IMPORTANT - email from FDA to a supplier.

[esmok-e]

Capitalism doesn't exist but on the backs of the weak and poor.

Right. True Capitalism does not exist (anymore). Welcome aboard.

LET'S START A POLL WHERE PEOPLE CAN VOTE. MICKEY, HELP US OUT, SMOKEY JOE - LET'S DO IT AND GET IT OUT THERE. SENIOR MEMBERS CAN DESIGN IT WITH GODSHALL AND NITZKIN. I VOLUNTEER TO PAY FOR THE KEYWORD MARKETING AND GOOGLE TRAFFIC TO THIS SITE. I SAY ALL SPONSORING SUPPLIERS MATCH THEIR SPONSOR FEES AS WELL AND NO SPONSORED BY SUPPLIER BANNERS ON THE POLL.

 

[KDMickey]

LET'S START A POLL WHERE PEOPLE CAN VOTE. MICKEY, HELP US OUT, SMOKEY JOE - LET'S DO IT AND GET IT OUT THERE. SENIOR MEMBERS CAN DESIGN IT WITH GODSHALL AND NITZKIN. I VOLUNTEER TO PAY FOR THE KEYWORD MARKETING AND GOOGLE TRAFFIC TO THIS SITE. I SAY ALL SPONSORING SUPPLIERS MATCH THEIR SPONSOR FEES AS WELL AND NO SPONSORED BY SUPPLIER BANNERS ON THE POLL.

An online poll? Hmm... Could be risky, what if the anti's turn it against us? They could have every jr. high schooler in the nation voting against us with a Truth commercial.

 

[bizzyb0t]

An online poll? Hmm... Could be risky, what if the anti's turn it against us? They could have every jr. high schooler in the nation voting against us with a Truth commercial.

Excellent point.

 

[Retina_Burn]

Yes Jayhawks, I live in Lawrence. I assume you are pretty close with a handle like "Jayhawks", heh.

And there are already tons of personal vaporizers out there that are similar to the devices we sell but are marketed to vape "Smoking Oils" and herbal stuff. We have nothing to fear if we change the marketing. They won't put nicotene on the controlled substances list and if they do it would be the biggest legal loophole ever so no worries. Big Pharma and Big tobacco will not benefit from it being controlled. Can you imagine if they had to actually tell us what they put in those things?? They will never happen. What's next, caffeine? This is all just scare tactic. Properly marked packages will have no prob coming through, and they have not made these devices illegal yet.

 

[esmok-e]

They have to register as members first and then assert that they are of legal age, smoker, ex-smoker, non-smoker - these are mere details, important but details. Details like I have read the... FDA, smokefree, etc... and we put in in their face on the poll.

We're already on the radar, let's light up the damn screen.

 

[Jayhawks]

I would like to talk with ya. Pm me if you like

Yes Jayhawks, I live in Lawrence. I assume you are pretty close with a handle like "Jayhawks", heh.

And there are already tons of personal vaporizers out there that are similar to the devices we sell but are marketed to vape "Smoking Oils" and herbal stuff. We have nothing to fear if we change the marketing. They won't put nicotene on the controlled substances list and if they do it would be the biggest legal loophole ever so no worries. Big Pharma and Big Tobacco will not benefit from it being controlled. Can you imagine if they had to actually tell us what they put in those things?? They will never happen. What's next, caffeine? This is all just scare tactic. Properly marked packages will have no prob coming through, and they have not made these devices illegal yet.

 

[Mary Kay]

Smokey Joe, I signed and am proud of me! Hope it makes a difference.

 

[Nick O'Teen]

the bottom line is how long will the manufacturers continue to produce before they determine the market is dead?

The market won't be dead - the situation is a lot less gloomy outside North America, so I believe China will keep producing indefinitely. Europe will never get its act together to coordinate a ban between all the different countries before the userbase is way too big to mess with. And the political pressure is a lot lighter over here (plus we don't need customs declarations to have stuff remailed within the EEC so long as there's just one country that hasn't banned them to ship from.)

Compared to the US situation, they're almost respectable here - Boots sell them, Unilever distribute them, the press finds them quirky and cute more than menacing. Sure, the health fascists froth their hysterical venom, but I fancy the public is losing faith in all this crap.
With the state of the economy and the planet, there's frankly bigger stuff to worry about right now.

I do feel for you guys - you've got a hell of a fight on with this issue, but the bottom line is - even if your government takes the hardest prohibitionist line and declares the "War on e.cigs!", I believe they will fail just as they did with alcohol in the 20s. While the manufacturers are happy to ship direct (or via proxy countries if a China postmark becomes a liability,) with vague/inaccurate customs declarations to customers in the US, the majority of packages are going to get through to you - they simply can't open them all.
Let's face it, your government is incapable of winning the "War on Drugs", and it's not even like smoking crack is a safer and cheaper alternative for something else that people already do in large numbers.

So I reckon committed existing users will be okay. And I'm sure there will be a trickle-through of sufficiently curious newcomers after a ban.

The real tragedy is that it will discourage millions of less committed potential vapers, who want to quit smoking, and would have made the change if the technology had been unsuppressed and the requisites were available in the shops. And all the evidence shows, most of them won't quit.
And year after year, thousands upon thousands of them will die premature deaths - as well as sharing their s/h smoke, stunting the growth of their children, and all the rest of it.

But hey, that's okay - just so long as the Big Pharmacco cabal gets to keep riding the gravy train. After all - greed is good.

Keep fighting!

 

[esmok-e]

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/general-discussion/11500-electronic-cig-user-poll.html

 

[goobenet]

Hello all, I've been lurking for a few months trying to figure out what this e-cig thing is all about after seeing a kiosk in a local mall for the smoking everywhere product. I smoke a pack a day, if not more, and have for 12 years. I've ordered 2 different e-cigs so far from 2 different vendors, and after a week and 1/2, haven't heard from either company as to if the product has shipped, or if they even have any product, or even if they're still in business, so i can't really tell you if the product works for me or not.

...Yes i have signed the petition, taken the poll, AND talked to local lawmakers.

The one thing i have yet to see anywhere on this forum is the real answer WHY they insist on outlawing the devices. And from the horses mouth (local lawmaker) is simply money. Same reason they want to tax digital downloads. It's a slice of cash that the gov't is not in on, yet. It's not because it's dangerous, far from it. It's not because there hasn't been any testing on it, far from it. It's because the nany state insists on getting their 350% tax off the item. Oh, and what about the "Clean indoor air acts"? Yeah, can't have that. Welcome to a government who's just as greedy as wall street.

Right now is not really the time to start a fight over something like this in the legal sense. Phillip Morris and RJ Renolds have more money than god and better lawyers and lobbists. This is definately a threat to their bottom line. The more people move to a personal vaporizer, the less they end up with in the bank. The old "can't beat em, kill em" mentality. Otherwise they'll buy the products, and sell it themselves, and it will be a $300 item, and a $50 a cartridge deal just like cigarettes. And it is mostly marketing.

Simply put, as some have said, sell the device as a novelty (you don't *have* to use the device for niccotine) and sell the juice as homeopathic remedies. (helps keep the common cold away, fights the flu, increases lifespan) Just keep the word smoking away from it. Also put on the package "intended for adult use only, over 18", etc. (Might also want to put on there as a proactive measure "known to the state of california to cause cancer" since i think just about everything is known to them to cause cancer)

The best policy is to keep it OFF the radar for now. Of course someone is always going to do what everyone else doesn't , like selling it as a healthy alternative, for instance. That's where the red flag comes in. That's when the industry has to start self-regulating.

Sorry for the long post, i've just been lurking too long and have formulated too many opinions.

I'm hoping that this product sticks around (and that mine show up!) and slowly does kill the real smoking world, not to anger smokers, but to put government in it's place.

 

[KDMickey]

...

Right now is not really the time to start a fight over something like this in the legal sense. Phillip Morris and RJ Renolds have more money than god and better lawyers and lobbists. This is definately a threat to their bottom line. The more people move to a personal vaporizer, the less they end up with in the bank. The old "can't beat em, kill em" mentality. Otherwise they'll buy the products, and sell it themselves, and it will be a $300 item, and a $50 a cartridge deal just like cigarettes. And it is mostly marketing.

...

The best policy is to keep it OFF the radar for now. Of course someone is always going to do what everyone else doesn't , like selling it as a healthy alternative, for instance. That's where the red flag comes in. That's when the industry has to start self-regulating.

I wish I could agree with you, but we're a little late to keep it off the radar. So, we need to look at how to fight this fight. I know the tobacco companies have tons of money, and pharmaceuticals do too, but that doesn't mean we can't try to have our voices heard. Jumping through regulatory loopholes will only take us so far. Eventually, it will come to a head. It's probable that we will lose this round and we will all become 'criminals,' but the science and concept of personal vaporizers is too powerful to ignore forever.

 

[Eclectic_Current]

I wish I could agree with you, but we're a little late to keep it off the radar. So, we need to look at how to fight this fight.

First, we ( you all actually, since i'm Canadian) should be directing your letters and petitions to the FDA and not to senators just as Lautenberg's letter was directed to acting commisioner Torti of FDA. ( see: page 5 of thread: Senator seeks to halt sales ... for text of letter )

Now, an interesting precedent we might cite in our arguments to the FDA is the following parallel situation which occurred to me yesterday:

In some jurisdictions, clean syringes ( drug delivery devices) are supplied to ...... addicts ( obvious criminals since ...... is very illegal) as a damage ( from AIDS) reduction strategy. This is considered to be an enlightened health policy and the fact that using ...... is illegal is considered to be of lesser importance than mitigating the health consequences of spreading aids.

SO, since the AIDS problem pales in comparison to the scourge of smoking in terms of sheer numbers affected, it seems to me that citing this very close parallel would serve us well in attempting to make our case with the FDA or the senate or even the media when opportunities arise.

Temporary absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ( of safety & efficacy as a smoking cessation strategy) especially when overwhelming anecdotal indications ( of safety & efficacy) are indeed present as in this situation.

In fact, have any clinical trials been done to show that using clean syringes ( versus sharing syringes) to shoot ...... reduces the incidence of AIDS or were the results of such trials considered too obvious to bother with ?

Isn't it just as obvious that the vaporized inhalation of only 2 of the 4000 chemicals already present in cigarettes (Nic & PG) is manifestly much much safer than smoking and already known to be entirely non-carcinogenic ?

A country that prides itself on the espousing the freedoms that its citizenry enjoys ( and even goes to war to bring such freedoms to others) should not indulge in attempts at social engineering. Legislations and prohibitions against smoking ( or much safer practices like vaping) should protect only those who do not freely choose to indulge in such practices and must stop short of coercing the behavior of those that do make such a free choice.

 

[goobenet]

I wish I could agree with you, but we're a little late to keep it off the radar. So, we need to look at how to fight this fight. I know the tobacco companies have tons of money, and pharmaceuticals do too, but that doesn't mean we can't try to have our voices heard. Jumping through regulatory loopholes will only take us so far. Eventually, it will come to a head. It's probable that we will lose this round and we will all become 'criminals,' but the science and concept of personal vaporizers is too powerful to ignore forever.

Unfortunately, you're right... You can go back under the radar though by asking companies to change their marketing of the product however. The problem really is still you can have everyone scream at the top of their lungs to politicians, but the one with the big fat juicy campaign check is the one who is going to be heard.

Eventually it will come to a head. A few things will happen, they'll be outlawed, the tech will go underground, and be treated like pot, or it'll be legalized and taxed to death... If the tech truely catches on, it'll be around for a while, underground if necessary.

 

[goobenet]

SO, since the AIDS problem pales in comparison to the scourge of smoking in terms of sheer numbers affected, it seems to me that citing this very close parallel would serve us well in attempting to make our case with the FDA or the senate or even the media when opportunities arise.

I like this, but seeing as how AIDS is not public enemy #1 right now, and smoking is pretty close to the top of the list, i don't think it'd work.

I think the fight has to start with the manufacturers, not the regulatory agencies. The companies selling these products will listen to the consumers, since they are their business. And some of these companies have lawyers on the payroll to check the loopholes. Businesses are nothing without customers, and if they want to stay in business, this i think is the route they'll have to go.

 

[Nick O'Teen]

I like this, but seeing as how AIDS is not public enemy #1 right now, and smoking is pretty close to the top of the list, i don't think it'd work.

I think the fight has to start with the manufacturers, not the regulatory agencies. The companies selling these products will listen to the consumers, since they are their business. And some of these companies have lawyers on the payroll to check the loopholes. Businesses are nothing without customers, and if they want to stay in business, this i think is the route they'll have to go.

Sorry to disagree, and I'm not making any partisan points (all politics is equally repellant to me,) but as far as the Chinese manufacturers are concerned, you are just another market - and pretty small fry at that.
a few tens of millions of potential consumers - that's all.

If your government bans the devices, hey - there are hundreds or millions more consumers in nations where a higher %age of the population smoke (and so where there are potentially many times more sales to make.)

On the bright side, this means the technology is never going to go away, and it will be impossible to prevent personal imports into the US. But it does mean you're on your own in the battle against corrupt and self-serving Big Pharmacco to a great extent.
Ruyan, and the other manufacturers, are not going to dip into their pockets to jump through FDA hoops, and fund all the required research, and grease the right palms - they're just going to go sell where the markets are free (and where palms can probably be greased a lot more economically.)

They might make the effort for the Chinese market, or even the Indian market if there was a concerted global effort to ban these things, but the US? Sorry - you're not going to be a priority.

 

[VapnPuff]

I'm sorry, I'm new here and this is my first posting, but I keep reading in your thread how we need to have American companies be registered to be able to sell.

If I'm not mistaken, Jackson Creek was registered by the FDA just last month, so there shouldn't be any problem with their e-liquids being sold, is there?

 

[yvilla]

People keep mistakenly referring to the regulatory issue as if it were a criminalization issue.

Eg, KDMickey, just above you said: "It's probable that we will lose this round and we will all become 'criminals'".

And goobenet, you just said: "they'll be outlawed, the tech will go underground, and be treated like pot, or it'll be legalized and taxed to death".

Well, that's simply not the issue, and it really confounds things and makes it worse to present it like that!

When the FDA claims ecigs are illegal to market, they mean just that - that it's a civil legal issue/fight over whether they can be advertised and sold in the US. They do not, and never could, claim that they are or will be illegal in the penal law context like controlled substances, such as ....... or ....... Nicotine is not a controlled substance, and it could never be criminalized without at the same time instantly criminalizing cigarettes as well, and we all know that is just not ever going to happen in the US!

So please people, be aware that if we loose this round it means we'd be looking to source our ecigs (or maybe just the liquid) from outside the US, but it doesn't mean we'd be "criminals" for possessing or using them!

 

[KDMickey]

People keep mistakenly referring to the regulatory issue as if it were a criminalization issue.

Eg, KDMickey, just above you said: "It's probable that we will lose this round and we will all become 'criminals'".

And goobenet, you just said: "they'll be outlawed, the tech will go underground, and be treated like pot, or it'll be legalized and taxed to death".

Well, that's simply not the issue, and it really confounds things and makes it worse to present it like that!

When the FDA claims ecigs are illegal to market, they mean just that - that it's a civil legal issue/fight over whether they can be advertised and sold in the US. They do not, and never could, claim that they are or will be illegal in the penal law context like controlled substances, such as ....... or ....... Nicotine is not a controlled substance, and it could never be criminalized without at the same time instantly criminalizing cigarettes as well, and we all know that is just not ever going to happen in the US!

So please people, be aware that if we loose this round it means we'd be looking to source our ecigs (or maybe just the liquid) from outside the US, but it doesn't mean we'd be "criminals" for possessing or using them!

I do realize that, hence my 'quotations.'

Anyways, it's the suppliers who could be fined, not the consumers. I am not too inclined to catastrophize.

This whole thing will be a mere setback. Look, it took the pharmaceuticals quite a long time to come to their dominant position on the totem pole, and it took tobacco a lot of sneaky tactics to get as big as they are now (and I think they will be shrinking soon). All things rise, fall, ebb, and flow. As such, we try to have as much of an effect on the things we are able to affect. I think if all of us try to push for e-cigs, support personal choice, etc., eventually we will have an effect.

 

[yvilla]

I do realize that, hence my 'quotations.'

Fair enough KD, and I really appreciate the work you've been doing for all of us on this issue, contacting Dr. Nitzkin, etc.

But I think it's important to refrain from comments like that - even in quotations, because it's too easy for people to glance over a post like that and take it literally.

And that's because I have seen way too many posts here, going quite far back in time as well, in which people are truly confusing the regulation issue with a criminalization issue. And asking such questions like "am I going to be arrested" if ecigs are banned.

And even all the posts comparing ecigs with "drug paraphrenalia" add to the confusion - as people don't seem to understand that that is a "term of art" in the legal world and refers strictly to devices intended for or used with substances that are illegal in the penal law sense, ie, controlled substances. A "drug device", on the other hand, is a term used in the FDA regulatory context, for devices in relation to medicinal drugs.

 

[Earthworm Jim]

I am (er,...was) a smoker for 23 years. Cigarettes, cigars, pipe, chew, and dip. I have used and enjoyed tobacco in all of it's forms. But I don't want to die of emphysema before my son graduates high school. So when a friend of mine showed up in the smoking area with a PV, I got excited. I mean REALLY excited. I won't go into what it meant to me, but I'm sure we all had similar first impressions.

I have been lurking on this forum for about a week or so. Since then, I have registered, voted in the survey, and signed the petition. I also purchased my first PV yesterday, and have been using it exclusively since. Right now, I do not see myself going back to cigarettes. Willingly, at least.

So here's my story:
I ordered a PeeWee (RN 4081), which should have arrived this past Friday. When Saturday came around, and it still had not arrived, I got scared. Then I started reading more of the forum threads, and got even more scared. Were the shipments stopped? Had the distributor received a cease and desist order? Probably not, but I stressed over it anyway. My desperation may not be common among the rest of the community, but for me, it was born out of reading the forums.

I went looking for local retailers, and I found one in Seattle. I bought their last PV, a "Smoke Stik", (an RN 4081 model) for nearly twice the price of the one I ordered. The shop owner had sold all of his stock in just a few weeks. Does this show a vigorous approval/acceptance in the smoking community, or the similar sense of desperation that I felt?

Does anyone have any thoughts? Is this happening to anyone else?