FDA Discussion of SFATA conference & FDA proposal on VP Live radio

[Kent C]

Am I getting all OCD?

And CRS? 4 controversies, 3 listed Like Katya, said, "We all are..."

 

[aubergine]

We all are, Aubs, dear!

I just finished writing an email to CDC....

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/media-general-news/563140-cdc-tv-ad-2-500-dirty-trick.html

Yeah, that one's absolutely over the top thoroughly mind fookingly eyeball poppingly nose bleedingly bomb droppingly idiocracy confirmingly atrocious.

I once had a schizophrenic patient who told me, "You know, sometimes I get so mad I EAT MY OWN TEETH."

I know the feeling.

Then I go have tea and watch the trees and the world goes back into place. That's important.

 

[aubergine]

I know there was another one out there...

And CRS? 4 controversies, 3 listed Like Katya, said, "We all are..."

 

[Kent C]

I know there was another one out there...

Take your time

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

<snip>
If you don't want to hear this type of critique, which is what I think <PERSONAL ATTACK SNIPPED> I can simply be told you are done with feedback, and not waste the time....otherwise....the above is real advice

(I would've quoted the personal attack, except that I'm not allowed to, as I understand ECF's rules.)

Your posts never cease to astonish me.

 

[Kent C]

..the above is real advice

tom, you might seriously consider starting your own consumer vaping group. (not a joke).

 

[aubergine]

I was about to suggest the same.
No. Joke.

I was feeling a bit less civil about it, but that's the jist. I'll go with the succinct version.

And I do think it would behoove us at this point to have Kirsten's back - not because she's really vulnerable to this sort of idiocy, but because she, and all of the CASAA volunteers have had ours for years.
This is ECF, not Tom Baker's personal platform, and the divisiveness and generally contentious atmosphere that flows from this sort of crap undermines the sense of community that's made ECF work for many years, despite our many differences.

 

[zoiDman]

...

So instead of misreading me, for hurt feelings....I am saying

1. Stop the waste of time on FDA, hand that over to someone skilled.
2. Figure out a model that can ACTUALLY fight the Local Bans....it could take time and effort.
3. When you have that Best Known Method, tested to Work.....give that out to everyone.
4. Understand, that objectively CASAA is losing the fight, and saying we are just a bunch of Volunteers is a deserves when you are out there calling "I got it, I got it" and the ball hits the grass.
5. Recognize what you can do, and what you can not, and don't tell people you are working hard on stuff you can not do, like the FDA.

...

I think it is Just Great that you Feel the Need to Slam the ONLY Consumer Advocacy Group who is Working Solely on Behalf of Consumers.

Way to Go Tom.

 

[tombaker]

I think it is Just Great that you Feel the Need to Slam the ONLY Consumer Advocacy Group who is Working Solely on Behalf of Consumers. Way to Go Tom.

Responded to correct a wrong view of Kristin, and answer her question. CASAA is an advocate for Smokeless tobacco, like Chewing Tobacco, and have dual loyalties to those concerns in the Deeming, as well as being a supporter of E-Cigs.

The feedback should have been clear, I am sorry that you can not understand it. But there are lots of people that post icons of themselves covering their eyes. So should I even expect you to see anything covering your face from seeing......probably not. Try to keep up though

 

[tombaker]

I was about to suggest the same.
No. Joke.

I was feeling a bit less civil about it, but that's the jist. I'll go with the succinct version.

And I do think it would behoove us at this point to have Kirsten's back - not because she's really vulnerable to this sort of idiocy, but because she, and all of the CASAA volunteers have had ours for years.
This is ECF, not Tom Baker's personal platform, and the divisiveness and generally contentious atmosphere that flows from this sort of crap undermines the sense of community that's made ECF work for many years, despite our many differences.

Her name is Kristin, Not Kirsten, and as Vice President of CASAA, when she asks a question, she can read the answer, and respond however she feels correct. The advice on moving out the FDA side to another entity, is real advice.....its a way to free up resources. It was said to the VP as a real suggestion. The software they are trying out, it gives a free trial to see if it works, so the CASAA has all their options still.

 

[Stosh]

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/smokeless-tobacco/80061-beginners-guide-snus.html

 

[Jman8]

I think there is a very real possibility that flavors in eliquid will be extremely limited once they come under FDA authority, which is in the process of happening right now.

So, in your estimation, by end of 2014, flavors in eLiquid will be whittled down to perhaps a couple dozen that are available for legal purchase? Or no later than end of 2015?

 

[Jman8]

My point is simple. If you're a customer and want things known - make that known to vendors and they will either comply or not, and if they don't, don't buy from them. If they are making false claims, sue them, if you can afford it. If they are doing what they can to make all information available, and you trust them or their tests or their third party testing, then buy from them. If you don't trust them, that's your problem.

I would urge all customers to do the same and for customers that don't have any considerations along these lines they'll buy what the want. If they get popcorn lung from ejuice and can prove it, then they can sue. But forcing all vendors to comply with your wishes is costly and insane.

Anything further than that involves the FDA. If that's what you want fine. I don't.

And before any further claims of 'hostility', this isn't hostility, I just don't care for you views, just as you don't, mine.

I don't see this as hostility and I really really really hope you realize that I support this take on things.

At same time, we are in a new place with impending regulations. If we don't show overt signs of self regulating now, regulation of the national kind will be easier, politically speaking. You say, "If they are making false claims, sue them, if you can afford it." And that is a form of regulation, but more importantly is serving things up on silver platter for ANTZ. So, instead of FDA using 'exit strategy' it'll be well funded ANTZ organizations exploiting false claims in effort to pick off certain players.

And if self regulation isn't something that consumers can somehow advocate industry to do, then at some level, and while this may read as hostile, they will be seen as deserving to get picked off. Given the current playing field, I'm not sure of a way around this. I also see a segment of the vaping community expressing a sentiment along the lines of, "good riddance."

If we don't police our own right now, they will be policed for us.
Unless ANTZ has suddenly just stopped being ANTZ.

 

[Kent C]

I don't see this as hostility and I really really really hope you realize that I support this take on things.

At same time, we are in a new place with impending regulations. If we don't show overt signs of self regulating now, regulation of the national kind will be easier, politically speaking. You say, "If they are making false claims, sue them, if you can afford it." And that is a form of regulation, but more importantly is serving things up on silver platter for ANTZ. So, instead of FDA using 'exit strategy' it'll be well funded ANTZ organizations exploiting false claims in effort to pick off certain players.

And if self regulation isn't something that consumers can somehow advocate industry to do, then at some level, and while this may read as hostile, they will be seen as deserving to get picked off. Given the current playing field, I'm not sure of a way around this. I also see a segment of the vaping community expressing a sentiment along the lines of, "good riddance."

If we don't police our own right now, they will be policed for us.
Unless ANTZ has suddenly just stopped being ANTZ.

First, suing isn't a form of "regulation". If a vendor produces a harmful substance and it has harmed someone, it is a crime. Vendor gets sued, and if proven guilty goes to jail, pays retribution, or whatever the laws of the states are regarding that. End of story, until the next vendor does something similar... however, since word spreads like wildfire these days, everyone will know and other vendors not wanting to have a similar experience are likely to either get out of business or change their ways. This improves the market and the industry. What DOESN'T happen is that every vendor isn't bogged down in regulations and taxes for stuff they never intended to do and in many cases never would. This would diminish the market, bring lower quality goods or ones that just pass the regs and many times drive the good businessmen out and the industry is left in the hands of a few big corporations that can handle the costs no matter how many customers they harm.

What drives that type of thinking is the misguided political view (aided by media) that all business people are criminals, racists, polluters and (fill in the trending cause). Because of this, they want 'inspection before the fact' - ie regulation and while they think, in their mediocre minds, that this will somehow save lives or save harm, it does just the opposite, because when politics rather than economics drives the market, it then becomes who you know rather than how competent of business can you run. Where 'merit' is replaced by 'pull'. There are favors done, eyes that look the other way, etc. etc.

They've replaced the wisdom of 'caveat emptor' with the red tape and expense of regulation. In the process, you get stupid consumers who now think, wrongly, that everything is handled by Big Brother. Yet when anything goes wrong, Big Brother never goes to jail.

And this is likely where you and I depart - I'm not going to compromise my values because of the 'pending situation'. I'm not walking on eggshells. It's not my nature. I am a realist. I understand what can happen and what likely will happen, but rather than throw them a bone, I'd rather just wait to support to sue them after the fact.

 

[Jman8]

1. Personal stories by CASAA members to the FDA won't have any impact. Nobody in the FDA is elected (a couple at the top get rubber stamp Congressional Confirmations, still not elected) When I say they won't have any impact on the regulations, I say that after reading other deeming rules, that became finalized, and years after CASAA came into existence.

Please cite those other examples for sake of reasonable discussion.

I think all politically aware vapers realize that proposed regulations are aimed at industry (manufacturers and vendors). Yet, I would think everyone, age 14 and up, realizes it will impact consumers foremost. Not first consumers, but foremost consumers. The rule on youth, the rule on ads, and the rule regarding modified risk are aimed at consumers. Industry must comply with these, yet these impact consumers / potential consumers more than industry.

Personal stories in submitted comments that I've read so far do speak to what FDA is asking for in the proposal. Not all of them and admittedly with less weight, in most cases. But not all, as sound reasoning is what FDA is asking for with regard to submitted comments. Scientific data does outweigh sound reasoning on some provisions, but I would say not on all, and not with this particular regulatory framework that seeks definitions on products that it doesn't understand, and that arguably users understand better than vendors. Or understand in ways that vendors may not.

In the proposed regulation, regarding comments sought by FDA, on p. 44 it says,

If you believe FDA should define these terms, we seek comment on how to define the categories of "components," "parts," and "accessories."

Not only could consumers respond to this, but many could speak knowledgeably, and shape how the final rule looks. In essence, in several of your posts here on ECF, you have been doing this very thing. Speaking with authority on what makes for a component of finished tobacco product and what makes for accessory. Other consumers can, and speak confidently as well. Speak from personal experience of how the products have been used in our years of vaping. Chances are high that no other group responding to the proposals, besides vaping consumers, would have years of experience of actual use of these products, and what, if anything makes sense to regulate as a finished tobacco product and what would amount to FDA going down a rabbit hole that it would never never come out of, nor find a bottom to.

Manufacturers are mostly where the FDA regulations come in, unless you want to change the law, then its Politicians. This is why I say that CASAA is wasting all the time it spends on the the FDA. The FDA is not on the Consumer side.

The FDA has not made overt statements to have most vapers believe it is on the consumers side. In fact, I believe every vaper reading this, including Tom Baker, thinks that at some point the FDA will go after eliquid flavors in some vain attempt to limit the market, using "the children" as it's rallying cry during this process. Proposed regulations do hint at this. That's not foremost aimed at industry. That's squarely aimed at consumers, designed to impact appeal of the product and to curtail a market that according to ANTZ is out of control.

Politically aware vapers want to change the law and realize that will occur most likely thru politicians.

So, we do both. We squarely address FDA proposals via sound reasoning, our 'expert' experience with product use, and scientific data that was requested but deemed lacking. For all that consumers know, industry may not have this covered. Not with passion that vaping community has. Politically minded vapers are aware of a whole bunch of science. I'm thinking I could go into 50 vape stores in the next 30 days and ask them to show me the science regarding safety of eCigs (as if I'm a noob) and i'm thinking most if not all of those stores would have less awareness of the available data than myself, and many of us here. Few vendors would have the same level of knowledge, regarding use of products, that consumers have. I'm sure several vendors would know more than me, but also fairly sure that most vendors would not know as much as certain ECF Gurus. They'd know their product, and think that is enough to convey, for what these proposals are asking. But as I just cited above and could cite elsewhere from proposed regulations, it clearly is not sufficient enough. And I'm thinking politically aware vapers are more likely to submit sound reasoning than vast majority of respondents, with except of legal representatives of serious stakeholders. The politically unaware vapers, who have just heard about this regulation within last month, are the type of respondents that as you may say, won't make much impact, or as you might put it, zero impact. But politically aware vapers, who are well aware of route that politicians could play in all this, do stand to make a significant impact on what FDA is actually seeking comments on.

So with all the focus that CASAA gives to the FDA, all of the wait before you comment to the FDA, all that attention and focus on the FDA......its nearly all a complete waste of time.

CASAA board, our experts, are focussed on understanding, in full detail, the proposed regulations and realizing other avenues to address regulatory framework besides only writing comments. It is waste of time only if you believe politically aware vapers are useless in addressing precisely what FDA is seeking commentary on.

CASAA membership, and the thousands who pay attention to what CASAA is up to, but are not members, are handling the rest. At certain moments, perhaps 'wasting time.' But since 4/24/14, I'm thinking it has dawned on a great many consumers that the political game has stepped up a notch. And that both FDA and state/local fronts are going to take extra effort, plus be filtered through paradigm that says these two things are not disconnected. A vaping consumer could be otherwise intelligent, politically aware, and have zero idea about what ECF is much less CASAA, but realize that local ban that just popped up probably relates to what the FDA is proposing. Do a little google searching and realize CASAA exists. Have no desire to join, and in fact end up not joining, but take the guidance freely provided to help see ways to defeat local ban, and feel like a step has been taken against government trying to exercise influence in regulating the product they enjoy. Likely realizing that the local matter relates to the national issue and understanding their little voice has made a different for both.

I know that CASAA is made up of Volunteers, and the theory is if the post a Call to Action, the local people will go forward and handle it all. I have read over and over that the CASAA results are only as good as the Voluntary efforts of 8 people. CASAA says it.

While CASAA can, at times, appear to be late to the game, to say they always are, or even usually are, is unfounded. Just join up, and feel free to quit later, if you truly dispute what I'm saying here. CASAA is on top of their game and realizes there's room for improvement. You don't really even need to join, though I do think that would help (to establish veracity of this point) to realize CASAA is on top of most things politically, especially regarding usage bans. We could go visit Legislative forum to verify what I'm speaking about. If what you say is accurate, then all threads would show bans being announced no more than 2 days in advance and no more than 8 people, who identify as CASAA speaking on the thread.

What could CASAA do, if you are asking.
1. Don't waste anytime at all on the FDA, that's right NONE.

Very silly suggestion. I provided reason that addresses this, so moving on.

2. Right now, what CASAA puts out for Vapers to do anything, is a bunch of boilerplate information. Pretty much everything they can think of all shoveled together. More or less, just read all this stuff to them, give it to them, its so obvoius they will all get understand.

How's that working out. ITS NOT. People go in, say it, and they vote against. You would get more Vapers attending the meetings if they had a method that was going to work.

This is a decent point minus the incendiary assertion of "it's not working." Since I've been in CASAA, I haven't been shy with my 'ideas for improvement,' but also not shy to come to their side and defend against claims such as yours that CASAA is utilizing methods that lead to zero effectiveness. For sake of honesty and accuracy, I have no issue debating this precise point if you truly wish to take the intellectual side of the debate that claims nothing that CASAA is doing is working out. It'll be rather easy to defeat that, but am glad to do so if you wish to stick by this assertion.

In the mean time, and in between time, I'd suggest you join CASAA, change nothing about your beliefs, and advocate from within about 'ideas for improvement.' If it is more about 'ideas for hostile takeover whereby Tom Baker calls all the shots,' then yeah, that's not going to work out so well. But if genuinely concerned for vaping rights of consumers and have ideas, resources, skills that could help the cause, I'm quite certain CASAA will not turn a deaf ear.

If you don't want to hear this type of critique, which is what I think your defensiveness is, all ego based, I can simply be told you are done with feedback, and not waste the time....otherwise....the above is real advice

Some of what you say is real advice, and some of it is unfounded claims. Imagine just for a moment that you did join CASAA and some of the changes you seek in CASAA organization comes about. But it's still not perfect, still batting less than 1.000 on the political issues of the day. But, according to you, it is now doing pretty well for itself, and you are aware of success stories. But along comes Joe Schmo on ECF to let you know all the things CASAA ought to be doing and how much of an utter failure it is. Do you respond by saying, "Of course Joe, all that you say is accurate and we will take your words on this matter with more credence than anyone else, including myself;" or, do you say, "we are open to such criticisms, glad you expressed them. Dispute some of it. But would be really cool if you'd join our free consumer organization and help the process from within.

Rather than incessantly criticizing it from the outside."

 

[Stubby]

Responded to correct a wrong view of Kristin, and answer her question. CASAA is an advocate for Smokeless Tobacco, like Chewing Tobacco, and have dual loyalties to those concerns in the Deeming, as well as being a supporter of E-Cigs.

CASAA has only one loyalty, and that is to the concept of tobacco harm reduction, in whatever form that may take. You have obvious issues with that by your past misinformed statements on ST. It appears you are getting your information from the CDC.

If you don't support THR that's all fine and good, but please do stop your criticism of those that do. You really are sinking to a very low level by doing so.

 

[Jman8]

First, suing isn't a form of "regulation"

I dispute this. But moving on.

If a vendor produces a harmful substance and it has harmed someone, it is a crime. Vendor gets sued, and if proven guilty goes to jail, pays retribution, or whatever the laws of the states are regarding that. End of story, until the next vendor does something similar... however, since word spreads like wildfire these days, everyone will know and other vendors not wanting to have a similar experience are likely to either get out of business or change their ways. This improves the market and the industry. What DOESN'T happen is that every vendor isn't bogged down in regulations and taxes for stuff they never intended to do and in many cases never would. This would diminish the market, bring lower quality goods or ones that just pass the regs and many times drive the good businessmen out and the industry is left in the hands of a few big corporations that can handle the costs no matter how many customers they harm.

Your "what doesn't happen" is happening now. Not all of what you are saying there, but I'm pretty sure you acknowledge that free market took a hit as of 4/24/14, and likely starting sometime in 2009. In my current experience, that free market still exists about the same as it did prior to 4/24/14, but regulatory framework is pending.

Regarding "if a vendor produces a harmful substance" - I would say that as of 4/24/14, the game has changed. Prior to that, it was "all substances being produced within vaping market are harmful," according to ANTZ. But there was nothing they could do about it, other than perpetuate junk science, and use propaganda to address the problem as they see it. For around the next 50 days perhaps more, we are still in that mode. But with regulatory framework going into full effect and once implemented, I'm thinking ANTZ will be changing tactics, especially as they perceive the proposals not going far enough. Thus ANTZ will be driving force for it to go farther. Lawsuits against vendors who are producing products that vaping community's own scientists say is "disappointing." This is literally serving things up on a silver platter. Akin to ANTZ commissioned scientist coming out publicly and saying, "from my research, I have determined eCigs are a life saver."

They've replaced the wisdom of 'caveat emptor' with the red tape and expense of regulation. In the process, you get stupid consumers who now think, wrongly, that everything is handled by Big Brother. Yet when anything goes wrong, Big Brother never goes to jail.

Agreed. This is what we are NOW up against.

And this is likely where you and I depart - I'm not going to compromise my values because of the 'pending situation'. I'm not walking on eggshells. It's not my nature. I am a realist. I understand what can happen and what likely will happen, but rather than throw them a bone, I'd rather just wait to support to sue them after the fact.

Yeah, we aren't really departing philosophically, but as you noted in previous post, personal philosophies don't matter so much right now. I agree with your principled outlook on how the market OUGHT TO work. We do not have disagreement on that. Unless we succeed by going the politician route, and somehow exempting eCigs from TCA, then a regulatory framework of some sort is inevitable. This has been known to us for years. And the current proposal is somewhat tame. The situation stands a decent chance of getting a whole lot more strict before it (ever) gets a little more unrestrictive. Like you, and I'm sure most politically minded vapers, I'd rather see regulatory framework disappear and come back when you are actually seeking to be reasonable. But, we know ANTZ also sees current proposal as tame, and needing to go further. Needing to 'attack vendors' even more, even if FDA won't.

If industry doesn't self regulate, where all are involved, then those who do not, will be shown an early exit from ANTZ. They will exploit and milk the perceived problems for all they are worth, and as I noted before, there will be vapers that will plausibly hold the sentiment of "good riddance."

So FDA is saying some vendors will seek early exit cause of their red tape. And we vapers mourn this language and wish to fight such a framework, thus looking out (theoretically) for all vendors, good or bad.

And you seem to be saying, "if vendor is bad (making bad product) sue them, and this will lead to overall better market, based on free market principles." But in effect, it will provide early exit to those vendors, known to us in advance, and will be because they are utterly incompetent and too stubborn to accept any assistance from those who really really wish they'd correct the issue and stay in business. Yet, if our own self regulatory framework is not in place, then I'm not clear on why you think ANTZ wouldn't do what ANTZ does and seek to decimate those businesses, providing for an early exit from the marketplace.

FDA isn't even needed for what you are saying is way to 'freely address the market.' ANTZ will address it, and IMO be glad to file lawsuit that says this vendor over here is making harmful products. Pay up, or shut down your business for good.

 

[Kent C]

.....

It wasn't me that said 'put personal philosophies aside for now'.

Again, I understand the realities and we/CASAA should do what we can. Moving the grandfather date forward would solve a lot of problems- for now anyway. I wouldn't be in favor of compromising any principles which deal with a person's right to vape and they type of equipment and ejuice that they choose to use. I wouldn't be in favor of a tax. Rather, I'd support any subsequent suit against the FDA if they go forward with any regulation.

And you seem to be saying, "if vendor is bad (making bad product) sue them, and this will lead to overall better market, based on free market principles."

Yes. Sue them or shun/boycott them as you suggest. They'd have to prey on the uninformed to stay alive. BTW, as to the uninformed, they are uninformed, by choice. They make stupid moves, by choice. At some point, they will either stop vaping and continue to smoke or figure it out or find a vaper's forum. I really don't care - that's their business, not mine. If someone asks for help, that's different - I'm your guy* - as many people, even the ones that don't particularly like me or my politics, know. *if it's in my area of experience. If it isn't, I say so, or someone smarter than I informs me that it isn't

ANTZ are like commies, they never give up even when they lose battles. They have patience. But truth will out.... I have patience regarding that. Actually, it's more like confidence in people and their capacity to reason. That capacity isn't always exercised, but it's there, and in fact, it's gov't intervention/nannyism that stifles learning - saving them from themselves, but to learn you have to make mistakes and not only that, you have to suffer the consequences for the lesson to take hold.

 

[tombaker]

Please cite those other examples for sake of reasonable discussion.

Read the approved rules the FDA site Tobacco Check approved Rules Final Draft, read the comments and responses.

Personal stories in submitted comments that I've read so far do speak to what FDA is asking for in the proposal.

The personal stories have nothing to do with the regulations, and will not be able to be addressed by the FDA. Its the law given by Congress, they are implementing it.

could consumers respond to...what makes for a component of finished tobacco product and what makes for accessory.

Yes, and that's factual, its not a personal story. A finished Tobacco Product contains Nicotine, it must. A component intended for inclusion of a FINISHED Tobacco Product is also included. The example they Give is Prefilled cart, as a component.

In fact, I believe every vaper reading this, including Tom Baker, thinks that at some point the FDA will go after eliquid flavors in some vain attempt to limit the market, using "the children" as it's rallying cry during this process. Proposed regulations do hint at this.

Wrong.
And everytime you mention my name and try to characterize or paraphrase my position, you get it wrong. When you do the same for CASAA, I don't think you are being fair to them also. Perhaps, you can just speak for yourself?

What I have said, is current law can not apply flavoring regulations to E-Cigs, because the FDA states it applies only to Analog Cigs. I just won't join you in proclaiming the moot points apply to what you want them to apply to on your every whim.

Politically aware vapers want to change the law and realize that will occur most likely thru politicians.

Pragmatists work with the reality that the law is in place, and want to guide the FDA with facts, on how the law must be implimented. If you want the law changed, guess what, the FDA can not do it. The FDA can only apply law, within its confines.

CASAA board, our experts, are focussed on understanding, in full detail, the proposed regulations

CASAA Board of Directors Link from CASAA website, none of them have manufacturing experience, work with ISO standards, or have FDA regulatory expertise beyond whatever is being done inside of CASAA.

Management 101, do I have the necessary members on my team to accomplish my stated goals.

Again speak for yourself, not some sort of collective "We".
On the other hand, CASAA Directors DO speak for their members, and is perfectly able to do so. Kristin, does both, but always clearly states her personal views are her own.

Do a little google searching and realize CASAA exists.

Getting right on that now, I think you may be right.

CASAA is on top of their game and realizes there's room for improvement.

This is a decent point minus the incendiary assertion of "it's not working."

From CASAA These undated but searchable successes are from years back. Successful CASAA Campaigns

Yes CASAA contributed, but the level of that contribution, can it be measured. Was it already going that way. Politically aware means understanding that Dead on Arrival Bills are done all the time, for campaign ads in the next election cycle. XYZ sponsered a Bill that WOULD have....yada yada....So re-elect XYZ to office so they can continue the fight.

I'd suggest you join CASAA

I heard you.

Some of what you say is real advice, and some of it is unfounded claims.

Take what you want.

...do you say, "we are open to such criticisms, glad you expressed them.

umm NO! I speak for MYSELF, ONLY.

When I speak I attempt to show my source information, and that is done in EVERY of the 4 threads I have started....feel free to check.

Jman8, for the above, and other times where you represent me as saying things I have not, or say what I am trying to say, its simplest to update my settings
where I select which messages of yours are able to be viewed.
I won't be reading much going forward,
so please I ask that you stop portraying you in any way speak for me, or interpret what I am conveying.....let me do that.

 

[Racehorse]

I don't care if you 'have a larger expectation'.

That's perfectly okay, Kurt. There are many others who do, both on this board and elsewhere, who are trying to reduce their risks, not increase them by inhaling substances which may have serious and/or adverse health effects. Diactyls/diketones, etc.

They also don't feel they should have to needle, cajole, and prod for this information and are wondering why they are having to.

So not everyone is, as you claim, uninformed BY CHOICE.

Re-runs of "Big Tobacco Lied To Us" don't serve us......transparency does.

If you're a customer and want things known - make that known to vendors and they will either comply or not, and if they don't, don't buy from them

My private inquiries to vendors will not make information (widely) available to other vapers.

Information that is known needs to be openly and honestly disclosed. That allows informed decisions by those who want, and don't want, to put certain things into their lungs.

this isn't hostility, I just don't care for you views, just as you don't, mine.

I am delighted to exchange differing ideas and views with others. Definition of a forum, after all.

I doubt most of us, in our professional lives, have not had to sit down at a table and hammer out protocols, policies and agreements among a population of widely diffuse viewpoints. Goals are reached, jobs get done. Nobody gets everything they want though.