E-Cigarette Forum Discussion Thread

[LibertariaNate]

I disagere - ECF should be taking the stand that the merchants cannot do for themselves and get the WHOLE truth out to the public, not "play it safe."

You already stated that vendors cannot make these health claims. Why would ECF (who receive advertising money from said vendors) not be held to the same standard?

How is going out guns blazing and potentially having the site shut down going to help anyone?

 

[kristin]

I agree as well Kristin. There are so many reasons to quit smoking, just as there are so many reasons why people continue to smoke.

It's not all about nicotine. We've seen that with the lackluster success rates of NRT. The whole question of MAOI, and the psychological habits gained from long-term cigarette use (ritual craving) are big reasons why many fail when their "stick" is replaced with a "patch".

You have mentioned your husband needing "more" than just an ecig to keep the smokes at bay. There are ALOT of folks out there that NEED to hear this type of information.

Nevermind those (like myself) that enjoy the ritual, and are fortunate not to desire nicotine or any of the other chemicals. There are alot of us out in the wild too.

I completely agree that ECF should make sure people know that e-cigs aren't a "magic bullet" for smoking cessation for all smokers.

But that should NOT be listed as a reason or point in the "Can I give up smoking?" section. It should be addressed in a separate FAQ such as in the "What are ther negatives to e-cigarettes?" section (ie. e-cigarettes don't work as a complete replacement for everyone possibly because...)

In the "Can I give up smoking?" section I woud rather see them address first the difference between smoking cessation and nicotine cessation and then address how people smoke for different reasons so they also quit for different reasons, so giving up smoking depends upon whether you want to quit smoking because you want to save money/eliminate smoke or because you want to end the dependence upon the chemicals and habit. It also depends upon your addiction type: to the nicotine, to the habit, to the other chemicals in tobacco or all of the above. Finally, state numbers from e-cig user surveys relating to success in SMOKING cessation (ie. complete replacement.)

 

[MustangSallie]

I don't think ECF is playing it safe.

When I first came to this forum in October 2010 - I came here for information on e-cigarettes and on vaping as an alternative to smoking. And that's basically in a nutshell, what ECF is - it is a forum where those people who vape or want to vape come to get information about e-cigarettes and to hang out with other vapers.

I never thought of ECF as a quit smoking site - ever - and to be disappointed that they have not taken that slant on their front page I believe does them a disservice.

I also came here looking for an alternative to smoking, knowing that I wanted to continue nicotine use for some period of time. The key word there is "alternative". I don't smoke. I use a PV, ecig, or vape. Whatever you want to call it.

I didn't say I was disappointed in ECF. The service they provide here (that I contribute to, btw) is fantastic. I think ECF is fantastic. It's okay to be disappointed in the wording.

I love my husband to death, wouldn't trade him in for the world. He does disappoint me on occasion and I'm not doing him a diservice when I tell him so. To the contrary, pointing it out opens the channels to better communication. Perhaps I'm wrong in my interpretation of what was said or done, perhaps I'm missing the bigger picture, or perhaps he did whatever he did without thinking it through. I'll never know unless I tell him what I didn't like and he tells my why he did it.

 

[kristin]

You already stated that vendors cannot make these health claims. Why would ECF (who receive advertising money from said vendors) not be held to the same standard?

How is going out guns blazing and potentially having the site shut down going to help anyone?

ECF is primarily an informational/community site which happens to charge companies for advertising their products. That is not even close to being the same as selling the product directly and making health claims. I believe ECF is protected under the First Amendment and would not fall under FDA jursidiction.

 

[renstyle]

This is even worse:


I understand that there are other sections on the page about health and nicotine, but this section needs to be able to stand on it's own if people read no further and it's very misleading, IMO. But to be fair - the rest of the page is very well done!

call me dumb, but where is this new info located? I see the updates for the "new" front page, and I understand them, but I'm still not "seeing" anything diff, keeps directing me to the main forum page.

I've cleared cookies and restarted the browser, could I be looking in the wrong place?

shouldn't

E-Cigarette Forum - ECF

get me to this info by default?

Sorry for sounding so dense...

 

[MustangSallie]

You already stated that vendors cannot make these health claims. Why would ECF (who receive advertising money from said vendors) not be held to the same standard?

How is going out guns blazing and potentially having the site shut down going to help anyone?

I would agree to make a claim that ecigs will most certainly get you to quit smoking is guns blazing. I don't agree that saying ecigs have helped many people quit smoking or cut down on smoking is out there at all. I understand it's a fine line to walk but I think saying that ecigs are not for quitting smoking is taking the easy way out, unless there are legal ramifications as some of you are speculating.

 

[renstyle]

I completely agree that ECF should make sure people know that e-cigs aren't a "magic bullet" for smoking cessation for all smokers.

But that should NOT be listed as a reason or point in the "Can I give up smoking?" section. It should be addressed in a separate FAQ such as in the "What are ther negatives to e-cigarettes?" section (ie. e-cigarettes don't work as a complete replacement for everyone possibly because...)

In the "Can I give up smoking?" section I woud rather see them address first the difference between smoking cessation and nicotine cessation and then address how people smoke for different reasons so they also quit for different reasons, so giving up smoking depends upon whether you want to quit smoking because you want to save money/eliminate smoke or because you want to end the dependence upon the chemicals and habit. It also depends upon your addiction type: to the nicotine, to the habit, to the other chemicals in tobacco or all of the above. Finally, state numbers from e-cig user surveys relating to success in SMOKING cessation (ie. complete replacement.)

Heh, wonder if Fred would allow me to crib my own posts from Q, most of which attempt to describe this kind of smoking/nicotine divorce.

 

[DC2]

There are many people who will come here and post in the newbie section that they need help. Maybe it is time to shift the focus to that group and help them with the same intelligent style you showed over there.

I wouldn't be suprised if I have more total posts in the New Members subforum than anyone else on this entire forum.
I wish there was a way to find out because I'd almost bet on it.


The problem is that I have slowly, over time, been posting there less and less because I have become a dinosaur.
The only cartomizer I have ever tried is a KR808D-1 over a year ago.
And that will also be the last cartomizer I ever try.


So yeah, I'm moving on but not sure where yet.
I'm pretty sure I'll be spending more time on the advocacy side of things though.

 

[MagnusEunson]

ECF is primarily an informational/community site which happens to charge companies for advertising their products. That is not even close to being the same as selling the product directly and making health claims. I believe ECF is protected under the First Amendment and would not fall under FDA jursidiction.

The FBI, FDA, TSA, etc. have all had sites taken down for all sorts of reasons. Even if it's a clear violation it takes time and business and traffic is lost.

Again though, raise this upstream because they may entirely agree with you and make changes. Or they may indeed have good reason to be more conservative. -Magnus

 

[DC2]

I would agree to make a claim that ecigs will most certainly get you to quit smoking is guns blazing. I don't agree that saying ecigs have helped many people quit smoking or cut down on smoking is out there at all. I understand it's a fine line to walk but I think saying that ecigs are not for quitting smoking is taking the easy way out, unless there are legal ramifications as some of you are speculating.

Well said.

 

[kristin]

I don't think ECF is playing it safe.

When I first came to this forum in October 2010 - I came here for information on e-cigarettes and on vaping as an alternative to smoking. And that's basically in a nutshell, what ECF is - it is a forum where those people who vape or want to vape come to get information about e-cigarettes and to hang out with other vapers.

I never thought of ECF as a quit smoking site - ever - and to be disappointed that they have not taken that slant on their front page I believe does them a disservice.

I'm not suggesting ECF play like a quit smoking site, but only to not down play so much the quit smoking aspect or to cater to the "you haven't quit smoking if you haven't quit nicotine" mentality - which is one thing fueling the indoor e-cigarette use bans. And to be more truthful and less coy for the influx of members we are going to be getting of people seeking info on quitting smoking with e-cigs. They will know nothing of alternatives and THR.

As e-cigarettes become more known and ECF appears higher in the search results, more people are going to be looking for information on "quitting smoking with e-cigarettes" because they hear that from current users. (We see it all over the site: "I quit smoking as soon as I picked up my e-cig." "I'm not a smoker because I don't smoke" etc.)

We've seen it over and over again - people looking to quit smoking with e-cigs end up on a big merchant site and end up with an overpriced, underwhelming device and finally find their way here. If ECF is going to change their marketing to woo those folks HERE first, they have to acknowledge that many if not most will want to know about "quitting smoking" and that most will not be aware of THR and the difference between smoking cessation and nicotine cessation.

If I were to come here and read that page two years ago, the message I would have gotten is that e-cigarettes aren't for quitting smoking without getting further info that there is still a benefit to quitting smoking even if you don't quit nicotine. Not knowing anything about THR and believing that nicotine was the bad stuff in cigarettes and buying the ANTZ "quit or die" mantra, I may have read this and not bothered to go further into the site to read all of the testimony to the fact that people have quit smoking and found out all of the THR information.

As it was, I was sold an e-cig at a state fair expo and only came to ECF to find something better. I was already sold on them. Most early ECF members did the same thing. With the spread of stories on e-cigs and with increased web presence for ECF, more and more people will be coming here first, without ever even trying one. Instead of a second stop, this will be a first stop for many smokers and ECF needs to shift gears in order to address that.

CASAA was formed at ECF and ECF went beyond the basic chat forum about e-cigarettes a long time ago, IMO. If they are striving to be the first stop for smokers seeking information on e-cigarettes then they need to tell the whole story. Anything else is an injustice to those smokers who need and deserve to hear the WHOLE story, not a line designed to protect e-cigarette merchants.

 

[DC2]

E-cigarettes are not for giving up smoking...

This statement is far too definitive, and could very well discourage a lot of people from even trying them.
There simply is no reason that such definitive language needs to be used.

 

[kristin]

The FBI, FDA, TSA, etc. have all had sites taken down for all sorts of reasons. Even if it's a clear violation it takes time and business and traffic is lost.

Again though, raise this upstream because they may entirely agree with you and make changes. Or they may indeed have good reason to be more conservative. -Magnus

I'd be interested to hear why, which is why I posted about it. I know mods and Roly read this thread, too. I'd be happy if those 2 sections just had a link to read more about THR and smoking cessation vs nicotine cessation theories, so people don't stop reading when they read that and get "No, they cannot help you quit smoking." from it.

Or at least change "smoking" to "nicotine," if you don't want to say that they CAN help you quit smoking. People will hopefully still get the message.

But if they could go after them for 2 TRUE claims on the main page, why haven't they gone after them for the thousands of claims IN the forum itself?

Forgive me for reading the page like an smoke-free advocate - can't help myself! lol

 

[DC2]

Heh, wonder if Fred would allow me to crib my own posts from Q, most of which attempt to describe this kind of smoking/nicotine divorce.

I've gone over and grabbed quite a few of my posts from over there and brought them here.
Just use the advanced search feature you don't have to read through anything to find them, or even sign in for that matter.

 

[kristin]

Please keep in mind, folks, the quote I used when I started this discussion. Someone made a comment suggesting that more people may come here instead of QSMB with the new ECF intro page. I'm reading the ECF paragraph from that perspective. Does the new page help those potential QSMB people who come here instead or does it pretty much say the same thing QSMB has been saying?

The message it subtly sends (to me) is "E-cigarettes do not work because they do not help you quit smoking. You haven't really quit smoking unless you quit nicotine, too. Nicotine must be really bad, because even though e-cigarettes eliminate the bad stuff from smoking, they don't say this is any better for me. So, I must not be any better off with these than smoking."

 

[renstyle]

All of this discussion makes me wonder how much a clinical study of the effects of PG and VG inhalation would actually cost? Or better put: what kind of "proof" is needed to assuage the fears of the nay-sayers that have clout?

What would Mayo or Johns Hopkins (or any other reputable research entity, such as a university) need up front to get this ball rolling? I would gladly donate "united way style" to a fund drive that would produce unbiased, scientific information so we can finally get past the anecdotal fallback ecigs have had to deal with for years now.

Imagine how much wrangling has been spent in the last few years beating the FUD to death, only to have it reanimate and wreak yet more havoc with another misinformed group of individuals? How much more?

That's what we are really getting down to here. You can vape without flavorings (a bit bland, but still works). Once the clinical efficacy is shown, all (as if this is just a small bit) that is left is the political ramifications, especially in tobacco growing states and similar jurisdictions.

The FDA is already approving oral inhalers for nicotine so there is little argument other than who is making the doses. This is where (what I believe to be) eventual regulation will come into play. Not that they will ban it outright, but they will restrict (thru various means) who can produce e-liquid with nicotine. Could potentially run the mom-and-pop small time suppliers out of business if they cannot afford a license and "approved" facilities. Kinda sad when you think of it that way, but it does seem realistic as an outcome. Less choice, possibly (likely) higher cost, and the prospect of a large corporation taking over the market <sigh>...

ETA: I still don't see why Phillip Morris or RJR or <pick any> large pharma corp hasn't jumped on this... maybe they are waiting for my fund drive to do the heavy lifting for them?

 

[MustangSallie]

ETA: I still don't see why Phillip Morris or RJR or <pick any> large pharma corp hasn't jumped on this... maybe they are waiting for my fund drive to do the heavy lifting for them?

I think they were waiting for the outcome of the FDAs case before venturing into the market, but I will be surprised if they don't jump in soon. As for waiting for your fund drive to do the heavy lifting, I think anything ecig users could raise is pocket change to them.

 

[renstyle]

I think they were waiting for the outcome of the FDAs case before venturing into the market, but I will be surprised if they don't jump in soon. As for waiting for your fund drive to do the heavy lifting, I think anything ecig users could raise is pocket change to them.

That still leaves me wondering, as I am unsure how the FDA will feel "whole" without some kind of study performed, if only for CYA purposes.

 

[phonedude]

call me dumb, but where is this new info located? I see the updates for the "new" front page, and I understand them, but I'm still not "seeing" anything diff, keeps directing me to the main forum page.

I've cleared cookies and restarted the browser, could I be looking in the wrong place?

shouldn't

E-Cigarette Forum - ECF

get me to this info by default?

Sorry for sounding so dense...

I can't find it either. Where is this page you speak of?

 

[MagnusEunson]

But if they could go after them for 2 TRUE claims on the main page, why haven't they gone after them for the thousands of claims IN the forum itself?

Same reason Bittorrent, certain former "file sharing", and a few "health" resources, one "auction" site were taken down... when it moved from user-generated content to something generated by the ~site~, it lost certain protections. Again, I don't know if that would apply here but even in cases where the Government lost their argument for even a temporary injunction that was already after the site had been taken down for days and weeks at a time. The time is sometimes fairly irreversible even if the Government is wrong in the end.

I'm hoping the mods just have edits to make but if they were being conservative for the above reasons or others, I'm just thinking we should hear it out and help from there. -Magnus