American Legacy--Webcast is now up and Available

[Kate51]

I'm still a little angry at the fact the manufacturer's of these devices are either dragging their feet at application to the FDA for approval, or are there real reasons why this can't be done yesterday! We want testing too...as consumers we have enough research under our belts to decide if the use of e-cigs is safer than tobacco cigarettes, there can be no question of that. The manufacturer's could easily promote that theory, but they would have to stop advertising them as a cessation device. That's not the protocol most of us share in, but it has been shown to be a successful RELACEMENT to cigarettes... by thousands of us.

 

[Treece]

Highly recommended video, gain insight into the opposition to e-cigs.

Henningfield is one of the 13 WHO TobReg group members. Draft of their recommondations regarding e-cigs can also be found here.

ENDS™ - framing discussions based on which conclusion to draw.

I agree. There's a lot of insight to be found watching this ... and I'll probably watch it again.

Particularly interesting when the coordinator asked if there were any proponents of "ENDS" who wished to speak ... (silence) ... and just a guess here, but were any invited? I doubt it.

The most pointed questions were asked by (of all people) an employee of the FDA! Go figure!

But this wasn't by the stretch of anyone's imagination a "debate."

And I loved how they kept going around in circles saying it wasn't a tobacco product ... but at one point one of panelists says it is, in fact, a tobacco product.

Did anyone else find these panelists to be incredibly arrogant? Kinda creepy the way they were talking about us....

 

[JustJulie]

I have to admit that I had a hard time sitting there listening to the "experts" talk . . . yes, Treece, they were an arrogant bunch.

One of the panelists (can't remember his name) said that he had talked with e-cig manufacturers and suggested that if e-cigs were indeed so great, why not go through the testing to get them approved . . . and then later I believe it was this same gentleman who said that the manner in which we approve drugs in the U.S. was flawed . . . takes too long.

There really didn't seem to be any clear understanding or appreciation of the fact that if e-cigs are banned, most of us will be right back to where we were . . . smoking tobacco.

 

[ckc]

That was the bit of the Webcast that got me, when the Panel was asked 'if someone has tried and failed with patches,gum etc and failed quiting then managed to stop with the E-Cig was it morally right to take it away from them?' and there was just silence.

They seemed to hit a lot on the E-Liquid being in bottles.

 

[Tom09]

That was the bit of the Webcast that got me, when the Panel was asked 'if someone has tried and failed with patches,gum etc and failed quiting then managed to stop with the E-Cig was it morally right to take it away from them?' and there was just silence.

They seemed to hit a lot on the E-Liquid being in bottles.

It’s easy to get distracted by some details. But yes, there were several strong moments when the panel got off the script. And one of the examples was the question if it’s morally right to take away a product that has done good to it’s users. {silence} "I’m not an expert on morality here" {HaHaHa} "Not me" {HaHaHa} "Are we stopping the stars?" {HaHaHa} and on to sidestepping. Gross, then Henningsen even turned it into a question about a questionable morality of the user ("I’m not making any judgement on their morality"). It may well be that I have misinterpreted some of those spoken words. After all, they don’t speak my language. Nevertheless, this left a sour taste.

Bottled liquid is the first thing to go. I don’t see any chance that an attractive product could survive regulation in spirit of this panel.

 

[JustJulie]

Tom--English may not be your first language, but you write it better than many native speakers.

I remember the segment you were talking about . . . it was incredibly awkward . . . you could have heard a pin drop. The comment was, "Are we stumping the stars?" (A lovely idiom.) And, yes, the stars were indeed stumped. And after they bumbled around a bit, the eventual answer was basically nonresponsive.

I agree--bottled liquid will definitely go, unless, perhaps its concentration is so low as to be absolutely noneffective for most folks.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

One of the panelists (can't remember his name) said that he had talked with e-cig manufacturers and suggested that if e-cigs were indeed so great, why not go through the testing to get them approved . . . and then later I believe it was this same gentleman who said that the manner in which we approve drugs in the U.S. was flawed . . . takes too long.

I believe it was also this same gentleman who said that the ecig is in fact a tobacco product (which would exclude it from being considered an NRT unless of course the supplier/manufacturer wished to make health claims).

So which is it?

I think one of things that stood out for me, is that the panelists are completely unaware of the current written regulations and the interpretation most widely accepted is that if one wishes to make health claims, then one must go through the FDA approval process. This point was eloquently brought to light in the AES Amicus Brief with the Ariva example.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

I'm still a little angry at the fact the manufacturer's of these devices are either dragging their feet at application to the FDA for approval, or are there real reasons why this can't be done yesterday! We want testing too...as consumers we have enough research under our belts to decide if the use of e-cigs is safer than tobacco cigarettes, there can be no question of that. The manufacturer's could easily promote that theory, but they would have to stop advertising them as a cessation device. That's not the protocol most of us share in, but it has been shown to be a successful RELACEMENT to cigarettes... by thousands of us.

Kate - Your frustrations are totally warranted and as a supplier, I can tell you that it completely pisses me off when other suppliers make such claims as the FDA has every right to regulate such health claims. The beauty of the ecig is that our customer base, long term cigarette smokers, are highly educated when it comes to their habit. Now, that's not to say that some are desperate and looking for a miracle to help them quit... but the ecig does not help you quit. It prolongs the action and continues the habit.

Consumers are not a bunch of dolts like some suppliers (and the FDA) would like everyone to believe, and this forum is proof of that.

However, what can be done is consumers who find suppliers who are making such health claims, let them know that you do not support them and that they should seek FDA approval for their cessation claims.

Now... on the other hand... I would love to see the (marketing and approval) regulations on all nicotine replacement products become more lax. Could you imagine if 10 years ago, you had walked into a gas station to buy a pack of cigarettes and the nicotine gum was less expensive then a pack of smokes and sitting next to the cigarettes? For me, I would have only been 6 years into my smoking habit and might have just been tempted to trade off the gum and the cigarettes, reducing my intake of burning tobacco.

 

[TheIllustratedMan]

pfff... I still say "What do you mean by 'quit'?"