NJOY to Discontinue Flavors, Takes Additional Steps to Prevent Underage Electronic Cigarette Use

Status
Not open for further replies.

Our House

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 29, 2009
402
25
NJ, USA
Surf--by the time this case is up on Appeal you are going to see more study results on e-cigs then you care to read--just sit back and watch.

Sun
And I bet most, if not all, of them are being harbored in the closet right now.

Releasing any study results before these products are classified would be futile. My guess is once ecig companies are told what is needed from them, the studies will start to surface at record speed.
 

Surf Monkey

Cartel Boss
ECF Veteran
May 28, 2009
3,958
104,307
Sesame Street
Not to ignore the rest of your post, but I'd like to jump right to the point...

Why? It's very simple. Pot vaporizers don't take money out of the pockets of BT and PT.

THAT'S the reason why PVs experience the backlash that they do. Everything else is a distant 2nd.

It's far more complex than that, and I disagree that money is the central issue. If the BT companies were genuinely worried about PVs they'd simply buy njoy, joyetech and the rest and shut them down. Putting these companies out of business would be child's play for them (and far cheaper than waging endless court battles, buying politicians and etc..) The central reason that PVs get so much heat is because they were positioned as "electronic cigarettes." Culture war. The word "cigarette" is practically as stigmatized as the word "rape" for a huge percentage of people.

Besides, if you think that the miniscule number of people using these things has a noticeable impact on BT's bottom line you're vastly over estimating the number of PV users out there.
 

OutWest

Unregistered Supplier
ECF Veteran
Feb 8, 2009
1,195
1
Oklahoma USA
www.alternasmokes.com
Yes, and the vast majority of new PV users are disappointed by the so-called tobacco flavorings too. Vapor isn't smoke. PVs aren't cigarettes. There is no tobacco flavoring that even comes close to actual smoking... and without alternatives out there, most people are likely to simply drop PVs when they realize that fact.
Yep. I agree. One person I know described the tobacco flavor as "gross" and continued with "I'd rather have a cigarette than to suck on one of those nasty things". Myself - one of the first flavors I tried was a high strength strawberry. And, without the non-tobacco flavors, I probably wouldnt have stuck it out.

I understand their reason (to be more in line with the new legislation). But, since the legislation only affects traditional cigarettes, and things like cigars can still have flavors, would not the same be true for ecigs (that they too could still have flavors)?
 
Last edited:

Sun Vaporer

Moved On
ECF Veteran
Jan 2, 2009
10,146
27
Florida

I'm looking forward to it.

Judge Leon has an even tougher dilemma than originally thought because if ecigs are deemed a tobacco product then the FDA did overstep its bounds at the time of suit and the new tobacco act had no bearing on SE's request for relief (at the time of originally filing).

As far as setting precedent for the future, well that's a different story.


Nice to see some of the old gang posting again---place can get a little rusty without the Vets doing a little back and forth.


Sun
 

Surf Monkey

Cartel Boss
ECF Veteran
May 28, 2009
3,958
104,307
Sesame Street
Myself - one of the first flavors I tried was a high strength strawberry. And, without the non-tobacco flavors, I probably wouldnt have stuck it out myself.

Same here. I vaped through about two tobacco flavored carts before deciding I couldn't take it anymore and getting some chocolate ones. If there had been no other flavors available but the tobacco I had at first, I would have gone to 7-11 and bought another pack of analogues. As it is, I'm smoke free for nearly a year now.
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
It's far more complex than that, and I disagree that money is the central issue. If the BT companies were genuinely worried about PVs they'd simply buy NJOY, Joyetech and the rest and shut them down. Putting these companies out of business would be child's play for them (and far cheaper than waging endless court battles, buying politicians and etc..) The central reason that PVs get so much heat is because they were positioned as "electronic cigarettes." Culture war. The word "cigarette" is practically as stigmatized as the word "rape" for a huge percentage of people.

Besides, if you think that the miniscule number of people using these things has a noticeable impact on BT's bottom line you're vastly over estimating the number of PV users out there.

I agree. I think Big Pharma is much more threatened:

BioPortfolio Limited Smoking Cessation Report, 2009-2024

Scroll down to section 6 titled "Issues Affecting the Smoking Cessation Market"
6.5.3.2 A Possible Impact of Greater Smokeless Tobacco Prevalence
6.5.4 The E-Cigarette
6.5.4.1 What are E-Cigarettes?
6.5.4.2 The E-Cigarette Market
6.5.4.3 E-Cigarettes Will Revolutionise the Face of Tobacco Smoking and Could Pose a Threat to the Smoking Cessation Market
6.5.4.4 Will E-Cigarettes Compete with Smoking Cessation Therapies?
 

OutWest

Unregistered Supplier
ECF Veteran
Feb 8, 2009
1,195
1
Oklahoma USA
www.alternasmokes.com
I agree. I think Big Pharma is much more threatened:
agreed. And, you know, I could be wrong, but I think BP is behind the indoor vaping ban bit. The reason: Up until ecigs came along, a smoker that was stuck indoors to where s/he can't take a smoke break was likely to try the patch or gum to get themselves through their workshift or whatever is keeping them indoors. With the ecig, though, that is no longer the case - not for the person who is still smoking. But, if you ban the vaping as well, then even the vaper will have no choice but to use the gum, patch, or lozenge when stuck indoors or at a place that prohibits use anywhere on the property (assuming the user hasn't discovered snus and assuming the place hasnt banned the use of snus as well - which some places have).
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
This is exactly how the anti-smoking groups have been justifying their actions for decades. They did it for the same reasons you want to: It will save lives. Now they're so blinded by their own fanaticism that they're ready to ban something that could ... save lives.

It's not up to you or me or anyone else to decide the truth doesn't matter, why it doesn't matter, when it doesn't, or to whom. Nor is it up to you to bend it, stretch it, or flat-out discard it.

Anyway, we don't need to. The truth is on our side. It's our strength, not our weakness.
I'm not saying that's how it SHOULD be, just how it usually happens.

I always stick to the truth as I best understand it. I try to use the truth to counter the anti's claims. However, people don't want to believe the truth - they believe what they want to hear and what is fed to them by people they trust.

Having the truth on your side doesn't mean you'll win the argument - that is what I meant by "it doesn't matter."

Ever debate with a racist or a holocaust denier? You can go around and around until you're blue in the face and never convince them otherwise. Finally, you have to walk away at some point. It doesn't mean you agree with them or have conceded - it's just a losing battle and not worth the stress and frustration.

Taking away flavors doesn't equal taking away e-cigs, so it's pointless to keep going in circles with them over it.

Having the truth on your side doesn't always win the battle - and the flavor arguement is a battle - not the war.
 

rjmporter

Full Member
ECF Veteran
Dec 1, 2009
18
0
Michigan
Ever debate with a racist or a holocaust denier? You can go around and around until you're blue in the face and never convince them otherwise. Finally, you have to walk away at some point. It doesn't mean you agree with them or have conceded - it's just a losing battle and not worth the stress and frustration.

Rarely will any debate convince your opponent that your position is superior. If you enter into a debate with a radical, and expect them to change their position, you are, IMO, on a fools errand. The purpose of a debate, as far as I'm concerned, is not to convince your immediate opponent. Rather, it is to convince the audience of the debate.

The audience of this debate is not the FDA or ASH, they are the opponent. You will not, now, convince them of our position. But to give up the debate simply because your opponent will not concede your point is not a strategy for winning a political war.

To win a political war you need to convince those interested in your debate that you have proven your assertion. Prove to the audience of the debate that your position is the reasonable position. Convince those who still hold the real power in this country (although, admittedly by a precarious thread) of the superiority of your arguments.

Based on my (political) understanding of the purpose and meaning of a debate, I continue to believe our best strategy is to insist on our position without compromise. PV's are NOT tobacco products. They do not contain tobacco. They do not contain any KNOWN carcinogens at any KNOWN dangerous levels. They do not produce "second-hand smoke." They do not produce air pollution. They do help smokers to quit smoking. They do provide a less dangerous alternative to tobacco smoking. They do save lives.

Ultimately, the US has a government built on compromise. Compromise guarantees that neither side will be happy with the outcome. The political challenge, then, is for both sides of a position to remain intransigent in their arguments. As soon as one side is willing to "give ground" while the opponent remains unwilling to do so, the capitulating side has lost their political capital and given up their "bargaining chip" at the compromise table. This is why ASH and other antis are successful, while reasonable folks like those of us here are ultimately loosing.

Short answer. Be as radically pro as they are radically anti and we might end up with a compromise we can live with.

Just the ramblings of one of the "poor huddled masses",

RJ
 

TropicalBob

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jan 13, 2008
5,623
65
Port Charlotte, FL USA
The marketing of e-cigarettes is not without precedent. And the outcome won't likely change. Some here remember the Favor. Others would do well to read about it and catch a glimpse of our future.

A variation on the inhaler technology is the nicotine-delivering rod or "smokeless cigarette" first described by Jacobson and his co-workers (Jacobson 1979) and then marketed by Advanced Tobacco Products under the trade name Favor.

Even though the FDA decided that this nicotine vapor inhaler fell within its jurisdiction and was subject to its regulatory powers, it was initially marketed as a nontherapeutic cigarette substitute.

In some studies (Schumaker and Grunberg 1986; Russell and Jarvis 1987), pulling on this inhaler created several effects that mimicked those of nicotine delivered by tobacco, including acute heart rate increase and some of the sensations of tobacco smoke inhalation.

In fact, in a study by Henningficld (personal communication). use of the vapor inhaler produced reliable decreases in self-reported desire to smoke cigarettes, although it was not determined whether or not such effects would persist if abstinence from cigarette smoking were prolonged.

Interestingly, use of the vapor inhalers in these two studies did not produce detectable elevations in plasma nicotine levels. Russell and colleagues (1987) found that measurable nicotine plasma levels could be produced by use of the vapor inhaler, but only following extremely active inhalation.

These findings suggest that the vapor inhaler, as currently designed, is not a practically effective means of nicotine delivery, and that the apparently nicotinic effects are actually conditioned responses elicited by the peripheral stimulation provided by the vapor inhaler. In fact, Rose and Hickman (1987) have demonstrated that the oral inhalation of a citric acid spray can mimic certain properties of tobacco smoke and reduce self-reported "craving" for cigarettes.

Despite their current limitations, future versions of vapor inhalers might possibly provide a useful adjunct to other forms of replacement therapy and to behaviorally oriented tobacco treatment strategies.

In another thread, Bill Godshall has told us that studies are imminent that will prove the e-cig is essentially a useless placebo device, not delivering any meaningful nicotine levels. Rant if you like, but that's what he posted.

If that's the case, it's a medical failure. Since it would siphon off users of "approved" NRT products, the FDA will oppose it.

After exchanges of legal postures, the FDA issued a ban on Favor. History seems poised to repeat itself.
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
Rarely will any debate convince your opponent that your position is superior. If you enter into a debate with a radical, and expect them to change their position, you are, IMO, on a fools errand. The purpose of a debate, as far as I'm concerned, is not to convince your immediate opponent. Rather, it is to convince the audience of the debate.

The audience of this debate is not the FDA or ASH, they are the opponent. You will not, now, convince them of our position. But to give up the debate simply because your opponent will not concede your point is not a strategy for winning a political war.

To win a political war you need to convince those interested in your debate that you have proven your assertion. Prove to the audience of the debate that your position is the reasonable position. Convince those who still hold the real power in this country (although, admittedly by a precarious thread) of the superiority of your arguments.

Based on my (political) understanding of the purpose and meaning of a debate, I continue to believe our best strategy is to insist on our position without compromise. PV's are NOT tobacco products. They do not contain tobacco. They do not contain any KNOWN carcinogens at any KNOWN dangerous levels. They do not produce "second-hand smoke." They do not produce air pollution. They do help smokers to quit smoking. They do provide a less dangerous alternative to tobacco smoking. They do save lives.

Ultimately, the US has a government built on compromise. Compromise guarantees that neither side will be happy with the outcome. The political challenge, then, is for both sides of a position to remain intransigent in their arguments. As soon as one side is willing to "give ground" while the opponent remains unwilling to do so, the capitulating side has lost their political capital and given up their "bargaining chip" at the compromise table. This is why ASH and other antis are successful, while reasonable folks like those of us here are ultimately loosing.

Short answer. Be as radically pro as they are radically anti and we might end up with a compromise we can live with.

Just the ramblings of one of the "poor huddled masses",

RJ
It's not a debate anymore. The powers that be have made their move.

Now it is negotiation and we are the ones without any leverage.
 

moog

Super Member
ECF Veteran
May 25, 2009
393
0
Rarely will any debate convince your opponent that your position is superior. If you enter into a debate with a radical, and expect them to change their position, you are, IMO, on a fools errand. The purpose of a debate, as far as I'm concerned, is not to convince your immediate opponent. Rather, it is to convince the audience of the debate.

The audience of this debate is not the FDA or ASH, they are the opponent. You will not, now, convince them of our position. But to give up the debate simply because your opponent will not concede your point is not a strategy for winning a political war.

To win a political war you need to convince those interested in your debate that you have proven your assertion. Prove to the audience of the debate that your position is the reasonable position. Convince those who still hold the real power in this country (although, admittedly by a precarious thread) of the superiority of your arguments.

Based on my (political) understanding of the purpose and meaning of a debate, I continue to believe our best strategy is to insist on our position without compromise. PV's are NOT tobacco products. They do not contain tobacco. They do not contain any KNOWN carcinogens at any KNOWN dangerous levels. They do not produce "second-hand smoke." They do not produce air pollution. They do help smokers to quit smoking. They do provide a less dangerous alternative to tobacco smoking. They do save lives.

Ultimately, the US has a government built on compromise. Compromise guarantees that neither side will be happy with the outcome. The political challenge, then, is for both sides of a position to remain intransigent in their arguments. As soon as one side is willing to "give ground" while the opponent remains unwilling to do so, the capitulating side has lost their political capital and given up their "bargaining chip" at the compromise table. This is why ASH and other antis are successful, while reasonable folks like those of us here are ultimately loosing.

Short answer. Be as radically pro as they are radically anti and we might end up with a compromise we can live with.

Just the ramblings of one of the "poor huddled masses",

RJ

I agree with you totally. I think the next step from a certain few will tell all vendors on here to stop selling flavoured Liquid...which contains nicotine not tobacco.
 

TokenVapor

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Nov 12, 2009
145
1
Michigan, USA
www.facebook.com
But that ignores one of the most basic political and social truisms: once you give something up, it's practically impossible to get it back. If you think you're going to give up most of the marbles right now and then get them back at a later date, you're fooling yourself IMO.

No disrespect intended....

Dude... The battle for flavored tobacco products (e-juice) was lost when the FDA just recently won the right to regulate tobacco products and ban flavorings. The battle is already over. We wanted to be classified a tobacco product, we got it (it seems), and all that comes with it.

Your argument is moot with respect to flavored e-juice.
 
Last edited:

yvilla

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 18, 2008
2,063
575
Rochester, NY
Dude... The battle for flavored tobacco products (e-juice) was lost when the FDA just recently won the right to regulate tobacco products and ban flavorings. The battle is already over. We wanted to be classified a tobacco product, we got it (it seems), and all that comes with it.

Your argument is moot with respect to flavored e-juice.

This is inaccurate, if you are thinking that the ban on "cigarettes" with characterizing flavors found in the new tobacco legislation covers all "tobacco products". That is not the case. Here is a post I made yesterday on this topic:

Sun, it is not technically correct that Njoy would be required to take this action. I agree that Njoy is taking this action to try to better its position, but it is not actually required by law, even if the ecig is deemed to be a "tobacco product".

For the statutory ban on characterizing flavors is actually limited to "cigarettes", as specifically defined in law, and loose tobacco intended to be used in cigarettes; it does not extend to all "tobacco proucts".

Here is what the FDA says about this in its guidance document about the characterizing flavors ban:

2. What products are covered?
Several key definitions in the law define which products are covered.
The ban applies to all tobacco products that meet the definition of a cigarette in section 900(3) of the FDCA even if they are not labeled as cigarettes or are labeled as cigars or as some other product.
Specifically, section 900(3) defines cigarettes as:
‘‘(3) CIGARETTE.—The term ‘cigarette’—
‘‘(A) means a product that—
‘‘(i) is a tobacco product; and
‘‘(ii) meets the definition of the term ‘cigarette’ in section 3(1) of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act; and
‘‘(B) includes tobacco, in any form, that is functional in the product, which, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette or as roll-your-own tobacco.
‘‘(4) CIGARETTE TOBACCO.—The term ‘cigarette tobacco’ means any product that consists of loose tobacco that is intended for use by consumers in a cigarette. Unless otherwise stated, the requirements applicable to cigarettes under this chapter shall also apply to cigarette tobacco.”
This definition refers to a provision of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act which defines the term ‘cigarette’ as:
“(1) The term “cigarette” means—
(A) any roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or in any substance not containing tobacco, and
(B) any roll of tobacco wrapped in any substance containing tobacco which, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette described in subparagraph (A).”

General Questions and Answers on the Ban of Cigarettes that Contain Certain Characterizing Flavors

The FDA goes on to say, for example, that the flavor ban does not apply to pipe tobacco.

Ecigs, although their liquid might be ruled a "tobacco product" due to being derived from tobacco, do not meet the definition of "cigarettes" as seen above, so they would not automatically fall under the characterizing flavor ban (at least as currently written).
 

Sun Vaporer

Moved On
ECF Veteran
Jan 2, 2009
10,146
27
Florida
Your opinion is not "totally accurate" Yvilla as you have no idea how the Court is going to rule with regards to E-cigs or what catagory the FDA is going to place them if and when regulated if they are not banned outright--Futhermore the FDA is currently about to strike across the board as stated on there website:

Flavored Tobacco

On September 22, 2009 a ban on cigarettes containing certain characterizing flavors went into effect. The ban, authorized by the new Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, is part of a national effort by FDA to reduce smoking in America.
FDA’s ban on candy and fruit-flavored cigarettes highlights the importance of reducing the number of children who start to smoke, and who become addicted to dangerous tobacco products. FDA is also examining options for regulating both menthol cigarettes and flavored tobacco products other than cigarettes.

It is my contention that the E-cig is subject to direct attack and Counsel for NJOY advised them about inconsistat pleading.


Sun
 

yvilla

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 18, 2008
2,063
575
Rochester, NY
FDA is also examining options for regulating both menthol cigarettes and flavored tobacco products other than cigarettes.
Sun

Did you not see that in my posts I said:

"Ecigs, although their liquid might be ruled a "tobacco product" due to being derived from tobacco, do not meet the definition of "cigarettes" as seen above, so they would not automatically fall under the characterizing flavor ban (at least as currently written)."
 

yvilla

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 18, 2008
2,063
575
Rochester, NY
[Y]ou have no idea how the Court is going to rule with regards to E-cigs or what catagory the FDA is going to place them if and when regulated if they are not banned outright--

As for this part of your post - I have consistently and repeatedly maintained, all along, that even if Judge Leon rules that ecigs should be considered "tobacco products", then we face all the difficult and huge questions of precisely how they will fit in and be regulated under the new tobacco legislation.

See, as just one recent example:

"Please remember that even though I personally think and fervently hope we still have a chance that Judge Leon's decision could go the other way, even then we would not be out of the woods, not by a long shot. If he rules that ecigs are "tobacco products" as argued by the plaintiffs, we then enter another long period of uncertainty, and potentially even further litigation, as the many questions about how ecigs should be treated and regulated under the FSPTCA get hammered out."

From http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/ask-experts/51506-if-feds-win.html#post808383
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread