all over the fron page of the sac bee.

[phinneyk]

a huge BEE ESS story of how E-cigs COULD be sold to minors.. even though no company ever will, how e cigs were made to sidestep alll the california laws.. just another huge story making e cigs out to be the bad guys... wth!?<---- thats an angry face btw

 

[malyden]

Here's the link California lawmaker seeks adults-only restriction on smokeless 'cigarettes' - Sacramento Politics - California Politics | Sacramento Bee

 

[Tugger]

This seems like a reasonable law and the article is balanced. I would consider this good publicity.

and if you doubt SE vendors are unscrupulous about selling to kids, I would say we have a lot of anecdotal evidence that the mall kiosk guys will say anything to sell these things, so why is this new accusation so unsurprising.

 

[usamare]

Overall it was a good article. I was delighted to see the law about age restriction, simply because there can only be an age restriction on something that is otherwise okay.
I'm just not sure where the line about a federal ban came from though.

 

[ladyraj]

I don't think this article was fair and balanced at all...the danger is that it appears to be fair to many. I base this premise on a simple count of the positive and negatives messages from the article and the negatives appear more powerful.

Some major negatives:
-Sidestepping laws
-No one can tell you NO.
-Not regulated
-Need bill to protect children
-Ban all sales until FDA deems them safe.
-E-cig sold online and in malls (where children often visit)
-"multiple reports of teens being offered e-cigarettes at local mall kiosks."
-FDA warns the e-cig may be a gateway to smoking tobacco.
-Made in CHINA
-PG and antifreeze association repeated again.

Look how ECA President is framed:

"But Matt Salmon, a former Arizona congressman who runs the Electronic Cigarette Association, representing about a dozen firms, said that members are committed not to sell to minors."

Mr Salmon's position is as the President of ECA...he does not "run" the ECA. The association of "run" is that of a merchant involved in a business endeavor versus an advocacy position.

Are we so desperate for something that "looks" fair and balanced on the surface that anything that isn't a direct criticism is greeted by relief?

Unfortunately, it seems we are that desperate...What say my fellow forum members?

 

[aditas]

I agree that there's nothing wrong with this article. Truth is that I will not encourage my own kids to vape just as I would do with smoking. See as a parent I can do my job regardless of what laws are out there.
Personally I feel that laws restricting sales to minors have the opposite effect. But if we assume that underage drinking laws are effective then yes restricting e-cig sales to minors is consistent.

 

[ladyraj]

Hey aditas, I concur.-Ruth Ann

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Look how ECA President is framed:

"But Matt Salmon, a former Arizona congressman who runs the Electronic Cigarette Association, representing about a dozen firms, said that members are committed not to sell to minors."

Mr Salmon's position is as the President of ECA...he does not "run" the ECA. The association of "run" is that of a merchant involved in a business endeavor versus an advocacy position.

Are we so desperate for something that "looks" fair and balanced on the surface that anything that isn't a direct criticism is greeted by relief?

Unfortunately, it seems we are that desperate...What say my fellow forum members?

Good semantics catch. However, I would also argue that while the word "run" might not have been the best choice of words, it is wonderful that the reporter even chose to quote the ECA at all.

For a couple of weeks, I know that the ECA was working hard to get mention and now, they are mentioned in at least several articles a week. So while I totally agree with you that the word itself was poor choice, I have to admit that the more and more people see the words ECA, the more and more the industry itself has traction and that it is here to stay.

This is an important goal I think: Getting people to realize that the electronic cigarette is in it's own industry and that it isn't big tobacco OR pharmaceutical. Many have massive distrust for one or the other or both industry and the tobacco harm reduction movement greatly needs an avenue to the public for their message.

 

[Magestorm]

Not a great article, but then again, we have all this negative press going that is a bunch of lies.

As far as the move to limit them to 18+, GOOD! I WELCOME IT! The E-cig industry has said it's aim is to sell to the dedicated smoker, not kids. Since California wishes to make it against the law to sell these to kids, I see nothing wrong. It's the state backing up our own commitment to not selling to children.

If a 15 year old came to me and wanted to buy one, I'd tell them just to quit, or use the NRT's out there. By law, those ones they can have all they want.

 

[eric]

I think it was a fine article. Excellent journalism. Perhaps even the most objective reporting I've seen on electronic cigarettes yet. Jim Sanders covered both sides well.

 

[ladyraj]

Good semantics catch. However, I would also argue that while the word "run" might not have been the best choice of words, it is wonderful that the reporter even chose to quote the ECA at all.

For a couple of weeks, I know that the ECA was working hard to get mention and now, they are mentioned in at least several articles a week. So while I totally agree with you that the word itself was poor choice, I have to admit that the more and more people see the words ECA, the more and more the industry itself has traction and that it is here to stay.

This is an important goal I think: Getting people to realize that the electronic cigarette is in it's own industry and that it isn't big tobacco OR pharmaceutical. Many have massive distrust for one or the other or both industry and the tobacco harm reduction movement greatly needs an avenue to the public for their message.

Point taken, I suppose I just worry over the semantics because once the word is being spread high and low, the rhetoric will be examined. An ounce of prevention now in altering our message may disarm a media smack-down later.

The biggest problem I see online is the accusation that someone has a vested financial interest in promoting e-cigarettes. Pair that with "acceptable" harm reduction strategy such as NRT and "Just Quit" mentality and the message of any benefit gets lost on the reader who are a non-smoking majority. It raises suspicians or elicits the anti-smoke anything mentality.

Those against the e-cig has a very strong well funded PR system in place. The lobby group for the e-cig is in it's infancy and must avoid the pitfalls of lobbies who have been doing this for 20-30 years or more. I just hope we don't get caught in a trap of our own making.

 

[grimmer255]

Honestly that is one of the best done so far. even at the end it gave the ecig one more heads up vs many articles that tear it down and make ecigs look worse than analogs.

 

[renderwerks]

The negatives have been pointed out. What about the positives?

I think it makes several points in our favor:

"Electronic cigarettes are touted as a way to smoke anywhere, anytime, without harmful tar, odor, butts, flame or secondhand smoke".
Says ours are without many of the things that cig haters harp on.

"State Sen. Ellen Corbett has introduced Senate Bill 400 to allow only adults to purchase e-cigarettes"
Reinforces our stance of marketing to established, adult smokers. Plus, why make a law if they're going away?

"until the federal Food and Drug Administration deems e-cigarettes safe"
This is a bit of a stretch but almost subliminal; the sentence assumes they will be deemed safe.

"Just because there's a new technology, why would you make nicotine available to young people when you don't normally?"
Another reinforcement to our stance.

"Besides, kids who are determined to smoke would seek cheaper tobacco products rather than fork out about $80 for an e-cigarette starter kit that accommodates $2 cartridges"
Good point- Kids start smoking because of peer pressure and to be "cool". Much easier to start being cool with a $5 investment. Besides, it's much easier to hide a pack of cigs than several pieces of hardware, etc...

"It's committed, long-term smokers that are buying this product,"
Yet another reinforcement of our stance. Repetition, repetition... sticks in the memory better.

"In the United States, it would make little sense to crack down on e-cigarettes while permitting the adult sale of tobacco cigarettes, whose health dangers are indisputable"
Great point; a statement to get you thinking...

"But many people out there feel that this is a far better alternative for them than tobacco."
Less tobacco use, less litter, less second hand smoke, etc...

"E-cigarettes are not marketed as a smoking cessation product, but many consumers have used them for that purpose"
A bit misleading- I didn't start out to quit, it just happened. But it shows another benefit.

"projects nationwide sales of about $100 million this year"
$100 million in sales now - tremendous tax base once approved and sales increase exponentially. More jobs, good for the economy, less excuse for raising taxes...

"the FDA failed to mention that various smoking cessation products, such as patches or gum, also contain potentially harmful chemicals"
Important statement for people to hear. FDA didn't disclose info that should have been included, might have a hidden agenda. Might help to discredit the statements.

"But Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor at Boston University's School of Public Health, said e-cigarettes don't contain the range of harmful chemicals found in tobacco cigarettes and offer a promising substitute for traditional smoking."
Another doctor dealing with public health saying it's less harmful.

"Unlike nicotine-cessation patches or gum, e-cigarettes can respond to behavioral and psychological aspects of smoking, Siegel said."
I believe much of the public has heard that available cessation aids have dismal success rates. This statement says e-cigs can do what no other commonly known aid can.

All in all, quite a bit of the article used quotes from e-cig proponents. I think it makes several points in our favor.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Point taken, I suppose I just worry over the semantics because once the word is being spread high and low, the rhetoric will be examined. An ounce of prevention now in altering our message may disarm a media smack-down later.

The biggest problem I see online is the accusation that someone has a vested financial interest in promoting e-cigarettes. Pair that with "acceptable" harm reduction strategy such as NRT and "Just Quit" mentality and the message of any benefit gets lost on the reader who are a non-smoking majority. It raises suspicians or elicits the anti-smoke anything mentality.

Those against the e-cig has a very strong well funded PR system in place. The lobby group for the e-cig is in it's infancy and must avoid the pitfalls of lobbies who have been doing this for 20-30 years or more. I just hope we don't get caught in a trap of our own making.

Dually noted. As we saw with the press release from ecigarettesdirect yesterday, misquoting and semantics can spread like disease.

 

[ladyraj]

Hey Renderwerks and to all...I confess to suffering the effects of an apparent brainfart because I didn't even see page TWO! Duh...Pardon my crudeness and my error in an analysis done on half an article before one got to the good stuff. Thank goodness we have checks and balances on one another!

Thank You Renderwerk for bringing this to my attention. )