Anyone see blu's statement this morning?

[meli.]

Funny, as in funny peculiar, how Blu is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Had Blu just placed the statement in fine print, they'd be accused of hiding and censoring without prefacing their actions, they come out with a statement and they're criticised for stirring up the negative.

They have no choice. In the FDA links presented earlier in the thread, the following was overlooked:
Warning Letters Sent to Electronic Cigarette Distributors.
They(Blu) or anyone else selling Electronic Nicotine Delivery devices may not make statements or infer medical/health claims. Because they contravene the rules already set out by the FDA.

Having people on facebook making such statements when everyone knows companies employ people to comment positively on this sort of media, the claims made cannot be substantiated and are unacceptable.

Blu are correct in making this statement and they are also correct in stating "Additional research is being conducted by a variety of third parties regarding these issues." Also let's not forget the Burden of Proof lies with the accuser. The FDA did research and testing on some products back in the day, they presented their findings to the court and were found wanting. Exponent inc. provided findings to the contrary, those findings were the Electronic Cigarette Industry's saving grace.

None of the companies targeted by the FDA have since allowed Health or Medical or Cessation statements on their websites. As no definitive research has been presented either to confirm or contradict their safety, electronic cigarettes should be considered for the most part in the same fashion and carry similar disclaimers as those of Adult Toys.

 

[Fatboy 589]

In a way. E-cigarettes can't make health claims or deem themselves a smoking cessation device. They're a smoking alternative.

That's what I tell people who don't want to quit smoking, but want to switch to ecigs. I always tell them, it's like you never really quit smoking. For the most part, from what we all feel, they do seem a lot better for you. I know I feel better after switching and not smoking real cigarettes.

 

[Shipmister]

Thank everyone for making things much clearer to me. Sorry if this post got anyone erked. After reading through the posts its a bit clearer to me why the statement was made.

Hope you guys are having a good Sunday so far



Your friendly nor cal dude

 

[EddardinWinter]

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.

You proceed from a false assumption. Danger of a product does not necessitate regulations. There are thousands of products/things/activities that are dangerous and unregulated. Fire is not regulated. Swimming is unregulated. Screwdrivers are not regulated. Razor blades are unregulated. Chemicals like Diesel fuel and fertilizer can be purchased all the time, etc.

Conceding regulations for children does not concede same for adults. You seem to miss/avoid with this concept. In any event, I will never thank regulators. I may concede some things to them, I may not. I have agreed to nothing but to listen.

 

[Jman8]

You proceed from a false assumption. Danger of a product does not necessitate regulations. There are thousands of products/things/activities that are dangerous and unregulated. Fire is not regulated. Swimming is unregulated. Screwdrivers are not regulated. Razor blades are unregulated. Chemicals like Diesel fuel and fertilizer can be purchased all the time, etc.

Are any of these items facing deeming regulations? If they are, then you are correct, I proceeded from a false assumption.

Conceding regulations for children does not concede same for adults. You seem to miss/avoid with this concept.

In this case, they are the same, and is primary reason for the FDA regulations. As I'm pretty certain I'm not missing this point, I am arguing the larger issue, rather than dealing (only) with how some adults might find suitable workarounds for the drug they desperately need.

Let's put it this way, if a child of 16 years of age was addicted to nicotine, and claimed they enjoyed vaping, what action if any, might you prescribe for this addict?

 

[EddardinWinter]

Are any of these items facing deeming regulations? If they are, then you are correct, I proceeded from a false assumption.



In this case, they are the same, and is primary reason for the FDA regulations. As I'm pretty certain I'm not missing this point, I am arguing the larger issue, rather than dealing (only) with how some adults might find suitable workarounds for the drug they desperately need.

Let's put it this way, if a child of 16 years of age was addicted to nicotine, and claimed they enjoyed vaping, what action if any, might you prescribe for this addict?

Nope, you stated the following:

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.

So you state there that the fact that it is conceded as dangerous, the 3rd party has moral authority/theoretical authority/legal authority(whatever) to regulate. If I will just accept them as good people it will go easier for me. You said nothing about facing deeming regulations. You can throw that in now, fine. Here is the deal in my eyes. 3rd party is not there to help me so long as they restrict my liberties (or any others liberties) if I/they are not infringing on someone else's liberties. 3rd parties are not going to represent me in the long or medium term. Look at you and I, we cannot agree on the name restriction thing for the juice. They must betray either your cause or mine. The minute they oppose my interest, they are no longer my representative. How can I put my faith in some 3rd party to represent me better than I can represent myself?

If the industry chooses to regulate itself, that is the industries business. I am not going to be part of the mob with torches and pitchforks demanding that they capitulate to save themselves. So long as they listen to me, I will be saying do not concede an inch of soil with regard to your right to sell a legal product to adults.

As to your question about the 16 year old, I would not prescribe anything. I am no doctor, I would recommend for them to seek medical attention from an expert in the field of addiction.