Basis of corporate/business policies on vaping/e-cigs?

[PRODOS]

Not in this country. Maybe in yours. lol

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Would you mind clarifying please?

 

[stevegmu]

I see. You expose a very sad state of affairs. Very sad, indeed.

My deeper concern is that if something as harmless as vaping can be steam-rolled so thoroughly, what other free choices can and will also be crushed?

vaping addresses almost all of the original anti-smoking arguments.

But now the goal posts are getting moved. That's cheating.

I just came across this submission (August 2014) to the FDA by the American e-liquid Manufacturing Standards Association (AEMSA )
http://www.aemsa.org/wp-content/upl...ents-to-Proposed-Deeming-Regulation-Final.pdf

I'll read through it tomorrow as I'm very curious to see how the Vaping industry approaches these issues.

What I notice upon skimming through it is that AEMSA is particularly concerned with differentiating vaping from smoking and argues that they are sufficiently different so as to warrant a different regulatory approach.

Anyway, to be continued.

Drinking, eating...

AEMSA is kind of like a cartel. High membership dues. None of the big guys are in it... An ISO standard specific for e-liquids is what the vaping world needs...

 

[PRODOS]

Drinking, eating...

AEMSA is kind of like a cartel. High membership dues. None of the big guys are in it... An ISO standard specific for e-liquids is what the vaping world needs...

By "big guys" do you mean the Chinese manufacturers?

 

[BlueSnake]

I'm not going to explain, it was self explanatory.

What I will tell you is that it is a very sad state of affairs in this country. Personal freedoms and free choices are and have been disappearing quickly. In my day people stood up for themselves, and others. Took to the streets to protest what they were unhappy about and in a lot of situations affected change. That is all but gone today. Too many people only care about themselves and not about others.

The other horrible reality in this country is that almost everything is controlled by those with the most money. That means that the corporations pretty much write the laws and control everything, right or wrong.

So when it comes to vaping, the tobacco and drug companies, with all their money, are pretty much dictating what is happening with respects to vaping. They run negative public relations campaigns against vaping and write, lobby for, and sponsor the anti-vaping legislation, at least on the state and federal level. It's the way it is.

 

[stevegmu]

By "big guys" do you mean the Chinese manufacturers?

Big US manufacturers- Halo, Johnson Creek, NJOY, Nikoticket, MBV... None are members, and they account for a good % of the e-liquid manufactured in the US. Halo may be the biggest US manufacturer by volume and sales. I read it somewhere, but haven't been able to confirm it...

 

[NealBJr]

Too many long messages, skimmed a lot, but here's what I have come to the conclusion.

Most Ecigs have Nicotine, and most people do not separate Nicotine from traditional Tobacco cigarettes. When someone sees the vapor that looks like a cigarette, they know that it contains Nicotine, and start to relate Nicotine to all the bad stigmas that come with smoking. Whether or not it's true, they don't have, and don't feel the need to do the research to find out the truth.. they believe in the short answers they hear from others. So, from the public's standpoint, Vaping is the same as smoking in their eyes..whether or not it's true.

The US government is loosely based on the public's wants. If people want something illegal, it will be. Simply put, there are more non vapers than vapers, and more that believe that it's bad, than good. Add to the fact that the government gets quite a bit of taxation from the MSA (Master Settlement Agreement), means they have no motivation to find the truth. Taxing Ecigs like a tobacco product will just bring more revenue into the government, and money is the bottom line.

no healthy viewpoint from the masses, and no backing from the government makes the outlook on Ecigs look grim. The best thing we can do, is to delay any legislation on regulating ecigs. Let the knowledge get out there. The ANTZ are quick to point out any bad media on Ecigs, and people believe media to be fact. The media is just out to be alarmists to make money. How many world reports show that apples are good for you? but if there was a chance they could cause harm, it would be all over the television. I never had as bad of an opinion on the media until it started to affect ME. I did research, and believe that vaping is MUCH more safer than cigarettes. Now they want to regulate what I know is safer.. and other non vapers have told me everything from lies to theoretical hypothesis with no basis on fact. I've argued till I'm blue in the face, and people want to believe in the worst.

I guess it will be regulated not based on truths, but based on theories. It's not right, and it will kill a lot of people.

 

[coilburner]

For workplaces at least, the policy is illogical since the emissions of faxes, photocopiers and printers are likely far more hazardous to health than a bit of vape.

If i said i used no nicotine, perhaps i'd be regarded as no more dangerous than an air freshener?

Anyway - HR departments will do anything to avoid legal action from any real or perceived dangers and that's why we endure the polices we do. I am permitted to vape anywhere i like at work; i realise most are not.

T

Maybe they want employees to be working not vaping, so they ban it indoors. Maybe that has something to do with it?

 

[PRODOS]

... when it comes to vaping, the tobacco and drug companies, with all their money, are pretty much dictating what is happening with respects to vaping. They run negative public relations campaigns against vaping and write, lobby for, and sponsor the anti-vaping legislation, at least on the state and federal level. It's the way it is.

That may be so, but I haven't seen evidence of this.
i.e. That drug companies and tobacco companies are funding anti vaping campaigns.

What I have seen is that the anti vaping campaigners -- who seem to be largely non-profits + government agencies -- are winning by default.
i.e. They are forcefully putting forward the case for restricting or prohibiting vaping but are facing minimal opposition.

That their arguments are shockingly flimsy doesn't matter when they are not contested.

I am happy to be corrected on this if I'm wrong.

Thanks.

 

[PRODOS]

Big US manufacturers- Halo, Johnson Creek, NJOY, Nikoticket, MBV... None are members, and they account for a good % of the e-liquid manufactured in the US. Halo may be the biggest US manufacturer by volume and sales. I read it somewhere, but haven't been able to confirm it...

Thanks. Very interesting.

AEMSA (American E-Liquid Manufacturing Standards Association) has now been going for several years. I wonder why the biggies haven't joined.

Just wrote to Johnson Creek to ask them about this. Will also write to Halo.

 

[philoshop]

Drug companies pay the salaries of government researchers > government researchers are listened to by lawmakers > lawmakers react > drug companies get what they want and the government does as well, by default.

There is a lot of opposition, but it's a relatively small group overall, and it's a group that tends to be fragmented, mostly along ideological lines.

Admittedly, I don't know very much about AEMSA, but in many ways, they seem to want the same sort of control as the US government seeks. Many business-people are leery of that notion, and I don't blame them. We,the consumers,are not all alike.

Freedom of choice.
If a juice vendor doesn't fit your personal standards, don't buy from them. There are plenty of other manufacturers and vendors out there.
Removing that choice shouldn't be an option.

 

[PRODOS]

Most Ecigs have Nicotine, and most people do not separate Nicotine from traditional Tobacco cigarettes. When someone sees the vapor that looks like a cigarette, they know that it contains Nicotine, and start to relate Nicotine to all the bad stigmas that come with smoking. Whether or not it's true, they don't have, and don't feel the need to do the research to find out the truth.. they believe in the short answers they hear from others.

So, from the public's standpoint, Vaping is the same as smoking in their eyes..whether or not it's true.

Well ... vaping is pretty weird, isn't it?

Seriously. Inhaling to trigger a battery which vaporises a liquid that delivers flavour and nicotine. And the exhale is just mist ... that looks so smoke-like. And you recharge it with a USB connector?

The first time I explain this to most people, they find it hilarious.

I still do.

The US government is loosely based on the public's wants. If people want something illegal, it will be.

Most people do NOT "want" vaping made illegal. Neither do they rush to its defence, either.

Simply put, there are more non vapers than vapers, and more that believe that it's bad, than good.

If that is so, it's a very shallow, lightly-held and changeable "belief".

Add to the fact that the government gets quite a bit of taxation from the MSA (Master Settlement Agreement), means they have no motivation to find the truth. Taxing Ecigs like a tobacco product will just bring more revenue into the government, and money is the bottom line.

I see. Don't know anything about that at present. Will have to look into it.

no healthy viewpoint from the masses, and no backing from the government makes the outlook on Ecigs look grim.

The 4 parties that are missing from this scenario are: Individual Vapers, Vaper users/consumers groups, Vaping businesses, Vaping industry association(s).

i.e. Those who you'd think would have the most at stake.

The best thing we can do, is to delay any legislation on regulating ecigs. Let the knowledge get out there.

What sorts of things do you (or any other reader) think would help get accurate, objective vaping facts out into the community?

The ANTZ are quick to point out any bad media on Ecigs, and people believe media to be fact.

Based on surveys, the media has one of the lowest credibility scores out of nearly all other industries/professions.

The media is just out to be alarmists to make money.

Vapers and the Vaping industry can play "alarmist" too -- and without lies or exaggeration.

How many world reports show that apples are good for you? but if there was a chance they could cause harm, it would be all over the television.

Apples contain arsenic.
Questions & Answers: Apple Juice and Arsenic

Let the panic begin!!!

I never had as bad of an opinion on the media until it started to affect ME. I did research, and believe that vaping is MUCH more safer than cigarettes. Now they want to regulate what I know is safer..

Yes. It's bad.

and other non vapers have told me everything from lies to theoretical hypothesis with no basis on fact. I've argued till I'm blue in the face, and people want to believe in the worst.

Can you give some examples of typical arguments? What you (more or less) state and how the non vaper (more or less) responds?

For instance, one typical exchange that I have goes something like this ...

Other: They cause cancer.
Me: E-cigs don't contain the carcinogens that were the basis of banning traditional cigarettes.
Other: But they're addictive and should be banned.
Me: Like coffee?
Other: Well, there was some news report that they cause (etc.)

I guess it will be regulated not based on truths, but based on theories. It's not right, and it will kill a lot of people.

It's important that this does not happen. But if it does, that it's reversed.
It's important not just for the sake of vapers, but also because it extends an already existing and very destructive precedent across society.

Thanks for posting your views and experiences.

 

[PRODOS]

Drug companies pay the salaries of government researchers > government researchers are listened to by lawmakers > lawmakers react > drug companies get what they want and the government does as well, by default.

Well ... it's true that when government gets involved in areas it's not meant to (i.e. anything beyond core functions that protect individual rights -- such as police, defence, courts) ... they turn it into a politically correct hash. There is no shortage of evidence on that front.

But it would take a lot to convince me that government researchers paid by drug companies are biasing or falsifying their research in order to make drug companies happy.

What I do see in much of the research I've looked at is that its frame of reference is flawed.

For instance (to use a different subject) ...

Years ago I researched a (non-government) organisation that was set up to do research on whether blacks were inferior to other races.

Its (private) funding was directed at locating evidence of racial inferiority.

And they found it! Well ... not quite.

For instance: If you look at Black IQ vs White IQ scores, you find a difference.

But while you're doing this you MISS on noticing that IQ scores in northern states tended (back then) to be higher than IQ scores in southern states -- regardless of skin colour!

In other words: The very framing of what is to be researched can leave out data that would rebut the theory or reveal something even more fascinating.

I see a similar thing in the health & safety related research.

The brief given to a scientist is: Is there anything (anything!) harmful in e-cigs?

Well, sure there is.

But compared to what?

And the other problem in policy framing and health & safety research is: Can you prove that this will NOT be harmful?

This is an open licence to ban just about everything.

I'd like politicians and regulatory agencies to prove that they do NOT do more harm than good.

Anyway ... see what I mean?

There is a lot of opposition, but it's a relatively small group overall, and it's a group that tends to be fragmented, mostly along ideological lines.

Ideological lines?

Oh?

Can you please clarify?

Admittedly, I don't know very much about AEMSA, but in many ways, they seem to want the same sort of control as the US government seeks. Many business-people are leery of that notion, and I don't blame them. We,the consumers,are not all alike.

Yes, that can be a problem.

Industries which focus on "self-regulation" often build the whip and chains to be enslaved by the next round of politicians and bureaucrats.

Freedom of choice.
If a juice vendor doesn't fit your personal standards, don't buy from them. There are plenty of other manufacturers and vendors out there.

Removing that choice shouldn't be an option.

Amen to that.

 

[PRODOS]

Maybe they want employees to be working not vaping, so they ban it indoors. Maybe that has something to do with it?

Sure. In some cases that would be valid. In others, no.

 

[philoshop]

A close look at the "News and Campaigning" section here at ECF will be a good place to start.
Intelligent people, far more knowledgeable than I, can explain these issues better.

 

[PRODOS]

A close look at the "News and Campaigning" section here at ECF will be a good place to start.
Intelligent people, far more knowledgeable than I, can explain these issues better.

Thanks. I'll do that.

 

[PRODOS]

As suggested by philoshop I've started a new thread under "News and Campaigning":

How does the vaping industry defend itself? | E-Cigarette Forum

Thanks to everyone on this thread who chipped in. Really appreciate it.