I love your articles and normally I agree with you wholeheartedly - but I believe that there is a small problem with your logic here. How do you expect to keep them "affordable" if the government decides that they are a) a tobacco product or b) a nicotine replacement product? Either way, they're going to slap an enormous tax on e-cigs and/or e-juice. The bottom line really is:
- Governments want their tax revenue
- Big Tobacco wants to sell their products. They do not currently produce e-juice. Every smoker who quits and vapes instead hurts their bottom line.
- Special-interest non-smoking groups have become so powerful that it's scary. They can manufacture "evidence" and nobody questions them. The burden of proof is not their concern; they don't need it.
- The lobbyists for all of the above organizations are about $$. They do not represent the best interests American people; they're not on our payroll.
Given all of the above, I really don't see how you can avoid having a political stance on the subject of e-cigarettes.
It is unlikely that a fledgling e-cig industry will win unless there is a groundswell of support that gets the attention of political leaders.
You'll notice that none of this has a single thing to do with public health. That's not really what's going on here. Follow the money.
Appeasement is what I think you're advocating here. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) It won't work to our advantage. This is war.
It's not appeasement as much as working within the system.
It's a war, but we are on their battlefield. It's like Burma declaring war on the U.S.
Ideally, e-cigs would get their own catagory, but I don't see that happening. We are left with a choice of a lesser of two evils. So, e-cigs need to be considered in the same group as "smokeless tobacco."
If they are considered to be an NRT, they will have to meet nearly impossible standards and extensive testing. They will be put in the hands of Big Pharma, where they'll water them down and make them tamper-proof (rendering them ineffective), sharply increase the price (to cover their testing costs) and quite possibly require a prescription (affecting their availability). They will also have a "step-down" requirement. So, they'll probably only sell full kits - no refills or replacement parts. VERY expensive.
If they get lumped in with smokeless tobacco, the price will increase from taxing (we can't avoid price increases either way) but they'll still be more affordable than if they're a drug and I don't think tobacco companies will be as limited with how much nicotine they can have nor designs. The only thing that can be regulated is the flavors - which, if the design remains, can be doctored to add our own flavors, the same you can with tobacco now, using Tasty Puff. I hope for a loophole that they can offer unflavored and we'll be able to flavor our own.
Big Tobacco CAN make money off of e-cigs, the same way they do chew & snus. They have a HUGE, ready source of nicotine. Instead of processing the tobacco to put in paper rolls, they process it to extract the tobacco and put it into e-liquid. By selling e-cigs, tobacco companies still sell to people who otherwise might be buying NRTs. It'll actually EXPAND their market share.
Regardless, I DO have a political stance on e-cigs. I just don't see the point of the rants about how the government sucks and shouldn't be all up in our business and how we have to change the government itself. It isn't going to happen over e-cigs! We just don't have the member numbers and political clout to make that level of change. How is this one little group going to convince the government that they should let us do whatever we want? We can't. There is no way the government is going to open THAT door for every nut out there claiming they are free to do whatever they want. We aren't going to make the FDA and antis go away and leave us alone. It is what it is and we have to work within the current laws, practices and political climate.
What we CAN change is public perception (public includes our government representatives.) The only way that can happen is with PROOF that the e-cig is no more dangerous than NRTs, that kids don't want to buy them, that the second-hand vapor isn't a danger to bystanders and that reduced harm IS a valid concept. We need to do that by getting the truth out there - convincing the companies to get safety testing done to refute the FDA report, getting the media on our side with the reduced harm concept (which they won't touch until we get the tests), writing articles, demonstrating to bystanders, talking to people about it in real life and online, getting doctors on our side (again - need testing) and making some concessions to placate people's concerns.
Until we can show concrete proof that e-cigs are a real benefit to users and not a danger to bystanders or a threat to their children, we won't be able to change attitudes. Until we change attitudes, we won't be able to convince legislators that they are OK to support us and our cause.
To think that we will save e-cigs by changing government policy is simply not practical. To change policy, you have to change attitudes. To change attitudes, you have to have proof to back you up. To get proof, you need proper testing. Trying to change the government policies first is putting the cart before the horse.
If I'm going to lobby anyone, it's the manufacturers - get the damned testing done already!! Everything hinges on that, IMO.
I've seen how galvanized this community gets when called to action. A core group of members write the legislators, comment on articles and get involved. everyone else? Nothing.
I write articles because people complain about the negative articles in mainstream media and press releases from ASH, yet when I call for help to get it out there, less than 50 people answer.
Yeah, we're really going to have any kind of impact that way.
Honestly, THAT really pisses me off.
