CNN: Don't Let Big Tobacco crush e-cigs (Oped by SJ)

[Kent C]

Under the Family Smoking Prevention and tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the use of “Lights” descriptors or similar terms on tobacco products that convey messages of reduced risk. The regulatory authority to promulgate such a public health strategy was provided by the Family Smoking Prevention and tobacco Control Act. Although it precludes ‘reducing nicotine to zero’, the act does not prohibit the Food and Drug Administration from setting standards for cigarette nicotine content that would prevent them from being capable of causing addiction. Reducing the nicotine content to make cigarettes less addictive

The FDA was given the authority to regulate tobacco under last year's Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which it has used to bully both retailers and producers. Among the more draconian of the new rules is a prohibition on using terms such as "light," "mild," or "low" in brand names.New Ban on Light Cigarettes Unlikely to Stop People from Buying and Smoking Light Cigarettes - Hit & Run : Reason.com

 

[cafecraig]

You might find this interesting: Why It's Called An 'E-Cigarette' And 'E-Smoking'

Yeah, from an adoption standpoint (getting smokers to try a PV) calling it an e-cigarette rather than a vape makes complete sense.

However now that BT has started audaciously owning the term "e-cigarette" (via highly visible TV ads and product placement), and then using it to offend people enough for them to push for hard-line regulation, my concern is that we are being dragged through the mud clinging to an adoption strategy that is only going to help BT regulate open systems out of business.

Sure, people will grasp the concept and be trying e-cigarettes, but then, if they are only Blu and Vuse, and open systems and bottled e-liquids have been pushed into a black market, non-BT vapor will have kind of shot itself in the feet.

Certainly the new aggressive advert/marketing tactics of BT will ensure that most new vapers will come by way of their technology anyway. Since they shine the limelight on themselves now, wearing the "evil-guy" costume (their obvious strategy to take the small guys down), tying ourselves to BT by product name seems like it would be playing right into their hands.

Might there be room for a second-prong strategy, since BT has now started paying big $$$ to do the heavy lifting, to then steal the new vapers away from e-cigarettes (as they know them) and introduce them to much more effective and enjoyable Vapor products? At least we wouldn't have mud slathered all over ourselves from being dragged along with BT toward the FDA.

Also, have we considered developing an "official" vaping channel on YouTube? (like CASAA on YouTube but just for vaping. General public won't likely know what "CASAA" is, so it's doubtful they will click on it, plus it has more of a political action feel, and not so much "info for the general public.") I'm not thinking of a channel for product reviews or internal and political info (no party-based proselytizing), but strictly for education, science-sharing, regulatory issues/arguments, and information designed to let the general public know the real deal about Vaping, that they don't get elsewhere in the Media?

 

[DC2]

...has anyone discussed moving our THR and deeming reg efforts further away from "e-cigarettes" or "ecigs" and instead referring to PV's and the like as "Vapor Products?"

There have been dozens of threads over the years discussing the idea that we should not be calling them electronic cigarettes.
And there have been literally thousands of people trying to figure out something better to call them.

But of all the ideas I've heard, I think that "vapor products" is probably the best yet.
And it's the first time I personally have seen those terms suggested.

 

[Kent C]

There have been dozens of threads over the years discussing the idea that we should not be calling them electronic cigarettes.
And there have been literally thousands of people trying to figure out something better to call them.

But of all the ideas I've heard, I think that "vapor products" is probably the best yet.
And it's the first time I personally have seen those terms suggested.

Welcome to the Vapor Products Forum

I prefer 'vaporizer'....

 

[Moonbogg]

I want pro e-cig discussions ran on prime time television until the streets are filled with 5 million people demanding the freedom to not die from tobacco products.

 

[Poeia]

I try to use PV. When writing one of the endless letters to congressmen, etc. my first reference is usually "electronic cigarette or personal vaporizer (PV)" the first time and then PV after that.

 

[DC2]

I want pro e-cig discussions ran on prime time television until the streets are filled with 5 million people demanding the freedom to not die from tobacco products.

I think that is what we all want, and have wanted for many years now.
Now to figure out how to make that happen...

 

[cafecraig]

But of all the ideas I've heard, I think that "vapor products" is probably the best yet.
And it's the first time I personally have seen those terms suggested.

Well, I am sure it's been tossed around before, but I have started to see elsewhere the expression "Vapor" referring to both an industry as well as the broader "vaping movement" (if you will).

For me it's more of a timing thing. I'm sure we would have preferred to wait longer for "strength in numbers" purposes. But now that "e-cigarettes" are being more aggressively owned by BT in mass media, it might be a good time to consider picking up on a more public-friendly (and hopefully less demonizable) description of why we're all here.

It was helpful for me to read through Bonnie Herzog's powerpoint presentation linked earlier in this thread. BT is working off things like that. I am sure CASAA has studied it, but it might be helpful for others to see also.

 

[cafecraig]

I think that is what we all want, and have wanted for many years now.
Now to figure out how to make that happen...

That's why I was thinking about a YouTube channel for information (basic technology, science, facts, reg issues, etc., but not political). YouTube is cheaper than taking out TV ads. Most large corporations have YouTube channels.

Something like "Vapor Products Information Center." I'm sure there would be other better suggestions, but, yeah. Post links to long-form study reports, proper analysis of NYTS data/methodology, we could get Robert West, THR advocates/info, all the Drs. who have come to out to support publicly, and the general medical community (such as those 50 doctors that petitioned WHO), etc., involved.

 

[DC2]

That's why I was thinking about a YouTube channel for information (basic technology, science, facts, reg issues, etc., but not political). YouTube is cheaper than taking out TV ads. Most large corporations have YouTube channels.

And when I read that I thought it was an interesting idea.
But I'm not YouTube expert by any means.

You should contact CASAA and/or The Vaping Militia with your ideas.
If you want any help in how to contact them, just say so.

 

[brickfollett]

Outstanding piece for the most part, but the best part is that CNN ran it...

No kidding. It seems that the E-cigarette industry is more commonly opposed my the liberal side of those with political power, and CNN is generally regarded as being a more liberal channel, although I've read stuff saying that they're closer to the center than Fox (conservative) and MSNBC (liberal)

 

[cafecraig]

There's no doubt that politics has a part, but I think we need to take politics out of the debate (in the public forum) because it's polarizing, leads to other political issues, and thus takes attention and energy away from the medical side of the issue, which should probably be front and center. Public Health. Making it "party political" (or even alluding to party politics, even if we know they play a part) also will further limit the potential media outlets that might serve our needs.

I am sure that "public schools" were a highly politicized issue a few centuries ago ("Keep government out of our schools! We can hire our own teachers!"), but they are now, obviously, supported by all parties. I think we should overcome the party-political issue before it starts. Otherwise it becomes a detractor and a can of worms we don't need to open.

 

[Oliver]

Smokey Joe:

Many thanks for writing and sending this to CNN.

Two clarifications, however, per your op/ed statement:



Although the FDA estimated (in the proposed deeming regulation) that it would take 5,000 hours (or 2.5 FTEs working for one year) and cost $333,554 to prepare each vapor product application (to be submitted to FDA for a new tobacco product approval), the reality is that it will almost certainly take >50,000 hours and cost >$5 million to prepare each new product application.

Also note that the FDA (not CASAA) estimated that 25 new product applications for e-cigs would be submitted annually to (not approved by) the FDA. While I think this latter estimate by the FDA is about right (and the only estimate that FDA's proposed deeming regulation got right), the FDA is not likely to approve the majority of new product applications (and may not accept many/most new product applications that different e-cig manufacturers attempt to submit).

And since the cigarette companies have spent lots of money trying to comply with dozens of different FDA regulations, guidances, draft guidances and staffers since 2009, I strongly suspect that cigarette companies will submit the majority of new product applications for e-cigs to the FDA, and that they will comprise most (perhaps all) of the new product applications that will be approved by FDA (if/when the agency issues a Final Rule for the Deeming Regulation).

Agreed and understood - please realise that this article went through a huge amount of edits, and every assertion had to be backed up by a source the CNN fact-checker considered authoritative.

 

[Kent C]

There's no doubt that politics has a part, but I think we need to take politics out of the debate (in the public forum) because it's polarizing, leads to other political issues, and thus takes attention and energy away from the medical side of the issue, which should probably be front and center. Public Health. Making it "party political" (or even alluding to party politics, even if we know they play a part) also will further limit the potential media outlets that might serve our needs..

By saying that "Public Health" should be 'front and center' is a political statement. The counter political statement is that it is a matter of rights. It is the ANTZ who promote the 'greatest good/public health' angle and have junk science that attempts and fails to show harm. Even if one agrees that there may be some harm in some cases, and then only to oneself, the order of magnitude compared to the alternative tends to boost the 'rights issue' even more.

The fact of the matter is that this is more of a political issue when politicians (esp. ones from a certain side) are attempting to shut down, control, tax, and regulate the industry. Were it NOT the case, then we'd all be discussing the newest latest and greatest personal Vaporizers or eliquids... but we're not - not here in this subforum at least - it's all about Regulations, Legislation and the media that covers that - that's political. If you only want to discuss the health aspect - there's other forums for that.

 

[cafecraig]

By saying that "Public Health" should be 'front and center' is a political statement. The counter political statement is that it is a matter of rights. It is the ANTZ who promote the 'greatest good/public health' angle and have junk science that attempts and fails to show harm. Even if one agrees that there may be some harm in some cases, and then only to oneself, the order of magnitude compared to the alternative tends to boost the 'rights issue' even more.

The fact of the matter is that this is more of a political issue when politicians (esp. ones from a certain side) are attempting to shut down, control, tax, and regulate the industry. Were it NOT the case, then we'd all be discussing the newest latest and greatest personal Vaporizers or eliquids... but we're not - not here in this subforum at least - it's all about Regulations, Legislation and the media that covers that - that's political. If you only want to discuss the health aspect - there's other forums for that.

I agree with everything you said, Kent. I referred to politics playing a part. But when I said public health should be front and center in the public forum I meant in the context of information and discourse that might be featured on the YouTube "Vapor Channel" or other clearinghouse information center that I referred to in previous posts. The kind of topline info you might share in a parking lot with someone who asked if that was an ecig in your mouth and how does it work. Educational stuff and then lead people in logical steps towards the more controversial aspects. I guess, information in the order of how I would introduce my stepmom to things (she has almost no knowledge of ecigs other than Vuse commercials on TV). Along the lines of SJ's article. I am referring to media/public outreach efforts.

I will look for other subforums that I may move the discussion to. Poor communication on my part, sorry.

 

[Kent C]

I agree with everything you said, Kent. I referred to politics playing a part. But when I said public health should be front and center in the public forum I meant in the context of information and discourse that might be featured on the YouTube "Vapor Channel" or other clearinghouse information center that I referred to in previous posts. The kind of topline info you might share in a parking lot with someone who asked if that was an ecig in your mouth and how does it work. Educational stuff and then lead people in logical steps towards the more controversial aspects. I guess, information in the order of how I would introduce my stepmom to things (she has almost no knowledge of ecigs other than Vuse commercials on TV). Along the lines of SJ's article. I am referring to media/public outreach efforts.

I will look for other subforums that I may move the discussion to. Poor communication on my part, sorry.

Accepted.... but I seem to have gotten lost in the sequence of posts myself. Just prior to yours was a political comment but I see you were addressing or continuing your discussion with DC2 and if that be the case, I believe the points you made regarding 'just more information' in a way that is understandable without the technicalities of the actual studies (although that is really where some of the 'meat' truly is) are valid ones that could be handled well at YouTube where the politics ("the politics of the regulation of personal vaporizers") might need a separate section and as you point out, might distract from basic understanding and the science part.

 

[cafecraig]

Kent, thanks and your acceptance might be overly generous, but I won't complain :whew:

I was continuing my thoughts, yes, but also while giving a nod to brick's comments. I guess by inference, a media message(s) needs to be tailored to that particular outlet (CNN, MSNBC, FOX), because each of those audiences are of a different fabric/POV.

But if we create a media center/resource for the average joe, I would hope it'd be one that welcomes people of any party affiliation and provides information such that it won't "turn off" affiliates of any party.

I am sure there are pretty many liberal dem vapers, and if those types of politicians would be hardest to recruit over to "our side," then maybe we can ask the liberal dem vapers what our media message should be, to a liberal dem audience. That would be something to keep in mind when building out a YouTube channel, without going into outright arguments against the nanny state, etc. You could address things like that, but deftly, constructively and inoffensively.

 

[Kent C]

Kent, thanks and your acceptance might be overly generous, but I won't complain :whew:

I was continuing my thoughts, yes, but also while giving a nod to brick's comments. I guess by inference, a media message(s) needs to be tailored to that particular outlet (CNN, MSNBC, FOX), because each of those audiences are of a different fabric/POV.

But if we create a media center/resource for the average joe, I would hope it'd be one that welcomes people of any party affiliation and provides information such that it won't "turn off" affiliates of any party.

I am sure there are pretty many liberal dem vapers, and if those types of politicians would be hardest to recruit over to "our side," then maybe we can ask the liberal dem vapers what our media message should be, to a liberal dem audience. That would be something to keep in mind when building out a YouTube channel, without going into outright arguments against the nanny state, etc. You could address things like that, but deftly, constructively and inoffensively.

Lol.... no need for the 'whew' - my reply was a statement of fact, not an attack, but not in the context you intended. You understood my mistake and corrected it - graciously I might add. Any more on that and someone will be saying 'get a room' But I'll just say it was appreciated. lol

I tend to agree with the rest of what you say here - perhaps not necessary for the original idea of informing. But for anything to get done affecting legislation/regulation - then addressing the politics involved is the solution.

 

[dragonpuff]

I know I'm a little late to the party, but I just wanted to say THANK YOU to Smokey Joe for writing this article and jumping through all the hoops to get it published by CNN! It was an excellent editorial and I think it explains our issues perfectly to those who are uninitiated, which is exactly the kind of press we need right now.

Thanks again!

 

[Luisa]

Anyone refuting Glantz and his supposed "integrity" should link to this...
Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger

It shows clearly what his bias is, how long he has had this bias, and the fact that he is a brazen hater dead set on promoting his agenda.
Just search the above document for his name and you will see what I'm talking about.

Satan Glantz is a piece of crap, for all intents and purposes.

Actually,I think there are great similarities between Glantz and the current CDC director Frieden.