ECO - Organization Charter: Administration

[MrKai]

...I have to tell you:

There is no way this market will be allowed to flourish, let alone exist, in the USA without the FDA.

There was nothing wrong with the *study*...the problem is how it was reported.

It is utterly pointless to keep bringing up the study and throwing in red herrings because the study at face value is correct:

The manufacture of these things is...unreliable at best. There is no way to argue this.

Traces of unlisted chemicals were found. No one is arguing this either, just the fact that they "weren't bad" but that is not the point.

Regardless of people's personal feelings about the FDA, the problem here is that people are just not taking the *right thing* in my estimation seriously.

You want the FDA to do a new study of eCigs vs tobacco cigs? Fine. DEFINE an eCig and the components *scientifically* so they have a metric to test.

Like I've asked before, and have yet to get some *honest answers* out of people, does anyone here think that if the FDA expanded their sample set, would they get better or worse results?

Labeling is well within the scope of the FDA and it doesn't matter one whit if people "like" it or not, if "Big tobacco" is evil, because they are lawful* and we live in a society of lawful rule. Lawful rule doesn't necessarily connotate fairness.

Moreover, the FDA study cited *multiple issues* and folks are flipping the confirmation bias switches on and glossing over what really, as consumers of these products, is far, far worse than DEG:

1. DEG was there and no one told you
2. Nic levels were not consistant
3. Some marketers are making medical and quasi-medical claims and employing 'healthful branding' and trade dress (not in report directly, part of impetus, very bad nonetheless)
4. What are they DOING?!

A more likely scenario is that if people "get their way" due to the way the 'juice biz is now, at *best* the FDA would do is approve a brand or two if they found them compliant and the manufacturers footed part of the bill to make the case. If you don't think whispers of this are on the Vapor Trail, and by you I mean the "general you" then you're naive.

If you think your Mom and Pop Shop is gonna make the cut without making some changes that put them *at the bare minimum* least in line with vitamin or 'natural remedy' manufacturers, you are mistaken

I feel my point still stands. If you are going to have a #5 and "half-... it", you are putting credibility at risk. If you are going to have a #5 and make it vague then i feel it disingenuous. If you are gonna have a #5 and not have some *specific* metrics then it is better to say nothing.

The old "be silent/thought a fool, speak/remove all doubt" adage springs to mind here.

it would be a sad shame to endorse or support a product that had crap in it because we didn't have the stones to define what "not crap" is and 'bad things' ensue therefrom.

-K

*Granted, it is easier to be lawful when you help define the laws, but that is a whole other topic of discussion better left for the conspiracy threads and not the formation of an organization that wishes to be taken seriously at this time...

 

[mtndude]

MrKai,

forgive me if i type things as they come out of my head, but are you suggesting that we create a lab to analyze these products, or just cite reputable third-parties, if these endorsements are to exist?

i don't know how much the FDA is our enemy, as parts of our mission share some of their views, as well as some of those of ASH.

i understand your points, but if our primary focus is to be education, relative to e-cigarettes, where are we failing by endorsing those who provide the best data available?

 

[MrKai]

MrKai,

forgive me if i type things as they come out of my head,

It's cool man...better from your head than your ....

but are you suggesting that we create a lab to analyze these products, or just cite reputable third-parties, if these endorsements are to exist?

I think a real standard should be written, regardless of scope. I do not believe it would be feasible to create a lab, no, but if someone is to get a "Gold Seal of Approval" type nod, I would hope for such a high endorsement from a group of high repute I would hope such a group would get some independent analysis and have a metric for fact-checking, 3rd party confirmation, etc.

And have it *codified*.

i don't know how much the FDA is our enemy, as parts of our mission share some of their views, as well as some of those of ASH.

i understand your points, but if our primary focus is to be education, relative to e-cigarettes, where are we failing by endorsing those who provide the best data available?

If or not the FDA is our enemy is really a matter of where you fall; what I do know is that if we have a hope in heaven, considering the broad powers they have and, frankly, a 103 year history of statistically getting it right, calling them "Mr. Poopy-pants" and fermenting HaterAide™-flavored eJuice isn't going to get us what we want.

As for "best data available" I simply think a standard should be codified. If Our best is "they said so-and-so and faxed us a sheet of paper" then I don't know how trusted/serious such an endorsement could be.

Consumer Reports is trusted not only because they "don't take ads" or "don't test products provided by manufacturers" but because they dot i's and cross t's...they do due diligence.

The degree of due diligence that the organization is willing to engage in and perform is up for RFC at this point...so I'm commenting

I don't think a lab is necessary, but a deeper knowledge (and again, I am applying this high mark to liquids because of the inobvious nature of potential defects) than the ingredients printed on the label I think is required for an endorsement of a product of this nature, given the usage and active component.

Does that make sense?

-K

 

[mtndude]

Does that make sense?

most of it.. some of those words i'll have to google

 

[Mister]

I think that the latest version of point 5 reads:

Endorse manufacturers and suppliers who adhere to stringent standards such as:

• Provide accurate documentation and safety information to their customers.
• Provide fair and legal advertising or marketing claims on packaging, and web sites
• Require purchases be conducted using appropriate identification
• Report attempts of illegal sales to minors to the proper authorities.

#5 is and should be left intentionally vague specifically because its kind of early to answer this question. The correct answer will require digging into the technical details of the manufacturing and testing process, and that is a level of digging that needs to be saved for a little later. Unless someone steps up with an existing certification, we're going to have to build it from the ground up.

I feel my point still stands. If you are going to have a #5 and "half-... it", you are putting credibility at risk. If you are going to have a #5 and make it vague then i feel it disingenuous. If you are gonna have a #5 and not have some *specific* metrics then it is better to say nothing.

I agree with Thulium's point. The specific metrics (where any are required) belong in a subsequent step. All that matters at this point is that we agree on objectives. I also don't think (subject to next paragraph in this note) that metrics will be complex or difficult. There's nothing I see in point 5 which implies that we will be directly testing things. What is implied is that credible information be provided by manufacturers and suppliers, and that if they make claims which are discovered to be incorrect that we will take some kind of action. (Stop endorsing, blacklist, whatever - again something to work out later.)

I do think that the latest revision of point 5 goes a bit too far in one added word. "Provide accurate documentation and safety information" I'd take the word "accurate" back out of that. That word implies that we're going to be checking on accuracy and I doubt we'll be capable of that for some time. In future if/when we can do that it can be added to our activities without changing the objectives. But let's not overreach at the start.

In the same line of thought my preference would be to remove the word "stringent" from the first line. Let's decide as we go how stringent we can become.

 

[MrKai]

If the strong wording is removed I can live with it.

-K

 

[MrKai]

I think that the latest version of point 5 reads:

Endorse manufacturers and suppliers who adhere to stringent standards such as:

• Provide accurate documentation and safety information to their customers.
• Provide fair and legal advertising or marketing claims on packaging, and web sites
• Require purchases be conducted using appropriate identification
• Report attempts of illegal sales to minors to the proper authorities.

What is implied is that credible information be provided by manufacturers and suppliers, and that if they make claims which are discovered to be incorrect that we will take some kind of action. (Stop endorsing, blacklist, whatever - again something to work out later.)

And what does this "credible information" entail?

Does this mean "doesn't say penis enlargement" (ehem!) or "made from pharmaceutical-grade components sourced from US suppliers who meet strict FDA regulations" (oh yeah? says who besides your PR flak?)

And OK, if it doesn't belong in number 5, can we at least table the notion that this will and has got to be done before anything is "endorsed/supported"...if ever?

Is that...reasonable?
-K

 

[Mister]

And OK, if it doesn't belong in number 5, can we at least table the notion that this will and has got to be done before anything is "endorsed/supported"...if ever?

That sounds good to me.

 

[mtndude]

updated: see post 142

 

[dragonpuff]

Thulium and MrKai,

On the point of #5 and what it should regard exactly, i must say that i agree wholeheartedly with both of you.

As MrKai pointed out, it is imperative that we strictly define the levels and types of standards we wish to hold companies to, and how we will go about measuring these terms. Our standards hold no water if their meaning is different to everyone who reads them, nor do they have any credibility if they are too low.

However...

I agree with Thulium in that our organization is still in its infancy and we are not in a position to define those terms just yet. We just decided on a name (finally), we're still creating the mission statement as a whole and we have yet to get all of this on our own website. For the time being, those terms in #5 serve only to give everyone an idea of what we're shooting for; we'll work on the more specific standards later.

I apologize ahead of time for not going over the finer points of your arguments, i simply don't have the time/energy to do that at the moment. As it stands, it took me almost an hour to make this post cuz i'm being constantly interrupted (......).

I must say, i have very much enjoyed reading your argument it's very intellectual, which i like! I think both of you have a lot of valuable input to offer, and i'm glad it's people like you that will help form the basis of CASAA

Well done guys! Well done.

 

[dragonpuff]

Last Proposed Change to #5 of Organizational Goals


​

Endorse manufacturers and suppliers who adhere to stringent standards such as:

• Provide accurate documentation and safety information to their customers.
• Provide fair and legal advertising or marketing claims on packaging, and web sites
• Require purchases be conducted using appropriate identification
• Report attempts of illegal sales to minors to the proper authorities.

STATUS: no objections

Motion to Include Organizational Goal #8 as follows:
​

8. Act as a social support network for those who wish to abstain from smoking tobacco.


STATUS: no objections

+posting this as an example of how a wiki based system could help us, obviously this isn't a wiki.

Mtndude,

- Why are you striking out those words in #5? We may not be ready for that level of evaluation just yet, but i think those are important standards for our organization to live up to (once its up and running, of course). If we cannot attain and foster credibility, will anyone actually listen to us? This gives us a ground to stand on. (BTW, i think that changes the status to "1 objection" )

+ #8 sounds great, i agree wholeheartedly
(yes i was one of the ones who proposed the idea, jk ;-))

 

[mtndude]

well, those strikes were proposed.... i'm not trying assuming the roll of secretary, or whatever that would be, mostly just trying make a case for some formality.

I was going to edit out the the status part, but those were the last proposals.

heheh... i was hoping for at least one objection

i'm going back and taking out the status part, i don't wanna be on here 24/7, like I am now

 

[MrKai]

Thulium and MrKai,

On the point of #5 and what it should regard exactly, i must say that i agree wholeheartedly with both of you.

I am pleased to have stumbled upon this thread and the work it aims to accomplish.

I am even more pleased to have an *honest* debate about the finer points of these things with a group of sincere people.

I think Thulium and I are most effective at keeping each other's arguments honest and for that I thank him for his time and effort

-K

 

[Webby]

...and now, if everyone will step into the lounge, we'll have pie.

Seriously, thanks to everyone for the input. Just in case anyone is wondering - I have no intention of dragging every detail of this out as a group thread once the key objectives and core philosophies are set. We're getting very close to the far less entertaining task of preparing the formal paperwork.

Soon the unenviable task of writing up the articles and bylaws will begin (based on these key objectives and goals) and a final draft will be presented here before filing.

I hope you all will trust me to prepare the draft (for the sake of time) and will do my best to have a formal document ready (to be ripped apart) very soon.

In the meantime, please continue on with any additions or details. I hate to draw a curtain on this, but we can all be here forever if we don't keep moving forward in the organizational process.

 

[mtndude]

updated: see post #142

 

[CJsKee]

I apologize for being so very late to the party I've just finished reading this thread and my...O...my what a yoeman's work you all have done. So many thoughtful and intelligent folks working on our behalf I'm truly grateful!!!

That said...(you knew a BUT was coming;-))...MrKai said:

"Look at it this way: Non-Smokers/haters of Smoke(ers) are a far more vocal group...and they have a distain for tobacco companies that is rabid, to say the least. You want these people in our corner; a thumbs up from rabid anti-smokers are a 10:1 better value proposition"

This makes me see RED and gives me a big headache! What he says may be true, but I want no rabid anti-smoker in my corner! IMO we should be supporting the right to choose, whatever that may be. I'm not saying we should support NRTs, snus, chewing tobacco, or whatever. I'm just saying we should support all peoples' rights. I still smoke tobacco cigarettes, I use snus, I use e-cigs (I like a gin & tonic ever once in a while, too;-)). And I can point to a very well known individual on these forums who uses even more nicotine alternatives.

The only suggestion that comes to mind is if you don't want to actively support tobacco alternatives (snus, etc.) or NRTs (which I agree with) then perhaps a "canned" statement, as previously suggested, that we have no opinion on those products (until maybe we actually do!) but support a person's right to use them.

Again, thanks to everyone for all the hard work you are putting into this on behalf of our freedom of choice!!!

 

[Mister]

I hope you all will trust me to prepare the draft (for the sake of time) and will do my best to have a formal document ready (to be ripped apart) very soon.

You've shown that you are very good at taking everyone's input into consideration and producing an impartially melded view.

Thank you for all your hard work and for taking on this difficult and important task.

 

[dragonpuff]

heheh... i was hoping for at least one objection

Pleased to object

Proposal to ammend the following Organizational Goals:​

1. To inform and educate the general public as to the available options for reduced harm tobacco/nicotine alternatives and provide documentation to reputable medical and news items.

3. Formation of a collective voice for the urging of more positive political, medical and legal representation of the electronic cigarettes and smoke-free alternative community in congress, the medical community and the media.

I like the "reduced harm" bit, it fits our goals... and it has a nice ring to it

...and now, if everyone will step into the lounge, we'll have pie.

I like pie!

Soon the unenviable task of writing up the articles and bylaws will begin (based on these key objectives and goals) and a final draft will be presented here before filing.

I hope you all will trust me to prepare the draft (for the sake of time) and will do my best to have a formal document ready (to be ripped apart) very soon.

In the meantime, please continue on with any additions or details. I hate to draw a curtain on this, but we can all be here forever if we don't keep moving forward in the organizational process.

Thank you for all of this webby, we really couldn't do it without you!

I agree, i think we are definitely ready for a final draft!... after pie of course

 

[Thulium]

...I have to tell you:

There is no way this market will be allowed to flourish, let alone exist, in the USA without the FDA.

I know. I haven't completely boarded the FDA + Big Pharma conspiracy bandwagon with Tom Cruise quite yet.... I've just lost a great deal of respect for them after publishing such blatant propaganda.

There was nothing wrong with the *study*...the problem is how it was reported.

Actually, there were mistakes in the study itself and its not difficult to see that the study was performed with a predetermined outcome. For example, the study did not indicate what level of variance in TSNA levels would be expected, but when their study found amounts of TSNA ranging from "Trace" in the simulated use tests to..um...okay, I still haven't figured out what "The sum of the intensities of both molecular transitions was used to quantify each TSNA" means.

It is utterly pointless to keep bringing up the study and throwing in red herrings because the study at face value is correct:

The study is a red herring. Really, the only useful conclusion that you can make from this study:
-there are trace levels of some Tobacco Specific Nitrosamines in cartridges that contain nicotine derived from Tobacco
-Actual nicotine levels in the products tested from Njoy and SmokingEverywhere was inconsistent.

The manufacture of these things is...unreliable at best. There is no way to argue this.

Well, the nicotine levels in both brands they tested were unreliable which raises some concerns...but we're talking about concerns that should have people thinking "Hm. We really should ensure that companies provide health and safety information to their customers and adhere to quality standards." not "OMGWTF!!!!11!one!! See? I told you those things got the cancer in 'em! Ban em!"

Traces of unlisted chemicals were found. No one is arguing this either, just the fact that they "weren't bad" but that is not the point.

Basically the FDA discovered that e-cigarettes aren't completely healthy. Was anybody actually surprised by this? Considering that all the carts tested were manufactured in China--the same country that sends us baby toys with lead paint--and most of us are already familiar with "manufacturing inconsistencies" when it comes to e-cigarettes...I wasn't surprised by the findings in the report whatsoever, but I am appalled at the fact that the FDA has twisted this report into a justification for their attempts to malign the competition to the products that line their pockets.

Regardless of people's personal feelings about the FDA, the problem here is that people are just not taking the *right thing* in my estimation seriously.

You want the FDA to do a new study of eCigs vs Tobacco cigs? Fine. DEFINE an eCig and the components *scientifically* so they have a metric to test.

No, I don't particularly want the FDA to do a study on ecigs vs tobacco cigs. I want the FDA to stop pretending that the presence of trace levels of TSNA's in a product made from tobacco means that they have a right to block a product that they have not determined to be any less safe than products they don't blockade and haven't been tested either.

Like I've asked before, and have yet to get some *honest answers* out of people, does anyone here think that if the FDA expanded their sample set, would they get better or worse results?

Somewhere between "about the same" and "sllightly more consistent". I suspect that if they tested the e-liquid from companies like Johnson Creek they would find excellent consistency...and I would suspect that results from certain foreign manufacturers would be as bad or slightly better consistency as the manufacturing plants improve their processes as this product matures.

Labeling is well within the scope of the FDA and it doesn't matter one whit if people "like" it or not, if "Big Tobacco" is evil, because they are lawful* and we live in a society of lawful rule. Lawful rule doesn't necessarily connotate fairness.

I have no problem with the FDA being in the business of labeling. In nearly any situation, I'm probably going to be in favor of additional labeling--I'll take more information over less every time. If the FDA had simply said, "Woah there, SmokingEverywhere! We don't know much about these things but we do know there's nicotine in them so you're gonna need to put a real big sticker on 'em until we can figure this stuff out." I'd have respect for the administration looking out for the safety of the public. Instead, I'm forced to believe that the FDA is placing the interests of Big Pharma ahead of public safety....and that truly upsets me.

Moreover, the FDA study cited *multiple issues* and folks are flipping the confirmation bias switches on and glossing over what really, as consumers of these products, is far, far worse than DEG:

1. DEG was there and no one told you

DEG was in one product that was already off the market, the SmokingEverywhere 555.

2. Nic levels were not consistant

That's a problem. Really makes you wonder if you could get a batch of e-liquid that makes you hiccup and has almost as many TSNA's in one cartridge as there are in half a cigarette...look at me shake in terror.

We need companies with higher quality standards than that. We don't need our rights as consumers trampled.

3. Some marketers are making medical and quasi-medical claims and employing 'healthful branding' and trade dress (not in report directly, part of impetus, very bad nonetheless)

• Provide documentation and safety information to their customers.

4. What are they DOING?!

A more likely scenario is that if people "get their way" due to the way the 'juice biz is now, at *best* the FDA would do is approve a brand or two if they found them compliant and the manufacturers footed part of the bill to make the case. If you don't think whispers of this are on the Vapor Trail, and by you I mean the "general you" then you're naive.

If you think your Mom and Pop Shop is gonna make the cut without making some changes that put them *at the bare minimum* least in line with vitamin or 'natural remedy' manufacturers, you are mistaken

Well, marketing is marketing. I actually had an idea about how to really make a "mom and pop shop" into a retail juggernaut....gonna keep it to myself for the moment, but I'll share it soon.

I feel my point still stands. If you are going to have a #5 and "half-... it", you are putting credibility at risk. If you are going to have a #5 and make it vague then i feel it disingenuous. If you are gonna have a #5 and not have some *specific* metrics then it is better to say nothing.

I agree with your sentiment, but the reason it needs to be left vague is two-fold: 1. We don't know what the specific metrics are. 2. We'll probably need to change them at some point.

...but its okay, we don't need them quite yet. It'd be good to get started on that sooner rather than later, but in many ways it is work that is getting done with or without us.

The old "be silent/thought a fool, speak/remove all doubt" adage springs to mind here.

it would be a sad shame to endorse or support a product that had crap in it because we didn't have the stones to define what "not crap" is and 'bad things' ensue therefrom.

Sure thing...but right now at least, I don't know what the exact metric needs to be any more than you do. However, considering we are a coalition of users AND industry pros, I think we can put our heads together and develop and execute something good.

*Granted, it is easier to be lawful when you help define the laws, but that is a whole other topic of discussion better left for the conspiracy threads and not the formation of an organization that wishes to be taken seriously at this time...

It's only a conspiracy if more than one person is involved, and I don't pretend to know how many people were or weren't involved in the decision to launch the smear campaign...What I do know is that the FDA is currently placing the interests of pharmaceutical companies ahead of public health and safety. I'm aware that we have to work with the FDA as it is and I'm not trying to overthrow them or anything like that, I'm just saying it is a good idea to go into this with our eyes open. For example, I suspect that we'll only get FDA backing if and when a Big Pharma or Big Tobacco company creates a PV product.

 

[Thulium]

Motion to Include Organizational Goal #8 as follows:
8. Act as a social support network for those who wish to abstain from smoking tobacco.

I certainly support the "social support network" concept considering I've suggested it as well. However, "abstaining from smoking tobacco" is a little more myopic than I'd like to see. I would suggest instead:

8. Facilitate a social support network for people who choose smoke-free or harm reducing alternatives to improve their personal health.

The reason for this wording is that I believe we should be encouraging all types of people to use smoke-free alternatives even if they aren't specifically abstaining tobacco. Even though a lot of people have stopped smoking entirely since switching to PVs, some people choose to still smoke and/or use other alternatives as well. Though less than ideal, using a PV part-time is still a "safer and more effective alternative to smoking."

Also, I think that we should also be a social support network for people who are trying to wean themselves from Nicotine. Not everyone will choose to go this route, but some people will and they deserve our support too. The nice thing about PV's is that it reduces some of the urgency to break the nicotine habit, but we should be just as free to choose to quit nicotine dependence as we should be free to choose safer alternatives to smoking.