FDA says today's Wall St. Journal article is wrong

[Shekinahsgroom]

I just ran across this as I was looking up online age verification. blu eCigs Implements Stringent Online Age Verification Process -- CHARLOTTE, N.C., July 12, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --

VERY interesting!

Good article....too bad it won't work.

Legitimate age verification REQUIRES the person to physically present a state issued photo ID.

An electronic verification won't prevent minors from obtaining anything, cuz they can just lie and use someone else's information or identification without being physically present.

Pretty obvious that Blu-Cig's was one of the FDA's guests that discussed regulation 1-on-1.

Sex toys and potentially harmful poison (nicotine) are definitely not in the same category of regulation.

 

[Rickajho]

I think y'all are nuts. OMG! A newspaper got a story wrong! Gee - they never do that! Ever! So the wrong story must be true and the retraction must be a lie...? The retraction is only a reverse psychology trick!!!

And why on earth would anyone be so invested in hanging onto the pre-retracted version? (I could answer that rhetorical question. But... no.)

 

[aikanae1]

I think y'all are nuts. OMG! A newspaper got a story wrong! Gee - they never do that! Ever! So the wrong story must be true and the retraction must be a lie...? The retraction is only a reverse psychology trick!!!

And why on earth would anyone be so invested in hanging onto the pre-retracted version? (I could answer that rhetorical question. But... no.)

LOL! They got it "wrong" with some very speciic "right" information. It's more like they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

It's also not unusual to "float policy ideas" using unnamed sources and leak the story to test the waters for a reaction. Either way I hope they got burned.

 

[hanzo.esq]

I'm not sure what to think. The last time I heard anything from Mr. Zeller, was on NPR (discussed here on ECF). He seemed to be a sensible, educated man making the following points (in order of importance):
1) Kids shouldn't get e-cigs
2) Adults shouldn't dual use cigs and e-cigs
3) E-cigs are safer than cigs
4) Consumer demand for e-cigs is impressive

A ban of internet e-cig sales seems to be an extremely unreasonable method to address 1) by directly attacking 3) and 4). He didn't strike me as an unreasonable man, but he was quite fixated on kids not using e-cigs.

Idunno.

Hanzo.

 

[retired1]

The FDA wants to correct inaccuracies in an August 22, 2013 article in the Wall Street Journal, titled “FDA Discusses Banning Online Sales of E-Cigarettes.”

And the NSA doesn't spy on US citizens, either.

Sorry. But my faith in the government is pretty non-existent and anything that comes out of Washington D.C. is suspect at best.

 

[Barbara21]

Ahem. See previous post when this article popped up. I do believe I mentioned some skepticism regarding "I read it on the internet, in a blog no less, so it must be true."

In all fairness, finding something in a blog is far different from finding it in the Wall Street Journal.

You people are going to drive yourselves insane...

I'm already there.

One thing I found curious in the clarification posted by the WSJ.

Corrections & Amplifications
This article has been changed from its original version to reflect that the Food and Drug Administration did not initiate the idea of a proposed ban on online sales of e-cigarettes. It also clarifies that the FDA did not make nonpublic information available in its discussions with e-cigarette makers.

You note that it does not say the idea was not discussed, just that the FDA did not initiate the idea.

Yeah, maybe I'm a bit paranoid - but that doesn't mean they're not watching!

 

[G_Jones]

"Members of the tobacco Industry" stand to make a lot of money by banning on-line sales of e-cigs, especially in years to come as the user base continues to grow. I've no doubt they would push to ban online sales and force everybody to pay outrageous prices only at brick & mortar shops. Banning on-line sales would prevent big tobacco from having to compete with inexpensive imports, though they'd most certainly do their own manufacturing overseas.

US government primarily serves the interests of the highest bidder and all the current e-cig companies combined likely can't outspend Big tobacco when it comes to bribes and lobbyists. It's only a matter of time before a ban comes down; if not next year then within a handful of years. There's no immediate urgency as the market is still in its infancy and the later the ban comes the more built-in buyers will be ready. I'd naturally expect the cost savings of e-cigs over analogs to disappear when this all goes down.

 

[Jimi D.]

Dearest Moderators, please close this thread. Thank you http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ng-online-sales-electronic-cigarettes-32.html

 

[k3vin]

While I agree that brick and mortar store prices tend to be higher,one can still save money buying from B&M's over the local grocery store that carrys the cig-a-likes.And how many times do we buy from online stores and have to "FIDDLE" with the item when we recieve it?

My honest feeling is if they do ban online sales of E-liquid,which I hope they dont,it still will not be the end of the world.And if they do ban online sales of e-liquids,(there are ways around that) and thats all they do,then we will still be way ahead.

BUt this argument that B&M's will be so high that no one will want to use e-cigs or that their prices will be outrageous is the wrong way to look at it.

 

[stevegmu]

The myth of big tobacco's vast spending on lobbyists and political influence-

Tobacco | OpenSecrets

 

[AgentAnia]

From Steve K's Vaping World, commentary on FDA's denial of WSJ's article [emphasis added]: FDA Calls Liar Liar, Pants on Fire to WSJ

So, it might seem that this source may have spoken in an unofficial capacity. Or maybe it was some tobacco representative spelling out their fantasy regulation to crush any competition. Of course on the other hand, the FDA also didn't say they weren't taking aim at online sales.

We're sort of back to not knowing anything at this point. Either way, I think it's safe to assume there will be at least something we won't like about any potential regulations. Therefore, it's important to participate in consumer groups like CASAA to ensure we provide a united front to combat any anti-consumer actions that come our way.

 

[Frankenmizer]

One of the people participating in the "listening session" was Linc Williams (AEMSA, VapeTeam). I think this was discussed at some length in episode 79 of VapeTeam Live.

 

[2coils]

One of the people participating in the "listening session" was Linc Williams (AEMSA, VapeTeam). I think this was discussed at some length in episode 79 of VapeTeam Live.

I haven't gotten that far yet, But at 28 min in, Dimitris discussed his observations in how the trade organization in Greece is handling the Media in regard to misinformation in the Media. CHECK IT OUT!!!

 

[Shekinahsgroom]

"Members of the Tobacco Industry" stand to make a lot of money by banning on-line sales of e-cigs, especially in years to come as the user base continues to grow.

I stated the exact same thing on another forum this morning;

"I think that big tobacco and the FDA have (or are) making plans to not only regulate, but prevent small retailers from being able to make money....so the big boys can come in and take over.

B&M's will pop-up all over the place, but regulation and taxation could become too costly for shop owners and buyers, which leaves corporations to cut deals with gas stations and nationwide retail outlets.

Limiting growth by banning on-line sales will give big tobacco the time that they need to take over the new industry and wipe out any potential competition.....just like they did with Blu-Cigs."

 

[zoiDman]

Perhaps the Original WSJ Article had a Silver Lining?

People tend to become Complacent when there is No Imminent Crisis on the Horizon. Perhaps the WSJ Article could be seen as a Wake-Up Call.

Maybe now is a Time to be More Proactive about Contacting Policy Makers and voicing your Views on e-Cigarette? Instead of waiting until an e-Cigarette /e-Liquid Policy is Announced and then Counter-Punching it.

 

[aikanae1]

Was it really "misinformation" or testing the water for a reaction? A lot of "leaks" are planned.

 

[BuGlen]

While I agree that brick and mortar store prices tend to be higher,one can still save money buying from B&M's over the local grocery store that carrys the cig-a-likes.And how many times do we buy from online stores and have to "FIDDLE" with the item when we recieve it?

My honest feeling is if they do ban online sales of E-liquid,which I hope they dont,it still will not be the end of the world.And if they do ban online sales of e-liquids,(there are ways around that) and thats all they do,then we will still be way ahead.

BUt this argument that B&M's will be so high that no one will want to use e-cigs or that their prices will be outrageous is the wrong way to look at it.

While I understand your view and sincerely hope you're correct, there are potential flaws in your logic. First is free market economy and the way online sales temper prices at B&M stores to compete. Therefore, without online stores, the B&M stores will only be competing with each other in a given geographical area, so the prices will likely go up.

Second is the fact that BT is and will continue to lobby for legislation that restricts all distribution channels of nicotine products under the new regulations. This will give these mega-corporations the ability to set the price for any product that contains nicotine if enacted, and history shows that it's more likely than not.

Finally, the fate of the inexpensive imported hardware we have access to now is unknown. While it's very difficult to figure out how that could be regulated (after all, it's just electronics), it's not completely conspiratorial to believe that it won't be attempted. One thing is relatively certain... If regulations are too heavy, the innovation in this market segment will slow to a crawl as the rate of smokers making the switch to e-cigs decreases due to fewer incentives.

 

[aikanae1]

It's also not just BT. The bigger player is BP. They have nicotine inhalers. A frequent complaint is that they have standards (like constant delivery that can't be customized) that ecigs don't have, "not fair". Ecigs also skip a lot of traditional middle-men like distribution centers. The other major stake holder is gov't who is loosing out on 80% of the revenue on the price of a pack of cigs. That's tied to child healthcare, Medicaid expansion and sometimes, just general state funding. So if I quit buying cigs, does that mean some poor kid goes without health care? Yup.

The reason RYO "loophole" was closed was due to loss in revenue from taxes. It had nothing to do with public health or safety or labeling. There's been advancements in technology with ecigs that I'm sure has attracted attention of potential patent holders as well.

There's a lot of players in this. The Zmax didn't exist in 2009. That's the rollback date.

 

[zoiDman]

While I understand your view and sincerely hope you're correct, there are potential flaws in your logic. First is free market economy and the way online sales temper prices at B&M stores to compete. ...

We are in a "Free Market" right Now.

We will Not be in a Free Market once e-Liquids are Control as a Tobacco Product.

 

[aikanae1]

We are in a "Free Market" right Now.

We will Not be in a Free Market once e-Liquids are Control as a Tobacco Product.

my biggest fear is that we will know even less about what is in eliquids after BT has entered. I'm already seeing too many liquid vendors refusing to disclose even the proportion of pg/vg as "propietary". That's BS. How long do you think it will take for additives to keep people vaping will be added in again?