Great Paper - Achieving appropriate regulations for electronic cigarettes
- Thread starter Jake6731
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I'd have an issue with that for the very reason that it would very likely be used as a gateway to draconian restrictions. In my original post, I stated "Don't agree with all of course..." and that is one of the things to which I was referring. However the other aspects of this paper far outweigh any of the few downsides.
The biggest plus is the 'Hey! wait a minute!' warning to potential regulators, "Before you buy into the hysterical criticisms, look at the people that may saved from illness or death, because of these devices! IOW, 'Don't be on the wrong side of this, it will reflect badly upon you."
I finally had some time to completely read and digest this paper, and I have to say that I'm very impressed by the research and opinions presented within. It has already been said that many of the points made have been discussed and debated within the pages of ECF, and I have to agree with that view. The authors appear to be earnest in their concerns of over regulation and the impact of such on public health, which is excellent news for the vaping community throughout the world. We can only hope that opponents in the medical field (that don't shill for BP) will consider the positions in this paper and adjust their own views accordingly.
While I agree with the slippery-slope argument in the context of vaping regulation (because we've all seen it in action with amendments to proposed legislation), I do believe there is some merit to the view of using the dietary supplement regulatory framework for the e-liquid and the electronics regulatory framework for the devices. I'm not sure if there's an existing framework that would be suitable for the e-liquid delivery components (atomizer / cartomizer), and that wasn't really addressed in this paper, but it's something that might also need to be considered. All in all, I wouldn't take issue with the regulation frameworks proposed in this publication for the following reasons:
Manufacturer Accountability: While we haven't had much (if any) issue with product quality in the vapor product market sector to date, it is still very much in it's early stages. If the industry is allowed to grow completely unfettered, and without any accountability, then we are more likely to see a growing segment introducing inferior, or even dangerous, products. I realize my point of view on this could be taken as being aligned with the precautionary principle, but for me it's more about living on this planet for 48+ years and witnessing the adverse effects of greed-gone-wild. To me, the point of sensible regulation is for one reason, and one reason alone: transparency. And that leads to my second point...
Consumer Confidence: As the industry grows, and in particular, as BT gains market share, consumer confidence is likely to play a big part in the acceptance of vapor products, for potential consumers and the general population alike. Like it or not, there is a large portion of the population who believe that regulation is synonymous with quality and safety, even if we know that's often not the case. By using existing regulatory frameworks that impose minimal impact on production costs, consumers with this mindset can take some assurance in the product, which will increase viability and growth in the market place.
I feel that the biggest caveat to using existing regulatory frameworks (or any regulation, for that matter) is that the implementation would need to be carefully monitored by the consumer advocacy groups, and other knowledgeable consumers, to ensure that the both the vape market sector and the consumer interests are protected and balanced. I honestly don't see this as IF regulation will be imposed, but rather WHEN and HOW it will be imposed. I'm pretty sure it's coming, and the points outlined in this paper of cautiously using existing frameworks are the best I've heard so far.
While I agree with the slippery-slope argument in the context of vaping regulation (because we've all seen it in action with amendments to proposed legislation), I do believe there is some merit to the view of using the dietary supplement regulatory framework for the e-liquid and the electronics regulatory framework for the devices. I'm not sure if there's an existing framework that would be suitable for the e-liquid delivery components (atomizer / cartomizer), and that wasn't really addressed in this paper, but it's something that might also need to be considered. All in all, I wouldn't take issue with the regulation frameworks proposed in this publication for the following reasons:
Manufacturer Accountability: While we haven't had much (if any) issue with product quality in the vapor product market sector to date, it is still very much in it's early stages. If the industry is allowed to grow completely unfettered, and without any accountability, then we are more likely to see a growing segment introducing inferior, or even dangerous, products. I realize my point of view on this could be taken as being aligned with the precautionary principle, but for me it's more about living on this planet for 48+ years and witnessing the adverse effects of greed-gone-wild. To me, the point of sensible regulation is for one reason, and one reason alone: transparency. And that leads to my second point...
Consumer Confidence: As the industry grows, and in particular, as BT gains market share, consumer confidence is likely to play a big part in the acceptance of vapor products, for potential consumers and the general population alike. Like it or not, there is a large portion of the population who believe that regulation is synonymous with quality and safety, even if we know that's often not the case. By using existing regulatory frameworks that impose minimal impact on production costs, consumers with this mindset can take some assurance in the product, which will increase viability and growth in the market place.
I feel that the biggest caveat to using existing regulatory frameworks (or any regulation, for that matter) is that the implementation would need to be carefully monitored by the consumer advocacy groups, and other knowledgeable consumers, to ensure that the both the vape market sector and the consumer interests are protected and balanced. I honestly don't see this as IF regulation will be imposed, but rather WHEN and HOW it will be imposed. I'm pretty sure it's coming, and the points outlined in this paper of cautiously using existing frameworks are the best I've heard so far.
I know you guys like to say stuff like that - 'greed-gone-wild' as if it's a given and as if there is a wake of deaths in it's path and except for usually anecdotal incidents (or made up ones - truck gas tanks exploding that didn't), it simply has not been the case. And yet those anecdotal incidents are the ones reported on and the ones that continue to show up in history books at all stages of education.
What is not shown and not easily shown are for example, the deaths that were caused by the delay of beta blockers by the FDA and numerous other incidents where the red tape of regulation or the regulation itself caused more damage. Up until now there has been virtually no regulation in ecigarettes, we here, have self-regulated in a way that informs others here and has in some cases helped manufactures to improve the quality of their goods. We've had one Chuck explode, I know of two dogs that died and a few battery explosions and I also understand that we here are not the 'entire vaping population' but we also hear about many incidents that aren't from our members and still, actions are taken here to inform and regulate use. Again, we have no idea of how many dogs, cats or kids were saved by the threads about those above - it isn't something one can actually count, but reason says (and people reported) that changes in behavior were made as a result.
It's easy to point to a fire in Chicago at some sweatshop, and less easier to show the college educations that were achieved by sweatshop wages of moms who helped contribute to a family's finances or all the other good that was done by that work or work that those jobs can lead to.
Businesses that make bad stuff that hurt people unknowingly (ie. excepting BT, because there wasn't anyone who didn't know cigarettes could be harmful), will go out of business. Ones that make true junk, will go out of business. That's self or consumer driven regulation - basically common sense, and for those who don't have that, Darwin rules. And should, imo.
I don't disagree with any particular point you made, with the exception of the term "you guys" which attempts to put me in a bucket, and I take issue with that regardless of the source or topic. If you take exception to the term "greed-gone-wild", then that's fine as I realize it can be interpreted as a bit derogative and can insight a negative response. However, one only needs to look at current headlines regarding the GM ignition switch issues to get a good glimpse of the big money vs. consumer protection issues that can occur. And when they do occur, it's not always just the responsible company that takes a hit, but the entire market sector may also be affected by consumer confidence. This was the point I was attempting to make.
Ok, if you withdraw the 'greed-gone-wild' because that also refers to a certain group of people, I'll withdraw the "you guys".
Here is to whom I was referring. You can exclude yourself:
I'm talking of the people who want 'reasonable' regulation and give support for and to representatives that are more than willing to enact it in order to get more control, as well as their vote. Countless times that 'reasonable regulation' has turned into behemoths that were either never part of the ideas of the naïve that 'thinks that there should be a law against (fill in the blank)', or was actually part of their thinking because they wanted, not to help the poor, elderly, kids, or anyone else (because it never does really), but only to boost their own image in the eyes of others, in order to get praised for their "caring" or to get elected, promoted or laid.
Last edited:
BuGlen - lots & lots to whole-heartedly agree with!
Kent - - lots & lots to whole-heartedly agree with!
Another of ECF's finest examples of intelligent exchange & conversation!
Btw Kent, I've been wondering where you got my image for your avatar... That as a moment of anguish when I couldn't find my coffee cup
Kent - - lots & lots to whole-heartedly agree with!
Another of ECF's finest examples of intelligent exchange & conversation!
Btw Kent, I've been wondering where you got my image for your avatar... That as a moment of anguish when I couldn't find my coffee cup
All ECF members should read, save and provide this paper to their elected officials.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 68
While the regulatory recommendations in this article may make sense for the EU (where they just enacted many unjustifiable restrictions on e-cigs) and for the several dozen countries that have already banned e-cigs, they are inconsistent with any existing FDA regulatory scheme (or other US federal regulatory scheme) that I'm aware of, and they are certainly inconsistent with the FDA deeming regulation (that Obama's FDA has tried to impose on e-cigs since 2011 when the courts struck down FDA's previous e-cig ban).
In the US, by far the most important e-cig regulations that need to be implemented ASAP are enacting state laws that ban e-cig sales to minors.
In the US, by far the most important e-cig regulations that need to be implemented ASAP are enacting state laws that ban e-cig sales to minors.
I would imagine he used it to light his cigar after a few drinks with some pharmaceutical lobbyists.Sherrod Brown Sen. D Oh has it now... or his staff does.
Yeah, chances are he didn't run out of toilet paper in his executive bathroom.
I don't really know anybody that is not in favor of electronic cigarettes.
At least nobody that, after over four years of listening to me, would desire to tell me so to my face.
But if I did, I would send this to them with the following subject line...
If you are still hesitant about electronic cigarettes, read this...
And then the body of the email would say...
And if you are AGAINST electronic cigarettes, read it twice.
There WILL be a quiz.
At least nobody that, after over four years of listening to me, would desire to tell me so to my face.
But if I did, I would send this to them with the following subject line...
If you are still hesitant about electronic cigarettes, read this...
And then the body of the email would say...
And if you are AGAINST electronic cigarettes, read it twice.
There WILL be a quiz.
My first ever bump!
Given the pace at which topics fall out of view, I want to help cycle this critical weapon in our arsenal back into our collective consciousness
Achieving appropriate regulations for electronic cigarettes
That and a near-subliminal reminder...
Join CASAA.org now
Given the pace at which topics fall out of view, I want to help cycle this critical weapon in our arsenal back into our collective consciousness
Achieving appropriate regulations for electronic cigarettes
That and a near-subliminal reminder...
Join CASAA.org now
Bump
This remains one of my #1 references to offer in comments and response to silliness - especially that from politicians
This remains one of my #1 references to offer in comments and response to silliness - especially that from politicians
This is awesome. I have just about finished reading it all, and have a summary to use next time I need to reply to some off the planet news story. Thanks for posting
I find it interesting that this article was first listed as a journal in the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health in March 2014. It has obviously not been read by many public health officials or journalists in the US, or anywhere else for that matter. If it were, we would not have the flow of crazy news items we see.............they would have to spend to much time going through the references, which in turn would make them think twice about publishing unsubstantiated rubbish.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked