The suppliers won't hopefully be saying much because competent legal council will tell them to keep their traps shut. If they get to talking too much that means they either A) don't have competent legal council or B) are stupidly ignoring said council.
Now is the Time To Act! I am Serious! **updated**
- Thread starter LaceyUnderall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- bloog revolution smoke 51 volcano
- Status
The suppliers won't hopefully be saying much because competent legal council will tell them to keep their traps shut. If they get to talking too much that means they either A) don't have competent legal council or B) are stupidly ignoring said council.
All I know is that apparently the Senate is about to work on their version of the Waxman bill (from what was posted in the first few posts of this thread), that the members of the Senate listed are the ones on the health committee, and that I as a consumer (admittedly as a supplier as well, but for me it's primarily as a consumer and as someone that believes that all persons should be allowed the opportunity to have access to cigarette substitutes), dont want this bill to pass because then FDA has control of nicotine and safer alternatives to cigarettes will be buried and wont see the light of day again for at least 10 years (the time it takes, on average, for the studies to be done, and that's only if a manufacturer has the millions to spend for the studies)
Last edited:
Well a lot of new people, myself included, have looked to the senior members of this forum, many of whom are suppliers, for advice. This thread and others like it are causing a lot of panic and worry. Their total absence is rather disconcerting.
Also, would someone please tell me why these letters have to go certified? That's a lot of money to us poor people.
I would suspect as simply an attention getter, to hopefully get the person to actually read it. I was told a long time ago that if you mark your letter to your congressperson "Personal" it will get more attention, but no idea if it's true.
I sent mine regular snail-mail, in a handwritten envelope, to his home address. Going to try to make it to townhall meeting tonight as well, and will try to hand deliver a copy to him, but being able to hand deliver letter at a townhall meeting doesnt always happen. Alot of times you dont ever even get to speak to the person, much less hand them something. But figure it's worth a shot.
I sent mine regular snail-mail, in a handwritten envelope, to his home address. Going to try to make it to townhall meeting tonight as well, and will try to hand deliver a copy to him, but being able to hand deliver letter at a townhall meeting doesnt always happen. Alot of times you dont ever even get to speak to the person, much less hand them something. But figure it's worth a shot.
I have been through this convoluted thread from post one. Can someone answer a few basic questions...
1. What was the 'call' from post #1 that supped the current urgency to rise up?
2. Has anyone actually read the current legislation in Congress?
3. What specifically has spooked the vaping community? Is it possible FDA control of nicotine mixtures? Is it a call from suppliers to rally?
4. Terraphon, can you put me in contact with your 'people' in Singapore?
1. What was the 'call' from post #1 that supped the current urgency to rise up?
2. Has anyone actually read the current legislation in Congress?
3. What specifically has spooked the vaping community? Is it possible FDA control of nicotine mixtures? Is it a call from suppliers to rally?
4. Terraphon, can you put me in contact with your 'people' in Singapore?
1. Many of the suppliers have been holding conference calls over the past weeks (months, maybe) regarding issues, legislation, etc. Basically comparing notes and talking about where they go from here, I think. I'm speculating from reading about it in previous posts.
2. Never read much of the legislation in Congress, although don't expect to see personal vaporizers mentioned by name. There's a lot of grey area where there is implied threat to these and other smoking alternatives.
3. I think the biggest problems that sparked the call to action are the possibility that there's been an increase in seizures by customs, as well as the impending vote on proposed legislation in the Senate. Basically, suppliers alike have been seeing increased enforcement, and they're looking at this upcoming vote as a make or break for many of them. No time like the 11th hour to stand up for what you believe in!
4. I'm not Terraphon, so I'll abstain from answering his questions. I'm not nearly as handsome or smart as he is, either. As a matter of fact, consider all of my previous answers null and void due to the apparent lack of Terraphon-like wit and panache.
2. Never read much of the legislation in Congress, although don't expect to see personal vaporizers mentioned by name. There's a lot of grey area where there is implied threat to these and other smoking alternatives.
3. I think the biggest problems that sparked the call to action are the possibility that there's been an increase in seizures by customs, as well as the impending vote on proposed legislation in the Senate. Basically, suppliers alike have been seeing increased enforcement, and they're looking at this upcoming vote as a make or break for many of them. No time like the 11th hour to stand up for what you believe in!
4. I'm not Terraphon, so I'll abstain from answering his questions. I'm not nearly as handsome or smart as he is, either. As a matter of fact, consider all of my previous answers null and void due to the apparent lack of Terraphon-like wit and panache.
Last edited:
I just want to clarify based on what I have found out being a board member of the association:
Phillip Morris - For the Waxman bill, as is, helped right it, our enemy
R.J. Reynolds - Opposed to the Waxman bill, big supporter of tobacco harm reduction and smokeless tobacco products, our ally
There are many battles that need to be fought, the first is to get an amendment on the Waxman bill protecting eCigarttes, or at the very least not flat out making them illegal. This is an accomplishable task, there are many government and public health officials on our side and they are doing everything they can to get Waxman amended. The association has spoken with some of these people and they have asked us to rally the troops, they need consumers, and lots of them. The government will not have any sympthy for companies, who stand to make a profit, but they will listen to citizens. Time is not on our side, this bill could be infront of the senate in as little as two weeks.
I hope this helps with the debate.
Phillip Morris - For the Waxman bill, as is, helped right it, our enemy
R.J. Reynolds - Opposed to the Waxman bill, big supporter of tobacco harm reduction and smokeless tobacco products, our ally
There are many battles that need to be fought, the first is to get an amendment on the Waxman bill protecting eCigarttes, or at the very least not flat out making them illegal. This is an accomplishable task, there are many government and public health officials on our side and they are doing everything they can to get Waxman amended. The association has spoken with some of these people and they have asked us to rally the troops, they need consumers, and lots of them. The government will not have any sympthy for companies, who stand to make a profit, but they will listen to citizens. Time is not on our side, this bill could be infront of the senate in as little as two weeks.
I hope this helps with the debate.
Anyone know if these things were being marketed in the United States prior to February 2007?
Also take a look at line 22 of page 10
24 smokers to help them quit completely.
That's language that's a problem for those of us who are promoting harm reduction and that should be language to be targeted by lobbying efforts.
Looks like page 11 is problematic in it's entirety. Although it could actually play to our favor if the above mentioned section were removed because it is pretty clear that electronic cigarettes do indeed "reduce the risks to the public of tobacco use"
Page 12 is pretty nasty as well for us it makes a number of assertions aimed it appears at "light" cigarettes that could catch e-cigs due to sloppiness in the language.
That's as far as I have time to dig in today.
Also take a look at line 22 of page 10
22
(34) Because the only known safe alternative to
23
smoking is cessation, interventions should target all
24 smokers to help them quit completely.
That's language that's a problem for those of us who are promoting harm reduction and that should be language to be targeted by lobbying efforts.
Looks like page 11 is problematic in it's entirety. Although it could actually play to our favor if the above mentioned section were removed because it is pretty clear that electronic cigarettes do indeed "reduce the risks to the public of tobacco use"
Page 12 is pretty nasty as well for us it makes a number of assertions aimed it appears at "light" cigarettes that could catch e-cigs due to sloppiness in the language.
That's as far as I have time to dig in today.
This is what I have been trying to get at... what is our reason for the new letters? What is the objective? Each letter needs a thesis statement. OK, now I understand!
So, our thesis statement is: Please do not approve H.R. 1256 unammended because..... Am I correct here?
Thank you, Kate and others, for posting the examples... but, my real querry was just what OutWest finally defined. We need to make this sentiment heard as our thesis statement.
Last edited:
According to Dr. Siegel, the Waxman bill would have a devastating impact on harm reduction alternatives to smoking, and that is the concern specific to ecigs.
"The proposed FDA legislation is thus the worst of both worlds. On the one hand, it allows companies to gain a government sanction to market products under the guise of reduced risk by merely calling their product reduced exposure (does the term "lights" ring a bell?). On the other hand, it prevents companies from marketing products that may truly be reduced risk products by putting an impossible regulatory burden in the path of such products".
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: IN MY VIEW: FDA Tobacco Legislation Would Be Death Knell for Tobacco Harm Reduction
"The proposed FDA legislation is thus the worst of both worlds. On the one hand, it allows companies to gain a government sanction to market products under the guise of reduced risk by merely calling their product reduced exposure (does the term "lights" ring a bell?). On the other hand, it prevents companies from marketing products that may truly be reduced risk products by putting an impossible regulatory burden in the path of such products".
The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: IN MY VIEW: FDA Tobacco Legislation Would Be Death Knell for Tobacco Harm Reduction
You the man. I agree, that panache is difficult to obtain on the open market. Cheers!
yvilla, thank you for posting that link so close to OutWest's reply. There is much in that article that will help me with my letters.
ummm...I believe there was supposed to be a big anouncement from the suppliers? TODAY. Did I miss it?
Seriously if these people and there new found orginizaton is what we are pinning our hope on then we're straight screwed.
Unbelievable. The truest defintion of unbelievable.
Get your crap together before you post stuff like this. You all are begining to sound like the boy who cried wolf and guess what, nobodys listening.
Money hungry and greedy. The american way baby.
Jackasses.
Seriously if these people and there new found orginizaton is what we are pinning our hope on then we're straight screwed.
Unbelievable. The truest defintion of unbelievable.
Get your crap together before you post stuff like this. You all are begining to sound like the boy who cried wolf and guess what, nobodys listening.
Money hungry and greedy. The american way baby.
Jackasses.
Some hopeful news from Oklahoma - Visited with Senator Coburn (or Dr Coburn? The Honorable Doctor Coburn? Just what *do* you call a U.S. Senator who is also a doctor?) for a brief moment (caught him walking to his car since I didnt get a chance to ask my question during the townhall meeting). And, he told me that he is firmly against the Waxman/Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control bill. It was unclear as to whether he is against it because of putting the FDA in charge of a cancer causing substance (tobacco) is ludicrious, if it was because it would effectively ban safer alternatives to tobacco, or if it was both. But he said that he was against the bill.
I wish I could have gotten more time with him, but that's better than nothing. And, at least we have one that we now know is against it, regardless of the reason. Also, he's known for using holds to kill bills. Tom Coburn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Hopefully he will do that to this one if it becomes needed.
Despite the relatively good news, I would still write letters to the Senators, the more our voices are heard, the better. It does make me feel better about the whole thing, though.
I wish I could have gotten more time with him, but that's better than nothing. And, at least we have one that we now know is against it, regardless of the reason. Also, he's known for using holds to kill bills. Tom Coburn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Hopefully he will do that to this one if it becomes needed.
Despite the relatively good news, I would still write letters to the Senators, the more our voices are heard, the better. It does make me feel better about the whole thing, though.
Last edited:
Well, it's not really "people"...I just happen to know a guy that lives in Shanghai that would almost certainly be my fixer.
Me? Witty and possessed of panache? You're either being sarcastic or you're dreadfully misinformed.
^^^ This!
- Status
