Advocating reasonable laws for e-cigarettes

[Applejackson]

I disagree. I feel advisory stamps such as "FDA approved" should not be compulsory. If a supplier wishes to get the FDA stamp of approval then so be it. They should buy the red tape and and reap the benefits that comes along with it. I still see no reason to pull non-FDA approved liquids from the market.

I as a consumer will make my own choice between FDA approved and bare liquids.

I agree 100%. For everything. Not just e-cigs and liquid.

 

[Doctor Vapor]

Lets face it. The government will always try to legislate anything it can. E-Cigarette legislation will happen no matter how much we don't want to see it happen. I agree with most posters here that a pro-active roll on the part of e-cigarett users will be the best bet we have to keep e-cigaretts available. Besides, nothing good ever came out of Suffok county.

 

[epluribus_vapor]

Ok, so I'm new to the forum, and I don't know if this is the 'best' place to post this, BUT after seeing all the different states (besides the feds) trying to ban e-cigs, I had to try to ensure we in Georgia are proactive instead of reactive. I just emailed the following message to our Governor, Sonny Perdue, and encourage more Georgians to do the same, and hopefully get our legislators to think about this issue seriously before they vote on something they aren't educated about (of course I also wrote Schwarzenneger too):

Governor Perdue,

I am sure you are aware of the legislation that recently passed in California to ban electronic cigarettes. It is only waiting to be signed into law (or not signed and still become law) by Governor Schwarzenneger. I have heard no thoughts or suggestions that indicate Georgia will be following suit, but as a pre-emptive notification, I beg you to VETO any legislation that would ban this life saving device in Georgia.

I work on a military installation in Georgia, which Senator Chambliss visited recently, and since I began using an electronic cigarette (personal vaporizer) four weeks ago, six coworkers at our facility have begun using one and are healthier for it. One was a Federal employee who told me point blank, "I've smoked for forty years, and when I saw you out here with that thing, I thought 'that's just goofy'. And when I ran out of cigarettes last week, I thought 'why not give it a try'. It's been a week now and I haven't even had the urge to touch a real cigarette. I feel great, I can taste and smell again, and my wife isn't disgusted by my smell. Thank you for showing these to me." That statement touched me, and at the same time, hurt me to tell him that unfortunately, some from our own government are working tirelessly to take these off the shelf, so enjoy it while you can my friend. Because if they go away, he and I, and our coworkers will be back to the 400+ carcinogens we are addicted to.

I am not naive and arguing that these devices are 100% safe for the body, but neither is alcohol, fried food, MSG, charcoal grills and many other things we would have no consideration on banning. But the FDA's own report indicated that AT WORST, they MAY contain TRACE amounts of POSSIBLY dangerous substances (as compared to the 400+ confirmed carcinogens in cigarettes which are 100% legal to sell). I have voted for you because you have always stood by my 2nd Amendment rights, my moral stands, and you are the person I chose and support to represent me and my family; for me and my family's sake on my health Governor, please don't follow California. Thank you for your time, Governor, and thank you for our rights that you've stood up for during your time in office.

Very Respectfully,
Nicholas Wallace, Sr.

 

[jj2]

I'm not sure, but I think there is a thread here to post letters you don't mind others using.
This is good and probably needs to go there. That is, if you don't mind.

 

[epluribus_vapor]

Thanks! Will post there too!

 

[Bill Godshall]

In the next few months, there are likely to be news stories and probably published articles in peer reviewed health/healthcare journals claiming that e-cigarettes either contain or emit very little (if any) nicotine, and calling for a ban on the products (because they are mislabeled as containing nicotine).

Several reliable sources (including a prominant tobacco product researcher and the head of respected testing laboratory) have informed me that several tests and/or studies have been (or are being) conducted that have found that some (perhaps most or all) of the e-cigarette products tested in laboratories and clinics (on e-cigarette users) found little or no nicotine in the products or in the blood stream of users.

While I'm aware that some e-cigarette products contain no nicotine (and are marketed as such), it appears that some e-cigarette products (and/or some e-cigarette vendors) are marketing products as e-cigarettes containing nicotine (when they contain only trace levels or no nicotine).

While I don't understand why anyone would want to ban or condemn an e-cigarette product that contains no nicotine, e-cigarette opponents are likely to renew their calls for prohibition claiming that the products are fraudulantly labeled and marketed as containing nicotine.

I suspect that the forthcoming tests or studies finding very little or no nicotine in e-cigarette products only tested one or two products marketed by one or two vendors, but that the conclusion of the study and the subsequent news stories will claim that all e-cigarettes and/or all e-cigarette companies are phony/fraudulant (similar to what occurred when the FDA tested just 19 product samples from SE and NJoy, but claimed that all e-cigarette products are hazardous).

When this occurs, I suggest that the laboratory tests and/or published studies be quickly scritinized, and that quick remedial action be taken by e-cigarette companies who products emit nicotine.

This is also another reason why legitimate e-cigarette vendors and all e-cigarette users would benefit from reasonable and responsible regulations of e-cigarette products (e.g. by the FDA as a tobacco product), as there currently exist no enforcable manufacturing or marketing standards for the products.

Ironically, while some have advocated a ban on e-cigarettes by claiming that "they contain enough nicotine to kill a person", others will soon be advocating a ban on the products by claiming "they don't contain or deliver any nicotine".

 

[Vocalek]

Yossarian comes to realize that Catch-22 does not actually exist, but because the powers that be claim it does, and the world believes it does, it nevertheless has potent effects. Indeed, because it does not exist there is no way it can be repealed, undone, overthrown, or denounced.

Catch-22 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sparky400]

While I don't understand why anyone would want to ban or condemn an e-cigarette product that contains no nicotine, e-cigarette opponents are likely to renew their calls for prohibition claiming that the products are fraudulantly labeled and marketed as containing nicotine.

I agree that your media predictions are possible. It is also possible folks are just trying to muddy the waters by adding additional info.

Right now there are pretty much 2 positions. The position FOR e cigarettes is in the bag until the FDA announces it is also going to ban real cigarettes. If there are other factions out there creating additional positions for a total of 3-4 then things get confused and indecision sets in.

Barry Schwartz points this out in the Paradox of Choice and I experienced it first hand as an engineer weighing the tradeoffs of various approaches.

 

[BigJimW]

Ironically, while some have advocated a ban on e-cigarettes by claiming that "they contain enough nicotine to kill a person", others will soon be advocating a ban on the products by claiming "they don't contain or deliver any nicotine".

Bill, my head hurt reading your statement. I understand that they may rally around a ban because they contain no nicotine, but then, what jurisdiction would the FDA have if they contain no nicotine? Other than a claim that they do.

A repackage and advertisment change would only be needed. And if what you say is true that studies are finding little or no nicotine, then it drops the E-Cig out of the "drug delivery" group and out of the FDAs hands, as propolyne glycol and water are not drugs.

Then the e-cig would be nothing more than an electronic device which technically will fall under the FCC to insure your Janty Stick or USB Passthrough doesn't interfere with the neighbors TV.

If ANTI smoking groups wants them banned because they want to eliminate even the appearance of smoking, they will be violating civil liberties. May as well ban lolly pops too becasue smokers use them to quit as well.

 

[Bill Godshall]

I urge e-cigarette users to contact Indianapolis / Merion County Council urging them to delete the eleven-word e-cigarette clause (that bans usage of e-cigarettes) from the smokefree workplace legislation they are considering on Monday, November 30 at 7PM.

See more details and letters from Smokefree Pennsylvania and American Association of Public Health Physicians at:
Hoosiers - Marion County to have ecig ban

 

[Bill Godshall]

The weblink in my last posting is at:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...marion-county-have-ecig-ban-2.html#post775913