eLiquid Bans and such.

[kristin]

I do think that there are some vaping retailers that are large enough (madvapes and Totally Wicked come to mind) to be able to institute incentatives for their customers to donate to CASAA. If a retailer gave me an option to make a donation to CASAA that the retailer would match, when I made a purchase, I would definitely support that retailer with my purchases over a retailer who provided the same product for less.

CASAA has had this brought up dozens of times and the board has seriously discussed how it could be implemented. If vendors started collecting donations for CASAA, how would CASAA oversee these collections? It's the same as putting a donation jar on a store counter and hoping the money actually makes its way to the charity. CASAA wouldn't know who was using the CASAA name to collect money. It would be nice to say all vendors are completely trustworthy, but realistically, it could be severely misused. Not to mention unethical vendors using CASAA's respected name as a way to lure in customers. As it is, we already have some using unauthorized CASAA banners to make it look like the company is endorsed by CASAA. (A "CASAA Badge of Honor" that we didn't create.) We wouldn't have even known about it if an unsuspecting vendor hadn't emailed us and asked how to get the CASAA endorsement and logo.

So, it's not that CASAA doesn't like the idea of donation matching and such - it's just that we don't know how it can be safely implemented. If people start becoming unhappy with a vendor that collected donations for CASAA, they may think CASAA somehow endorses that company or has some responsibility to ensure that vendors collecting donations are ethical and have certain standards. That gets us into having to regulate a segment of the industry, which would be a HUGE undertaking. Of course, if anyone has any insight or experience with such things and can lessen the concerns, CASAA would love to hear from you!

However, we have developed a CASAA donation button code that people will be able to embed into their web site. This goes directly to the CASAA donation account. We should be rolling that out with the new web site.

 

[mkbilbo]

So like many of you I have read threads and blogs talking about banning eliquid or regulating to an extreme etc and so on.

I start to think about buying bulk juice, figuring out the best way to store it, while doing so I ran into a thread here on ECF that said,

"I have been seeing alot of talk about FDA bans etc. so I was thinking about stocking up on eLiquid and was wondering if anyone knew the shelf life of the liquid? Should I keep it in the fridge or is room temperature the same? Would it last for a year or more unopened?"

The exact question that I was going to ask, the difference is that the above post was from May of 2009. over four years ago.

4 YEARS!

So to hoard or not to hoard? or are we going to be talking about eLiquid bans in 2017?

We might. It's not like pharma and tobacco are going to stop and go home. Too much money involved.

On the other hand, CASAA has been showing up at every state level hearing and beating both back in more cases than not. And, all the while, the vaping thing is growing. If smokers keep switching in such big numbers, eventually, there could be too many of us to run roughshod over and they'll have to back off.

(Or at least get more sneaky about it)

 

[DancingHeretik]

CASAA has contacted the staff of a few famous e-cigarette users, most notably Katherine Hiegel. We were turned down. Unfortunately, there are very few famous vapers who CASAA would want representing them. Charlie Sheen and Courtney Love? Um...no thanks. Most respectable celebrities are already involved in their own charities and don't care about protecting their "right to vape."

I don't see it as protecting MY right to vape because I already vape and DIY and know how to build my own mod. I even have a few RBAs just in case.

I view it as giving smokers the opportunity to discover vaping and, therefore, saving the lives of smokers that don't vape yet. Isn't saving lives a good enough cause?

 

[kristin]

Don't get me wrong. I like what you're doing and I understand how far you've come in the short time you've been around. But you still have to play catch up. You need a public face and a benefactor or three. As a 501(c)(4), you do have a little more leeway in political influence.

Please pardon my sounding a little defensive , but don't you think we know that and are working towards those goals? I'm sure you don't mean to, but your posts about CASAA are coming off as pretty condescending and it's kind of insulting. We are painfully aware of where we are vs. where we need to be. Just because we are volunteers it doesn't mean we are idiots. We also aren't doing this completely alone. We have had expert advisers in fighting ANTZ and working with legislators, such as Bill Godshall, and we do receive some council from some corporate attorneys, publicists and lobbyists that have similar goals. We also do have a few benefactors. You don't really think CASAA raised $15,000 in research funds in 2 days with $5-$10 member donations, do you? We may be learning as we go, but we aren't ignorant or stupid. I know you didn't say we were, but unfortunately your posts are coming off like you kind of think we are?

Case in point - we are well aware that a 501(c)(4) gives us more leeway in political influence. As it became more and more obvious that the industry wasn't organizing and we were going to have to act more like lobbyists, we purposely sought a 501(c)(4) instead of a 501(c)(3) tax status.

 

[kristin]

I don't see it as protecting MY right to vape because I already vape and DIY and know how to build my own mod. I even have a few RBAs just in case.

I view it as giving smokers the opportunity to discover vaping and, therefore, saving the lives of smokers that don't vape yet. Isn't saving lives a good enough cause?

CASAA sees it the same way as you. But when approaching people about getting something free from them, the key thing is WIIFM (What's In It For Me?) That applies to celebrities as much as "regular" people - maybe even more so. Celebrities, like regular people, tend to support charities for things that personally touch their lives, unless you pay for their endorsement. So, to get them to be a spokesperson, they have to actually care that millions of smokers may be denied access to affordable, diverse and effective smoke-free alternatives. Most people don't care unless they vape, too and they would be personally effected.

 

[Myk]

No, they can't. Not as long as smokeable and smokeless tobacco remain on store shelves. Nicotine is not a banned or controlled substance and Congress has shown no interest in allowing it to become so.

They can't ban nicotine in tobacco products. They won't ban nicotine in pharmaceuticals.
They can (and are directed to study) lower nicotine in tobacco products to make them useless.
They can also try to ban nicotine in ecig products claiming they are neither tobacco products or pharmaceutical products.
I don't think it would stand up in court given that we can have jugs of pesticide with a childproof cap, but they could go overboard on the packaging of ecig products.
They could claim different enough from '97 designs or recipes to warrant new product status.

I don't think all or many of these would stand up in court but who has the time or money to fight a case against the feds? If they piece meal the regulations we could easily end up with few options.

I don't see it as protecting MY right to vape because I already vape and DIY and know how to build my own mod. I even have a few RBAs just in case.

I view it as giving smokers the opportunity to discover vaping and, therefore, saving the lives of smokers that don't vape yet. Isn't saving lives a good enough cause?

I'm with you in that no ban will stop me, but a ban is infringing on your right.

 

[wv2win]

No, they can't. Not as long as smokeable and smokeless tobacco remain on store shelves. Nicotine is not a banned or controlled substance and Congress has shown no interest in allowing it to become so................. As for tobacco companies pushing for sealed carts only... That is completely unenforceable and every legislature knows it..........................

I don't get how your example supports your point that they could not inact & enforce a regulation that states for electronic cigarettes, sealed carts will be the only delivery option. Smokeable nicotine products (cigs, etc) as well as smokeless are in a physical encasement that could be easly argued makes it more "safe" for accidental use. Buying a 50ml bottle of 36mg eliquid could be viewed by the powers to be, as a different animal.

As far as the tobacco companies supporting legislation (state level) that would restrict how eliquid is provided the average consumer, they have already done that.

You are definitely more versed in the political arena than I am. Therefore, I hope you are right.

But I don't want to be on here a year from now reading a post from you that says "mea culpa", how did I miss that loop hole. So I don't think we should ignore Big Pharm, Big Tobacco or the FDA as if they can't or won't do great harm to the vaping community. And although I would not mind reasonable oversight for purely safety of content, I do not believe that the FDA is capable of doing that given that they are filled with people who would much rather have vaping banned completely.

 

[SpinDr480]

One area that I think they will target is the marketing aspect and use "children" as their argument. They used this against the Marlboro Man or Joe Camel, and they certainly will go down this road with eCigs because of the flavors. The freedom of speech is a constitutional right, yet the argument in the name of "protecting our children" has been used at the expense of that freedom. It's unfortunate, but if it worked in the past why wouldn't it now?

 

[kristin]

One area that I think they will target is the marketing aspect and use "children" as their argument. They used this against the Marlboro Man or Joe Camel, and they certainly will go down this road with eCigs because of the flavors. The freedom of speech is a constitutional right, yet the argument in the name of "protecting our children" has been used at the expense of that freedom. It's unfortunate, but if it worked in the past why wouldn't it now?

They are using that argument quite frequently. Of course, the flavored cigarette market was so tiny that tobacco companies were willing to give it up and consumers really didn't care - as long as they didn't touch one popular and best-selling flavor - menthol. Notice how that one didn't get banned?

With e-cigarettes, flavors are a huge factor. It is also hard to "ban flavors" when ALL e-cigarettes are flavored. Nicotine and PG/VG are flavorless. So, even tobacco/menthol e-cigarettes are "flavored." E-cigarettes also have a very active community that cigarettes don't have. Most smokers are self-loathing and bought into the lie that flavored cigarettes targeted children (due to the ANTZ efforts) and would feel ridiculous "fighting" for them. Smoking advocates are considered at nest nuts and at worst, evil, uncaring murderers who want to kill babies with their smoke. E-cigarette users don't want to lose their flavors and will fight for them and can give reasons for flavors that are hard to vilify. As with flavored cigarettes, there is absolutely no evidence that e-cigarette flavors "target children," anymore than flavored nicotine gums and lozenges (cherry, orange, fruit chill, mint, cinnamon, java) targets children. How can they claim adults don't want flavors when the drug companies couldn't sell their NRT without adding tasty flavors kids love? Other arguments e-cigarettes have for flavors is that 1) tobacco/menthol e-cigarettes don't really taste like smoking - it's more like the flavor of chew, which most smokers aren't accustomed to; and 2) for people trying to get AWAY from smoking, they want flavors that do NOT remind them of smoking, so they aren't tempted to go back to the real thing. If you want real milk chocolate, but cannot have it, eating a carob bar could just make you crave the real thing even more.

So, there are a LOT of reasonable arguments for e-cigarettes flavors that simply didn't apply to flavored cigarettes.

 

[SpinDr480]

They are using that argument quite frequently. Of course, the flavored cigarette market was so tiny that tobacco companies were willing to give it up and consumers really didn't care - as long as they didn't touch one popular and best-selling flavor - menthol. Notice how that one didn't get banned?

With e-cigarettes, flavors are a huge factor. It is also hard to "ban flavors" when ALL e-cigarettes are flavored. Nicotine and PG/VG are flavorless. So, even tobacco/menthol e-cigarettes are "flavored." E-cigarettes also have a very active community that cigarettes don't have. Most smokers are self-loathing and bought into the lie that flavored cigarettes targeted children (due to the ANTZ efforts) and would feel ridiculous "fighting" for them. Smoking advocates are considered at nest nuts and at worst, evil, uncaring murderers who want to kill babies with their smoke. E-cigarette users don't want to lose their flavors and will fight for them and can give reasons for flavors that are hard to vilify. As with flavored cigarettes, there is absolutely no evidence that e-cigarette flavors "target children," anymore than flavored nicotine gums and lozenges (cherry, orange, fruit chill, mint, cinnamon, java) targets children. How can they claim adults don't want flavors when the drug companies couldn't sell their NRT without adding tasty flavors kids love? Other arguments e-cigarettes have for flavors is that 1) tobacco/menthol e-cigarettes don't really taste like smoking - it's more like the flavor of chew, which most smokers aren't accustomed to; and 2) for people trying to get AWAY from smoking, they want flavors that do NOT remind them of smoking, so they aren't tempted to go back to the real thing. If you want real milk chocolate, but cannot have it, eating a carob bar could just make you crave the real thing even more.

So, there are a LOT of reasonable arguments for e-cigarettes flavors that simply didn't apply to flavored cigarettes.

I agree with you 100%, but reasonable arguments don't always win. For example, profanity/sex on TV is banned in the name of protecting children yet there is no indication that contributes to the delinquency of children. The efforts you are doing to organize is equally if not more important than arguments. The only thing more powerful than money in politics is people, because people vote...Keep up the fight!

 

[kristin]

I agree with you 100%, but reasonable arguments don't always win. For example, profanity/sex on TV is banned in the name of protecting children yet there is no indication that contributes to the delinquency of children. The efforts you are doing to organize is equally if not more important than arguments. The only thing more powerful than money in politics is people, because people vote...Keep up the fight!

I guess the biggest take-away from my last post should have been that someone (CASAA, the community and the industry) is actually MAKING the arguments. No one really argued for keeping cigarette flavors (except the small, foreign clove cigarette manufactures) so it was very easy to ban them. The ANTZ have been thrown for a loop by the fact that there is a huge backlash against their banning efforts. The presence of a vocal and passionate "e-cigarette community" wasn't something they expected and that was pretty obvious. It's been so easy for them to barrel through any opposition to smoking/tobacco laws that they expected to ban e-cigarettes without any opposition at all. I think we've shown them that we aren't going to be the easy target they expected. Especially since more and more of the ANTZ allies are also starting to argue that e-cigarettes shouldn't be treated the same as traditional cigarettes.

 

[TyEllen]

I really hope this forum doesn't turn into something like all gun forums with all the fear mongering.

 

[kristin]

I really hope this forum doesn't turn into something like all gun forums with all the fear mongering.

If you had been involved in the very real efforts to keep e-cigarettes from being banned by the FDA in 2009-2010 and the ongoing battles against use bans, excessive taxes and unreasonable regulations for the past 4 years; plus witnessed e-cigarettes being banned in several other countries without any supporting evidence, I don't believe you would still consider it "fear mongering."

 

[Coastal Cowboy]

We are painfully aware of where we are vs. where we need to be. Just because we are volunteers it doesn't mean we are idiots. We also aren't doing this completely alone. We have had expert advisers in fighting ANTZ and working with legislators, such as Bill Godshall, and we do receive some council from some corporate attorneys, publicists and lobbyists that have similar goals. We also do have a few benefactors. You don't really think CASAA raised $15,000 in research funds in 2 days with $5-$10 member donations, do you? We may be learning as we go, but we aren't ignorant or stupid. I know you didn't say we were, but unfortunately your posts are coming off like you kind of think we are?

That is certainly not my intent. What I'm trying to get across is that I like what you've done so far but the all volunteer model puts you at a big disadvantage. Your posts indicate that y'all are aware of this, so no harm.

I'm also not betting against you.

Peace.

 

[Coastal Cowboy]

I don't get how your example supports your point that they could not inact & enforce a regulation that states for electronic cigarettes, sealed carts will be the only delivery option. Smokeable nicotine products (cigs, etc) as well as smokeless are in a physical encasement that could be easly argued makes it more "safe" for accidental use. Buying a 50ml bottle of 36mg eliquid could be viewed by the powers to be, as a different animal.

The problem with that approach is that it violates the equal protection clause and probably runs afoul of due process as well. Distributors of the "banned" packaging/labeling system would claim that the ban denies them the same protection as distributors of the allowed products even though they both contain the same substance and both are used for the same purpose. They would be successful, as the equal protection clause has been litigated too many times to count and there is a wealth of precedent on their side.

As far as the tobacco companies supporting legislation (state level) that would restrict how eliquid is provided the average consumer, they have already done that.

Equal protection again. In fact, the 14th Amendment expressly forbids states from enacting laws that treat entities or people differently for being or doing essentially the same thing.

But I don't want to be on here a year from now reading a post from you that says "mea culpa", how did I miss that loop hole. So I don't think we should ignore Big Pharm, Big Tobacco or the FDA as if they can't or won't do great harm to the vaping community. And although I would not mind reasonable oversight for purely safety of content, I do not believe that the FDA is capable of doing that given that they are filled with people who would much rather have vaping banned completely.

I don't trust FDA any more than you do. And I also hope that they never try to pull it off. In order to be successful, they'd have to ignore or try to circumvent the Constitution and those that are harmed by their actions would have to let it happen. Even the deeming regulation would have to affect all electronic cigarettes the same way, which means that they run afoul of the tobacco companies and their own armies of lawyers and lobbyists.

I may be naive or overly optimistic, but I remain convinced that as long as cigs, dip and chew are available, so will nicotine solutions derived from the same plants.

 

[kristin]

That is certainly not my intent. What I'm trying to get across is that I like what you've done so far but the all volunteer model puts you at a big disadvantage. Your posts indicate that y'all are aware of this, so no harm.

I'm also not betting against you.

Peace.

Well, since we don't have the funds to pay any salaries or expensive retainer fees for attorneys and lobbyists (quotes were around $50,000 - $75,000, if I'm remembering correctly), volunteers are all we can afford at this point.

Thank you for clarifying your intent.

 

[DC2]

CASAA sees it the same way as you. But when approaching people about getting something free from them, the key thing is WIIFM (What's In It For Me?) That applies to celebrities as much as "regular" people - maybe even more so. Celebrities, like regular people, tend to support charities for things that personally touch their lives, unless you pay for their endorsement. So, to get them to be a spokesperson, they have to actually care that millions of smokers may be denied access to affordable, diverse and effective smoke-free alternatives. Most people don't care unless they vape, too and they would be personally effected.

I would imagine their publicists instruct them not to get involved with electronic cigarette activism.

 

[DC2]

I don't think it would stand up in court given that we can have jugs of pesticide with a childproof cap, but they could go overboard on the packaging of ecig products.

The European Union is phasing out the use of nicotine pesticides.

I was under the impression that the United States was doing the same, but I'm not sure, and this is all I can find...
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/nicotine_red.pdf

This document presents the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s or the Agency’s) decision regarding the reregistration eligibility of the registered uses of the active ingredient nicotine. The Agency conducted human health and environmental fate and effects risk assessments for nicotine non-food uses. The registrant of the sole remaining nicotine pesticide product requested the cancellation of its registration on February 25, 2008, to be effective on December 31, 2013, with existing stocks permitted to be sold by dealers and distributors for one additional year. The Agency has accepted this request in concept, and it is subject to notice and public comment. If public comment provides no information that causes the Agency to reconsider, the Agency may accept the cancellation request.

The assessment of risks for the pesticidal use of nicotine is unique in that much of the supporting data is drawn from the open literature, as opposed to studies conducted according to Agency guidelines, and the data that are available are not entirely wellmatched to anticipated routes of exposure and use patterns for the nicotine pesticide. The lack of more relevant data adds considerable uncertainty to the risk assessment and would necessitate that the Agency call-in data from a range of guideline studies. Ultimately, the process the Agency undertook to assess risks and formulate reregistration eligibility decisions was overtaken by the registrant’s request for cancellation. The Agency is finalizing this reregistration eligibility decision as a record of the database and methodologies that were used to assess nicotine and the Agency’s preliminary conclusions about the risks associated with its use.

The sole remaining nicotine registration, for which cancellation has been requested, is a Restricted Use Pesticide used on greenhouse ornamentals, including poinsettias, bedding plants, and chrysanthemums to control whiteflies, aphids, and thrips. Nicotine has been known for its pesticidal properties for centuries, and came into common use in the U.S. about sixty years ago. Production and usage are now quite limited.

Using the limited available data, EPA has assessed the human health risks for the remaining nicotine registration and has concluded that risks for workers both during and after application, and for consumers of plants from treated greenhouses and members of the public who might be exposed to nicotine residues in treated greenhouses, are potentially of concern. Nicotine is not used on any food and feed crops so dietary risks have not been assessed. Because nicotine is used in greenhouses only, drinking water and ecological risks were not assessed for this use pattern, although the Agency did assess the ecological risks associated with another nicotine product used outdoors to repel vertebrate pests of ornamentals which has since been cancelled. The ecological risk assessment and an assessment of episodic ingestion of the nicotine repellant product are posted to the nicotine docket, as are the technical documents supporting the human health risk assessment for the nicotine greenhouse use.

 

[EddardinWinter]

"They" cannot ban nicotine in the US. The Congress itself has decreed that Tobacco production and distribution is “one of the greatest basic industries of the United States,” and has repeatedly asserted itself as having the sole authority to regulate the industry as part of its Constitutionally enumerated power under the interstate commerce clause. Congress has delegated some of that authority to FDA, but it has never (nor will it ever) delegate the power to end such an economically and politically important industry. If FDA did try to usurp that authority again (it tried in 2009), the action wouldn't survive the first day in a federal district court. FDA can't even tax nicotine--that too is a power retained solely by Congress.

What FDA can do--and probably will do--is establish standards for the manufacture, distribution, labeling and marketing of e-liquids that contain nicotine. They can also impose age limits and take steps to limit access to minors. The larger e-liquid companies already meet these standards and are prepared for such regulation.

The industry and consumers should welcome such regulation with open arms. It cuts the ANTZ crowd completely out. Our opponents are not FDA, tobacco or pharmaceutical companies. We need to target the groups that willingly spread misinformation about electronic cigarettes and counter their every move with facts. That however, takes time and money.

CASAA's "all volunteer" model is not well suited for this. They need to find a steady source of income, hire a staff and start behaving as a full grown lobbyist organization. There aren't enough e-cig users to mount a sustained, successful grassroots movement. This is not a job for amateurs.

Well as ill-suited as they are, they are the only reason our vaping rights are relatively intact.

How will they do all that stuff in 60 days, or perhaps less , especially with insufficient numbers you describe? The regulation could be deemed tomorrow, followed by a (minimum) thirty day period, and it is the new rules governing e-cigarettes.

I don't follow your assessment or solution.

Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

[gully]

I have no idea if this is true or not, but several years ago on ECF, a member stated that vaping hardware could not be used for substances other than eliquid due to the low heat level generated by PV's and that these other substances require much higher heat levels. If true, that would be a positive, IMO.

510 atty's,CE4 types and even pre filled carto's are all in use as we speak.

Vaporizing is getting big in those circles and while that tech has gone down it's own path there is still a crossover.

The up side is that there are better options for them than using ecig hardware so it might die a natural death.