Consumer concerns about regulation

[Vocalek]

Hi folks:

I'm putting together a presentation on consumer concerns regarding government regulation of e-cigarettes and other products that can be used for tobacco Harm Reduction (THR) such as snus, dissolvables, and long-term use of NRTs. I'll refer to these products collectively using Scott Ballin's term: Smoking Replacement Products.

My major concerns are that the government will go overboard with what they perceive to be caution and end up making the products less effective.

Limiting nicotine to levels that are too low to keep some former smokers from relapsing
Abolishing flavors under the false belief that only kids like pleasant flavors
Implementing so many hoops to jump through that the price of the products skyrocket
Taxing SRPs at the same rate as smoking
Lumping use of SRPs into the definition of "smoking"

Other concerns?

 

[martinc]

Mandatory defacto ban in public places/at work (I am dreaming)
Publicity ban
On point 2: I am not really concerned as we could get unflavored solutions (ultimately removing the appeal factor out of the equation) and get our flavorings after

 

[Spazmelda]

Discouraging smokers from trying reduced harm products by continuing to imply that e-cigs and smokeless tobacco "could be" as dangerous as smoking.

Banning or limiting the purchase of nicotine liquid for DIY.

 

[Vocalek]

These are good. Keep them coming, folks!

 

[Killjoy1]

All of the points I would be most concerned about are mentioned already (all of which I will second for inclusion), except for a non-uniformity in regulation that may favor certain SRPs over others, possibly limiting the end-user's choice of which ones they can feasibly pursue

 

[Stosh]

25,000 or more mini-bans, by states and localities. In New Jersey vaping indoors is already banned for no scientific reason, and different states and boards of health are invoking their own nonsense, to the detriment of smoker's health everywhere.

p.s. I want my 25-30mg/mL at a minimum for DIY juice....

 

[Petrodus]

My major concerns are that the government will go overboard with what they perceive to be caution and end up making the products less effective.

I look at this concern with a very hard, cold, realistic, and critical eye.

My view is America is largely owned by BP and the FDA is just a division of BP.
They will just tell their employees at the FDA to regulate e-cigs to the point
they are no more effective than their pills, gums and patches.

The only hope I see is tons and tons of users on-board with e-cigs when the
criminals in BP and the FDA move to regulate Nic levels to the point they are
largely an ineffective alternative to smoking.

What can we do to fight regulations ... It ain't ever ever ever going to happen
because we send emails and or do electronic petition campaigns. Everyone has
a delete key on their computer key board. They have macro keys they can press
to send email thank-you replies...then forget about it.

BT moving into the market doesn't flag the end of the grass roots movement and
the end of the war against e-cigarettes. The war now against e-cigarettes is to
protect the ground we gained. The only way to do that is going back to a full blown
campaign mode.

It would be interesting to know if Blu is on-board with fighting for "effective" levels of nicotine.

 

[kingcobra]

Any involvement whatsoever by governments is too much. The more we can get them to stay away from this the better. There will be a price and probably a big one if they look to get involved at all. We do not need their help though as this industry does quite well on its own, perhaps the purest form of capitalism there is.

 

[TennDave]

Not considering the research on NHR- either here in the U.S, or abroad (SNUS in Sweden)- because the "culture is different," or "it happened elsewhere," thus is not applicable to the U.S- these are a few of my concerns.

 

[Vocalek]

Not considering the research on NHR- either here in the U.S, or abroad (SNUS in Sweden)- because the "culture is different," or "it happened elsewhere," thus is not applicable to the U.S- these are a few of my concerns.

You are correct. That was the excuse given by the TPSAC in their report on dissolvables. Conveniently ignored was the fact that the Swedish population has not been fed propaganda about snus for the past 30 years. In the US the propaganda has worked so well that 85% of the population believes that smokeless products are as hazardous as smoking, and even more hazardous in terms of causing oral cancer, when the opposite is true in both cases.

US Government required warning labels state:
This product cases mouth cancer.
This product causes dental disease.
This product is not a safe alternative to cigarettes.

While, technically, none of these statements is untrue, they are all misleading because they are not followed by the qualifier, "but cigarettes are much more hazardous to health."

There was a very telling post in another forum, where the writer revealed that her brother switched from smokeless to cigarettes because he "knew" they were both equally hazardous and he enjoyed smoking more. I suspect that situation is the norm, rather than an anomaly.

 

[Spazmelda]

That was me, and it was my cousin not my brother. But yes, that was the case. And *I* agreed with him at the time. I thought he was right. I'm pretty smart, and usually a very skeptical person (questioning known 'truths'), but I 100% believed that smokeless was as dangerous as smoking and that it caused MORE oral cancer.

Reading about the Swedish snus phenomenon was eye opening for me. I bought some, and I have to admit that I still feel a sense that I'm inviting oral cancer in the rare event that I use some.

 

[Vocalek]

Your visceral reaction is not uncommon in the US. Two forces are at work:

1. The brainwashing employed by the ANTZ is extremely difficult to overcome.
2. Many people who try snus for the first time are surprised by the tingling in their mouth that accompanies nicotine absorption. Some jump to the conclusion that the tingling is caused by immediate cancerous changes occurring in their mouth. The truth is that most cancers are slow-growing and that most cancerous growths are totally painless at first.

I imagine that #2 happens more often in folks who never tried the oral pharmaceutical nicotine products, because these often cause tingling, as well. But since we haven't been brainwashed to believe that NRTs cause cancer, it's less likely that we would associate the tingling with cancer.

I once tried the nicotine nasal spray, and once was enough. It felt like I stuck a lit match up my nose.

Afterthought: Using snus sometimes causes a lesion in the mouth--especially in those who always place the pouch in the same spot. Even though the scientific literature has referred to these as "precancerous," the epidemiological evidence shows that these lesions do not grow into cancer and clear up spontaneously when the user stops parking the pouch in that location.

Once upon a time the dentist noticed a lesion on my lower gum and referred me to a specialist. I figured out that the spot she was concerned about was where I always parked my Nicorette gum. So I started moving the gum around in my mouth and not lingering too long in any spot. By the time I saw the specialist, the lesion was gone.

 

[Spazmelda]

I've used a lot of nicotine gum in my time, so for me I'm pretty sure it's all reason #1.

I know that lots of things can cause lesions or sores in the mouth. I had to give up big red chewing gum when I was a teen because it caused sores in my mouth. Orange juice and strawberries do too.

So yes, I'm sure my reaction to snus is pretty much all due to the fact that we've been told over and over again that smokeless tobacco will cause you to have to have your jaw amputated. In some ways that's almost scarier than lung cancer. It's certainly a more visible advertisement of our 'sins'.

 

[Petrodus]

The brainwashing employed by the ANTZ is extremely difficult to overcome.