TVECA demonizes mods, claims they aren't e-cigarettes

Discussion in 'Legislation News' started by Bill Godshall, Mar 28, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
  1. Bill Godshall

    Bill Godshall Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    TVECA demonizes mods, claims they aren't e-cigarettes

    E-Cigarettes are Here to Stay : Convenience Store Decisions

    This is the second time in the past month that TVECA has claimed that mods aren't e-cigarettes (they also claimed mods aren't e-cigarettes on their website in response to the exploding battery incident in Florida).

    I've repeatedly ask Tom Kiklas at TVECA to stop claiming that mods aren't e-cigarettes, but to no avail.

    I'd like to see an objective discussion (on this thread or elsewhere) about just what a mod is (and isn't) and just what an e-cigarette is (and isn't), as there appears to be some differences of interpretations and semantics.

    Also, as far as the FDA and FSPTCA are concerned, a tobacco product is any product derived from tobacco and intended for human consumption (that isn't marketed for therapeutic purposes). So it appears that the only e-cigarette products that the FDA has the legal authority to regulate as tobacco are e-liquid and any components of e-cigarette products that contain e-liquid (e.g. cartridges).

    So which mods (or more specifically, which mod components) would be considered a tobacco product by the FSPTCA?





     
  2. Bill Godshall

    Bill Godshall Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    The article posted above also contains the following sentence, the second part of which I've never heard/read about.

    I'm not aware that US Congress authorized the FDA or the ATF (now the TTB) to tax tobacco products.

    I'm also not aware of any law or regulation that requires e-cigarette importers to have a tobacco importing license.

    I'm also not aware that FDA or ATF (now TTF) have any legal authority to require anyone to obtain a tobacco license in any of the 50 states, as state legislatures in each state have that legal authority, and state licensing requirements are all different, and some states don't require licenses.

    If anyone has more information about these claims, please post.
     
  3. tommy2bad

    tommy2bad Super Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Location:
    Kilkenny
    Good questions. Going by the fact that candy cigarettes are banned from sale here, I'd say that anything that resembles a cigarette would come under the remit or more precisely they would like to come under their remit.
    Obviously nicotine derived from tobacco and possibly from anything else because of the prior association with smoking.
    This need not be a bad thing if it is implemented properly, no sales to kids, restricted advertising and quality control compliance. All of which we vapers already try to achieve.
    Atomizers and cartomizers may come in as they are only for the delivery of the nic containing liquid and again a quality assurance system wouldn't be a bad thing.
    The cost of all this and who will pay is the problem. Manufactures or vendors? either way customers will carry the can for any extra costs.
    Batterys? nah that would be stupid, truth is a battery is a battery the bit that counts most is the atomizer and the liquid storage and delivery. The diversity of product forms, from pipe look alike to lady tickling devices makes regulating the form factor difficult. All that need to be covered is the business end.
    I wouldn't object to a ban on cig alike, if people want a small form factor theirs loads of options without having to get a white tube with a tan cart on the end of it.
     
  4. tommy2bad

    tommy2bad Super Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Location:
    Kilkenny
    Just seen your second post, it appears from that that the purpose of any action isn't to protect the public as much as to... well we know the score with the FDA.
     
  5. Eddie.Willers

    Eddie.Willers ECF Wiki SysOp Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2011
    Location:
    Prairie Canada
    This is a very poor analogy and a good example of how this 'trade' organization is looking out for their own narrow interests in maintaining a market status-quo.

    Presumably, an electric lawnmower is just as dangerous as one that has been 'modified' with NOx and a turbocharger on the basis it too is also unlike a 'normal' one?

    Nonsense on stilts!
    :vapor:
     
  6. PoliticallyIncorrect

    PoliticallyIncorrect Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Location:
    SoCal
    I've never been comfortable with the term mod because of what it implies, what images it conjures up: that of a do-it-yourselfer—who may or may not have an inkling as to what they're doing—disassembling an e-cigarette in their garage and modifying it, just the sort of misconception Kiklas appeared to suffer from when he painted the scenario of mod users "...taking a normal gas lawnmower and adding a turbo charger and nitrous oxide."

    The users of Buzzes, Provaris, Silver Bullets and Darwins will be surprised to find themselves accused of such audacity, because they haven't modified anything. They've purchased a purpose-built, professionally designed commercial product and screwed an atomizer into it—no more a modification than screwing a 60-Watt Sylvania light bulb into a UL-approved desk lamp purchased from Walmart.
     
  7. TomCatt

    TomCatt Da Catt Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2011
    Location:
    Upland, PA
    Not quite sure if this was directly answered; so here's my take on it.

    No MODS, or components of a MOD would be considered a tobacco product. A MOD is just a 'battery holder' with a switch and possibly additional electronics, which is used to supply electricity to an atomizer/cartomizer, which is separate from the MOD. And, while this is the intended purpose of MODS; there are also other uses, such as ;):

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  8. Bill Godshall

    Bill Godshall Executive Director
    Smokefree Pennsylvania
    ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    TomCatt wrote

    If there is a consensus to this statement, it appears that the FDA does not have the legal authority to regulate MODS as tobacco products.

    TomCatt also wrote:

    If there is consensus to that statement, it appears that MODS are in fact e-cigarette products (or at least e-cigarette components or paraphernalia).

    Thanks.
     
  9. calsax

    calsax Deadhead at large Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Location:
    Oceanside, CA
    I agree, however, the FDA desperately wants to control delivery devices, which all e-cigarette products definately are. While there are alternative uses for them (flashlights, etc.), it would be difficult to support a claim that they are not intended to primarily function as a vapor producing device. Otherwise, why would we want them....:p
     
  10. rothenbj

    rothenbj Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Location:
    Green Lane, Pa
    "While there are alternative uses for them (flashlights, etc.), it would be difficult to support a claim that they are not intended to primarily function as a vapor producing device."

    That in itself does not make an E Cigarette/mod something the FDA has been mandated to regulate. There is no part of a PV that is a tobacco product, including the cart/tank that is not a tobacco product until the nicquid is added. I think that is the next great battle for this industry. There was a legitimate argument for the drug and drug delivery device when the FDA was claiming that PVs were pharma products. Once they lost that argument and agreed to regulate a tobacco product, they reduced their authority to the liquid. Pipes are not a tobacco product, they are a product for consuming tobacco. In fact pipes are closer to a tobacco product than PVs in that they really have no purpose other than smoking. Unless the FDA is given authority to regulate vapor, their authority stops at regulating vapor that is created by a tobacco product.

    As far as the term Mods is concerned, it is basically an obscure term. TVECA, if you spent any time reading their organizations requirements, is very focused on protecting the very thing that is most objectionable about the E Cig. They want the market controlled by a device that looks like a cigarette. Keep the batteries small, preferably a device that is minimally altered in any way. I'm sure disposables would be looked at as a big money maker for them, but at a minimum they want to constantly be selling you very little product for a very good margin.

    In the early days, and even today, there are hobbyists who where going to radio shack and buying parts to assemble to create their own version of an E Cigarette. Some of these became commercial ventures (The Chuck comes to mind because it had the large capacity battery with the ability to personalize the look). Other classics were established like the Screwdriver. That was probably the biggest commercially produced mod for a long time. TVECA would consider that a Mod.

    Everyone was looking for a solution to the biggest shortcoming of the E Cig, maintenance. Let's face it, charging multiple batteries everyday, refilling fiber filled carts and cleaning attys was no fun. The other issue was lack of vapor and flavor in the cig like E Cig. So along came more devices and all became Mods in Vaper lingo. There really should have been to different terms- Mods for those that were still among the hobbyists and "Evolves" for those that were commercial improvements to the original E Cig design. To go into Kristin's analogy bag, a Porsche would be a Mod of the Model T Ford and you are more susceptible to harm if you drive one.

    The principle danger that has been identified in the evolution of PVs is the battery, plain and simple. Batteries were stacked to get more voltage and larger batteries were used. A few batteries went thermal and TVECA has taken that opportunity to try to sell you Model Ts. Smartphones blow up on occasion (heck, I had an original Moto Droid battery come close, it blew up like it was pregnant). That doesn't mean the Mods in the cell phone industry should be done away with in favor of the flip phone. Just improve the safety of the battery.

    Anyone that knows my history knows that E Cigs are not my primary method of staying off cigarettes, Swedish snus and an occasional sniff of nasal snuff are. However, I like using a PV much the same as someone enjoys a cigar. I really could live without nicquid if I had to, but on occasion I like to feed my hand to mouth. I also like to keep up with the technology to be able to inform smokers interested in vaping what's available. I was perfectly happy with my SD Tank until recently deciding I wanted to see what all the buzz was about VVs. Wow, that's Evolution!

    Within the next year or to, it appears that the battery industry will be moving to a much safer product if what I've read is true. Again, all part of the maturation of any product. After all this writing, I'm ready for a few puffs on my latest Evolv.
     
  11. rolygate

    rolygate Forum Manager Admin Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Location:
    ECF Towers
    A definition we normally use is that a mod is an advanced e-cigarette that uses generic batteries replaceable by the user.

    These devices can also be called 2nd-generation and 3rd-generation ecigs. They all have at least one feature that a mini (or 1st-generation ecig) doesn't have, even if that is just extended battery life or more available power due to the larger battery.

    The Darwin is an exception to the replaceable battery qualification, as the battery pack is integral.

    It is long past the time the term 'mod' was ditched, as these devices are no longer mods (of flashlights or copper tubing etc) in any way. It needs a suitable term that describes a short production run, full-featured, advanced, frequently expensive, 2nd or 3rd generation model that can cost between $60 and $250 or so.

    Many suggestions have been made but nothing has stuck, as it didn't feel right. What it needs is for a manufacturer to hit on a snappy term like AVI or Advanced Vapor Inhaler or similar and stick with it, causing others to follow suit. Anything good gets copied pretty fast...
     
  12. PoliticallyIncorrect

    PoliticallyIncorrect Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2010
    Location:
    SoCal
    Minor adjustment: The Darwin's battery is replaceable, just not user-replaceable—very easily.
     
  13. yvilla

    yvilla Ultra Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2008
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Roly, ~Zen anticipated you on this. You may not be aware of this, but his House of Hybrids Zenesis model has already been dubbed an "APV", or "Advanced Personal Vaporizer". I don't remember the first time this terminology appeared in his thread, but here's a post from February 7th where it appears: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...rids-featuring-zenesis-pv-95.html#post5240394. The term is now used quite regularly on his thread.
     
  14. rothenbj

    rothenbj Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Location:
    Green Lane, Pa
    It is a good expression and not a bad transition from both MODS and E Cigs. Incidentally Yvilla, it was your mention of Screwdrivers that persuaded me to buy one. However, I just replaced it with a Variable Voltage APV that knocks the socks off my previous SD.
     
  15. rolygate

    rolygate Forum Manager Admin Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Location:
    ECF Towers
    Yes, APV is good - thanks Yvilla.

    I don't like anything with vaporizer or juice in it because those terms were hijacked by the ecig crowd and were already in use for other stuff. It doesn't do us any good when web searches for 'vaporizer' also pull up loads of stuff we don't want to be associated with. However if APV is more popular than AVI or anything else that turns up, then it's all better than 'mods' anyway.
     
  16. TennDave

    TennDave Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2010
    Location:
    Knoxville, TN
    I agree with APV too...we don't want 2nd and 3rd gen as then the FDA will certainly claim they aren't the same as what was in production circa 2008 (I think that's the cut off year they keep harping about- correct me if I'm wrong)
     
  17. rothenbj

    rothenbj Vaping Master Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2009
    Location:
    Green Lane, Pa
    I believe it's 2007, but the more important point is whether they can control the hardware. My opinion, for what it's worth, is they can not unless it's sold with a tobacco product, nicquid.
     
  18. 03ACE

    03ACE Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2012
    Location:
    Knoxville, TN
    Everyone knows that "Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms" should be a convenience store, not a government agency :)
     
  19. Mac

    Mac Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2009
    Location:
    All up in your grill..
    Give em hell, Bill. You are still my hero.
     
  20. wv2win

    wv2win ECF Guru ECF Veteran

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Location:
    GA by way of WV
    Since the big retailers of PV's such as Blu and SmokeEverywhere only sell small battery, poor performing, mini-battery models that are all made in China, as well as the over priced prefilled cartridges, it's obvious they are interested in protecting their over priced, poor performing models from competition.

    But the same manufacturers that they get their products from also sell larger battery (so-called modified - mod) PV's such as the eGo, Kgo, Riva, Lavatube, etc. These manufacturers do not see these models as not being PV's. They are just a different model PV.

    If you follow Kiklas's rationale, the Model T-Ford is an automobile and every thing that came after it (modified) is not an automoblie.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page