I agree it's great for marketing, but not so great for combating the drug and cigarette industries who don't want the competition. I believe the generally negative connotation attached to the word cigarette has helped to allow the FDA to classify e-cigs as "products made or derived from tobacco"* when they clearly are not.
* line 5,
Electronic Cigarettes
PS Now that I think about it, I wonder how many people who buy PV's have a positive view of cigarettes.
History Lesson:
The FDA in late 2008 began seizing incoming shipments of electronic cigarette / pipe / cigar products claiming that they were "unapproved drug-delivery combination devices." The drug was nicotine, which the FDA already regulates in the form of patches, gum, lozenges, and prescription inhalers. The device would be whatever was used to vaporize the nicotine.
Two of the larger companies at the time, Smoking Everywhere and Sottera Inc. (dba NJOY), filed a law suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the spring of 2009. They asked the court to issue an injunction against the FDA seizing products.
The FDA's argument was that they could regulate electronic cigarettes under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act because the companies selling the products were making "health claims" that they could help people stop smoking. Regulating them under the FDCA pretty much meant that the products would be banned from being sold until they underwent all the clinical trials and FDA approvals that pharmaceutical products go through. The new drug / device approval process takes many years and costs millions of dollars. Meanwhile, smokers would keep dying.
A month or two after the law suit was filed, but before the judge had ruled, congress passed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act ("Tobacco Act"), giving the FDA authority to regulate certain tobacco products. When Judge Richard J. Leon granted the request for an injunction, his opinion document pointed out that the products were not being marketed as medical products -- they were being marketed as an alternative to smoking.
He stated that the FDA could not regulate them under the FDCA, but since the Tobacco Act uses the definition of tobacco products "made or derived from tobacco" that if the FDA wanted to regulate the products, it should do so under the Tobacco Act -- unless those selling the products made a specific health claim (e.g. helps you to stop smoking), in which case that
particular brand could be regulated under the FDCA.
http://www.casaa.org/files/SE-vs-FDA-Opinion.pdf
The FDA appealed Judge Leon's ruling, continuing to insist that the products are drug/delivery devices. The three judge appellate court upheld Judge Leon's ruling. The FDA continued to protest, asking for a reconsideration by the full roster of 9 judges. The appeals court turned down the FDA's request. Then there was the time of limbo, while everyone waited to see whether the FDA would take the case to the Supreme Court. Finally, on the last day of the allowable period for making an appeal, the FDA gave in and announced that they would regulate the products under the Tobacco Act.
So you see, the name "cigarette" had nothing to do with the FDA's decision. The Agency was forced into using the Tobacco Act as its regulatory authority by the Federal court system.
Keep in mind that nearly all of the FDA's funding these days comes from fees paid by pharmaceutical companies, so the FDA has a vested interest in protecting the profits of drug companies. The drug companies that make smoking cessation products (regulated under the FDCA) were dead set against this new type of product taking away their cash cow.
It's quite a racket they have going. Tell smokers that these expensive products will double their chances of quitting (without mentioning that this means going from 2-3% to 4-6% success rates.) When the smokers relapse, blame it on the smokers. Then tell them that it takes several tries to get it right, so they should go back to buying the patch/gum/lozenges/pills and try, try again.
Any product that helps from 30 to 80% of the consumers permanently stop inhaling smoke presents a serious threat to the profits of Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson and any other pharma company making / selling "smoking cessation" products.
