Eca, why?

[JoeMcPlumber]

Is the ECA painting itself into a corner?

I can understand not wanting to make (undue) health claims
given the relative lack of controlled studies,
but here's the official position:

The ECA’s policy is that member companies cannot make any health claims about their products or represent them as smoking cessation devices. E-cigarettes sold by these companies are marketed as simply an alternative to combustible tobacco smoking.

The very first and most obvious question is
"why do you want/need this alternative then?",
or more to the point,
"why should this alternative be granted legitimacy?"

Does anyone dispute that e-cigs are free of CO
and practically all of the other nasty byproducts of smoking?
That isn't a "health claim" it's a fact.
Whatever (difficult to locate) terrible stuff might be in an e-cig,
doesn't change what it doesn't have.

Does anyone dispute that the effects of vaping on the body
are strangely similar to quitting analogs?
Does anyone dispute that e-cigs stink less, annoy people less,
and are far less likely to cause a fire?

Mostly it just upsets my sensibilities.
This is the main industry organization representing our interests
and it comes off weak and passive-submissive and
unable, by premise, to articulate a reason for the product.

Look at most of the sigs on this forum, some variation on
"I've been smoke-free for (X) days".
And that's absolutely accurate.
If you use your pv instead of analogs,
then you've used it for a ... cessation device.

Please excuse the rant but i'm just picturing the inevitable Congressional hearings
and the ECA representative going "uh... um..."
cause he hasn't anything positive to say.

If i missed some original ECA materials that do, in fact,
make good arguments on our behalf,
then please point me to them.
But in several contexts i found them actually using the terminology of smoking,
when they should be making every effort to distance themselves
from something this product is not.

Props to them, i suppose, for letting others do the plain-spoken talking
on their "Quotes" page.

I'm gonna write to Rep. Ron Paul and ask him to take up the cause.
I'd mail a 510 to the Pres, (i know he's sneaking),
but i don't think that'd go over good with the MIB.

- joe

 

[Mac]

Is the ECA painting itself into a corner?

I can understand not wanting to make (undue) health claims
given the relative lack of controlled studies,
but here's the official position:
The very first and most obvious question is
"why do you want/need this alternative then?",
or more to the point,
"why should this alternative be granted legitimacy?"

Does anyone dispute that e-cigs are free of CO
and practically all of the other nasty byproducts of smoking?
That isn't a "health claim" it's a fact.
Whatever (difficult to locate) terrible stuff might be in an e-cig,
doesn't change what it doesn't have.

Does anyone dispute that the effects of vaping on the body
are strangely similar to quitting analogs?
Does anyone dispute that e-cigs stink less, annoy people less,
and are far less likely to cause a fire?

Mostly it just upsets my sensibilities.
This is the main industry organization representing our interests
and it comes off weak and passive-submissive and
unable, by premise, to articulate a reason for the product.

Look at most of the sigs on this forum, some variation on
"I've been smoke-free for (X) days".
And that's absolutely accurate.
If you use your pv instead of analogs,
then you've used it for a ... cessation device.

Please excuse the rant but i'm just picturing the inevitable Congressional hearings
and the ECA representative going "uh... um..."
cause he hasn't anything positive to say.

If i missed some original ECA materials that do, in fact,
make good arguments on our behalf,
then please point me to them.
But in several contexts i found them actually using the terminology of smoking,
when they should be making every effort to distance themselves
from something this product is not.

Props to them, i suppose, for letting others do the plain-spoken talking
on their "Quotes" page.

I'm gonna write to Rep. Ron Paul and ask him to take up the cause.
I'd mail a 510 to the Pres, (i know he's sneaking),
but i don't think that'd go over good with the MIB.

- joe

I disagree. Cessation means you quit. You no longer have the habit. We are replacing one habit with another. The goal is not cessation t is harm reduction. There is a big difference.

 

[ryanSTi]

I disagree. Cessation means you quit. You no longer have the habit. We are replacing one habit with another. The goal is not cessation t is harm reduction. There is a big difference.

Although some/most/many, use it as a way to continue introducing nicotine into their bodies with much less chance of harm; There are some/a bunch/a lot, that have been able to use it as a cessation device. Like myself. I smoked on and off for almost 9 years, I started on 24mg liquid and have bumped myself down to 16mg and plan that within a year or less to be to 0mg and only use it when I have that desire and I want to trick my mind into thinking I am smoking.

Joe, I completely agree with the fact that they should not be calling it "smoking", nor should they be walking on egg shells. They should stand up for what's right. And closing all the kiosks and banning all the flavors that people like myself have used to distance ourselves from tobacco flavor and taste in an effort to quit, as well as those that are using e-cigs to reduce the chance of harm.

I still don't see how they can try and ban something like this, yet leave known cancer causing tobacco products on the market. Or how they can leave chantix alone even though there is a strong chance of suicide!

</rant against the ignorant members of ECA & FDA>

 

[bogiediver]

@JoeMcPlumber -

Shoot me if you want - but I copied your OP and sent it to the ECA asking for their comments. (I only identified it as being a post on an e-cig forum).

One of the issues that stopped me from reading several other threads critisizing the ECA is that nothing was sent directly to them.

Yours was well written and covered most of the 'issues' in the other threads.

I will post any reply I get.

 

[JoeMcPlumber]

Cessation means you quit... We are replacing one habit with another.

LOL yes, and?

I mean you don't SMOKE anymore, right?

 

[JoeMcPlumber]

Yours was well written and covered most of the 'issues' in the other threads.

Wow i wrote something well written?

 

[Paranoyed]

Here is the way I see it. If it is marketed as a cessation device then the FDA is going to want a template model of scaled down nic levels. Now many members on this forum have no intention of reducing their nic levels they just do not want to inhale combusted smoke anymore. We can not claim it is healthy they have not been around long enough to know what risks there are, that being said as a former smoker I feel the risk is worth the reward but I do not fool myself into thinking that inhaling a foreign substance into my lungs is healthy. These need to be marketed as a smoking alternative not a cessation device. Also I think we will be better off in the long run if we are lumped in with Tobacco rather than medical devices. The restrictions are in place with Tobacco and while I do not like having to go to a smoking area it is better than having them pulled from the shelf for years until proper tests can be run not to mention who would pay fo rthose tests.

 

[Mac]

LOL yes, and?

I mean you don't SMOKE anymore, right?

Correct I do not and have not for over 11 months now (insert dramatic music here)

Still, we are addicted to nicotine, not smoke. Smoke is the delivery system. Perhaps I have found a superior delivery system. One that is less toxic. One that doesn't make me reek. One that saves me money. All of these are positives. But am I any less addicted? The answer is no. And although yes I have quit smoking. I have not stopped being addicted to nicotine which is the key difference. They call cessations utilizing nicotine NRT's. That stands for nicotine replacement therapy. The key word there being therapy. Therapy treats a medical problem. The medical problem here is addiction which as I just illustrated an e-cig does not remedy.

 

[Paranoyed]

Correct I do not and have not for over 11 months now (insert dramatic music here)

Still, we are addicted to nicotine, not smoke. Smoke is the delivery system. Perhaps I have sound a superior delivery system. One that is less toxic. One that doesn't make me reek. One that saves me money. All of these are positives. But am I any less addicted? The answer is no. And although yes I have quit smoking. I have not stopped being addicted to nicotine which is the key difference. They call cessations utilizing nicotine NRT's. That stands for nicotine replacement therapy. The key word there being therapy. Therapy treats a medical problem. The medical problem here is addiction which as I just illustrated an e-cig does not remedy.

And thus it is not medical device and should not be regulated as one.

 

[Mac]

And thus it is not medical device and should not be regulated as one.

Correct and no matter what the ECA FDA or any other organization with an A at the end says that is the truth.

 

[JoeMcPlumber]

Still, we are addicted to nicotine, not smoke.

Actually given what i've learned recently i might take issue with that,
or at least i might opine that it's not quite that simple
when you consider the enormous number of chemicals in analog smoke,
several of which, apart from nicotine, have been identified as psychoactive.

If it were that simple then none of us would ever want an analog,
and gum and patches would have 100% efficacy.

They call cessations utilizing nicotine NRT's.

Yes well (They!) say all sorts of things.
As i just demonstrated up ^there,
anyone with half a brain can generate semantic smoke and mirrors
to complexify any given issue.

Therapy treats a medical problem. The medical problem here is addiction which as I just illustrated an e-cig does not remedy.

At least you're demonstrating for me what i'm up against
if i attempt to argue a very simple point.
Maybe there are legal definitions or/and conventional phrasing
which i need to account for,
but on the surface of it, it looks to me as if you've taken a very simple statement
and re-cast its context and lawyered it about
such that my argument is invalid because i'm using the wrong words.

And while i don't usualy much approve of reductionist logic
any more than i approve of obfuscation,
if i do not smoke anymore then i have ceased to smoke
and if i used a device to enable this cessation
then i have used a cessation device.

Yeah, that's where i fold my arms and say "it's that simple".

Everyone else can carry on with the lawyering.

Namaste
- joe

 

[Mac]

Actually given what i've learned recently i might take issue with that,
or at least i might opine that it's not quite that simple
when you consider the enormous number of chemicals in analog smoke,
several of which, apart from nicotine, have been identified as psychoactive.

If it were that simple then none of us would ever want an analog,
and gum and patches would have 100% efficacy.

Yes well (They!) say all sorts of things.
As i just demonstrated up ^there,
anyone with half a brain can generate semantic smoke and mirrors
to complexify any given issue.

At least you're demonstrating for me what i'm up against
if i attempt to argue a very simple point.
Maybe there are legal definitions or/and conventional phrasing
which i need to account for,
but on the surface of it, it looks to me as if you've taken a very simple statement
and re-cast its context and lawyered it about
such that my argument is invalid because i'm using the wrong words.

And while i don't usualy much approve of reductionist logic
any more than i approve of obfuscation,
if i do not smoke anymore then i have ceased to smoke
and if i used a device to enable this cessation
then i have used a cessation device.

Yeah, that's where i fold my arms and say "it's that simple".

Everyone else can carry on with the lawyering.

Namaste
- joe

The FDA certainly agrees with you. Although somehow I doubt that makes you feel any better.

I just dont have it in me to tell people they are gonna quit smoking when I know that they will still be addicted. That in my opinion would be wrong. If it was for legal reasons as you imply then I would be one of these guys saying "I can't tell you you are gonna quit" wink wink.

But that's just not me. I am far from a lawyer. I am but a retail manager. If the laws of our country were based solely upon what is right, ethical and sane. Perhaps this conversation would be moot. I would venture to say we are on the same side here.

 

[kristin]

Anecdotal evidence is worth the paper it's written on.

They want SCIENTIFIC proof.

Sure, people here CLAIM they have quit smoking, but for how long? There's no proof that people will stay on the e-cigs and off tobacco.

Sure, people CLAIM they feel better and breathe better, but for how long?

Sure, it seems OBVIOUS that e-cigs are safer than tobacco, but it hasn't been PROVEN in scientific testing that they are safe in-and-of themselves. No one knows if there is anything in e-cigs that could be just as deadly as tobacco over time. We have some reports on PG and nicotine, but not with the two of them combined, nor the effects of the ingerdients in the flavorings, nor with the constant inhalation. Theatrical fog machines are approved, but the average user of those doesn't sit in front of it and inhale copious amounts.

Sure, it seems reasonable to switch to a REDUCED HARM product, but many people view e-cigs as being just another potentially dangerous product being put on the market. Rather than seeing it as a tobacco alternative, they see it as an ADDITION to the tobacco market.

The thing I have a problem with is banning something that has not had one single report of serious illness or death associated with it.

When they went after things like fen-fen in diet pills, the diet pills were getting people sick before they banned fen-fen. There was EVIDENCE that they were harmful.

It's unreasonable to ban something which COULD be harmful, when it isn't. But the e-cig companies kept using words like "healthy" and "safe" and "no carcinogens" and "no toxins" and that caught the attention of the FDA (after the pharma companies complained, of course.) They should have stuck to FACTS that they could prove - no tobacco, no tar, no smoke, no ammonia, LESS toxins - and let people come to the logical conclusion on their own.

But they opened the door and the FDA stepped right in.

 

[bladeangel87]

Well what people object to and warn you of is the health problems associated with burning tobacco. Most people would consider you as having quit smoking if you no longer inhale burning tobacco. So in that way it could be considered a cessation device. But it is not helping you cease using nicotine.

 

[Thulium]

Why are we getting upset for using the same words that GSK and Pfizer use to describe their smoke-free tobacco products that contain the same carcinogens and are demonstrably ineffective at smoking cessation.

I saw a commercial for Nicorette last night that said "Quitting is hard. Nicorette doubles your chances of success" (from 1:25 to 2:25). On the other hand, the 80% of e-cigarette users who have stopped using analogs have 100% smoking cessation rate despite the fact that e-cigarettes have not been proven to be an effective way to cure nicotine addiction.

 

[Mac]

They should have stuck to FACTS that they could prove - no tobacco, no tar, no smoke, no ammonia, LESS toxins - and let people come to the logical conclusion on their own.

I have been doing this since day one.

 

[TropicalBob]

Succinctly put, Kristin. That's exactly the situation, as few recognize it.

And, Mac, I have Google email me all news and blog items with the words "electronic cigarettes" or "e-cigs" in them. I get a summary daily. You should see that pile of sales crap.

Every unproven claim in the world is tossed out by sellers. The headlines alone make any intelligent person want to throw up. Why, in the past week, we've learned that e-cigs could prevent H1N1. And, of course, any smoker can stop smoking immediately by buying their e-cig, perhaps as a Christmas gift for a loved one. What BS.

It's beyond disgusting, and I'd almost bet the Federal Trade Commission has an expanding folder on e-cig claims that will be used at some point to fine violators making unsubstantiated claims.

Bravo for your ethics. I wish they were shared by all sellers. But the proof that they aren't arrives in my email daily.

 

[JoeMcPlumber]

And, of course, any smoker can stop smoking immediately by buying their e-cig, perhaps as a Christmas gift for a loved one. What BS.

If you've seen any my recent posts you might think you know why i'm biased on this point,
but not only do i not have a problem with that,
i think it'd be one of the greatest Christmas presents ever.
Even if it's only for the one smoker in the household,
it's a benefit, (a life-changer, in fact),
for the smoker and everyone who has to live with him.

I wouldn't present it as such but in terms of our relationship,
time spent together,
increased sex drive, (put that in your PV and vape it!),
and the fact that i don't stink anymore,
my PV has been every bit as much a gift to my wife as it has been to me.

Just sayin'.

- joe

 

[TWISTED VICTOR]

Well what people object to and warn you of is the health problems associated with burning tobacco. Most people would consider you as having quit smoking if you no longer inhale burning tobacco.

Sorry, bladeangel, but no they won't. We know the danger is in the smoke, but as far as the general uneducated public is concerned, inhaling a PV is the same thing.

Every unproven claim in the world is tossed out by sellers. The headlines alone make any intelligent person want to throw up. Why, in the past week, we've learned that e-cigs could prevent H1N1. And, of course, any smoker can stop smoking immediately by buying their e-cig, perhaps as a Christmas gift for a loved one. What BS.

Laughable, if it wasn't so absurd and damaging.

 

[ladybug]

Correct I do not and have not for over 11 months now (insert dramatic music here)

Still, we are addicted to nicotine, not smoke. Smoke is the delivery system. Perhaps I have found a superior delivery system. One that is less toxic. One that doesn't make me reek. One that saves me money. All of these are positives. But am I any less addicted? The answer is no. And although yes I have quit smoking. I have not stopped being addicted to nicotine which is the key difference. They call cessations utilizing nicotine NRT's. That stands for nicotine replacement therapy. The key word there being therapy. Therapy treats a medical problem. The medical problem here is addiction which as I just illustrated an e-cig does not remedy.

Dear Mac,ecigs are not the problem, nicotene is,and what is wrong with nicotene? I know a lady at work,quit smoking 15 yrs ago,but still sucking on commit lozenges. I know of a lot of people that have quit cigs,but still they get their nicotene. I have not smoked a real cig for almost a year! Family is way happy that house will not burn down!Now I vape in the house and the cars,not a peep outta anybodyI was one of those people banned from smoking in a car,or smoking in the house. I love ecigs,I hate government control! The government wants our money to live on,thats what it comes down to. So I say to hell with them!