Important notice for all suppliers

[RichardWebb]

The electronic cigarette has not yet undergone any clinical trials to show that it is suitable for smoking cessation.

There are plans for such trials to take place (see health and law forum), but until the results are published this site will no longer carry links to any sites that promote the electronic cigarette as a smoking cessation device.

I accept that some people may find the electronic cigarette a useful aid to quitting nicotine, and that is why we have a forum devoted to the topic. But anyone selling the device must act in a responsible manner, and claiming that it is a smoking cessation device, before there are any clinically demonstrated results is not responsible but deeply cynical.

Therefore, any suppliers we link to already that make such claims will be deleted from our listings, and we will not carry any links to such sites unless this content is removed.

Note carefully
Please will all suppliers post about their own products only in the suppliers forum. We would like to keep the rest of the forums clear of self-promotion for the user community. Thanks for understanding.

 

[tonymac]

I understand your viewpoint wanting to take a responsIble stance on claims that are made but can I respectfully point out that there is a big difference between claiming an electronic cigarette to be a smoking cessation device compared with making, what I believe, is a very fair and acceptable claim that it can be used as an "aid to quit smoking" (in conjunction with a range of other aids for example including, may I suggest, "willpower" which is often easier said than done for many people.)

However, this device quite cearly is an "aid to quit" as well as being a smoking substitute and to prevent this honest claim being made in this form would be unreasonable when it is quite clearly an honest statement.

However, I accept that making a suggestion that the device is a "smoking cessation device" which implies the possibility of 100% effectiveness quite clearly is not honest and a different statement entirely.

There is never any 100% guarantee that anyone can quit any addiction and even the best therapy in the world is only ever going to be an "aid" to any addiction no matter what that addiction is.

I would be grateful if you would clarify if the claim of the product being "an aid to quit" is acceptable to you or not.

Regards

Tony Mackenzie F.Inst.SMM
http://www.management.electrocigs.com
Gibraltar & UK

 

[Oliver]

Hi Tony and thanks for your post.

May I refer you to this post by TropicalBob.

I think his argument is pretty much on the money. The trouble is that, to slightly modify the phrase, strong claims require strong evidence.

You say that e-cigarettes are "clearly an aid to quit", but I don't see this to be the case; They are clearly a tobacco alternative, but there is no evidence thus far that quitting is made any more likely using e-cigarettes, and I can't therefore buy this as an "honest statement". It is anecdotal at best.

I don't really see the distinction between something being a "smoking cessation device" and an "aid to quit". You say that the term "smoking cessation device": "implies the possibility of 100% effectiveness", but then in the next paragraph say there's "never any 100% guarantee".

No manufacturer of smoking cessation products would ever claim the possibility of 100% effectiveness, this being patently untrue. Smoking cessation products are only ever sold as "aids to quit", with the explicit proviso that willpower is also required.

I think the problem comes with the definition of "quitting". If you are no longer smoking cigarettes, but using an e-cigarette instead, then in some sense you have "quit smoking".

However, the true meaning of "quitting smoking" is breaking the addiction to nicotine, and there's no evidence at all that e-cigarettes make this any more likely.

SJ

 

[tonymac]

Your own statement:-

"I think the problem comes with the definition of "quitting". If you are no longer smoking cigarettes, but using an e-cigarette instead, then in some sense you have "quit smoking" sums up the point I was trying to make.

What concerns me is that we are arguing over semantics here and whilst we believe we are advertising responsibly you are suggesting that we are not allowed to post any promotion in your suppliers section for our product simply because of your abitrary ruling against us saying that it is an alternative cigarette as well as an "aid" to quittng smoking.

In addition you are also already carrying an advert from a supplier making a similar claim.

I just wanted to clarify this point because we are launching an international marketing plan from 1st March 2008 for ElectroCigs (tm) which offers a competitvely priced product with CE and ROHS certification in a program that, we believe, is a win-win-win situation for users, sellers and wholesalers and it is disappointing that, it would appear, you do not consider us a responsible enough company to promote ourselves on your forum because of the foregoing.

Regards

Tony Mackenzie F.Inst.SMM
Planet Earth Internet Ltd - UK & Gibraltar
part of the Global Trade Group
http://www.management.electrocigs.com

 

[Oliver]

Hello Tony and thanks for your reply.

The point here is quite straightforward - it simply comes down to what your average person would take to mean by an "aid to quit smoking" (the reasonable person test). It would be one that enables the smoker to eventually be non-dependent on nicotine, not simply a way of continuing the habit albeit in a smokeless form.

In other words it can't be said in good faith the term: "an aid to quit smoking" is the same thing as "a tobacco alternative"

There is absolutely no evidence that e-cigarettes are "an aid to quit smoking" and, as TropicalBob states in his post, trading standards will say "prove it" if those claims are made - and if the clinical trial data does disprove these claims, the sellers are going to be in serious trouble.

May I also suggest that you take some legal advice, if you haven't already, as to your marketing plan.

Why can't you simply market your electronic cigarette as a safer tobacco alternative? Is that not enough of a selling point?

Then, when the results of the clinical trials come back at the end of March, you will have the data required to make (or not) claims as to the effectiveness of electronic cigarettes WRT smoking cessation.

Please will you reconsider your statement that this ours was an "arbitrary decision"? Richard and I have spoken at length and consulted our solicitor friends to come to our decision. We believe it is the right decision based on the laws that govern claims made over products.

We take a firm line on this for two reasons - firstly because we think consumers should not be subject to false claims, and don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are guilty of this - as I stated, I think that one valid interpretation of the phrase "quit smoking" would be "not using a product that gives off smoke".

Secondly, we love our electronic cigarettes and want to be able to continue smoking them - as soon as trading departments get wind of these sorts of claims, they are going to crack down heavily. We believe that this product is one of the most important advances for the health of smokers, and don't want to see it destroyed by ham-fisted marketers.

Just remember who your enemies are - Big Tobacco and the pharmaceutical multinationals. They are not going to like this one bit, and as soon as they feel their market share is being dented they'll be putting the squeezers on through all channels available.

To clarify: You are perfectly at liberty to promote your product here, so long as no claims are made that cannot be backed up by clinical data.

 

[woody]

I totally agree with SJ.
E cigarettes are a safer alternative, end of story. I have not smoked a cigarette for 14 months but I am very much a nicotine addict, just as I would be if I used patches or gum. The e cig has no chance at all of helping break my nicotine habit and nor do I expect it to. Isn't being a safer alternative to smoking cigarettes along with the total absence of second hand smoking issues and stale smoke smells enough for any marketing campaign?

 

[TropicalBob]

SJ, You articulated it well. On their site at the moment, there is only one line that really screams "REMOVE ME." It says, "Make giving up smoking easy - without pain."

Ouch. I'd go the court myself to testify how ridiculous a statement that is. The marketing rule is this: Don't make advertising claims that are not supported by any real-world studies. What exactly is your verifiable quit success rate, sir?

Only advertise that which you can prove. And not with "common sense," or "we have emails," or anecdotes. Wait for the studies. This device MIGHT be better than a toothpick at helping some to quit smoking. But maybe it's just a lifetime alternative to cigarettes that ex-smokers can live with. Isn't that good enough? I think it's great. Sell that!

 

[woody]

Or even it MAY be an alternative that smokers MAY find it easier to live with!

 

[tonymac]

Thank you for all the lively debate.

Perhaps you guys in the USA are more litigious than us lot over this side of the pond. I still feel that we are being quite responsible with our advertising but would be happy to make some adjustments to the wording of the statement from the Chinese factory who made the statement about "quitting without pain" if you dont like it before listing with you.

We are still arguing over semantics as, I repeat, we are not claiming that anyone will quit smoking 100% by using an electronic cigarette but it is an aid just as the British National Health Service here in the UK offer nicotine inhalators as Nicotine Replacement Therapy to aid people who want to quit, and these devices are clearly described as such on their website. If it's good enough for the NHS to say this then it's good enough for us. For anyone to suggest that we are ham fisted marketers is grossly unfair. There is a vast difference between an "aid to quitting smoking" (there is quite obviously no smoke with an ElectroCig (tm) or the NHS recommended inhalators) and giving up nicotine which we are obviously not making any claims about.

But I did make the point that you already have an advertiser making the same claims about an aid to quit smoking as we are and, in fact on checking, we find that you actually have two of them who are making these claims. You did not comment on this point when I made it.

I believe your forum offers a good debating point for these issues.

.

 

[Oliver]

Hi Tony,

Look, I don't wish to appear rude but you really can't have done much research into the electronic cigarette.

Your comparison with the nicotine inhaler is quite incorrect - they are completely different products with completely different methods of nicotine delivery. Additionally the inhalator has undergone rigorous clinical testing and received medicines licenses.

Contrary to received wisdom, the nicotine inhaler does not deliver nicotine to the lungs, but rather to the mucous membranes in the mouth, throat and nose. It is far more comparable to nicotine gums and lozenges than the electronic cigarette.

Electronic cigarettes, on the other hand, deliver the atomized nicotine directly to the alveoli in the lungs, where it is rapidly absorbed in exactly the same way as nicotine in tobacco smoke is absorbed.

The whole reason that nicotine replacement therapy is effective is that it delivers controlled doses of nicotine to the user in a slow and gradual way. Thus the user is able to break the addiction to the nicotine "hit", before gradually lowering their daily intake.

To attempt to quit using the electronic cigarette would be just as tough trying to gradually quit real tobacco. I'm not saying it can't be done, but I don't see how the e-cigarette would aid this.


As regards the litigation aspect, I wonder if you have read this post? The UK crackdown has begun already.

And try telling the trading standards/medicines regulatory body that it is "all semantics" when they ask you to prove your quit-smoking claims.

WRT the advertisers, you were PM'd but we have received no reply. Please will you PM either me or Richard with details of the advertisers you believe are marketing the e-cigarette as a quit-smoking product.


All the best,

SJ

 

[TropicalBob]

As you know, the smokeless tobacco market is the one undergoing growth in the face of growing smoking bans. I've long used Swedish snus to help keep me off cigarettes, along with my new e-smoking devices. But as for calling either a way to quit, well, this is from a Wall Street Journal article on smokeless and snus:

"Makers of smokeless tobacco don't advertise that it may help with quitting smoking. That kind of claim could prompt the Food and Drug Administration to begin regulating smokeless tobacco as a medical product. Both Swedish Match and U.S. Smokeless say they have held conversations with the FDA, and Swedish Match says it is open to the idea of clinical trials. Michael Bazinet, a spokesman for U.S. Smokeless Tobacco, says, "We would not oppose regulation if it would take into account the differences between smokeless tobacco and cigarettes, including risk."

No clinical trials? Then make no claims that can't be proved. Don't even hint at something that can't be backed up by rigorous clinical testing. It's asking for trouble.

 

[Soot]

My profession involves advising politicians and very much understand SmokeyJoe's view. There will be scrutiny of the e-cig business and marketing will be important. I've a few suggestions:

1. Don't use anecdotal info to suggest e-cigs are a NRT until systematic studies have shown this to be the case. Making such a case (without systematic evidence) will put the embryonic industry in to a position of defence when it isn't needed. Systematic evidence is needed before such claims should be made and there is a need for this to be collected.
2. Let politicians put 2 and 2 together and see the e-cig as a positive development. Don't get them involved in having to scrutinize bad practice - like unsubstantiated marketing claims.
3. Separate e-cigs from cigarette smoking in the language used. I don't agree with Joe that stopping smoking is necessarily tied to nicotine addiction but that is just my opinion and Joe is entitled to his. What is unhelpful is the term that is coming in to more common use "e-smoking". Smoking involves combustion and e-cigs do not burn anything. Having worked with politicians for many years can I suggest you use a different word - "vaping" perhaps.
4. E-cigs WILL soon come under political scrutiny and media comment - it has started already. Once it gets to a legislature regulation will follow. The e-cig vaping community (vendors and customers) need to be setting that agenda and not just regulating disinformation.
5. The e-vaping community needs to involve politicians on a pro-active basis in a way that can address their concerns - liquid testing for example. To do this some systematic information needs to be collected and this forum could play a part in that.

We all know that the UK/EU/US regulatory authorities will soon be looking at this. Controlling marketing excesses is a good start but mixing the concepts of smoking with vaping is also inviting trouble. This forum could be used as a way of collecting information on vaping and the opportunity shouldn't be missed.

 

[Shining Wit]

I agree with most of the previous post except maybe the term 'vaping'. It conjures up an impression of a sub-culture doing some kind of drug, which is basically true but not what we want to convey. I'm sure everyone has their own preference and eventually one term will become accepted, mine is Social Smoking.
Cheers.
John.

 

[Soot]

Fair point John - I'm not stuck on "vaping" but would advise against using any phrase that includes the word "smoking".

Think of a parliamentary committee trying to discuss this while hearing evidence that will include; the smoking ban, social smoking outside pubs & restaurants, domestic smoking at home, passive smoking, real smoking ...

I suggested "vaping" but anything that doesn't include the work "smoking" would do the same job.

 

[trog100]

how about a battery powered electronic drug delivery device.. just to point out there are "worse" things than smoking..

trog

 

[Grumpysanta]

Perhaps just refering to e-cigs as Alternative Nicotine Delivery would be more realistic. We can't claim safer in terms of health as that has not been proved, we can however claim cleaner for the environment on the basis of no ash, not requiring ashtrays and no litter (assuming that we don't throw our cartridges on the floor) and safer in terms of reduced fire risk.

 

[NathanS]

we also have to reamember that the statement "Quit smoking without pain" was a translation. I read the same thing in a chinese pamphlet.

 

[Mscoffee]

Fair point John - I'm not stuck on "vaping" but would advise against using any phrase that includes the word "smoking".

Think of a parliamentary committee trying to discuss this while hearing evidence that will include; the smoking ban, social smoking outside pubs & restaurants, domestic smoking at home, passive smoking, real smoking ...

I suggested "vaping" but anything that doesn't include the work "smoking" would do the same job.

What about "Humidifying" or "misting" sounds more health orientated, like watering a plant

 

[Smokingfreely]

With regards to making claims about this product as an NRT option, it is not simply a matter of ethics and responsibilty, it is a matter about caring about the longetivity of this industry.

There has been a bit of discussion out there about where the niccotine in e-liquids is derived. I am an independent distributor of InLife, and in their conference calls (notably not in their official marketing,) they assert that it is derived from Nightshade vegetables such as tomatoes, hot peppers, and potatoes. I have no way of backing up this claim, so I'm merely passing it along as unsubstatiated rumor. (perhaps even slightly inplausible rumor given comments by the NIH on dietary consumption of niccotine - I'm not allowed to post links yet, so search pubmed for "Dietary niccotine." For dietary niccotine to register in a significant way, they demonstrated that someone had to consume 90kg - 200lbs of tomatoes.)

However, let us assume that all e-liquids come from non-tobacco sources - as most of you are no doubt aware, tobacco may soon come under the jurisdiction of the FDA, but niccotine, currently, is not. Therefore, the only way to give the FDA jurisdiction over electronic cigarettes with our current legal situation (which is currently under scrutiny of course,) is to be making claims on the medicinal use of the products, and then we fall under the jurisdiction of DDMAC.

We are an industry that is allready under scrutiny, and are subjecting ourselves to industry-wide scrutiny based upon the irresponsible claims of a few. If you don't think DDMAC targets industries as a whole, look at what happened to the OTC diet drug industry last summer.

I do this as a side-job (as well as being a personal user of the product,) and I am very concerned about the negligence of many of the distributors out there. I think that by and large, most of the large brands are being fairly responsible in these regards, but there are a LOT of pages out there from re-distributors and even some major brands that could bring the roof down on this whole industry. Those of you do this as your sole livelihood need to be proactive in ending these claims - don't make them yourselves and if you see these claims out there, shoot the offending party an e-mail. Let's clean it up and C Everyone's A.

SmokingFreely
info@smokefreely.biz

 

[Vapor Pete]

Wow, at this point I would have just told this gentleman to comply with the forum request or advertise elsewhere. Its a simple request with sensible intentions... agree to it or one is free to take their business somewhere else.
Am I wrong?
-VP