Ok is it just me or do E-Liquid manufacturers need to do their part?

[JerryRM]

I don't think that the labeling of ingredients, quality control or childproof caps is going to mean anything to the FDA or the antis. They want to control or ban e-cigs period.

Aren't we all on this forum, because we don't like the "nanny state"? Ultimately, it is our responsibility to protect ourselves and our families. Life is full of risks, we take our chances and if we feel that something is too risky, we don't do it.

I grew up in a time when child safety caps didn't exist. Dangerous items were put out of our reach or we were told not to touch them, because they were extremely dangerous, so we didn't. I had metal toys with small parts and some had sharp edges. When I traveled in an automobile, there were no seat belts and the child seats of the day were designed to restrain a child not to protect. Compared to today, I grew up in a very "dangerous" world, but we survived.

Maybe I have this attitude, because I grew up in a time before the "nanny state". I am willing to take the chance of using e-cigs and e-juice as they are now, because I feel that they are a lot safer than cigarettes. Anyone who is concerned about them, should stop using them.

My two cents worth.
Put flames below.

 

[BradSmith]

I don't think that the labeling of ingredients, quality control or childproof caps is going to mean anything to the FDA or the antis. They want to control or ban e-cigs period.

Aren't we all on this forum, because we don't like the "nanny state"? Ultimately, it is our responsibility to protect ourselves and our families. Life is full of risks, we take our chances and if we feel that something is too risky, we don't do it.

I grew up in a time when child safety caps didn't exist. Dangerous items were put out of our reach or we were told not to touch them, because they were extremely dangerous, so we didn't. I had metal toys with small parts and some had sharp edges. When I traveled in an automobile, there were no seat belts and the child seats of the day were designed to restrain a child not to protect. Compared to today, I grew up in a very "dangerous" world, but we survived.

Maybe I have this attitude, because I grew up in a time before the "nanny state". I am willing to take the chance of using e-cigs and e-juice as they are now, because I feel that they are a lot safer than cigarettes. Anyone who is concerned about them, should stop using them.

My two cents worth.
Put flames below.

You won't be getting any flames from me. I agree 100% It's a shame when people believe that the government is the only answer to their problems. I wonder when it was we threw out the concept of personal responsibility??

Having said that, I do feel that some of the vendors will have more luck by simply being more responsiblie themselves. This will appeal to some who are willing to pay the extra for what some would consider better service and a safer product.

 

[keveck]

My thoughts exactly, Jerry.

Well stated.

 

[kristin]

I don't think that the labeling of ingredients, quality control or childproof caps is going to mean anything to the FDA or the antis. They want to control or ban e-cigs period.

Aren't we all on this forum, because we don't like the "nanny state"? Ultimately, it is our responsibility to protect ourselves and our families. Life is full of risks, we take our chances and if we feel that something is too risky, we don't do it.

I grew up in a time when child safety caps didn't exist. Dangerous items were put out of our reach or we were told not to touch them, because they were extremely dangerous, so we didn't. I had metal toys with small parts and some had sharp edges. When I traveled in an automobile, there were no seat belts and the child seats of the day were designed to restrain a child not to protect. Compared to today, I grew up in a very "dangerous" world, but we survived.

Maybe I have this attitude, because I grew up in a time before the "nanny state". I am willing to take the chance of using e-cigs and e-juice as they are now, because I feel that they are a lot safer than cigarettes. Anyone who is concerned about them, should stop using them.

My two cents worth.
Put flames below.

No flame, but I'm just not on the forum because I don't like the nanny state (which I don't - to a point.) I'm here because I was looking for a better ecig at first and now to get people to band together to save them from being banned.

No offense, because I agree with you to a point, but just because you survived not having any of those safety devices doesn't mean that thousands of children DIDN'T. That's why they were invented in the first place. You can't tell me that the number of accidental poisonings or the number of car crash fatalities hasn't gone down because of those things.

(End comment to Jerry.)

We can't always fall back on the "parents should just watch their kids" argument because parental neglect isn't always the reason for kids getting hurt. There are babysitters, teachers, bus drivers, crossing guards, hospital workers, siblings, daycares - they all can come into contact with children when parents aren't around. Any one of them could be irresponsible ecig users. Parents can't keep their kids tethered to them 24/7.

The truth of the matter is, while implementing safety standards & practices never has the risk of physically harming someone - the lack of safety standards has a big probability that someone WILL get hurt. It won't save everyone, but more with than without.

I know it's classic nanny state rhetoric to say "if it saves just one life, it's worth it" but so long as it doesn't impede your right to get affordable and effective ecigs, what do you care?

Some people complain that it'll make ecigs more expensive and it's stupid to care about what's in the liquid, because before we were smoking and that's so much worse.

Well, I can toss back that argument, because whatever costs safety standards would add to ecigs, you were already spending that much or more on cigarettes before and a lot of people don't care as much about the cost as the fact that they are safer.

How does having basic safety standards in place hurt ecigs users at all? (And don't say safety caps are hard for arthritic people to use, because we've already established that the caps can be optional for them, so long as they are available for others who want them.)

Honestly, I don't believe all of this nanny state rhetoric coming from ecig users. I think some of it is completely self-serving and most people would not enjoy going back to the world of snake-oil salesmen. Where we have no clue what is in our food and drink, where no one is checking to make sure facilities are relatively clean, where people are getting sick because of substandard additives, where all the tools that help parents protect their children are removed.

There are a LOT of stupid nanny state rules that make me roll my eyes as well. I totally agree that it gets out of hand. But there are also a lot of good standards and safety practices out there too - ones that don't impede on individual freedom yet still help make the world just a little bit safer.

We just aren't going to get around having safety standards for ecigs. That possibilty was NEVER there. It's amazing it's lasted this long.

So, to keep ecigs AS WE WANT THEM, we'll have to make some changes.

If we want bottles of highly poisonous nicotine available, which people see as a threat to their children, we need to make those bottles with safety caps and label them appropriately. If we don't, they will fight to see them gone from us completely. If you want flavors that people see as a threat to their teens, we need to name and market those flavors differently or they will fight to remove them completely. Things which people see as a threat to themselves or their loved ones will be challenged. The less threatening we can make them, the greater the chance that they won't try to ban them altogether.

I respect those with a desire to fight the nanny state. However, when that fight directly risks my ability to have ecigs AT ALL, then I have to say, "Now is neither the time nor place." You have to choose your battles. Because using ecigs as the battleground for fighting the nanny state, by refusing any safety standards, it will have only one result - getting them banned altogether.

Then just the nanny state wins.

(These comments are my personal feelings and not CASAA official policy/opinion, nor do they represent the opinion of other CASAA board members.)

 

[Oliver]

Well said Kristin.

In my opinion the term "Nanny State" is now overused to such an extent as to be almost meaningless.

Your description of the probabilistic element is bang on. The fact is, if basic, proven safety standards are not applied, there will be injuries caused by e-cigs.

 

[JerryRM]

Good arguments, Kristin and SJ. I may be getting older, but I'm not closed minded !!

I still contend that no matter how safe and how childproof we make e-cigs and e-juice, the FDA and the anti's won't care. They will still be spouting the same old rhetoric about how dangerous e-cigs are to the users and to children.

They have already shown that they choose to ignore every pro e-cig argument that has been made. "There is no scientific evidence that electronic cigarettes have helped people to quit smoking", is just one of the ridiculous assertions that the FDA has made, while completely ignoring the fact that many people, including myself have quit smoking, due to the e-cigarette.

Labeling, quality control and childproof caps, will be to our benefit, but I don't believe that it will have any effect on the FDA and the anti's.

 

[Dkrom68]

The only problem I forsee in listing all ingredients is almost every flavoring manufacturer out there does not list whats in there flavorings for fear of copying them. If they were listed which I dont think will happen it would become a issue with them as well.

Its not hard for a person who is allergic to ask if such and such ingredient is in the liquids and if a supplier dont know and cant give a honest answer then dont buy from them. If I dont know whats in something im not going to use it plain and simple and if I had a allergy to something I would be that much more cautious about it in asking and doing the homework to keep myself safe. When a person goes into a restaurant and has a allergy and asks if its in any of what they are ordering it is not guaranteed that there will not be a cross contamination by Fredo mixing everything up in the kitchen, no, but only one could hope all precautions are being taken to make sure it doesnt happen.

I wholeheartedly agree there needs to be more stringent testing done on what we are all doing but we are here and doing it and no one really second guessed it when concerning themselves with the alternative of smoking cigarettes. Since we all smoke the harm we caused our selves was our own choosing, no one held us on the ground and forced us to smoke the cigarettes.

Out of all this I can say i hear in the news reports about people dying from cigarette related deaths and such all the time and have yet to hear of one realated to E-Cigs yet and hope the trend continues. It is at our own discression to buy from trusted suppliers and if in doubt question it and make your own judgment call on the issue. If it cant be answered in the way we are looking for a answer then go elswhere and im sure there will be no concrete answer out there as to what is in all things at all times but we can hope for the best.

As a supplier I know what I use in my juices and only buy from reputable companies and have asked what is in certain things I use. I only hope all is true and accounted for properly but I cannot with 100% certainty be positive. Just like Im supposed to trust in the FDA to not give me drugs that are more harmful then the symptoms im taking it for, but now that doesnt happen does it. I dont think having to have 38 other symptons worse then the one symptom im trying to get rid of from a medication is to easy a thing to swallow but we take things and trust our government to be making sure this is done right and it isnt always. How many medications that were FDA approved have been recalled or taken off the shelf because of adverse reactions and death by them, how many times do we here this is good for us this week and next week it is bad for us in contradictory statements by the FDA.

I hope I dont sound rude or obnoxious in what I said it is more of a vent then anything, the only point im trying to make is we as ourselves should use our own discression in the things we do and only ourselves can make certain of what we do by the decisions and choices we make.

 

[kristin]

Good arguments, Kristin and SJ. I may be getting older, but I'm not closed minded !!

I still contend that no matter how safe and how childproof we make e-cigs and e-juice, the FDA and the anti's won't care. They will still be spouting the same old rhetoric about how dangerous e-cigs are to the users and to children.

They have already shown that they choose to ignore every pro e-cig argument that has been made. "There is no scientific evidence that electronic cigarettes have helped people to quit smoking", is just one of the ridiculous assertions that the FDA has made, while completely ignoring the fact that many people, including myself have quit smoking, due to the e-cigarette.

Labeling, quality control and childproof caps, will be to our benefit, but I don't believe that it will have any effect on the FDA and the anti's.

I agree, Jerry. They WON'T change their stance. It will, however, take away a lot of their ammunition.

This war will be won in the court of public opinion. People (including politicians and doctors) don't read the actual studies - they read press releases. Look at the impact just the FDA's press release had on public opinion and how that led to legislators to push for bans. No one read the actual study to get the facts. Sound bites are ammunition.

If the antis have nothing to point to as a reason for banning, then they lose their advantage when calling for bans. What ammunition will they have? They'd be shooting blanks.

We are already chipping away at their foundation. They claim no studies - we now have studies. They want more studies - those are in the works. Once ecigs are proven to be reduced harm, the only thing they will have to go after will be safe packaging and advertising to children.

Reduced harm tobacco is making a big push now. People are starting to be more aware of it. Unlike smokeless tobacco users, ecig users are very outspoken and tend to avangelize about ecigs. Ecigs are along for the RHT ride and will benefit.

Arguing that ecigs aren't reduced harm is a losing tactic for the antis and they will quickly switch to trying to argue that the packaging is unsafe, that the ingredients aren't listed, that there are no quality standards, that certain flavors target children, that advertising targets children and that unproven health claims are being made (above and beyond being safer than tobacco cigarettes.)

The vendors can easily sidestep these tactics with childproof caps (no they don't always work, but it deflates their argument), listed ingredients, consistant standards in manufacturing and nicotine levels (i.e. everyone's low/medium/high should be the same amount), not giving liquids kid-like names (can still have the flavors, just don't give them cutsie names), adult-looking websites (maybe cartoons aren't the best thing to have on ecig sites?) and having some sort of accreditation for companies who don't make unwarrented health claims (like they cure lung disease or safe for pregnant women) and follow these guidelines.

Some may disagree with me, but I think that if vendors do that, they basically cripple the anti's arsenal. They can keep shooting, but they'll basically only be hitting themselves in the foot!

 

[JerryRM]

Valid points Kristin, certainly worth serious consideration.

I agree, Jerry. They WON'T change their stance. It will, however, take away a lot of their ammunition.

This war will be won in the court of public opinion. People (including politicians and doctors) don't read the actual studies - they read press releases. Look at the impact just the FDA's press release had on public opinion and how that led to legislators to push for bans. No one read the actual study to get the facts. Sound bites are ammunition.

If the antis have nothing to point to as a reason for banning, then they lose their advantage when calling for bans. What ammunition will they have? They'd be shooting blanks.

We are already chipping away at their foundation. They claim no studies - we now have studies. They want more studies - those are in the works. Once ecigs are proven to be reduced harm, the only thing they will have to go after will be safe packaging and advertising to children.

Reduced harm tobacco is making a big push now. People are starting to be more aware of it. Unlike smokeless tobacco users, ecig users are very outspoken and tend to avangelize about ecigs. Ecigs are along for the RHT ride and will benefit.

Arguing that ecigs aren't reduced harm is a losing tactic for the antis and they will quickly switch to trying to argue that the packaging is unsafe, that the ingredients aren't listed, that there are no quality standards, that certain flavors target children, that advertising targets children and that unproven health claims are being made (above and beyond being safer than tobacco cigarettes.)

The vendors can easily sidestep these tactics with childproof caps (no they don't always work, but it deflates their argument), listed ingredients, consistant standards in manufacturing and nicotine levels (i.e. everyone's low/medium/high should be the same amount), not giving liquids kid-like names (can still have the flavors, just don't give them cutsie names), adult-looking websites (maybe cartoons aren't the best thing to have on ecig sites?) and having some sort of accreditation for companies who don't make unwarrented health claims (like they cure lung disease or safe for pregnant women) and follow these guidelines.

Some may disagree with me, but I think that if vendors do that, they basically cripple the anti's arsenal. They can keep shooting, but they'll basically only be hitting themselves in the foot!

 

[cainne]

Exactly the point I was trying to make phrased much more concisely.

This is all about appearance. Everything we can do to bolster the public view of the industry is one more person siding WITH us against a ban. I think we all have to accept the fact that, fair or not, what amounts to the general public as a "new" technology ("new" simply because many are unfamiliar with it), will be held to a stricter standard in the court of public opinion than old things like analogs that they're more numb to the dangers of.

To many "new" equals "scary". It takes an extra effort to push past that. Unfortunately regulations on compounds for human consumption are the norm. That isn't going to change whether we like it or not. Why not spend an extra dollar or so a bottle to put the best face we can on it, PROVE to the public we're responsible, even MORE SO than current guidelines for similar products force companies to be. That's going to win people over.

"We do what we want how we want and no government group is going to tell us otherwise!" won't.

 

[BradSmith]

I think some people forget that with the regulations come taxes, the two go hand in hand. So on the one side you can say that it's never hurt anything, but on the other hand you can also say that if it destroys the e-cig business it will kill thousands.

Sorry, but the cold hard truth is that the FDA is just another bought and paid for group of bureaucrats. If you are expecting them to do the right thing, think again. They are far more likely to ban them, for your own good, than they ever will be to help you have access to them.

 

[BradSmith]

Think about it this way. If the e-cig industry had waited to get FDA approval would any of us be vaping right now? Honestly, I don't think they would ever have approved them.

 

[cainne]

Do you honestly envision a future where ecigs are NOT either banned OR regulated?

Let me be clear; I'd PREFER neither. I'd PREFER ecigs were ignored and things continued as they are today.

It's not going to happen, looking at current laws and precedents that's just a fact.
If you think neither will happen, regulation or banning you're deluding yourself. The choice isn't whether they're regulated or not, it's whether they get banned or regulated. I'd MUCH prefer them regulated like most pharmaceuticals with quality control standards, maximum nicotine dosages, packaging requirements, and ingredient lists than banned.

Even if they were raised with tax costs to equal current cigarette prices that will hardly stop people from vaping any more than it stops most people currently from smoking, the only difference is it will be MUCH safer for them. Isn't that something we all want? A viable, safer, substitute to cigarettes? I just see "cheaper" as a side advantage, not as the significant one.

 

[BradSmith]

Do you honestly envision a future where ecigs are NOT either banned OR regulated?

It's going to happen, that's just a fact. If you think neither will happen you're deluding yourself. The choice isn't whether they're regulated or not, it's whether they get banned or regulated. I'd MUCH prefer them regulated like most pharmaceuticals with quality control standards, maximum nicotine dosages, packaging requirements, and ingredient lists than banned.

Even if they were raised with tax costs to equal current cigarette prices that will hardly stop people from vaping any more than it stops most people currently from smoking, the only difference is it will be MUCH safer for them. Isn't that something we all want? A viable, safer, substitute to cigarettes? I just see "cheaper" as a side advantage, not as the significant one.

If they make them as expensive as a pack of smokes I would never have tried them. Not ever, so I would have been a casualty.

 

[kristin]

The only problem I forsee in listing all ingredients is almost every flavoring manufacturer out there does not list whats in there flavorings for fear of copying them. If they were listed which I dont think will happen it would become a issue with them as well.

The ingredients don't have to be listed in proportion, just what's in it. KFC and Coke don't reveal their formulas, but they do list ingredients. I'm sure the FAD has a list of everything that's in them, though. As long as there is a governing body to report to - even if it's a vendor's association - the EXACT formulas don't need to be listed, just the ingredients.

For example: Mint liquid (Propylene glycol, Glycerin, Distilled water, Artificial Flavor, Ethyl Alcohol, Red 40, Yellow 6, Blue 1. )

I doubt anyone would be able to discern someone's "secret recipe" from that list.

 

[JerryRM]

Even if they were raised with tax costs to equal current cigarette prices that will hardly stop people from vaping any more than it stops most people currently from smoking, the only difference is it will be MUCH safer for them. Isn't that something we all want? A viable, safer, substitute to cigarettes? I just see "cheaper" as a side advantage, not as the significant one.

cainne, it all depends on what state you live in. RI has the highest state cigarette tax in the country and across the border in MA, the tax isn't much lower. If they were to add taxes equal to the cigarette tax, I would be forced to quit e-cigs, I couldn't afford it.

They would have no justification to tax e-cigs as they tax cigarettes. I am not saying that they wouldn't do it, the greedy buggers, that would be another fight for another time.

 

[dubd1c3]

If they make them as expensive as a pack of smokes I would never have tried them. Not ever, so I would have been a casualty.

Really? Because most "starter" kits cost A LOT MORE than a pack of smokes. The price of the e-liquid seems auxiliary to the initial cost of beginning to vape. Most vapers have agreed to pay $40-150 to try vaping. If the price of e-liquid goes up I'd only complain because it used to be cheaper, not because of the new price in and of itself. My smoking habit cost me $25-30 a month, between cartomizers and e-liquid, it's about the same cost to me.

v No, we do not want this to happen.

My chief concern is the FDA REBRANDING the technology once they get their hands on it. What if the FDA is like, "oh, we now have regulatory control over e-cigs, oh hey! We have done some studies and it does show that they are an effective smoking cessation product! Slap on equal regulations to the patch and others, jack up the price, set legal usage limits to six months, and MARKET IT SO THAT VAPERS LOOK LIKE SMOKERS "TRYING TO QUIT" INSTEAD OF NON-SMOKERS. Require pharmaceutical licenses for any manufacturers."

^ No, we do not want this to happen.

 

[coralie]

I would prefer if vendors did include an ingredient list and the option to choose child proof caps, although my children would not be slowed down much, which is why I have 2 lock boxes for eliquids etc. I would be willing to put my money where my mouth is and order from those vendors. I'd like the vendors I use most often to step up and do these things before required by law because it's not a question of whether they'll be regulated but when.

 

[kristin]

I think some people forget that with the regulations come taxes, the two go hand in hand. So on the one side you can say that it's never hurt anything, but on the other hand you can also say that if it destroys the e-cig business it will kill thousands.

Sorry, but the cold hard truth is that the FDA is just another bought and paid for group of bureaucrats. If you are expecting them to do the right thing, think again. They are far more likely to ban them, for your own good, than they ever will be to help you have access to them.

I don't think we are talking about the FDA - we are talking about the people who are USING the FDA to further their own agenda.

Ecigs are going to be taxed if they remain on the market. There is no way around that. But even if they are taxed at the same rate as cigarettes, ecigs are already cheaper by about 1/3. So, taxed ecigs would still be about 1/2 the cost of tobacco cigarettes.

Aside from that, there is an erroneous assumption that ecigs would even be taxed at the same rate as cigarettes. Many smokeless tobaccos have lower tax rates than ecigs and other nicotine products are taxed lower, as well.

If we prove that ecigs are 99% safer (which we have), they cannot justify any "sin tax" because ecigs don't cause the same harm that use to justify the tax on cigarettes. They may try, but that is just one more hurdle we'll have to cross when we get there.

The key is in educating the public. Once we have them on our side, they'll vote for us, not the antis.

Think about it this way. If the e-cig industry had waited to get FDA approval would any of us be vaping right now? Honestly, I don't think they would ever have approved them.

You're right! So why keep handing them more rope to hang us with?

 

[kristin]

I would prefer if vendors did include an ingredient list and the option to choose child proof caps, although my children would not be slowed down much, which is why I have 2 lock boxes for eliquids etc. I would be willing to put my money where my mouth is and order from those vendors. I'd like the vendors I use most often to step up and do these things before required by law because it's not a question of whether they'll be regulated but when.

And once vaping becomes more mainstream and more people are doing it, do you really want to have to worry about a babysitter or relative leaving their 36mg bottle laying about without a safety cap to at least slow the kids's access down a bit? It's not always our own actions we have to worry about - there's a lot of stupid people out there! lol!

And it takes only about 1/3 of 1ml of 36mg/ml liquid to kill a 35lb child.