Electronic cigarettes under fire for targeting Arizona kids

[LaceyUnderall]

Jadeninja -

I might suggest to you that you spend some time looking at what "marketing claims" entail and what needs to be done via the FDA in order to sell a smoking cessation device. There are literally hundreds of threads throughout the forum dating back over a year that explain why the NRT category is not helpful to consumers.

However, in a nutshell... here are the FACTS consumers with this philosophy must be prepared to live with:

1. You will lose all choice of type of hardware.
2. You will lose all choice of flavor. Fruit blast, Cinnamon, Mint and tobacco will be the basic choices for a bit.
3. You will lose the ability to purchase from who you wish. Locations for purchase will be establishments that hold a pharamaceutical resale license: Walgreens, CVS, et all.
4. You will lose the ability to drive pricing in the market.
5. Your nicotine strength will NEVER exceed 4mg per dose and each dose will most likely be equivalent to that of the nicotrol inhaler.

The Unknowns:
1. They could be removed from the market until clinical testing is done. Can take anywhere from 1 year to 8 years.
2. The FDA could deem them an "illegal" product until one is completed, not even allowing the use of them in that time period.
3. There are more, but they are so painful to think about... it is better for us all that we just stick to the argument that these are not NRT's and are alternatives to tobacco cigarettes.

As for Mac:

Why would the ECA pull this tremendous backstab.

You are not a member of the ECA so therefor, it is impossible for the ECA to backstab you. The ECA owes you nothing. You are not entitled to anything.

The only thing I can think is that they dont have any kiosks paying dues.

BINGO!!! Mac, had you participated, you would be able to HELP write any policy or regulation regarding kiosks. You think the Smoking Everywhere kiosks are bullsh** and giving other kiosk owners a bad name just like I do? Great!

Let the ECA know exactly WHAT you are doing to ensure that your consumers are not being misled. That underage consumers are not making purchases. That these same underage consumers aren't stealing from you?!? Is your kiosk in all glass, locked cases? Fabulous. What type of layout is best for display? If not, how do you ensure that children do not steal? What do you do about demonstrations? What have you set up with the mall in order to achieve optimal space for your business, yet to be placed in an environment that is appropriate? Are you in front of the Disney store or are you in front of Spencer's gifts? Any insight on how to help other kiosk owners navigate through this type of negotiation with the mall leasing agent?

I am going to do some more research and digging and see what other unethical actions the ECA is taking. I will see if I can find any more blatant conflicts of interest. Watch for my threads. I will expose these people.

For the record, let us discuss "these people":

Are you aware that ECA is made up of mostly very small suppliers? And that 99% of the board members are made up of members who are very small companies? These are not huge conglomerate types who want to see all suppliers gone except for those who can manage a legal team, etc.

These are very small companies, 4 of which participate on this forum, and all of them wanted to do something. As a small vendor Mac, you should know how hard it is to come up with the dues... But these companies have come up with the money. They HAVE donated time.

The problem is that everyone believes the ECA is some huge organization. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. They are small suppliers, not unlike yourself, who are doing anything they can to keep the electronic cigarette alive.

Tireless hours. Thankless hours. The #1 issue with the fight against "the other side" isn't the ECA. IT IS THE COMMUNITY FIGHTING AGAINST ITSELF. And Mac, your signature, is PRIME example of that.

Your comments of "exposing these people". You don't even know who "these people" are yet you have been a member of this forum for how long?

As for "conflicts of interest"... the ECA has no conflicts of interest. If a member wants to speak up at anytime regarding regulations etc... they are more than welcome to and in EVERY case thus far that I have ever witnessed, they have been listened to and their ideas have been implemented.

So Mac... I have never had any issues with you. Actually, I have always been kind of fond of your candor and explanation as to the kiosk portion of our industry... I can completely sympathize with your plight in being lumped into the same category as the bad kiosks even though you are not...

However, I am stating this publicly as you have now gone and singled out my company in my own subforum and you plan on making it "your business to put my business out of business", and resulted in attacking me personally... please stop what you are doing and don't let your displaced anger get too far out of hand.

At this point, I am willing to say that I have no hard feelings, but sincerely, you have to step back and read some of the things that you have written over the past few days, over the several threads you have participated in and re-evaluate.

 

[ECGuy]

However, in a nutshell... here are the FACTS consumers with this philosophy must be prepared to live with:

1. You will lose all choice of type of hardware.
2. You will lose all choice of flavor. Fruit blast, Cinnamon, Mint and Tobacco will be the basic choices for a bit.
3. You will lose the ability to purchase from who you wish. Locations for purchase will be establishments that hold a pharamaceutical resale license: Walgreens, CVS, et all.
4. You will lose the ability to drive pricing in the market.
5. Your nicotine strength will NEVER exceed 4mg per dose and each dose will most likely be equivalent to that of the nicotrol inhaler.

The Unknowns:
1. They could be removed from the market until clinical testing is done. Can take anywhere from 1 year to 8 years.
2. The FDA could deem them an "illegal" product until one is completed, not even allowing the use of them in that time period.
3. There are more, but they are so painful to think about... it is better for us all that we just stick to the argument that these are not NRT's and are alternatives to Tobacco cigarettes.

Sadly I think we may lose all those things anyway. Let's hope not, I'm still hopefull for a miracle, but honestly i'm not counting on one.

And Lacey is right, you do have to give some concessions, saying they help quit smoking, while completely accurate and true, gives our opponents fodder to shoot us with. She responded to Mac very well.

But where is the line? I"m not sure there is one, but where might it be?

We said "they help you quit smoking" they said "that is NRT territory and needs proof" so we stopped.

We said "healthier" they said "prove it" so we stopped.

They say "flavors are for kids" so we stopped that too and flavor our own now.

Now they say "sold where kids hang out" so we talk of no kiosks in malls.

Now we have "second hand vapor" claims to fight and they pass bans. We have no proof to fight with, so they win.

Next it's going to be, and actually is, "contains nicotine, it's a drug" and the FDA has jurisdiction unless you burn stuff to release it.

I'm not sure what the answer is, and as Lacey pointed out very well, these are all small companies. When you are out numbered, out gunned and out funded, you have to retreat at times to survive. And we are out numbered, out gunned and very out funded.

But soon we will find we've retreated into the sea and the war will be over.

I think we are all fighting the inevitable conclusion. The money we are spending needs to be spent on research. It's what they want, it's what they need and until we have some they are not backing down. The only question is do we fund studies now, or after the ban?

Do we work as a community to fund research and political activism, or do we fight amongst ourselves while our enemies chuckle and grow stronger with each victory?

 

[Wireguy]

Mac
"The only thing I can think is that they dont have any kiosks paying dues."

LaceyUnderall
"BINGO!!! Mac, had you participated, you would be able to HELP write any policy or regulation regarding kiosks."

So your saying ECA members get to write policy that benefits their business? That seems to support everything Mac has been saying.

Mac if I were you I would be saving all of the pages in case you ever go to court.

LaceyUnderall
They HAVE donated time.

Who hoo! so tell me one business that hasn't.

LaceyUnderall
The problem is that everyone believes the ECA is some huge organization. THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

Only the naive would believe that. I always figured it is 1 to 10 people.

LaceyUnderall
"Your comments of "exposing these people". You don't even know who "these people" are yet you have been a member of this forum for how long?"

Actually he seems to have a reasonably good grasp. It's one of the things that made me keep reading his rants over to many post.

LaceyUnderall
As for "conflicts of interest"... the ECA has no conflicts of interest. If a member wants to speak up at anytime regarding regulations etc... they are more than welcome to and in EVERY case thus far that I have ever witnessed, they have been listened to and their ideas have been implemented.

Every case? Thats not possible. If it is you are part of a hive.

LaceyUnderall
As for "conflicts of interest"... the ECA has no conflicts of interest.

Do you even understand the meaning of conflict of interest?
Time for me to check out.

 

[ladysolitary85]

Wow a lot of good points on this topic.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

So your saying ECA members get to write policy that benefits their business?

The main goal is to be able to come up with reasonable regulations so that if and hopefully when the "powers that be" decide to sit down and discuss what the best options will be moving forward for the industry and for public health, we have something to take to the table...

At least if our suggested regulations are inclusive and reasonable and they simply dismiss us, we have another platform to fight from.

Then again, we could all just sit back and have no say and let the FDA come up with their own regulations for us... because if you look at the picture on their very own website on how to put a 4081 into a charger... they know exactly how to regulate us properly LOL. FDA Warns of Health Risks Posed by E-Cigarettes

 

[Mac]

As for Mac:


1You are not a member of the ECA so therefor, it is impossible for the ECA to backstab you. The ECA owes you nothing. You are not entitled to anything.



2BINGO!!! Mac, had you participated, you would be able to HELP write any policy or regulation regarding kiosks. You think the Smoking Everywhere kiosks are bullsh** and giving other kiosk owners a bad name just like I do? Great!

3Let the ECA know exactly WHAT you are doing to ensure that your consumers are not being misled. That underage consumers are not making purchases. That these same underage consumers aren't stealing from you?!? Is your kiosk in all glass, locked cases? Fabulous. What type of layout is best for display? If not, how do you ensure that children do not steal? What do you do about demonstrations? What have you set up with the mall in order to achieve optimal space for your business, yet to be placed in an environment that is appropriate? Are you in front of the Disney store or are you in front of Spencer's gifts? Any insight on how to help other kiosk owners navigate through this type of negotiation with the mall leasing agent?



For the record, let us discuss "these people":

4Are you aware that ECA is made up of mostly very small suppliers? And that 99% of the board members are made up of members who are very small companies? These are not huge conglomerate types who want to see all suppliers gone except for those who can manage a legal team, etc.

These are very small companies, 4 of which participate on this forum, and all of them wanted to do something. As a small vendor Mac, you should know how hard it is to come up with the dues... But these companies have come up with the money. They HAVE donated time.

The problem is that everyone believes the ECA is some huge organization. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. They are small suppliers, not unlike yourself, who are doing anything they can to keep the electronic cigarette alive.

5Tireless hours. Thankless hours. The #1 issue with the fight against "the other side" isn't the ECA. IT IS THE COMMUNITY FIGHTING AGAINST ITSELF. And Mac, your signature, is PRIME example of that.

Your comments of "exposing these people". You don't even know who "these people" are yet you have been a member of this forum for how long?

6As for "conflicts of interest"... the ECA has no conflicts of interest. If a member wants to speak up at anytime regarding regulations etc... they are more than welcome to and in EVERY case thus far that I have ever witnessed, they have been listened to and their ideas have been implemented.

7So Mac... I have never had any issues with you. Actually, I have always been kind of fond of your candor and explanation as to the kiosk portion of our industry... I can completely sympathize with your plight in being lumped into the same category as the bad kiosks even though you are not...

8However, I am stating this publicly as you have now gone and singled out my company in my own subforum and you plan on making it "your business to put my business out of business", and resulted in attacking me personally... please stop what you are doing and don't let your displaced anger get too far out of hand.

9At this point, I am willing to say that I have no hard feelings, but sincerely, you have to step back and read some of the things that you have written over the past few days, over the several threads you have participated in and re-evaluate.

Lacey: Despite that fact that I said I wouldn't communicate with you further (it really ticked me off when you implied I have been doing nothing this whole time) I will adress what you just typed here point by point:

1 I would have been a member if I could have afforded the dues. I do not own the company and when I quoted your price to the owner she laughed. $300 bucks a month? Come on. Regardless since your organization is claiming to be a representative of our industry I would have to disagree.

2I will have to take your word for that and under the current circumstances your word doesn't mean much to me right now.

3 I would be happy to: We card anyone who doesn't look like they are of legal age to purchase tobacco. this is a self imposed regulation and was my idea.

We keep our product locked in drawers. The boxes in our glass case (which is also locked are empty.) We require anyone who buys liquid to sign an information sheet telling them how to handle liquid responsibly and with their signature the promise that they will keep the liquid away from children and animals.

We do not sell nicotine products to anyone who is obviously pregnant.

We advise our customers to be considerate with their e-cig use.
We are no where near any disney stores or other stores that would be inappropriate. In fact on either side of our kiosk is an escalator. There are no stores next to us. I would advise anyone who is looking into this type of venture to use common sense which would dictate that you don't want to be next to any stores that sell toys, maternity clothes or otherwise bad ideas for locations. If you lack the common sense to figure this out you shouldn't be selling addictive chemicals.

4 I would say that Njoy is one of the biggest e-cig suppliers I have seen. That guy is a marketing genius. As to the rest short of seing your books I would have to take your word for it. Again see point 2

5 I have worked those same tireless hours and made those same thankless efforts. I submit that I know who at least 3 of them are. Njoy/instead/bloog (the leadership in a nutshell no?) I have been on this forum for a good 9-10 months. No my signature is my response to it not an example of it. I have just as much as a right to make that my signature as you do to go on ABC news bashing me. Stop trying to throw me under a bus to save yourselves and I will happily change my signature. It hurt me to type that signature. I am deeply offended by the actions of your organization and I promise you I am not gonna go quietly. If you don't like my reaction I submit that you shouldn't have provoked it.

6 In my opinion when you hold dual roles as both a seller and an advocate group it is unethical to promote our industry while trying to blacklist your competitors based solely upon their location. You could very easily have avoided this by choosing to say unethical sellers instead lumping all kiosks into that category. ( I am shocked that you didn't see this coming)

7 I liked you too. Right up until this happened. If you go back and reread the things I said in regards to the ECA prior to this I was very objective and came to your organizations defense more then once. I used to believe in what the ECA stood for. But come on. I am not gonna just bend over and let you rape me all over ABC news. I have always thought that not only your organization but that you personally were very important to our cause and I applauded your efforts. This game of "dirty pool" was not initiated by me.

8 I said that if your organization succeeds in forcing me out of business I would dedicate my life to returning the favor. Yes I made it personal. Why? I have a family and they don't deserve this. I thought that maybe If I could make you see how it feels then you would use your clout to make them reconsider this unethical and absurd stance. NOTHING would please me more then to retract everything I said and change that signature. The burden of proof that your organization was misquoted Is upon you. (if it even was.) Even if it wasn't I require no apology only a public recant of that assanine stance. Please point me towards it and I will go back to focusing 100% of my hostility to our common enemies. After I make sure that anyone who is even remotely interested in what I have to say knows that the ECA does listen and is reasonable and can admit when they are wrong. In my book that would speak highly of your organization.

9 I wish I could say the same but currently I can not. I have done nothing wrong. This attack by your group was completely unprovoked. I didn't deserve it and I cannot help but take it personally. I have read and reread my posts more then once and I am hurt deeply by this whole situation. Did I push? Yes. Was my response over the top? Yes. Did I mince words and treat you unfairly? Yes. now ask yourself why? Why does this person who has always been reasonable and open and who was once a staunch supporter become so completely hostile? Why?

Please, I implore you. Correct this situation before it is too late and you alienate every e-cig vendor like me who once believed in you.

 

[Mac]

And Lacey is right, you do have to give some concessions, saying they help quit smoking, while completely accurate and true, gives our opponents fodder to shoot us with. She responded to Mac very well.

But where is the line? I"m not sure there is one, but where might it be?

We said "they help you quit smoking" they said "that is NRT territory and needs proof" so we stopped.

I strongly disagree.

First of all I have never said that.

Secondly I don't think they work as a cessation at all. Cessation means you quit smoking and then quit using what helped you quit smoking. If they take away our e-cigs most of us will go right back to tobacco. myself included. Perhaps my e-cig did help me stop burning tobacco. But I am no less addicted to nicotine.

3rdly the arguement is moot because it is a mis-classification. The concept is harm reduction. Not treating the diease of addiction. I personally think that anyone who can't make that very simple and very cut and dry distinction is doing so purposely because they have a seperate agenda.

Sticking our heads in the sand is not the answer. I do not fear regulation. I fear the behavior of corrupt governmental and private organizations who behave disingenuously and there is a big damned difference.

 

[Mac]

To the OP:

I am sorry I derailed your thread. My response was emotional and this is not the appropriate thread or even area of topic to discuss it. I was just floored when I read the ECA's quote.

I think that people who sell these products to minors are behaving unethically and are a huge liability to our industry as a whole. This should not be allowed by any means. If I drew attention away from this very serious issue I apologize. It was not my intent.

 

[ECGuy]

I strongly disagree.

First of all I have never said that.

Secondly I don't think they work as a cessation at all. Cessation means you quit smoking and then quit using what helped you quit smoking. If they take away our e-cigs most of us will go right back to tobacco. myself included. Perhaps my e-cig did help me stop burning tobacco. But I am no less addicted to nicotine.

3rdly the arguement is moot because it is a mis-classification. The concept is harm reduction. Not treating the diease of addiction. I personally think that anyone who can't make that very simple and very cut and dry distinction is doing so purposely because they have a seperate agenda.

Sticking our heads in the sand is not the answer. I do not fear regulation. I fear the behavior of corrupt governmental and private organizations who behave disingenuously and there is a big damned difference.

It's all a matter of semantics. Smoking is smoking, the inhalation of smoke, vaping is not smoking.

Cessation is to cease something.

Smoking Cessation == to stop smoking, to stop inhaling smoke, to stop burning tobacco, to stop smoking cigarettes.

If John Banzhaf were on our side, he would be arguing the same exact point. "smoking cessation" is defined as the cessation of smoking. Nicotine addiction is a whole other matter.

I do understand that up till now smoking cessation and the breaking of nicotine addiction have been synonymous. That point is not lost on me.

What is lost on me is how do you discuss harm reduction whilst being unable to mention that using this product, or any other, results in the cessation of smoking? The very benefits of ecigs and all other harm reduction tactics revolve around the fact there is no smoke. From the bans to the health benefits, it's all about smoke.

I do agree, we are going to have to retreat from this, the two things have been synonymous for too long now and it may be moot as you say. But i'm still sticking firmly to my guns that this whole argument is a carefully crafted tactic by our enemies to prohibit us from mentioning there is no smoke.

So, i have to disagree. I think it is those who say "you can't say it helps you stop smoking" who have the alternate agenda. If the FDA wants to be clear and concise, perhaps they should pick up a dictionary sometime and force the NRT makers to stop saying it helps you quit smoking, for often they do not.

As you just said, when your NRT, whether that be the gum, the patch, or ecigs, fails (or rather you fail in your resolve), you will return to smoking tobacco. Their rates are what? 15% on the best long term study? 40% after three months by their own admission in their own studies?

If the patch is a "nicotine replacement" or the gum is too, than why are ecigs not also classified as that? (which I think eventually they will have to be)

Yes, the goal of those programs is to break nicotine addiction, but the nature of the products is simply nicotine replacement. Go look at all the NRT sites, they all admit the same thing: "this is simply a tool to help you quit" and it's the mindset of the addict and the other aspects of their programs that really break the nicotine addiction, not the nature of the products.

All an NRT does it get you to quit smoking. They do not stop your addiction to nicotine, they are nicotine.

Every NRT has a "quit smoking program" attached to it. Why then do they not just sell the product and be done with it? Because the product is not intended to help you quit smoking by its self. It's purpose is simply to act as a nicotine replacement and allow you the ability to slowly lower your dosages.

I'd even argue that any ecig with a "quit smoking program" attached would be identical to any other program. BUT, we have no studies to prove it's effectiveness, and that's the Achilles heal.

So, again,how do we discuss harm reduction without offending our enemies and giving them fodder to hollar "see!! they said no smoke!! it's a no smoking thing!! They said you stop smoking cigarettes!! They said healthier because there is no smoke!! They said 'less harm' without proof!"

If I published an ad right now that said "breathing the air in LA is safer than sucking on a cars exhaust pipe" I'd probably be in violation of some rule. After all, i'm unaware of any study that proves LA air is less dangerous than car exhaust".

But reason and logic tell me that even as polluted as the air in LA might be, even the news reports of "don't breathe today, the EPA says it's dangerous" still lead me to believe the diluted toxic air has to be safer than going directly to the source.

Now, i know I'm being a bit over the top here. But do you see the point? Demanding a scientific study to PROVE things that are obvious can get old at times. I applaud the FDA for trying to protect us. It is their job after all. But must one always prove the obvious?

But if a statement is true, it is true. Words mean things. You should be able to use them with their generally recognized definitions. If you say "ecigs are proven to help you quit nicotine addiction" you are on shaky ground. If you say "using ecigs can help you quit smoking cigarettes" how shaky is that ground?

It's only shaky if you sell NRTs, or have a major anti smoker agenda.

But, alas, it's all moot. Pie in the sky dreams aside, foolish hopes that the FDA is reasonable and will come to some table to discuss regulations aside, the fact is the FDA wants studies. The FDA wants proof. The FDA wants scientists in lab coats to say it's safe and effective. It's what they need.

And eventually, that's exactly what we are going to have to give them.

Should ecigs be marketed as a quit smoking program? As something with the goal of breaking nicotine addiction? No, of course not. At least not until someone proves they are effective for that. But should we be prohibited from saying "they can help you quit smoking cigarettes" when that is their whole purpose?? That's my ultimate question.

 

[Mac]

It's all a matter of semantics. Smoking is smoking, the inhalation of smoke, vaping is not smoking.

Cessation is to cease something.

Smoking Cessation == to stop smoking, to stop inhaling smoke, to stop burning tobacco, to stop smoking cigarettes.

If John Banzhaf were on our side, he would be arguing the same exact point. "smoking cessation" is defined as the cessation of smoking. Nicotine addiction is a whole other matter.

I do understand that up till now smoking cessation and the breaking of nicotine addiction have been synonymous. That point is not lost on me.

What is lost on me is how do you discuss harm reduction whilst being unable to mention that using this product, or any other, results in the cessation of smoking? The very benefits of ecigs and all other harm reduction tactics revolve around the fact there is no smoke. From the bans to the health benefits, it's all about smoke.

I do agree, we are going to have to retreat from this, the two things have been synonymous for too long now and it may be moot as you say. But i'm still sticking firmly to my guns that this whole argument is a carefully crafted tactic by our enemies to prohibit us from mentioning there is no smoke.

So, i have to disagree. I think it is those who say "you can't say it helps you stop smoking" who have the alternate agenda. If the FDA wants to be clear and concise, perhaps they should pick up a dictionary sometime and force the NRT makers to stop saying it helps you quit smoking, for often they do not.

As you just said, when your NRT, whether that be the gum, the patch, or ecigs, fails (or rather you fail in your resolve), you will return to smoking tobacco. Their rates are what? 15% on the best long term study? 40% after three months by their own admission in their own studies?

If the patch is a "nicotine replacement" or the gum is too, than why are ecigs not also classified as that? (which I think eventually they will have to be)

Yes, the goal of those programs is to break nicotine addiction, but the nature of the products is simply nicotine replacement. Go look at all the NRT sites, they all admit the same thing: "this is simply a tool to help you quit" and it's the mindset of the addict and the other aspects of their programs that really break the nicotine addiction, not the nature of the products.

All an NRT does it get you to quit smoking. They do not stop your addiction to nicotine, they are nicotine.

Every NRT has a "quit smoking program" attached to it. Why then do they not just sell the product and be done with it? Because the product is not intended to help you quit smoking by its self. It's purpose is simply to act as a nicotine replacement and allow you the ability to slowly lower your dosages.

I'd even argue that any ecig with a "quit smoking program" attached would be identical to any other program. BUT, we have no studies to prove it's effectiveness, and that's the Achilles heal.

So, again,how do we discuss harm reduction without offending our enemies and giving them fodder to hollar "see!! they said no smoke!! it's a no smoking thing!! They said you stop smoking cigarettes!! They said healthier because there is no smoke!! They said 'less harm' without proof!"

If I published an ad right now that said "breathing the air in LA is safer than sucking on a cars exhaust pipe" I'd probably be in violation of some rule. After all, i'm unaware of any study that proves LA air is less dangerous than car exhaust".

But reason and logic tell me that even as polluted as the air in LA might be, even the news reports of "don't breathe today, the EPA says it's dangerous" still lead me to believe the diluted toxic air has to be safer than going directly to the source.

Now, i know I'm being a bit over the top here. But do you see the point? Demanding a scientific study to PROVE things that are obvious can get old at times. I applaud the FDA for trying to protect us. It is their job after all. But must one always prove the obvious?

But if a statement is true, it is true. Words mean things. You should be able to use them with their generally recognized definitions. If you say "ecigs are proven to help you quit nicotine addiction" you are on shaky ground. If you say "using ecigs can help you quit smoking cigarettes" how shaky is that ground?

It's only shaky if you sell NRTs, or have a major anti smoker agenda.

But, alas, it's all moot. Pie in the sky dreams aside, foolish hopes that the FDA is reasonable and will come to some table to discuss regulations aside, the fact is the FDA wants studies. The FDA wants proof. The FDA wants scientists in lab coats to say it's safe and effective. It's what they need.

And eventually, that's exactly what we are going to have to give them.

Should ecigs be marketed as a quit smoking program? As something with the goal of breaking nicotine addiction? No, of course not. At least not until someone proves they are effective for that. But should we be prohibited from saying "they can help you quit smoking cigarettes" when that is their whole purpose?? That's my ultimate question.

You rasie several good points here and I totally get what you are saying. But why is harm redcution such a dirty word to the powers that be? Why is the concept incomprehensible to almost anyone wearing a a necktie? I mean if we can reduce the numer of deaths and illnesses with e-cigarettes why would anyone be opposed to that? You are 100% correct. We can mire ourselves in semantic arguements till the cows come home. At the end of the day if I have my rig I am not gonna go buy that next pack of cowboy killers. But honestly I don't think I have treated my addiction to nicotine. I have just reduced the harm I am doing to my body in the process of consuming it.

 

[ECGuy]

@ Mac yes, you are totally right.

But what we are up against is two things actually, well, three ok, maybe four or five lol:

1- Hatred for smokers - Smokers in the last forty years have gotten a very bad rap in society. In just my lifetime it's gone from just about everyone smoked to now you can't smoke in your own car and the state might take your children from you if you do. Smokers are portrayed in the movies and popular media in a very bad light, and maybe we should. Not having the rebel without a cause and the Marlboro man, IMHO will do far more to keep kids from smoking than outlawing flavors. But that's a whole other argument.

2- the FDA is charged with safety. and testing, and making SURE things are what people say they are and are mostly safe. The whole reason the FDA exists is some snake oil salesmen used DEG in their elixer and over 100 people died. WE must always keep that in mind. Their mandate is just not open to "harm reduction". Especially when you can't PROVE it's a reduction.

And now the Congress has charged them with cigarettes. Which is very confusing for them. A gov agency whose mission is safety is now in charge of the worlds most dangerous product, and prohibited from banning it. It's really making things difficult for them. Then we come along and really complicate things... LOL.

3- JUST QUIT- The anti smoking activists are all non smokers or ex smokers who we all know can be some of the most self righteous people. Their mantra is "just quit". In their minds there is no other option. Many of them are just people who get off getting their way or forcing others to succumb to their view on life. But most are honestly trying to do what they think is best. I can't fault them for that.

So "harm reduction" is a difficult concept for most. Nicotine is addictive. It's a drug. Some say as bad as ....... So, while it makes perfect sense to most people to do harm reduction for ...... addicts, it just doesn't cross their minds to do that for smokers. We've gone from "smoking is bad" to "nicotine is bad". And that's just the beginining, look around you, the entire world is moving towards a society out of the "demolition man" where every thing that's bad for you is illegal and all restaurants are Taco Bell.

And we've been conditioned to trust drug companies. That's a big issue in this discussion. We watch commercials that end with "may cause your liver to explode, your skin to fall off, your face to swell to the point it becomes life threatening or may, in rare cases (they always add that) may cause suicidal or violent thoughts or action, but ask your doctor if it's right for you. And we run off to ask our doctor about this great new pill that is going to make things all better. After all, if it wasn't safe they couldn't make it right? And those horrible things won't happen to me anyway, i'm not one of the "rare cases".

Then we have the big money, there is big money at stake. Drug companies and big tobacco are not really famous for playing fair. They play dirty, real dirty, and they have the money to do it. These two giants have been doing battle over the billions in smoking for years. And along comes the e-cig David with the potential to bring them both down? They are not very happy about that. And I mention they play dirty?

So, when you have your well funded and well trusted competition playing dirty to bad mouth you and their competition who is famous for lying and cheating in their marketing tactics fighting you too, society looking down on you to begin with, the do gooders of the world wanting to save you from yourself, the "look at me's" like John B looking to use you to make millions and get a name for themselves and you throw in the whole fact the FDA is mandated with safety and health and not really able to consider "harm reduction" without some hard scientific data to show it is a reduction and that adverse reactions occur in "rare cases", then you really are up against a big wall to argue the point.

It's exactly why I say to keep backing down at every turn is not the answer. Many disagree with me and I understand why. Perhaps they are right, we shall see. Politics is a strange game.

But, to bring us back to what started all this, not being able to discuss any of the benefits of ecigs is crazy.

"An alternative to smoking" we say.
"why do I want to do that" people say?
"because it's an alternative" we say.
"what's good about it? Why is it better?" they say.
"I can't tell you" we have to say because we either don't have the proof or we just roll over and let our opponents, many of them very skilled attorneys who bully people into fear for a living without any real concern for truth, bully us into submission.

Basically the only thing we can PROVE to the satisfaction of everyone is "it's cheaper", sort of. Beyond that, there is always the argument that "you can't prove that" no matter how many studies we already have, no matter how many testimonials we have, no matter how much anecdotal evidence we gather, no matter what logic or our own personal experience says, in the end our enemies won't accept any of it anyway.

In the end we are all stuck between a rock and a hard place. We have found something amazing, something useful, something life changing for us.

But you can't talk about harm reduction without talking about the harm, and it's reduction. They say we have no solid proof there is any reduction (save for the few studies everyone refuses to put any stock into), and without proof you don't dare discuss it.

So isn't the point moot?

 

[Mac]

@ Mac yes, you are totally right.



So isn't the point moot?

You have made several valid points there and I cannot argue with a single one of them. Dammit I want to! I want to scream out at the injustice! I want to stop these jerks from imposing their wills on me. It seems like it gets worse and worse every day. I never thought I would have to worry about the ECA trying to get me shut down. God only knows what will come next. I refuse to give up. I will not be intimidated. They can drag me away from my booth in handcuffs if that's what it takes. Perhaps they will..

 

[ECGuy]

Well Mac, you can stop them. It's one of the arguments that I make, and one of the things I think we should be doing.

1- Get better organized

2- Steal their play book.

What do I mean? Well, the anti smoking folks have been doing this for years. They have training, they have experience, they know what works. And you don't see them running around signing online petitions and waving their fists in the air crying "unfair". You see them organized, well rehearsed and super effective. Even when they have zero proof, zero science and zero logic behind them.

"flavors are for kids"
"a component of anti freeze"
"marketed to children"
"unknown risks"
"not shown to be safe"
"made in china"
"not FDA approved"
"not proven safe and effective"
"nicotine is a highly addictive drug"
And my personal fav that works for just about anything:
"might be a gateway to.... insert horrible thing here"

Does any of this sound familiar? How many groups have you seen saying the exact same thing?

How do they do that? It's easy. They use activism tactics that are published, distributed and highly effective. They work together, they pick their targets, they stay focused, they rehearse, and they are successful.

Check this out. A new health threat: federally-funded health policy based on junk science. from 2003. Looking through the looking glass indeed.

It's a great look at the troubles the smokeless tobacco folks had a decade ago. Read that, see if you see any similarities to our situation. I swear you could find/replace "smokeless tobacco" with "ecigarettes" and it would be the exact same story we have now. Nothing has changed, they are simply running their playbook.

For example, see how subtle but effective things can be? Check out these examples from that article, and learn the tactics.

Imagine you are anti smokeless tobacco.

When called before Congress and they ask you "Isn't smokeless tobacco safer to use than cigarettes?" You answer: "no, there is no safe form of tobacco."

That doesn't truthfully answer the question. But it sure drives home the agenda!

When the National Legal and Policy Center busts you in a lie:
"“Some people think that smokeless tobacco (chewing tobacco and snuff), pipes and cigars are safer than cigarettes. They are not.”

You simply change it to: "“Some people think that smokeless
tobacco (chewing tobacco and snuff), pipes and cigars are safe. They are not." The truth.

When the CDC web page for the Surgeon General’s Report for Kids about smoking asked the question: “Is smokeless tobacco safer than cigarettes?”  and answered, “NO WAY!”

and someone with a medical degree pointed out that might be misleading if not untrue, you simply change it to:

"is smokeless tobacco safe? NO WAY" and now it's true.

Are you seeing what they do? Are you seeing how we fall into their trap? Are you seeing how they twist things around and make plenty of "health claims" of their own, and while technically true, very misleading to push their "quit or die" agenda?

The key we need to learn from them is:

1- Call them out. when they say things that are untrue, misleading or simply unprovable, call them on it. Swiftly, decisively and get them to back down.

'truth in advertising' works both ways. If we are going to do it, it's to be expected we demand they do it too.

2- Develop your own talking points and responses. You don't HAVE to make outrageous health claims.

"no carcinogens" that's just stupid. "only water vapor" OH? idiot.
"a safe alternative", ham and eggs isn't safe, how can sucking in vapor with nicotine be 100% safe. City Aiir isn't even 100% safe for crying out loud.

Claims like this will not only get you in trouble with the FTC, but make you look stupid when the well rehearsed anti smoking guy gets his turn at the podium.

So know the facts and be able to spew them forth, in short bites people can grab on to. Don't be afraid of the facts. FACTS... Too often we are so afraid to make any sort of claim that we just shut up and let the anti smoking guys walk all over us, in some silly hope that not causing any waves might keep the boat afloat longer. It's not going to. If we don't cause some waves, theirs will sink us. I guarantee it. They've been doing it to every other smoking alternative for 30 years.

Course, here is where you an I are totally on the same page. And no offense to the ECA, just pointing out how you've strayed a bit from the agenda at times.

On their facts / myths page they say:

Myth: Electronic cigarette cartridges offer many flavors in order to attract adolescent users.
Fact: Many adult-intended products offer a variety of flavors. To suggest that the cartridge flavors for electronic cigarettes were devised to appeal to kids is patently false and has no basis in fact

And then get quoted in the media saying flavors should be banned and their members are stopping the sale of them? Which is it. Fact? or Myth?

Myth: No one knows what is in electronic cigarettes.
Fact: Multiple studies have been conducted and the ingredients are well known. all regarded as generally safe for human consumption when ingested prudently and in accordance with proper labeling

But don't talk about any of these studies in your marketing or say that all available scientific data at this time indicates they are a safer alternative because "we just don't know." Which is it? Fact or Myth?

And your favorite:

Myth: Electronic cigarettes are being sold to kids.
Fact: Electronic cigarettes are intended for committed smokers of the legal age to smoke.

But perhaps we should take them out of malls.

Again,not to pick on the ECA, we all do it. I just did that to make Mac feel a bit better and point out it's very easy to stray from the path under pressure. Usually Mr. Salmon is one who is very well rehearsed in his talking points and I've been very proud of him most of the time in his carefully crafted responses.

We need to get organized, find our talking points, then fan out and use them, everywhere, all the time. Learn from the anti smokers play book.

Chasing our tails and fighting amongst ourselves is getting us no where.

 

[WarrLordd]

Outrage.. Before i turned my life to vaping.. When i was 16 i use to go to the local deli where i live at in newyork and could purchase smokes. (newport).. Kinda outrage.. Reason i got sold the product cause mu cousin use to always buy and i was around. So the vendor sorta knew me.. I bet half the time ppl get sold analogs without ID...They just trying to target on e-cig if they following up on it. Another reason to put ecig in court.

 

[Mac]

Well Mac, you can stop them. It's one of the arguments that I make, and one of the things I think we should be doing.

1- Get better organized

2- Steal their play book.

What do I mean? Well, the anti smoking folks have been doing this for years. They have training, they have experience, they know what works. And you don't see them running around signing online petitions and waving their fists in the air crying "unfair". You see them organized, well rehearsed and super effective. Even when they have zero proof, zero science and zero logic behind them.

"flavors are for kids"
"a component of anti freeze"
"marketed to children"
"unknown risks"
"not shown to be safe"
"made in china"
"not FDA approved"
"not proven safe and effective"
"nicotine is a highly addictive drug"
And my personal fav that works for just about anything:
"might be a gateway to.... insert horrible thing here"

Does any of this sound familiar? How many groups have you seen saying the exact same thing?

How do they do that? It's easy. They use activism tactics that are published, distributed and highly effective. They work together, they pick their targets, they stay focused, they rehearse, and they are successful.

Check this out. A new health threat: federally-funded health policy based on junk science. from 2003. Looking through the looking glass indeed.

It's a great look at the troubles the smokeless tobacco folks had a decade ago. Read that, see if you see any similarities to our situation. I swear you could find/replace "smokeless tobacco" with "ecigarettes" and it would be the exact same story we have now. Nothing has changed, they are simply running their playbook.

For example, see how subtle but effective things can be? Check out these examples from that article, and learn the tactics.

Imagine you are anti smokeless tobacco.

When called before Congress and they ask you "Isn't smokeless tobacco safer to use than cigarettes?" You answer: "no, there is no safe form of tobacco."

That doesn't truthfully answer the question. But it sure drives home the agenda!

When the National Legal and Policy Center busts you in a lie:
"“Some people think that smokeless tobacco (chewing tobacco and snuff), pipes and cigars are safer than cigarettes. They are not.”

You simply change it to: "“Some people think that smokeless
tobacco (chewing tobacco and snuff), pipes and cigars are safe. They are not." The truth.

When the CDC web page for the Surgeon General’s Report for Kids about smoking asked the question: “Is smokeless tobacco safer than cigarettes?”  and answered, “NO WAY!”

and someone with a medical degree pointed out that might be misleading if not untrue, you simply change it to:

"is smokeless tobacco safe? NO WAY" and now it's true.

Are you seeing what they do? Are you seeing how we fall into their trap? Are you seeing how they twist things around and make plenty of "health claims" of their own, and while technically true, very misleading to push their "quit or die" agenda?

The key we need to learn from them is:

1- Call them out. when they say things that are untrue, misleading or simply unprovable, call them on it. Swiftly, decisively and get them to back down.

'truth in advertising' works both ways. If we are going to do it, it's to be expected we demand they do it too.

2- Develop your own talking points and responses. You don't HAVE to make outrageous health claims.

"no carcinogens" that's just stupid. "only water vapor" OH? idiot.
"a safe alternative", ham and eggs isn't safe, how can sucking in vapor with nicotine be 100% safe. City Aiir isn't even 100% safe for crying out loud.

Claims like this will not only get you in trouble with the FTC, but make you look stupid when the well rehearsed anti smoking guy gets his turn at the podium.

So know the facts and be able to spew them forth, in short bites people can grab on to. Don't be afraid of the facts. FACTS... Too often we are so afraid to make any sort of claim that we just shut up and let the anti smoking guys walk all over us, in some silly hope that not causing any waves might keep the boat afloat longer. It's not going to. If we don't cause some waves, theirs will sink us. I guarantee it. They've been doing it to every other smoking alternative for 30 years.

Course, here is where you an I are totally on the same page. And no offense to the ECA, just pointing out how you've strayed a bit from the agenda at times.

On their facts / myths page they say:

Myth: Electronic cigarette cartridges offer many flavors in order to attract adolescent users.
Fact: Many adult-intended products offer a variety of flavors. To suggest that the cartridge flavors for electronic cigarettes were devised to appeal to kids is patently false and has no basis in fact

And then get quoted in the media saying flavors should be banned and their members are stopping the sale of them? Which is it. Fact? or Myth?

Myth: No one knows what is in electronic cigarettes.
Fact: Multiple studies have been conducted and the ingredients are well known. all regarded as generally safe for human consumption when ingested prudently and in accordance with proper labeling

But don't talk about any of these studies in your marketing or say that all available scientific data at this time indicates they are a safer alternative because "we just don't know." Which is it? Fact or Myth?

And your favorite:

Myth: Electronic cigarettes are being sold to kids.
Fact: Electronic cigarettes are intended for committed smokers of the legal age to smoke.

But perhaps we should take them out of malls.

Again,not to pick on the ECA, we all do it. I just did that to make Mac feel a bit better and point out it's very easy to stray from the path under pressure. Usually Mr. Salmon is one who is very well rehearsed in his talking points and I've been very proud of him most of the time in his carefully crafted responses.

We need to get organized, find our talking points, then fan out and use them, everywhere, all the time. Learn from the anti smokers play book.

Chasing our tails and fighting amongst ourselves is getting us no where.

I nominate you as Salmon's replacement!

 

[TropicalBob]

That was a brilliant post. No doubt. It's what I've meant in past posts about becoming proactive, not reactive. We have "facts" that could promote our practice. Use those. And stop the unwarranted, unprovable claims that make us look combative, when cooperation would better serve the end.

 

[Ez Duzit]

Wow just finished reading this whole thread and am somewhat befuddled that this should ever have happened.

Mac - Responds in a perfectly normal way with regard to the situation, and not totally unexpected. He makes several good points, and from everything I read in this thread and others, he really isn't out of line at all. Considering that the very organization that he expected to help him, just bent him over. He's merely defending his right to make an honest living. He can't control how other companies in the same industry run their business. And being an honest hard working person, suddenly lumped into the same group as a bunch of deceitful, lying .......s, is enough to get anyone mad enough to throw around some choice words. Especially when it comes about the way it did. I think he showed remarkable restraint.

Lacy- Also responds in very straightforward manner, and also makes very good points in her own defense. They both agree on a lot of these points. Truthfully, you both want the same exact thing, and you both realize that.
But you, as a rep for the ECA, need to try and get them to rethink their strategy, because what they're doing now, can't possibly work. You are playing by rules the enemy has set up, and for the the ECA to take a stance that e-cig Kiosks should not be allowed in malls, is such a huge mistake, that it proves my point. Think, and I mean really think about how damning that stance is to the cause. Do you think the other side won't use that to their advantage? I'll bet they were all high fiving each other after that response went public.

ECA - Very good intentions, but we all know the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It just seems that blanket statements, condemning all kiosks, could very well do more harm then good. That was a perfect opportunity to speak up about some type of safeguards, (trying not to use the term regulations), or possible ways the industry can help itself. Large fines perhaps, or some type of serious retribution for companies that have no ethics, and no regard for the welfare of minors/pregnant women, etc...
Let people know that companies like Smoking Everywhere, who are unscrupulous in their business practices, and have proven such, time and time again, will become public targets of the ECA. Let them know you are trying to enact certain industry guidelines which are designed to protect the rights of adults, as well as the safety of children. Use what clout you have (if any) to rally other companies to band together. Because together, all pulling in the same direction, there is enough force to make a company like Smoking Everywhere open their eyes and realize, their own industry absolutely will not tolerate this. We need to gain the public trust, and if the industry is willing to begin policing itself, that's a very good start.
You really want to help change things? Start by changing your name!!! Get rid of the word cigarette! Any organization with the word cigarette attached to it, that is actively trying to promote their cause, immediately has baggage to overcome. Just the word cigarette, in this day and age, has so many negative connotations, that right from the start you guys shot yourselves in the foot.

ECGuy - Some excellent posts. You really helped put some things in perspective. The personal vaporizer community needs people like you to get more actively involved if at all possible.

There are no winners here. Both Mac and Lacy come off looking good. Each rightfully and for the most part, respectfully, defending their ground. But the sad part is that the ECA doesn't look so good right now.

 

[ECGuy]

Thanks EZ and the rest. Always nice to know I'm on the right track sometimes.

I just call it like I see it.

The ECA is doing what it can. But we must always remember it's not a consumer advocacy group, it's a manufacturer advocacy group. And one that is so underfunded they can't pay rent. Salmon said they collected $70,000usd in their first six months, and 2/3 of that from one company.

Can you imagine how much advocacy you can do on the hill for 70,000?? Some lobby groups spend that on lunch or an afternoon of golf.

Just think of paper costs alone. Let's even assume we do it as cheaply as possible and shop at staples:

Let's say we want to contact members of Congress:

435 in the House
100 in the Senate

535 sheets of paper to send them one letter = .2 cents per sheet
535 sheets printed in black ink on laser printer = .2 cents per page
535 envelopes = .05 cents each
535 stamps = .44 cents each

That's .53 cents per letter x 535 == $283.55

And that's one page, to each member of Congress. Not very effective way to lobby.

Now, let's say we want to send them a report, say one of the studies we have. Say 10 pages. That's $.89 per member. or $476.15 for the entire mailing.

And we've not paid rent, or the electricity or paid the secretary to type it up, or bought the printer or even paid the gas to go to Staples.

The costs add up fast. And just mass mailing members of Congress isn't very effective.

Now, we have the whole "we need to retreat to live to fight" argument. And it does have some validity.

As much as I have argued against banning flavors and the whole mall thing, there is validity to that argument. Our enemies are entrenched in this whole "flavors and malls are for kids" thing. And it works.

You don't see porn at the mall. You don't see many smoke shops, or body art at the mall, do you? Some malls refuse now to even rent to bars. I strongly disagree that malls are for kids. Most malls have policies that state very clearly they are not a place for teens to hang out and teens who use it for such are escorted off the premises. Course, only those without money. Malls are like casinos, you are welcomed right up till you run out of money then ..... shows you the door.

But what I think doesn't matter. It's all about public perception. Just keep saying over and over and over again "won't someone save the children" and soon people will ban just about anything, no matter how illogical their base argument is.

We need to change the perception. We need to work as hard or harder as the anti smoking groups. they have a 20 year lead on us and are entrenched in the high ground. From a tactical standpoint we have a hopeless battle here and casualties will be high. We need to find as many allies as we can. We need to fight on every front.

And it's going to take each of us. How many of us have made even one call to our government, either local or national? How many of us are keeping an eye on the news to share where the latest hot spot is and gather the troops with something more effective than "hey you slimeball politician"? How many of us are like Sun and using our specific skills to help the cause?

There are some, and they work very hard. But if each of us donated lunch money and two hours a week, imagine what we could accomplish?

Just look at the forums. See the posts in the campaigning section vs the "wring my hands and complain it's all so unfair" news or general discussion section; which is bigger?

The ECA has failed to rally people to the cause, but that was not their intent in the first place. Other groups are forming, but being part time endeavours we will have a good advocacy group sometime in 2015, if then.

In the past I've come down on the ECA and particularly CASAA for the snails pace they are moving at. But I can't really fault them for that. They are just folks trying to do their best and keep their lives in order at the same time. This is not full time for them, there is no money and there is little help. Moving faster and staying focused will help, and I do have my doubts about where some resources and time are being spent but at least they are trying.

I'm willing to help in anyway I can. But even I only have so much time in a day and have to pay rent. And because i am an affiliate for a few ecig makers to try and offset the time and expense i spend doing all this, everything I say or do is suspect as self motivated greed.

Even if the amounts i make from this are laughable and if I was out for money there are far better things to do with my time. But we live in a society where if you make money off something, you couldn't possibly actually believe in it or think it's good or wish to make the world a better place. Greedy scumbags ruined that for the rest of us long ago.

Again, it's all about public perception. If you are a doctor who comes out in support of ecigs, you are a paid hack, if you are a seller who campaigns you are a greedy ......., if you are a user who campaigns you are mind washed by the above two.

We need to change the perception, and that's a long hard battle. Hopefully we can do it. Hopefully we can all work together. Hopefully we won't be nuked out of existence when Judge Leon unleashes his ruling. Hopefully we can garner some funds to fight with. Hopefully we can .......