Again, well stated! And I like the Boni, name, lol. I refuse to use the term "cigarette" since it describes something I don't do and also doesn't describe what I now do when I vape. Boni is an excellent name.
Industry Concerns
- Thread starter shanagan
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Again, well stated! And I like the Boni, name, lol. I refuse to use the term "cigarette" since it describes something I don't do and also doesn't describe what I now do when I vape. Boni is an excellent name.
I keep hearing things like "vote with you wallet".
If we had an organization like to being envisioned here I might be able to do that. Till then I have no idea what Joe juicemaker is doing. He could have clean sterile lab or he could be doing it in his kitchen next to the dirty dishes. I don't know if this organization will come to be but I sure hope it does.
If we had an organization like to being envisioned here I might be able to do that. Till then I have no idea what Joe juicemaker is doing. He could have clean sterile lab or he could be doing it in his kitchen next to the dirty dishes. I don't know if this organization will come to be but I sure hope it does.
Well put ScottB..all you your replays were.Good to have a well spoken person on this forum to point out that all this will do will end vaping as we know it.
Before I start to dig in (I'm spent after a lonnnggggg Thanksgiving weekend - Whoop, go Aggies! - hope everyone's was great!) I just wanted to tell you all how much I love this thread. I think most of us have more common concerns than separate agendas, and this discussion seems to bear that out.
Scott, as others have mentioned you raise some great points.
I just told a friend "welcome to my world, the entire place is paved with good intentions!"
This has been difficult for me to put into "soundbite length" terms, and I continue to struggle to explain exactly how I feel, but I keep trying. ("Yeah, we know," the chorus moaned.) I didn't begin smoking as an adult, I started stealing Mom's smokes when I was 12. I really didn't make any reasoned decision to start, only to quit. (After giving up on that idea many times, over the span of many adult years which always ended up with a cigarette back in my hand within a few months.) Not only does vaping offer the possibility of "reduced harm" nicotine consumption (something my brain is convinced it needs) it allows me the chance to stop beating myself up for being so "stupid" and "irresponsible" and for furthering or causing my daughter's asthma. It allows me to answer the promise my aunt asked me to make when she was dying of lung cancer. I don't have to sell myself short any longer. And the common knowledge seems to be that there's no way to effect "real" harm reduction - but I believe that's still just selling ourselves short. I don't think we have to do that anymore.
So true - but in my opinion that's exactly what we're trying to get rolling here - give the consumers something reliable and let them choose from there.
These same risks to "the industry" exist now, I think.
I think there are a couple of points in here that are worth both repeating and talking about. Well-funded studies are key. Contacts within the scientific research community will be key - we can't just act as if we've got a protected little bubble over our heads in this community. My belief is that the industry needs to take note of what we're saying here and begin looking at forming a trade association in order to better the industry, not just their own bottom line.
They're already here. That's what's so funny to me - they're already looking at removing (as an example) diacetyl from the FDA's GRAS list. They're calling out Johnson Creek. They're overstepping their bounds in order to be able to come back and say "well, we won't try to block the import of e-cigs, but to be reasonable, you need to give us the opportunity to regulate." And it will work, unless some sort of self-regulation gets it together and proves that every effort is being made to offer a safe tobacco alternative. The vendors who refuse to disclose (or worse, flat out lie) are the low-hanging fruit the FDA is looking for.
Thanks for your contribution to the thread. Seriously - no facetiousness there.
I just told a friend "welcome to my world, the entire place is paved with good intentions!"
This has been difficult for me to put into "soundbite length" terms, and I continue to struggle to explain exactly how I feel, but I keep trying. ("Yeah, we know," the chorus moaned.) I didn't begin smoking as an adult, I started stealing Mom's smokes when I was 12. I really didn't make any reasoned decision to start, only to quit. (After giving up on that idea many times, over the span of many adult years which always ended up with a cigarette back in my hand within a few months.) Not only does vaping offer the possibility of "reduced harm" nicotine consumption (something my brain is convinced it needs) it allows me the chance to stop beating myself up for being so "stupid" and "irresponsible" and for furthering or causing my daughter's asthma. It allows me to answer the promise my aunt asked me to make when she was dying of lung cancer. I don't have to sell myself short any longer. And the common knowledge seems to be that there's no way to effect "real" harm reduction - but I believe that's still just selling ourselves short. I don't think we have to do that anymore.
So true - but in my opinion that's exactly what we're trying to get rolling here - give the consumers something reliable and let them choose from there.
These same risks to "the industry" exist now, I think.
I think there are a couple of points in here that are worth both repeating and talking about. Well-funded studies are key. Contacts within the scientific research community will be key - we can't just act as if we've got a protected little bubble over our heads in this community. My belief is that the industry needs to take note of what we're saying here and begin looking at forming a trade association in order to better the industry, not just their own bottom line.
They're already here. That's what's so funny to me - they're already looking at removing (as an example) diacetyl from the FDA's GRAS list. They're calling out Johnson Creek. They're overstepping their bounds in order to be able to come back and say "well, we won't try to block the import of e-cigs, but to be reasonable, you need to give us the opportunity to regulate." And it will work, unless some sort of self-regulation gets it together and proves that every effort is being made to offer a safe tobacco alternative. The vendors who refuse to disclose (or worse, flat out lie) are the low-hanging fruit the FDA is looking for.
Thanks for your contribution to the thread. Seriously - no facetiousness there.
I think the consensus here was that the Johnson Creek letter was the most troubling.
As I understand it, the FDA was citing compliance measures that would be required for a pharmaceutical product.
Atomizer design needs to flatten variability in lifespan & performance and manufacturers need to emphasize quality production methods to ensure this. This is the biggest single problem I see. Of course, I'm a 6Sigma & Lean Manufacturing guy... so yeah, of course this is what I see.
Other parts needing work:
-Juice Vendors need to certify that their stuff is diacetyl free on their websites. (edited to replace diethyl with correct chemical)
-Batteries need to be developed specifically with vaping in mind so we don't have to stack to get a good voltage.
-E-Cigarette as a name needs to be mothballed. We are vapers who use a personal vaporizer. Not smokers who use an electronic cigarette. This is critical if we want to be heard/protected in the coming months. Big tobacco is banking on us being smokers and therefore easy to demonize/criticize/etc.
Other parts needing work:
-Juice Vendors need to certify that their stuff is diacetyl free on their websites. (edited to replace diethyl with correct chemical)
-Batteries need to be developed specifically with vaping in mind so we don't have to stack to get a good voltage.
-E-Cigarette as a name needs to be mothballed. We are vapers who use a personal vaporizer. Not smokers who use an electronic cigarette. This is critical if we want to be heard/protected in the coming months. Big tobacco is banking on us being smokers and therefore easy to demonize/criticize/etc.
Last edited:
Thanks DC2, I looked at the FDA warning letter and yes, they mentioned giving them instructions on how to register as a drug product.
I found something else interesting relating to my comments about the industry being responsible for a lot of it's own downfall. This news has been out for a month but I didn't see on ECF. Just the sticky for Smoking Everywhere and it's lawsuit with the FDA.
Well, Smoking Everywhere is being sued by their own attorneys for not paying them. This doesn't look good at all. This is really too bad as they apparently won the first round and now this.
Thompson Hine Slaps E-Cigarette Company with Breach of Contract Suit - The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times
Anybody else want to kick this guy's (Taieb's) rump?
OK, I had just made a post, but realized that I wasn't logged in and lost it. I just have a question about this all coming down to a pharmaceutical product.
Suppose that the dust all settles and we are now under the watchful eye of the FDA and using our pharmaceutical products. Could these be OTC like patches, gum, and lozenges? I assume yes but regulated as such, which has come to make some sense. (Don't kill me for saying that. There's a different story in that, entirely.)
The real question I am looking at is . . . "Who will represent "us" when the FDA starts to set limitations on flavor, concentration, and quantity?" In the worst-case scenario, based on, say lozenges: they will set tobacco, menthol, cherry, and flavorless - or something like that - then they will want anything higher than 4mg concentration to be a prescription. Since lozenges are in 72 packs, that will probably be the FDA's package size basis. Based on some suppliers' overly exaggerated claims, we'll probably be looking at 3ml bottles for purchase. Do we currently have a group that can debate with the FDA to set reasonable limits, or will they look at industry standards (LOL)?
If they are deemed pharmaceutical products they will be removed from the market until someone goes through the extreme amounts of time and money to prove they are safe and effective, and get them approved by the FDA.
Since that will take a long time we will have a long time to worry about who will represent us, say a few years minimum probably, when (and if) they ever do get approved and are once again available on the market.
Since that will take a long time we will have a long time to worry about who will represent us, say a few years minimum probably, when (and if) they ever do get approved and are once again available on the market.
Anybody else want to kick this guy's (Taieb's) rump?
OT I guess but are Smoking Everywhere still trading?? They shouldn't be by the sound of it (or won't be for much longer).
Last edited:
Anybody else want to kick this guy's (Taieb's) rump?
OK, I had just made a post, but realized that I wasn't logged in and lost it. I just have a question about this all coming down to a pharmaceutical product.
Suppose that the dust all settles and we are now under the watchful eye of the FDA and using our pharmaceutical products. Could these be OTC like patches, gum, and lozenges? I assume yes but regulated as such, which has come to make some sense. (Don't kill me for saying that. There's a different story in that, entirely.)
The real question I am looking at is . . . "Who will represent "us" when the FDA starts to set limitations on flavor, concentration, and quantity?" In the worst-case scenario, based on, say lozenges: they will set tobacco, menthol, cherry, and flavorless - or something like that - then they will want anything higher than 4mg concentration to be a prescription. Since lozenges are in 72 packs, that will probably be the FDA's package size basis. Based on some suppliers' overly exaggerated claims, we'll probably be looking at 3ml bottles for purchase. Do we currently have a group that can debate with the FDA to set reasonable limits, or will they look at industry standards (LOL)?
Ya that's kinda where the problem is.
If the FDA regulates as a drug, then it will cut the Chinese, and any American operation out of the hardware or juice business. If it's regulated as a tobacco product then flavors will mostly go out the window under the same regulation as tobacco.
I'm not sure most people realize this. If the sledgehammer falls in either of those two categories, it will either be the tobacco companies who are the manufacturers, or the pharmaceutical companies. It will kill american operation, essentially, of any imported or domestic manufacturer of juice or hardware.
The action against Johnson Creek was more of a warning shot. The question as to how the FDA can legally regulate e-cigs is up in the air and undetermined. It's also important to realize that the claims that the FDA made about these vendors, are in the form of "Throw a lot of stuff at the wall and see what sticks". Just like a criminal prosecutor... because they know they will be challenged in court. I bet the FDA, includes the evidence that *customers* claimed they got off of cigarettes from the Johnson Creek website in it's amended filings. If they haven't already.
One of the other companies was putting non FDA approved erectile dysfunction drugs in their juice- a clear violation if there ever was one. I bet that this Also gets entered into evidence. Whether the amount of the drug in the juice was significant enough to actually have an effect, is irrelevant to the FDA. Right now they are looking for *press* and popular support.
What it boils down to is anti smoking hysteria, now aimed at e-cigs. And magnified by the fear that "vaping", as a smoking substitute is actually safer, thus negating the work of the anti smoking lobby- who simply hate smokers... aside form any valid points about second hand smoke and personal health. Those are only justifications.
There might also be some prejudice against "addicts" as well.
So while carping about what's in the juice might be a valid point- it may not be. We may lose this one. Right now our future rests with Njoy, and any of the american companies that may grow large enough to make a challenge- and that probably means Johnson Creek.
Think about that. Njoy and Johnson Creek. We rise and fall on what those companies are able to pull off.
Personally, I think the industry has shown a lot more responsibility than the tobacco companies ever have. And I'm good with that. I think the bigger issue is whether we have a juice industry at all.
Has anyone asked themselves why there is no USA made vaping hardware (outside of battery tubes)?
It's because no one wants to invest in the manufacturing capacity and then be closed down. Juice providers on the other hand, even doing it right, can start up for far far less.
And that is what I'm afraid of if that is the ultimate decision. Nobody will gather the data or anything, so we will . . . awww it'll all work. I really don't know why I'm getting twisted over it. This will all get swept past due to an election year. We ain't got nothin' t'worry about.
Yep. Exactly.
And regulation will happen. Anyone who thinks a trade organization can stave it off is in denial (or quite naive). "Approval", irrespective of category, will not happen without regulation. Even in the best case scenario, politics is the art of compromise. The industry and FDA will throw each other bones, and the final regs won't leave either side happy or satisfied, and unless categorized in our favor, we'll be the least happy or satisfied.
I won't repeat what I belabored here last night except to say... Other Tobacco Products... OTP type regulation & no more. That should be the industry's goal.
(cozzicon) The question as to how the FDA can legally regulate e-cigs is up in the air and undetermined
It may be in court for years. There will probably be new case law just to define ecigs. i.e.; does it fall under tobacco because it has nicotene? Is it a consumable, is it a drug? ......
Yes FreakyStyle; Anybody else want to kick this guy's (Taieb's) rump? This law firm kept SE in business and won in court against the FDA. Just disgraceful. The smaller companies are showing a lot more integrity but that will get lost when these scenarios are brought up.
It may be in court for years. There will probably be new case law just to define ecigs. i.e.; does it fall under tobacco because it has nicotene? Is it a consumable, is it a drug? ......
Yes FreakyStyle; Anybody else want to kick this guy's (Taieb's) rump? This law firm kept SE in business and won in court against the FDA. Just disgraceful. The smaller companies are showing a lot more integrity but that will get lost when these scenarios are brought up.
Naive, in denial, or in Europe? ECITA has been quite successful in doing just that. And I don't think anyone has disagreed with you on the otp goal, have they?
I kind of did. (Not sure, but his response was to a response to me.) Different reasoning though.
It is actually an OTP belief, but with a nod to pharmaceuticals. I don't want to get off topic, but I'll just say that I would hate to be lumped with tobacco too. Touchy subject.
Do you guys think vendors making our juice should be non-felons or do you think it matters? Say a vendor is a convicted child molester with an extensive history of violence, should a consumer group check the background to be certain unsavory characters aren't mixing what we inhale? I think there should be some minimum standards even here on ECF (especially since there is no governing body right now to protect us.) Being raised in the 60s I tend to be an activist and I imagine I've pis*** off more than one supplier.
I guess we should make sure that felons can't prepare our food either, who knows what they are mixing in with it?
Perhaps this would be an issue if they were arrested for attempting to poison someone or something. But otherwise it is just going to increase recidivism because a felon with a job, is much less likely to actually commit a crime again. I don't want to get too off topic, so I would leave it at if they are likely to try to poison someone, keep them from preparing consumables like e-liquid.
Perhaps this would be an issue if they were arrested for attempting to poison someone or something. But otherwise it is just going to increase recidivism because a felon with a job, is much less likely to actually commit a crime again. I don't want to get too off topic, so I would leave it at if they are likely to try to poison someone, keep them from preparing consumables like e-liquid.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
