Anyone see blu's statement this morning?
- Thread starter Shipmister
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- evic
- Status
Maybe they found out that burning stainless steel can cause manganism and inevitably lung cancer. Just saying.
It is sad to me that I see some defending the FDA here by calling others “paranoid” and doing their best to marginalize anyone who dares question the great and noble FDA with "tin foil hat" references. When you resort to name calling, the rest of the argument is never particularly strong. Here are two examples of why I think the FDA is not acting as a good steward of public health on this issue.
Example 1
Here is a sample of what the FDA is saying to “protect” you.
FDA SOURCE
Electronic Cigarettes (e-Cigarettes)
Now, the bullet points are all reasonably sound, I think they are fine. But then we come to the meat of the FDA’s thinly veiled attack on vaping. “It is not know if e-cigarettes may lead young people to try other tobacco products.” The FDA is unbelievably irresponsible in this speculation. What evidence is there to support this premise? Has anyone ever heard of children trying vaping to begin smoking? I do not know anyone who has began smoking after vaping. I know dozens who began vaping after smoking.
How about this statement:
It is not known if the FDA has intentionally hidden evidence of its own agents putting toxins in the milk supply of several Midwestern states, which are known to cause sickness and deaths of innocent children. If it did happen, this action could kill hundreds or thousands of our helpless boys and girls. To date, they have presented no evidence to the contrary, nor have they denied these events transpired.
I have not accused them of any misdeeds, I have not stated any falsehoods. I have only insinuated wrongdoing by creating a presumption of guilt. But does that make the statement fair? You tell me.
Example 2
FDA SOURCE
E-Cigarettes: Questions and Answers
I have pointed out two excerpts from this short Q&A by underlining them and numbering them. Let’s examine them, shall we?
(1) Here is an example of painting with an intentionally broad brush to impugn the entire industry. Why not publish the list of suppliers who were found to have the lack of quality control described? In a very large sample size, a few were found to be as stated in this web page. I love the part about, “three different electronic cigarette cartridges with the same label emitted a markedly different amount of nicotine with each puff”. What? How were the “puffs” measured? Were the methods the same? Who conducted this study? Where are your citations? There are no citations as there is no scientific study. There is only irresponsible un-scientific scare tactics. Is the agenda your health when it comes to e-cigs? It appears to be the expansion of their own power and authority.
(2) Now you can see it again, they express their concern about “marketing these products…may lead kids to try other tobacco products.” This is purposefully misleading innuendo. This is not the act of some rogue agent who is part of a great and noble group. This is not some small minority of the large organization. This is the official position of the FDA from their web site. They appear to be using their position of trust to distort reality and manufacture malicious intent on the part of the e-cig industry. There never was, nor is there now, and never will be an effort by manufacturers to market e-cigarettes to kids, and the FDA knows it. They seem to be using the sanctimonious “we protect the children” stance to make their intentions seem pure. What are their intentions? Who knows, but if there is sound reason to warn consumers about e-cigarettes, why resort to these tactics?
The bottom line on this in my book is simple. From where I stand, these guys at the FDA don’t let a few facts get in the way of a good story.
Every one of us is entitled to our opinions. While I do skewer the FDA, they are my employee, and I am giving them needed feedback. Trust me, I have let them know my displeasure with their web site directly. It bothers me to see posters attacking other posters who dare to question their position. If your position is strong, make your argument, and leave the character of those who disagree with you alone.
Example 1
Here is a sample of what the FDA is saying to “protect” you.
FDA SOURCE
Electronic Cigarettes (e-Cigarettes)
Now, the bullet points are all reasonably sound, I think they are fine. But then we come to the meat of the FDA’s thinly veiled attack on vaping. “It is not know if e-cigarettes may lead young people to try other tobacco products.” The FDA is unbelievably irresponsible in this speculation. What evidence is there to support this premise? Has anyone ever heard of children trying vaping to begin smoking? I do not know anyone who has began smoking after vaping. I know dozens who began vaping after smoking.
How about this statement:
It is not known if the FDA has intentionally hidden evidence of its own agents putting toxins in the milk supply of several Midwestern states, which are known to cause sickness and deaths of innocent children. If it did happen, this action could kill hundreds or thousands of our helpless boys and girls. To date, they have presented no evidence to the contrary, nor have they denied these events transpired.
I have not accused them of any misdeeds, I have not stated any falsehoods. I have only insinuated wrongdoing by creating a presumption of guilt. But does that make the statement fair? You tell me.
Example 2
FDA SOURCE
E-Cigarettes: Questions and Answers
I have pointed out two excerpts from this short Q&A by underlining them and numbering them. Let’s examine them, shall we?
(1) Here is an example of painting with an intentionally broad brush to impugn the entire industry. Why not publish the list of suppliers who were found to have the lack of quality control described? In a very large sample size, a few were found to be as stated in this web page. I love the part about, “three different electronic cigarette cartridges with the same label emitted a markedly different amount of nicotine with each puff”. What? How were the “puffs” measured? Were the methods the same? Who conducted this study? Where are your citations? There are no citations as there is no scientific study. There is only irresponsible un-scientific scare tactics. Is the agenda your health when it comes to e-cigs? It appears to be the expansion of their own power and authority.
(2) Now you can see it again, they express their concern about “marketing these products…may lead kids to try other tobacco products.” This is purposefully misleading innuendo. This is not the act of some rogue agent who is part of a great and noble group. This is not some small minority of the large organization. This is the official position of the FDA from their web site. They appear to be using their position of trust to distort reality and manufacture malicious intent on the part of the e-cig industry. There never was, nor is there now, and never will be an effort by manufacturers to market e-cigarettes to kids, and the FDA knows it. They seem to be using the sanctimonious “we protect the children” stance to make their intentions seem pure. What are their intentions? Who knows, but if there is sound reason to warn consumers about e-cigarettes, why resort to these tactics?
The bottom line on this in my book is simple. From where I stand, these guys at the FDA don’t let a few facts get in the way of a good story.
Every one of us is entitled to our opinions. While I do skewer the FDA, they are my employee, and I am giving them needed feedback. Trust me, I have let them know my displeasure with their web site directly. It bothers me to see posters attacking other posters who dare to question their position. If your position is strong, make your argument, and leave the character of those who disagree with you alone.
Last edited:
We can say for sure there will never be an effort to market eCigs to children? I disagree. For 2 reasons.
1) as the industry grows to point where billions are made by each company (though that remains to be seen), there could be advertisements that essentially go the way of 'Joe Camel' where it is reasonable to assume a kid (12 to 16) would appeal to the product simply by images being used. And as vendors are likely in this market for the long haul, the market can't only be current (ex)smokers if it is to sustain itself long term. At some point non-smokers are going to be in that market, whether current (ex)smokers like that or not.
2) my second point is far more controversial than the first, even while the 2nd may never go anywhere. I'm all up for addressing the issue as if kids ought to be allowed to vape. If that hurdle were crossed (which I recognize is entirely unlikely), it would take the 'main fight' FDA has against eCigs down about 7 notches. I could see a whole bunch of stipulations / regulations in place if vaping were actually allowed by kids. The first of those sort of considerations is found in response to the question of - what actual harm would come to a 12 year old vaping a liquid that has 0 nicotine?
But, I recognize (overwhelming) majority of vapers and humans aren't about to make the case that I'd make if I were to get truly political about this issue. So dealing with where we are at, and apparently feel comfortable being, I think it is prudent to realize that if the market can be (even theoretically) regulated to point of absolutely zero usage by minors, then it is plainly admitting, yes this product is inherently harmful. And therefore relies on responsible adult use along with responsible adult manufacturing, distribution and marketing. And if the entire eCig industry (includes all mom and pop operations) can't come to some place of organizing as one entity to maintain that ongoing responsibility, then a 3rd party organization is necessary to, at the very least, ensure that this 'highly addictive drug' doesn't fall into the 'wrong hands' (aka kids). Cause after all, you already admitted, it is a very harmful substance/activity when in the hands of a child.
1) as the industry grows to point where billions are made by each company (though that remains to be seen), there could be advertisements that essentially go the way of 'Joe Camel' where it is reasonable to assume a kid (12 to 16) would appeal to the product simply by images being used. And as vendors are likely in this market for the long haul, the market can't only be current (ex)smokers if it is to sustain itself long term. At some point non-smokers are going to be in that market, whether current (ex)smokers like that or not.
2) my second point is far more controversial than the first, even while the 2nd may never go anywhere. I'm all up for addressing the issue as if kids ought to be allowed to vape. If that hurdle were crossed (which I recognize is entirely unlikely), it would take the 'main fight' FDA has against eCigs down about 7 notches. I could see a whole bunch of stipulations / regulations in place if vaping were actually allowed by kids. The first of those sort of considerations is found in response to the question of - what actual harm would come to a 12 year old vaping a liquid that has 0 nicotine?
But, I recognize (overwhelming) majority of vapers and humans aren't about to make the case that I'd make if I were to get truly political about this issue. So dealing with where we are at, and apparently feel comfortable being, I think it is prudent to realize that if the market can be (even theoretically) regulated to point of absolutely zero usage by minors, then it is plainly admitting, yes this product is inherently harmful. And therefore relies on responsible adult use along with responsible adult manufacturing, distribution and marketing. And if the entire eCig industry (includes all mom and pop operations) can't come to some place of organizing as one entity to maintain that ongoing responsibility, then a 3rd party organization is necessary to, at the very least, ensure that this 'highly addictive drug' doesn't fall into the 'wrong hands' (aka kids). Cause after all, you already admitted, it is a very harmful substance/activity when in the hands of a child.
In response to my last post no I have not had anything deleted or censored. I was just verifying that when pressing enter that opinion was still mine and in no way, shape, form, or fashion was there any transference or dilution. I am probably as bad a a lot of the general public in not reading the fine print of my user agreements at times and generally do not circle back to check the tou for changes.
On the topic though, I can certainly claim my benefits from the reduction of known toxins with the cessation of smoking tobacco and I can also surely make claims to the trade offs that I choose in these products. Yes there may be no longer term evidence for vaping but there darn sure is for smoking. I can also make claims to changing my environment which considering we know that eliminating cancer begins with changing the conditions that support tumor growth, not just applying cytotoxic therapies to kill cancer cells once they have manifested, is a huge first step. So I guess that I will just have to start making the claim that I appreciate the reduction of my perceived toxic burden with vaping.
On the topic though, I can certainly claim my benefits from the reduction of known toxins with the cessation of smoking tobacco and I can also surely make claims to the trade offs that I choose in these products. Yes there may be no longer term evidence for vaping but there darn sure is for smoking. I can also make claims to changing my environment which considering we know that eliminating cancer begins with changing the conditions that support tumor growth, not just applying cytotoxic therapies to kill cancer cells once they have manifested, is a huge first step. So I guess that I will just have to start making the claim that I appreciate the reduction of my perceived toxic burden with vaping.
I have only little to say to your second point, so I will address it first. The specter of intent to "hook" kids on a hand to mouth habit creates at least the appearance of bad intentions. I doubt anyone will advocate this with any degree of success. I would personally oppose it.
With regard to your first reason. You agree there is no history of marketing to children. There is no current marketing to children, there is not any evidence of intent to do so, there is no foreseeable reason for it to ever be. Why would this industry follow in those disastrous footsteps you cite? Was this not the albatross hung around BT's neck? However, if you would like me to edit my position to "There never was, nor is there now, and is no likely foreseeable effort by manufacturers to market e-cigarettes to kids" I can accept your technical correction/objection of that part of my post.
As to the rest, I am not sure what you are getting at. I think the FDA has proven to be a poor steward of public trust in this matter. That was my main focus. No more, no less.
Do you presume I feel that absolutely no oversight or regulation is needed? I agree some regulations are necessary to the industry. How about we let state and local governments determine the laws for public sale and safety for e-cigs? Why do we need the FDA to regulate it's use at all? I do not, by the way, agree that the market can be (even theoretically) regulated to point of absolutely zero usage by minors. Tell me what market we have done this for. I can't think of one.
When I really think about it, technically, they are right. Its not the device but what you put in it or how its used so really there are no hard and fast statements that can be made to cover every eventuality. As for posting rules, its no different than here. Its their house and they have good reasons behind the rules they when you're in it. I know if you come to my house and, for instance, are under age I'm not going to allow any behavior that can get me sued. I'm the one who will pay the price for your behavior, not you.
Then please join the camp that wants eCigs strictly regulated.
It's for the children after all.
I somewhat disagree with this. Marketing can appeal to a variety of people (is meant to) and the thing FDA may nail vaping industry on is flavors. To avoid this, the industry could change all such flavor names to something like, "adult grape" and "adult chocolate" and so on and so forth. Without that, and with cutesy names for flavored nicotine, it is challenging to argue with those who can't see why previous tobacco addicts really desire 'pink bubblegum' as a flavor to feed their addiction.
I've updated my position. I think I could speak more to this issue than what I've provided. As long as you are in camp of 'kids must never ever' then I just have to deal with perceptions in my counter claims and keep you on the defensive, just as eCig industry is right now.
We don't need the FDA to regulate. And honestly, if we could influence them (via science, studies, anecdotal evidence), it'll be more challenging for the local / state regulators to do their dirty work. I recall Blu exec saying it wasn't FDA that concerned him as much as local and state governments banning eCigs based on shortsighted decisions where for them eCigs seem like smoking, so let's just include it with those bans and call it a day. They did it in next city over, so must be okay for us to do it.
My bottom line point is self regulate. Set standards from within the industry and go from there. The zealots will still do what zealots do, but right now, industry is vulnerable and division among the ranks only works against us vapers.
Now you have put words in my mouth, or at least positions beneath my feet. I don't remember 'never' or 'ever' coming from me. I will clarify. I am in no camp with anyone. If you do not see the difference in child and adult rights and how they are relevant here, I don’t know what else to say on this. I would personally oppose use of e-cig devices for children today, I think I have stated clearly why. If there is some compelling evidence to the contrary my position could change. My positions frequently evolve as I learn more. Interesting your choice of words "just have to deal with perceptions in my counter claims and keep you on the defensive". I suppose I will have to wait to hear you “speak more on this issue than what you have provided” to say more.
Wait. Now who is playing defensively!? How can they nail the vaping industry on its flavors if childhood vaping is statistically insignificant? The problem BT had was that there were significant percentages of minors who smoked. I have seen no such statistics today for vaping, have you? Why should anyone change flavors for a baseless charge that has not been made for flavor names? There is plenty of data to support that adults like the names and the flavors. I would oppose these flavor regulatory measures that would force vendors to lose their creative abilities in naming flavors. The case for forcing the industry to conform to the standards you lay out is pretty feeble IMHO. The FDA is already doing what you hope to prevent. Nor would this arbitrary restriction of adult liberties guarantee any leniency from the FDA. Sorry, I just do not see it.
No disrespect to you, but I could care less what a Blu exec said. The Blu action that started this thread was Blu playing CYA on Facebook. I suppose he has his reasons for his fears of local and state governments. I prefer local regulation since when your locality proposes a ban, you have a much greater chance of being heard by them than being heard by the FDA. If they don't listen and it gets banned in your town, moving is an option. It is easier to move town to town or state to state than out of the country. Additionally, you could “vote the bums out” if they pass legislation or local regulation. When is the last time you voted for an FDA representative? Some voluntary regulations could head the FDA off, agreed. But that is not a guarantee. I do not think we need the FDA to regulate at all. My point in posting into this thread was that leaving our fate to the FDA was the worst possible option for the vaping community.
I find it curious that you seem to have argued in your two posts:
A) you have no desire to restrict children from using e-cigs, and
B) want to ban names that could be used by the FDA to accuse the industry of marketing to children, and
C) you believe that the market can be (even theoretically) regulated to point of absolutely zero usage by minors.
D) some sort of industry self regulation will protect us from the FDA.
Now I agree partially with one of your premises here, but they seem a bit contradictory to me when taken together. Am I missing something? I feel like I am. In any event, I have enjoyed hearing your perceptions of these issues. They are not dull.
Earlier question I asked, that I'd like your response to: what actual harm would come to a 12 year old vaping a liquid that has 0 nicotine?
Statistics? No. Reports of use increasing among teens? Yes. IMO, that is bound to happen. I'm okay with it in the same way I am okay with most smokers I know who started around age 15. Some are still alive, if you can imagine that.
You don't see flavors being regulated, as a deeming regulation?
What I've put forth is a workaround. Not perhaps best one, but one industry could do today. To make it clear the flavor is for adults only.
FDA will influence local decision as I see it. If they put forth strict regulations, it'll be losing battle at local level. If they put forth moderate regulations (ones that some of us vapers are like - that's reasonable), then local battles can be fought and won.
Not what I said, but for sake of discussion, I'll go with it.
Amend names that could be used as target by the FDA to demonstrate they are flavors being marketed to children. Keep the names grape and chocolate, but add in "adult" to the name and drop the cutesy images in marketing of those flavors. In the name of self regulation. For those who claim they have no desire to encourage children to use these products.
Absolutely not. You misunderstood my point I think. I was saying regulation to keep it out of hands of children, because it would be dangerous for them, means we are serving up the regulation for adults - because we've already conceded the point - it is an inherently dangerous product. So, I think the market will move in direction to try all they can to make sure products are not sold to children. I believe children will still find way to get them. IMO, that's a given. Even if (some) adults have trouble getting them, kids will still be able to get them.
Not protect us, but serve as way of showing we are in this for responsible adult use.
i think you were missing a few things. I might on the one hand sound like I'm coming from FDA position on things, but I guess I just accept idea that regulation isn't entirely unreasonable. I've done enough products in my life that are / were regulated, so I'm concerned right now with FDA deeming regulations, but not scared. And the things that right now make me a little scared, are more so coming from fellow vapers and lack of industry self regulation than what the boogeyman, I mean FDA, might do.
Jman-
Okay thanks for clarifying a great deal there. I offer the following:
Which to me insinuates that you believe vaping should be permitted to a 12 year old. That said, I simply will respond to the question as asked. As I stated in my first post, I believe permitting use of a product that would create a "hand to mouth" habit (generally viewed as a portion of vaping that helps satisfy a psychological smoking urge, why so many former smokers like vaping) in minors is arguably "conditioning" them at a minor age for an adult habit. In effect, prepping them for nicotine juice sales at an age where they lack adult judgement by hooking them at 12, 14 or whatever. Now you can argue (successfully with me) that there is nothing adult about the judgement most 18 year olds have, but that is the law of the land. To me this practice is far more damning than a nicotine juice flavored like grape bubble gum and called "Grape Ape Splash" or something like that. I hope this clarifies my feeling on zero nicotine vapes for minors and why I would oppose the practice based on what I know now.
Okay, I get what you are saying here. My issue is any restrictions that prevent vendors from being creative carry a heavy cost to this fledgling industry. I would consider making some words off limits more readily than forcing names on to flavors. Even that idea kind of makes my skin crawl. Freedom, it sure was great while it lasted....
Yeah, I do see possible flavor name regulation as part of the deeming the FDA comes up with.
Okay thanks for clarifying a great deal there. I offer the following:
Which to me insinuates that you believe vaping should be permitted to a 12 year old. That said, I simply will respond to the question as asked. As I stated in my first post, I believe permitting use of a product that would create a "hand to mouth" habit (generally viewed as a portion of vaping that helps satisfy a psychological smoking urge, why so many former smokers like vaping) in minors is arguably "conditioning" them at a minor age for an adult habit. In effect, prepping them for nicotine juice sales at an age where they lack adult judgement by hooking them at 12, 14 or whatever. Now you can argue (successfully with me) that there is nothing adult about the judgement most 18 year olds have, but that is the law of the land. To me this practice is far more damning than a nicotine juice flavored like grape bubble gum and called "Grape Ape Splash" or something like that. I hope this clarifies my feeling on zero nicotine vapes for minors and why I would oppose the practice based on what I know now.
Okay, I get what you are saying here. My issue is any restrictions that prevent vendors from being creative carry a heavy cost to this fledgling industry. I would consider making some words off limits more readily than forcing names on to flavors. Even that idea kind of makes my skin crawl. Freedom, it sure was great while it lasted....
Yeah, I do see possible flavor name regulation as part of the deeming the FDA comes up with.
I agree with you, and I've also thought and/or read somewhere that if it is even remotely referred to as a cessation product, it will make it easier for the FDA to regulate it more than necessary or even ban it as so many places want to do and have done.
Why not just throw 'Adult' in front of every flavor?
'Adult Pink Spot...Adult Radiator Pluid...Adult Jane's Wild Juices'...I'd go for it
I mean, we couldn't call it Kid Jane's...yeah...that'd just be wrong! D:<
Of course, I'm joking here...don't kill me please ._.
I agree. Remember the FDA tried to regulate/ban it's sale a few years ago claiming it was a smoking cessation device and as such it was under their ruling and their ruling was to ban its sale. Ecig proponents fought back by saying it was not a smoking cessation device nor a therapeutic device. We won, but with the condition that these not be sold as therapeutic devices.
Every ad saying it's a smoking cessation device therefore puts our lifestyle at risk.
Of course we can't sell them as "smoking cessation devices" for legal reasons. But the fact is, these can be used to quit smoking....you just have to put "not a smoking cessation device" in the fine print to cover yourself. Then you can use a subtle marketing approach like "Put down that nasty, old cigarette...and pick up a new, tasty e-cig!"
Blu should not have aired this out over FB like they did and just kept it in the fine print. They clearly stirred up their customer base in a negative way.
Blu should not have aired this out over FB like they did and just kept it in the fine print. They clearly stirred up their customer base in a negative way.
As I see it, we both put freedom up there on a pedestal, and both have things that make our skin crawl when that is being forced to be circumvented because of (damning) perceptions. The freedom I aim at takes care of the flavor issue, and pretty much all other issues on the table, because it is what is at heart of the discussion from banning viewpoint. And the argument I really don't mind making, though I realize is controversial and unlikely to be met with support from fellow vapers, is once 'we' have capitulated on the higher freedom, and for the reasons we vapers might provide our own selves, then the easier I think it is to make the case for a whole bunch of draconian type regulations, via self regulation.
So, I say industry (namely those charged with marketing / branding) make flavor names as clear as possible in their intent to be for adult use only, or realize the perception is there (however false it might be) that flavors present target, to zealots, as plausibly something that would entice kids.
And because I also recognize that it is very unlikely the vast majority of vapers are willing to take on the larger / key battle, then I just assume be the messenger that brings forth plausible reasons for why vendors may wish to make changes themselves, now, not later (when forced to, thus putting entire business in jeopardy).
If self regulation moves slow or appears to be non-existent, I do honestly think it warrants third party consideration and action by 'higher authority.' If vaping (at any nicotine level) is inherently harmful and/or inherently damning, then it really ought to be easy to see reason to self regulate. If not so easy to see the need for own self (industry) doing the regulation, it'll become much easier to see regulation happening and need for it when a third party steps in. Why? Because you (vaper) already conceded that it is inherently harmful and inherently damning when the product is put in the 'wrong hands.' That 3rd party is just there to help you with your own assertions about the product you care so much about. Think of us (regulators) as the good guys and it'll be so much easier for all involved.
When done acting like a child who doesn't know any better, you can thank the regulators for doing their job.
What's the best way to get vapers to talk about how e-cigarettes are far safer and helped them quit smoking?
Tell them not to say e-cigarettes are safer and helped them quit smoking.
Tell them not to say e-cigarettes are safer and helped them quit smoking.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
