as a prophylactic against smoking, but that idea makes a lot of people nervous, to say the least.

There are a lot of people, vapers included, who see vaping as tobacco-lite.

There's a name for inciting people to take action against something, based on a perception with little to no evidence. It's called a witch-hunt. I personally don't feel comfortable taking up a pitch fork, just so I don't get accused of witchcraft myself.

 

[Bill Godshall]

I was surprised to see the posting by Konstantinos, who I know and greatly admire for his pioneering research and education on vaping.

Since FDA Deeming Regulation has banned vapor manufacturers from making ANY changes in their products (which includes their packaging) since August 8, 2016, none of the product packages shown on his blog can be changed (without the product being banned by FDA).

In the US (unlike most other countries), brand names, product logos and packaging designs are intellectual property and their use is strictly protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

 

[Lessifer]

I was surprised to see the posting by Konstantinos, who I know and greatly admire for his pioneering research and education on vaping.

Since FDA Deeming Regulation has banned vapor manufacturers from making ANY changes in their products (which includes their packaging) since August 8, 2016, none of the product packages shown on his blog can be changed (without the product being banned by FDA).

In the US (unlike most other countries), brand names, product logos and packaging designs are intellectual property and their use is strictly protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

I'll admit that I didn't think about this until you brought it up. It would appear that Dr. F has though, he didn't call for the labels to be changed.
"Besides the regulators, who will do their job, the responsible part of the e-cigarette industry must immediately target and expel these members, while retailers should request the removal of such labels and packaging design or deny getting such products for retail."
He also explicitly states that it is not his job to care about the industry.

"I know very well, by looking at the data in more detail, that frequent (i.e. regular) use of e-cigarettes by US adolescents is quite low and not very different from other regions (I will publish a couple of studies about it in the next few months)." He also has no problems supporting an idea, and subsequent restrictions, intended to "solve" a problem that he "knows very well" doesn't exist.

Science should influence politics, not the other way around, IMO.

 

[Kent C]

Dr. F. : "I wonder if there is anyone who thinks that the use of cartoons and funny graphics and the names of these products is not going to be perceived as appealing, and an attempt to actively promote the products, to youth."

Cartoon characters aren't 'age specific'. (see below) Stop using this specious argument to bolster your personal viewpoint, which is the same argument as the anti-vapers of the three and four letter agencies and gov't trying to ban vaping under the guise of 'saving the children'.

 

[zoiDman]

Dr. F. : "I wonder if there is anyone who thinks that the use of cartoons and funny graphics and the names of these products is not going to be perceived as appealing, and an attempt to actively promote the products, to youth."

Cartoon characters aren't 'age specific'. (see below) Stop using this specious argument to bolster your personal viewpoint, which is the same argument as the anti-vapers of the three and four letter agencies and gov't trying to ban vaping under the guise of 'saving the children'.

No comment as to the Context of your Post Good, Bad or Indifferent.

Just wanted to say I haven't seen you in awhile. And hope things are Going Well for you.

 

[Kent C]

No comment as to the Context of your Post Good, Bad or Indifferent.

Just wanted to say I haven't seen you in awhile. And hope things are Going Well for you.

I have curtailed my postings, but still reading most stuff. Had two knee replacements that have grabbed much of my attention

 

[zoiDman]

I have curtailed my postings, but still reading most stuff. Had two knee replacements that have grabbed much of my attention

I thought I read that you had to have some Surgery done on your Knee(s).

I know that it can be a Long and at times Painful recovery. Hope you are Doing Well. And your Recovery is going as you Hoped it would.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Also note that the EU TPD banned/restricted much vapor advertising, many EU countries are now imposing plain packaging laws for tobacco products, and that most Europeans haven't embraced or fully appreciated the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

 

[Lessifer]

I was surprised to see the posting by Konstantinos, who I know and greatly admire for his pioneering research and education on vaping.

Since FDA Deeming Regulation has banned vapor manufacturers from making ANY changes in their products (which includes their packaging) since August 8, 2016, none of the product packages shown on his blog can be changed (without the product being banned by FDA).

In the US (unlike most other countries), brand names, product logos and packaging designs are intellectual property and their use is strictly protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

Bill, please don't take this as an attack, I don't mean it to be but I know that you've been harassed on this board before because of your past actions against smoking.

I really am curious about your views on this subject. Did you share the same opinion that marketing(logos, etc.) are protected under the 1st Amendment when it came to cigarettes?

 

[sofarsogood]

Dr F is a scientist. I trust his honesty and integrity in his field which is about the highest compliment I can make. The advertising stuff is politics and he's entitled to his opinion the same as the rest of us. In the US we have the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech. If they can put gummy bears on the package then they have a constitutional right to do that even if I wish they wouldn't. Write them some angry emails. That's freedom of speech too.

 

[Bill Godshall]

I really am curious about your views on this subject. Did you share the same opinion that marketing(logos, etc.) are protected under the 1st Amendment when it came to cigarettes?

YES.

The 1970 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (that banned cigarette ads on television and radio) may have been struck down in federal court (for violating the 1st Amendment) if the cigarette companies had challenged it in court. But since the cigarette companies lobbied Congress to enact the FCLAA (to eliminate all of the anti smoking public service ads mandated by the FTC via the Fairness Doctrine), only the television networks were upset about that law (because they lost lots of advertising revenue).

Similarly, tobacco advertising restrictions in the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (which were included in the 2009 Tobacco Control Act) may have been struck down in federal court, but since all of the cigarette companies agreed to the MSA, its advertising restrictions were never challenged in court.

In January, the FDA let Reynolds’ Natural American Spirit cigarette keep using term “Natural” in its brand name and trademarks (after FDA previously claimed the brand name was a banned MRTP claim). FDA agreed to settlement with Reynolds that was just made public (requiring removal of terms “Additive Free” and “natural” on brands’ labels, advertising and promotions).

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/content/press_office/2017/NASagreement.pdf

Reynolds subsidiary agrees to marketing restrictions for super-premium cigarette

Reynolds will have to remove 'natural' and 'additive-free' from Natural American Spirit cigarettes

FDA Allows 'Natural' to Remain in Popular Cigarette Brand Name

Note that FDA’s agreement with Reynolds is similar to FDA’s agreement with Altria’s John Middleton allowing “Black and Mild” cigar brands to keep that name (even though the TCA banned the word ‘mild’ as a tobacco brand descriptor), and is consistent with a 2004 statement by Altria’s Mark Berlind about 1st Amendment protections.

But of course, CTFK’s Matt Myers and Legacy’s Robin Koval remain in denial that brand names are protected by the US Constitution, as they criticized FDA for letting Reynolds keep cigarette brand name.
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids

Agreement on American Spirit cigarettes fails to protect public from misleading claims

 

[Bill Godshall]

That is also one of the reasons I oppose Plain Packaging laws that were enacted in Australia, and recently in the UK, and have been proposed in Canada and many other countries.

The other reason I oppose plain packaging is that there is no evidence that Australia's law reduced cigarette smoking or cigarette consumption.

 

[Bill Godshall]

But I support and have campaigned for restrictions on cigarette advertising, promotions and sponsorships that are targeted towards and/or that are exposed to lots of youth.

I supported the advertising, promotion and sponsorship restrictions that were/are in the 1998 MSA.

 

[Lessifer]

But I support and have campaigned for restrictions on cigarette advertising, promotions and sponsorships that are targeted towards and/or that are exposed to lots of youth.

I supported the advertising, promotion and sponsorship restrictions that were/are in the 1998 MSA.

Even though the lack of evidence of the efficacy of plain packaging laws would also apply to advertising that is allegedly targeted towards youth?