Now is the Time To Act! I am Serious! **updated**

Status
Not open for further replies.
The only US manufacturer I know of is Johnson Creek. Why don't you ask them what they're doing?

Johnson's Creek hardly qualifies as a manufacturer in a legal sense or even by common sense standards. The cost of FDA approval for something of this magnitude is going to run to millions of dollars and is not intended for small businesses. Think about what you are saying, JC not only could not come up with the scratch, they are too small to create the distribution channel to even create test groups necessary.

US manufacturers will get involved when it is proven that they can recoup the investment and then make a sustainable long term profit. It is not clear that it is possible. The US petition only has ~4,000 signatures. This is not what someone would call big business.

The suppliers on this list are all too small to even raise the eyebrows of angels or equity firms much less the raise the funds necessary to do what the FDA will expect.

The real danger is not that it will be banned, but that it will be deemed too small for the FDA to even care about the trouble of the paperwork for an exemption.
 

franklyspeaking

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 17, 2009
1,231
48
Arlington, Texas
www.pharceapp.com
Found this and thought it might help in formatting a letter:

TEMPLATE FOR YOUR LETTER TO YOUR
SENATE REPRESENTATIVE:

Your name
Your address

Date, year

Senator their name
Local District office address

Dear Senator their name,

Sentence 1: This letter is to urge you to...
OR I am writing to request that you…
OR The reason for this letter is to encourage you to...

Sentence 2: I understand that…
OR My information is that…
OR It is expected that…

Sentence 3: I am personally concerned that...
OR I strongly feel that…
OR It is time that we….
Fill in the blank: _______________________________________________________________.

Sentence 4: The X Bill will …
OR The proposed X Bill would…
OR The X Bill contains provisions to…
Fill in the blank with something about the Bill that links to your Sentence 3:
_______________________________________________________________ .

Sentence 5: I genuinely appreciate the role you play in shaping our country.
OR Thank you for all you do as our representative in Washington.
OR Thank you for your efforts to X.

Respectfully, OR Warm regards, OR Sincerely,

SIGN HERE
Print your name LEGIBLY under your signature.
 

Kate

Moved On
Jun 26, 2008
7,191
47
UK
Here's another good letter:

To whom it may concern:

When considering the electronic cigarette, please consider these facts:

1. The e-cig, as it's popularly known, was invented in China in 2004 and has been marketed since that time. In the past year, hundreds of thousands of smokers around the world have purchased and used e-cigs, to either quit an addictive cigarette habit or use an e-device in place of cigarettes.

2. Not one headline-making health event has been reported about e-smokers. With all the present users, if e-cigs presented any imminent danger, that danger should have surfaced by now. None has.

3. The device is simple and not prone to dangerous malfunction. It is far safer than even fire-safe cigarettes.

4. The liquid is a mix, often containing nicotine, along with propylene glycol to produce vapor and carry the nicotine content. Propylene glycol was tested more than half-century ago for inhalation by mice, primates and humans. No harmful effects were found in studies. Indeed, propylene glycol was a "germ-killing vapor" that protected those inhaling it from deadly diseases.

5. Nicotine, in the amounts used for e-smoking, has a physiological effect similar to that of consuming a moderate amount of caffeine. It is a stimulant/relaxant. It has both known benefits and hazards. The amount of nicotine consumed while e-smoking is far less than that consumed by smoking a tobacco cigarette, however. E-smoking is thus less unhealthy if direct comparisons are made to cigarettes.

6. The e-cig came to market without regulation on the assumption by manufacturers that it was a safe product not needing regulation. Nothing since 2004 has proven that assumption erroneous. Real-world use of e-cigs, in fact, supports the accuracy of that assumption. These are both safe and effective, as proven by the hundreds of thousands of present users.

Considering these facts and the almost certain fact that e-smoking is safer than tobacco use, the devices and liquids should remain available for those seeking an alternative to tobacco cigarettes, while further study on the need for regulation is undertaken.

Sincerely ....

Now, a form letter won't do much of anything, so anyone desiring to be heard on e-smoking needs to make relevant points in their own letter. No finger-pointing of conspiracy (that FDA Nazi pix will sure win 'em over!!!). Be rational, recognize their right and mission to oversee this country's drug market, and hope the present situation will be allowed as more studies are undertaken.

That's what I'd say.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/e-cigarette-news/8264-fda-crackdown-looms-20.html#post128256
 
We have an appt with Thaddius McCotter Representative, from Michigan on Monday morning. His aide is a smoker and we are presenting him with a electronic cig and a good amount of information about the cig. We also ask our customers via our email to contact their representatives in both the house and senate and links to do so. We also have a link to the petition on our site.

I truly believe a ban(of sorts) is in place, to many of us have lost shipments, if there was not a ban, they would have made it thru.

I hope we all will keep actively supporting our beloved e-cigs
 
If a producer is small does that mean they have no responsibility to ensure their product is legal?

Sorry, no they don't. Their responsibility is to make sure that they adhere to all applicable laws. There is no legal requirement for "ensure"-ance, as you put it. Nor is there a moral requirement when the legal requiremement would outstrip the entrepreneurial entity to exceed its capacity for investment. What good is it gain "assurance" if the result is that you would then be out of business? And once they fail, they would lose legal standing as well.
 

DMacRae

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 7, 2009
130
4
67
Central NY (Fingerlakes)
To many of the criticism lets take a little look at reality.

This is politics in politics it's all about posiitoning and message.

Yes ideally we'd like to have this product legitimately regulated by the government in a reasonable manner.

However experience has shown us that this is seldom the case.

Now I'm no anti-regulation libertarian I'm a leftist who definitely believes that it is governments job to protect the powerless from the powerful.

But understand this there are only two reasons that regulations exist. The first and most common is to protect existing interests from competition. The majority of regulation in existence exists specifically to errect barriers to entry against competition. This is what the regulation currently being considered by the FDA regarding Electronic Cigarettes is about.

The second reason for regulation is to address abuses by bussinesses. In almost every case these have come into existence because the industry in question was unable to or more often unwilling to self regulate.

A smart industry will self police and self regulate if they do so they can avoid the second kind of regulation.

Now on strategy. I understand entirely that the ECA is not going to disclose all their plans it would be stupid to do so. If you are going into battle you don't publish your battle plans on the world wide web. A football team does not send their playbook to the competition right before a game.

As to why to try to avoid regulation entirely well there are several reasons. Primarily to try and avoid the first reason I mentioned for regulation if E-cigs get pulled into the orbit of the FDA as a drug then such regulation will primarily be shaped by it's enemies influences. Big Tobacco and Big Pharma have already showed just how commited they are to squashing this product and they at this point have much more influence (read money) that E-cigs.

Also politics is about compromise. It's a negotiation. Consider if you are trying to buy a car you don't start out by offering the most you are willing to pay you start by offering less than you think the other party is willing to accept as a starting point for negotiations.

A temporary repreive while E-cigs go through proper testing and certification may be the most reasonable solution however if one starts at that point the opposition is going to try and pull things to less reasonable standards. If you start at the other extreme you look more like your being cooperative as you give up things that you don't really care about. Then as you are giving ground and the opposition isn't you look reasonable and they look unreasonable.

Something to understand about E-Cig's is this. If this action had been delayed another year the genie would probably have been out of the bottle. E-Cigs are just begining to take off in the U.S which I suspect is a large part of the reason that the regulatory pressure has come to a head today. The other players in this battle have figured out that if they don't nip this in the bud today then next year the product will have gained so much acceptance that they will have lost their window of opportunity.

If official action can be delayed long enough for the product to gain mass acceptance then the war is won.

So the current objective is to delay the regulatory hammer long enough for the product to become mainstream it is unfortunant that the suppliers have delayed taking action so long I saw the need for such actions when I started 2 months ago and many of these individuals have been involved in this for a year or more. Still better late than never.

Understand this is not just about our individual ability to continue to vape. We will still be able to gain access to the supplies and the product from overseas for the foreseable future.

However if the regulatory hammer falls on the E-cig then thousands if not millions of our fellow smokers will never have a chance to move to a less harmful source for their nicotine and will be condemned to all the negative consequnces of smoking in a world that increasing views them with disdain.

So be clear what's going on here. While we may not as individuals agree with every action being taken by the association that is not a reason to avoid working with them. That's politics you will seldom if ever find another person who agrees with you on every point of ideology.
From my reading here I am quite certain that many of the individuals with whom I share common cause on this issue would vehemently disagree with me on other points of politics.

Yet here we have common cause. From those of us who completely believe that the government has an obligation to protect it's citizenry to those who think government should be small enough to drown in a bathtub.

Hell this is as bipartisan an issue as exists. It doesn't matter if you are a Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Anarchist or a libertarian we are all nicotine addicts joined in common cause. Whether we believe this product should be available through pure belief in individual freedom or just a desire to make life a little more pleasant for those around us and save the lives of a few of our fellow smokers.

I suggest in addition to writting letters people need to hit up their political blogs as well. Lefties go hit Dailykos and mydd righties go to redstate and what ever other rightwing blogs you know about and bring this issue up.

I've already posted one Diary on Dailykos about E-cigarettes about a month ago and if I can find time I'll get another. Association people if you can get me any information you want out I can post up a diary. Another thing is any lefty or Democratic vapers should get accounts over there so we can get our info up on the rec lists to get visability.

I had gotten very positive responce from my previous dailykos diary so there are plenty of people on the left who think this option should remain available. This from a site that so many on the right are convinced is dedicated to creating a socialist paradise here in the U.S. Trust me people on the left has as little trust for the FDA and Big Pharma and Tobacco as the right has for Obama's budget (probably less actionally)

But this is not the time to get stuck on the details. It's time to fight the delaying action and that's going to require a united front because our enemies are powerful and well funded.

Our suppliers are the only viable option for focusing our efforts they are the ones who have the money to be able to fund this. This is why I've resisted the tempation to start sourcing from China directly myself.

As Benjamin Franklen famously said "We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."

I've had accounts on Kos and MyDD for a long time. Pm me if you post something.
 

Sun Vaporer

Moved On
ECF Veteran
Jan 2, 2009
10,146
27
Florida
Sorry, no they don't. Their responsibility is to make sure that they adhere to all applicable laws. There is no legal requirement for "ensure"-ance, as you put it. Nor is there a moral requirement when the legal requiremement would outstrip the entrepreneurial entity to exceed its capacity for investment. What good is it gain "assurance" if the result is that you would then be out of business? And once they fail, they would lose legal standing as well.

Fatman--that is not the standard in products liablity--the Standard is to adheare to all applicable laws AND adhere to a duty of care to disclose all and any information that would be deemed to be dangerous to the consumer. That means a duty to warn. To say that a producer or manufacture or Suppier has no duty to disclose that their product is illegal is just not the law------------Sun
 

Jayhawks

Unregistered Supplier
ECF Veteran
Feb 8, 2009
581
0
MO/KAN USA
midwestvapor.com
Outwest,
You said "Why oh why hasnt the news mentioned this?" Thats be because the liberal mainstream media dont want you to know!!!
ARGH!! Dr. Coburn has been having town hall meetings all across the state for a few days now (and some were within 45 min drive from my house!) Why oh why hasnt the news mentioned this? *banging head against wall*
.: United States Senator Tom Coburn :: Press Room :.
 
letters sent certified mail...
Good idea -- thanks. I had already emailed my two senators and my representative, with no replies yet. Now I see that Patty Murray is on the committee. Will have to follow up with certified letters to all, now.... Thanks again for the heads-up!

~~Cheryl
 

Terraphon

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 12, 2009
2,027
36
Phoenix, AZ, USA
Yes, we are pulling all claims regarding health from all sites of people in the ECA. Now To squash Terraphon here.. Every supplier "Forum Member who buys in bulk"? You really need to know what you are talking about before you talk. Everyone in the association has to have a Legit business...That means Tax ID Numbers etc the works... we are not just sitting here with our thumbs in our rears.. Things are happening, we are talking to big people and trying to get everyones voices heard as much as possible. And yes All of you consumers will be heard. In due time. As a matter of fact.. we NEED you guys.. we have only just ASKED for your help.. None of this is a scare tactic or some crazy scheme.. We just asked you guys to voice yourselves to everyone you can...

Jason

First off, I'm not the one that made the comment about suppliers being forum members who buy in bulk. I will, however, say that this IS the case in SOME situations.

Second, don't even DREAM of trying to come at me like I'm an undereducated fleeb with no concept of business. You'll find quite the opposite to be true and I promise you that attitude will not endear your cause to anyone.

Now you say that every member of this super secret "association" has to have a "legitimate business" with business licenses, tax ID's etc...That means what, exactly? I can start a business and call it "Rob's shoe mashing" where I get drunk, sit on my driveway and smack old high-tops with a hammer while I drool on myself and I can get a business license and Tax ID for that, too...You're not impressing me by telling me that every member of a new business association has to operate within the boundaries of the law.

Once again, you're putting rifles in our hands, pointing to the line and telling us to go fight but you're not even bothering to tell us why we're fighting or what we're fighting for. At this point, with all of the secrecy and "we'll tell you later" bullsh.t (not to mention a comment made about having someone "higher up in the organization" answer a question) the whole thing WREAKS of shady business and a group of people scrambling to get help to do something they should have done on DAY 1 (and were advised to do) but couldn't be arsed to.

I am not a supplier and have no dog in this fight, except a desire for easy access to the supplies I need to vape. The suppliers do not, in fact, have the responsibiity here. The manufactureres do. When Wyeth comes out with a new drug, Walgreens does not petition the FDA for approval to sell it, Wyeth does and Walgreens needs to adhere to certain rules set up by the FDA and the various states to allow them to sell the product. I have some experience with the approval process for medical devices and I assure you that your perspective is mistaken. The suppliers need to rally *political* pressure. They then need to engage either a domestic or oversea manufacturer to commit to the costs of approval in exchange for which they will commit to buying some minimum amount or to pay a license fee when approved, perhaps in advance - that's their skin in the game and it will amount to a great deal of money on their part. But the manufacturer has to take the lead with *regulatory* action rather than *political*.

I appreciate your perspective, but please understand that it is based on flawed assumptions. For now the suppliers have the same goals as the consumer. That will change when they need to start writing checks and protecting their investments. But as of now, they are also consumers purchasing at wholesale rates, nothing more.

My statements and perspectives aren't based on flawed assumptions, at all...The statements I make now, just as the statements I made a couple of months ago, hold true.

Yes...Only the manufacturer of a chemical / drug / substance can submit for regulatory approval.

Get it?

Maybe?

No?

I'll tell you what...I'll tell you what I mean when the "association" *BUHM-BUHM-BUUUUUUUUHM* tells us what they're up to.

I am looking forward to reviewing the statement to be issued today by the ECA. If you post it in its own thread please provide a link to it from this one. Thank you for listening...

I, too, am looking forward to reviewing it. I'll be at work all day with no ability to check the forum but I'll be on this as soon as I get home.

I'm interested in seeing where the sh.t storm lands.
 
Fatman--that is not the standard in products liablity--the Standard is to adheare to all applicable laws AND adhere to a duty of care to disclose all and any information that would be deemed to be dangerous to the consumer. That means a duty to warn. To say that a producer or manufacture or Suppier has no duty to disclose that their product is illegal is just not the law------------Sun

The question was not about disclosure nor was it about liability. The question was whether or not JC had done all it could to "ensure" FDA approval. The truth is that they have no standing to do so nor do any of the US suppliers - they are too small and could not prove that they could adhere to the safety protocols once they were introduced. This isn't food, it is a drug and the regulatory costs are enormous. And let's not forget that the "device" refers to the hardware and the liquid - the hypothetical example of JC is murky at best since they only provide one artifact of the delivery medium.

The argumemnt being made here is that the suppliers have not done enough to get FDA approval. I am only addressing that point. Whether JC would win a liability case is another matter and not anything I have experience with. But I do have experience with medical devices and the costs and regulatory burden imposed by the FDA and can state categorically that no US supplier has the means or requirement to address it. In the case of eventual approval by the FDA as a delivery device, JC will almpost certainly not be able to live up to the burden of manufacturing unles they are a far larger company than I beleive that they are.
 
Yes...Only the manufacturer of a chemical / drug / substance can submit for regulatory approval.

Get it?

Maybe?

No?

Frankly I don't understand your point, but I will agree that the suppliers made a key tactical mistake in mixing the call to action with a tease on an announcement. They should have been separated.
 

Sun Vaporer

Moved On
ECF Veteran
Jan 2, 2009
10,146
27
Florida
The question was not about disclosure nor was it about liability. The question was whether or not JC had done all it could to "ensure" FDA approval. The truth is that they have no standing to do so nor do any of the US suppliers - they are too small and could not prove that they could adhere to the safety protocols once they were introduced. This isn't food, it is a drug and the regulatory costs are enormous. And let's not forget that the "device" refers to the hardware and the liquid - the hypothetical example of JC is murky at best since they only provide one artifact of the delivery medium.

The argumemnt being made here is that the suppliers have not done enough to get FDA approval. I am only addressing that point. Whether JC would win a liability case is another matter and not anything I have experience with. But I do have experience with medical devices and the costs and regulatory burden imposed by the FDA and can state categorically that no US supplier has the means or requirement to address it. In the case of eventual approval by the FDA as a delivery device, JC will almpost certainly not be able to live up to the burden of manufacturing unles they are a far larger company than I beleive that they are.

Fatman--it you want to discuss JC--they are a manufacture and do have standing unlike counsumers. JC holds themself out as a manufacture and did in fact have the right to make application to the FDA for approval and do the applicable requisite studies. The fact that they are not big enough or lack the funding is irrelevent--so you really are aruguing both sides against the middle.

The bottom line here--and I have said this repeatedly for the last 3 months--the manufactures are the only ones who had the requisite standing to file the requiste applications with the FDA and infuse capital into the necessary saftey studies that are required. We as consumers can not file an application. So the manufacturers either blew it or in the alternative simple do not care as there is plenty of consumers right in China. For us to try to "save the day" now really has put us in the worst possible position that we, as consumers could be place in.

We will try to "save the day"--of course. Is it right that we, as counsumers are in this position---NO---------Sun
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread