Anyone see blu's statement this morning?

[Uncle Willie]

Its both logical, and simple -- both for the company, and for the vaping community as well. No one can say that its a 'healther' or 'safer' alternative, as was alluded to earlier in this thread. Anecdotal evidence is perfectly fine, and is what what we practice here on ECF, however, it is just that -- anecdotal. None of us actually know what the health benefits are; this is the one point I agree with the FDA on. Any evidence of being able to quit smoking via e-cigs is largely scientifically unfounded -- and misguided. Lets be real here; we're not quitting smoking, we're taking up an alternative that we perceive to be easier on us, our wallets, and those around us. Its nothing more than that. Trying to imply its more than that, is where liabilities start to come into play.

Now, don't get me wrong -- I consider myself a success story, and an ex smoker due to vaping as well -- however, from a scientific perspective there is precious little in the way of direct longterm studies related to vaping, and denying this reality is a bit of wearing blinders. We *ARE* the guinea pigs for this experiment, but it was a willful choice... just remember that fact and you'll understand why medical claims are not a good idea at this juncture.

Well put .. ..

 

[zapped]

That would then make the PV a drug delivery device ..

Which is why the FDA originally started seizing shipments and destroying them.Judge Leon ruled that as long as they werent advertised as such then the FDA had no jurisdiction over them or right to such actions.

Newer members dont know what it felt like to be a vaper or a vendor back then. Companies who didnt have money to fight these illegal seizures ended up going out of business and supplies got scarce enough that people started stockpiling.

 

[Uncle Willie]

Which is why the FDA originally started seizing shipments and destroying them.Judge Leon ruled that as long as they werent advertised as such then the FDA had no jurisdiction over them or right to such actions.

Exactly .. ..

 

[corruption42]

I don't know how it is in Texas, but you might want to research Tommy Chongs arrest and legal issues ..

Not that this is the place for it, but I'll keep it brief. That had less to do with being paraphernalia, and more to do with shipping across state lines to states that disallowed such product. It also wasn't him, but people that were part of his son's company -- he was just taken down cuz he had a high profile. But, thats neither here nor there

 

[Caridwen]

That is kind of a technicality definition. It's all attorney mumbo jumbo geared for the benefit and best interests of the people with the thickest wallet and also with the most to lose from e-cigs, Big Pharmaceutical.

I DID in fact CEASE smoking cigarettes. I no long consider myself a smoker. I am smoke and tobacco free.

But in return I am using an e-cigarette as a smoking alternative or alternative nicotine delivery device.

I was talking about what suppliers/ads can and can't say.

 

[Uncle Willie]

Not that this is the place for it, but I'll keep it brief. That had less to do with being paraphernalia, and more to do with shipping across state lines to states that disallowed such product. It also wasn't him, but people that were part of his son's company -- he was just taken down cuz he had a high profile. But, thats neither here nor there

Yes, I undertand .. however, it does tie in directly, at least IMO, with the current state of the industry and the legality or lack thereof as it relates to any future regulation / I.E. interstate commerce ..

 

[corruption42]

Yes, I undertand .. however, it does tie in directly, at least IMO, with the current state of the industry and the legality or lack thereof as it relates to any future regulation / I.E. interstate commerce ..

I can agree with that, completely.

 

[DaveP]

That would then make the PV a drug delivery device ..

And that would desecrate the whole idea of ecigs.

 

[AlmityPunx]

i say they use the model set by diet pills and stuff like that... you could say "after smoking x ammount for x years with x brand's e cigs i quit smoking!"

if they add a disclaimer like "results not typical, results may vary" then i see no legal cause to stop that. as far as i know most diet pills are not FDA approved and are in the same kind of gray area that e cigs are.

 

[Caridwen]

So can a place that is selling ecigs not say "this is healthier than smoking cigarettes" or "it's X% healthier than the real deal" ? Just curious

Not suppliers here on this forum.

 

[Uncle Willie]

Caridwen .. there are no drug references in any of my posts .. never have been .. or are you just looking for a reason to delete pertinent info .. ??

 

[Jman8]

Perhaps some enlightenment is in order?

Sure, what would you like to be enlightened on?

 

[corruption42]

i say they use the model set by diet pills and stuff like that... you could say "after smoking x ammount for x years with x brand's e cigs i quit smoking!"

if they add a disclaimer like "results not typical, results may vary" then i see no legal cause to stop that. as far as i know most diet pills are not FDA approved and are in the same kind of gray area that e cigs are.

Honestly, this just shows a gross misundertstanding of the legal system as it relates to health and medical industries. I see no point in trying to convince you otherwise; I can only say this kind of attitude is your own, and ours as a vaping community's, worst enemy.

You are patently incorrect, and there is precedence -- smoking cessation devices are regulated. If things are pushed to one extreme or the other, the hammer will be brought down on our great little hobby. This is absolutely the wrong attitude to have, and you really ought to inform yourself a bit better of the legalities potentially involved here.

 

[corruption42]

Caridwen .. there are no drug references in any of my posts .. never have been .. or are you just looking for a reason to delete pertinent info .. ??

It wasn't our replies, but the original quote that did it in.

Caridwen: Apologies -- I'll just suffice it to say that legal grey area is where we currently are; and if theres regulation its not as simple as 'we just stay in the legal gray area' -- thats the whole reason people are concerned.

 

[Uncle Willie]

It wasn't our replies, but the original quote that did it in.

Caridwen: Apologies -- I'll just suffice it to say that legal grey area is where we currently are; and if theres regulation its not as simple as 'we just stay in the legal gray area' -- thats the whole reason people are concerned.

I can undertstand that, then ..

 

[Uncle Willie]

Honestly, this just shows a gross misundertstanding of the legal system as it relates to health and medical industries. I see no point in trying to convince you otherwise; I can only say this kind of attitude is your own, and ours as a vaping community's, worst enemy.

You are patently incorrect, and there is precedence -- smoking cessation devices are regulated. If things are pushed to one extreme or the other, the hammer will be brought down on our great little hobby. This is absolutely the wrong attitude to have, and you really ought to inform yourself a bit better of the legalities potentially involved here.

Your posts are spot on a logical .. so refreshing ..

Folks tend to forget the War on Tobacco .. which marches on .. and the various regulation that BT faces daily .. and with the proliferation of the PV, it's unlikely it's going to stay in a gray area much longer ..

 

[corruption42]

And that would desecrate the whole idea of ecigs.

Actually, it absolutely would -- if you at all value the free market enterprise that surrounds ecigs today. Consider this a grace period; these kinds of attitudes are what will lead to us losing what is currently familiar.

 

[AlmityPunx]

Honestly, this just shows a gross misundertstanding of the legal system as it relates to health and medical industries. I see no point in trying to convince you otherwise; I can only say this kind of attitude is your own, and ours as a vaping community's, worst enemy.

You are patently incorrect, and there is precedence -- smoking cessation devices are regulated. If things are pushed to one extreme or the other, the hammer will be brought down on our great little hobby. This is absolutely the wrong attitude to have, and you really ought to inform yourself a bit better of the legalities potentially involved here.

im not a lawyer or doctor but i do have an understanding of the legal issues we are dealing with here. yes i realize that if you taunt the FDA with borderline legality it will attempt to bring down the hammer.

but with the FDA being a regulatory agency and not part of the judicial branch of government, this war is one that is to be fought in the court of public opinion. get enough exposure and (i hate to admit they carry weight) celebrity and political endorsements and the FDA will have less of a leg to stand on.

why do you think they have been so pro-active against it? get it outlawed in its infancy and there is less backlash. i believe that we need ads and companies to stick out their necks to make claims. you say something is safer, get people to use it, it spreads. more people use the device, more attention it gets... more attention it gets, the more people will see there is money to be made. more money made means more political weight to keep making money.

the FDA cares nothing for the health and safety of the people, they care about filling their pockets with money from people wanting to squash the competition

 

[corruption42]

im not a lawyer or doctor but i do have an understanding of the legal issues we are dealing with here. yes i realize that if you taunt the FDA with borderline legality it will attempt to bring down the hammer.

but with the FDA being a regulatory agency and not part of the judicial branch of government, this war is one that is to be fought in the court of public opinion. get enough exposure and (i hate to admit they carry weight) celebrity and political endorsements and the FDA will have less of a leg to stand on.

why do you think they have been so pro-active against it? get it outlawed in its infancy and there is less backlash. i believe that we need ads and companies to stick out their necks to make claims. you say something is safer, get people to use it, it spreads. more people use the device, more attention it gets... more attention it gets, the more people will see there is money to be made. more money made means more political weight to keep making money.

the FDA cares nothing for the health and safety of the people, they care about filling their pockets with money from people wanting to squash the competition

And these concepts have worked out so well for the hippies since the 60's...

The reason they've been so adamant against it? The very reasons pointed out in this thread. Let me clarify this for you again.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO LONG TERM STUDIES ON THE EFFECTS, WHETHER POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE, RELATING TO E-CIG USAGE. NONE. ZIP.

They simply don't exist.

In the absence of evidence, they can't conclude one way or the other whether it needs regulation. Its a scientific decision, not a corporate minded one. I'm all for a good conspiracy theory, but I completely and utterly disagree with your assertion on this. As a scientific basis -- and lets get this straight -- THE FDA IS RIGHT. There is no evidence of ANY of our claims, and NO ONE can say they know what this will do to us in 20 years. If you can't accept that fact, and that a scientific consensus (e.g.; one that is NOT crowd sourced from the public at large) is necessary to make longterm decisions about these things, you're missing the bigger point.

Tinfoil hats and all.

 

[Uncle Willie]

the FDA cares nothing for the health and safety of the people, they care about filling their pockets with money from people wanting to squash the competition

I'd like to see hard information on how they do this, exactly .. and I'd also like to know what you propose that will insure a degree of safety in the food supply and what not .. because ..

1) Folks that post this type of a comment never seem to have an alternative solution ..
2) There is no hard evidence to support your claim and in the modern World, there would be plenty ..

So, if not them, then who .. ?? And private industry does not count since I think we all know where that can lead ..