Ore. AG investigates Fla. e-cigarette maker (Smoking Everywhere Inc.)
- Thread starter mpetva
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Somehow I doubt that they've been selling to kids.
Just another "save the children" dkhd trying to grab some headlines, I think.
Just another "save the children" dkhd trying to grab some headlines, I think.
We had a thread on this topic last week. I've been seeing the Oregon AG on TV prattling on about this all week.
It would be fine if his objection was limited to the SE health claims. We all know that those won't fly with the FDA and are the primary reason SE is in trouble. But he doesn't stop there. He goes on to repeat a bunch of egregious anti-smoking propaganda that has nothing to do with the situation at hand. He points out the candy flavors and the fact that they're made in China and the location of the kiosks in malls etc. etc..
I wouldn't take issue with the AG going after Smoking Everywhere if he limited the criticism to the relevant points, but this expanded rhetoric is insulting and shows that he has a larger agenda than simply enforcing the law.
It would be fine if his objection was limited to the SE health claims. We all know that those won't fly with the FDA and are the primary reason SE is in trouble. But he doesn't stop there. He goes on to repeat a bunch of egregious anti-smoking propaganda that has nothing to do with the situation at hand. He points out the candy flavors and the fact that they're made in China and the location of the kiosks in malls etc. etc..
I wouldn't take issue with the AG going after Smoking Everywhere if he limited the criticism to the relevant points, but this expanded rhetoric is insulting and shows that he has a larger agenda than simply enforcing the law.
Last edited:
I was the one who orginally posed the story, which can be found here Video Links | News On Demand | kgw.com | News for Portland Oregon and SW Washington As soon as I seen it I wrtote the Attorney General expressing my concerns and arguments supporting the e-cigarette. Defiantly write or call the offices of the AG and senators of Oregon because the political officals are probably the most socailist people in the US (and the greediest), we try to get them out of office, but liberal transplanted Califorinian's vote them in, so its like cracking a coconut.
I wrote to the AG's office as soon as I saw this story as well. My position was that the health claims are fair game, but that it's disingenuous to mix in a bunch of rhetorical hogwash like "they're marketed to kids" and so forth when that's not the issue.
In case anyone else is interested in writing to John Kroger, the Oregon AG, here's his email address:
EDIT: Looks like his personal email address has gone dark. You can probably get through by sending email to the consumer division here:
consumer.hotline@doj.state.or.us
I'd strongly suggest remaining polite and focusing your email on the expanded rhetoric his office has been using against Smoking Everywhere. The fact of the matter is that they're on solid ground when they point out Smoking Everywhere's health claims. But they step over the line when they start using standard anti-smoking rhetoric about flavorings and marketing to children. They should be challenged on that front. The general efficacy of e-cigarettes isn't so much the point as is the disingenuous language used by the AG and his office. It exposes a larger social agenda that has nothing to do with the specific legality of the case.
EDIT: Looks like his personal email address has gone dark. You can probably get through by sending email to the consumer division here:
consumer.hotline@doj.state.or.us
I'd strongly suggest remaining polite and focusing your email on the expanded rhetoric his office has been using against Smoking Everywhere. The fact of the matter is that they're on solid ground when they point out Smoking Everywhere's health claims. But they step over the line when they start using standard anti-smoking rhetoric about flavorings and marketing to children. They should be challenged on that front. The general efficacy of e-cigarettes isn't so much the point as is the disingenuous language used by the AG and his office. It exposes a larger social agenda that has nothing to do with the specific legality of the case.
Last edited:
Here's the text of my email:
___
Dear Mr. Kroger:
I've been watching with interest the AG office's campaign against Smoking Everywhere and have a couple of comments to make.
First of all, let me make it clear that I fully understand that there's a potential legal problem surround Smoking Everywhere's health claims. It's clear to me that Smoking Everywhere should never have made these unsupported claims and should be held accountable for them.
However, and this is the critical part of my comments, it appears to me that the AG's office is using expanded rhetoric against Smoking Everywhere that has nothing to do with their health claims and everything to do with pressing an agenda aimed at banning the devices on other grounds.
One of the primary arguments being used by your office is that the Smoking Everywhere product offers flavored versions of it's cartridges, and that that fact indicates they're being marketed to children. For one thing, this argument has nothing do to with the health claims Smoking Everywhere made. For another it's completely egregious. Many products that are marketed to adults come in a variety of flavors. Cosmetics for example. Bottled water for another. Yogurt for yet another. Are these products marketed to children simply because they come in various flavors? Of course not.
I'm a professional graphic artist. I've worked in an agency environment for many years where I handled accounts including Visa International, Quaker Oats, Northwest Airlines and many others. I can say with absolute certainty that a marketing campaign aimed at children includes many other factors than the existence of flavorings. Adults respond to flavorings just as readily as children. We don't reach some magical age when flavors no longer matter to us. When marketing to children many other factors come into play, each of which build upon the others to create an "ecosystem" that defines the campaign. Among these elements are price, package design, ad placement, shelf placement and many others. If one thing is clear about Smoking Everywhere's product it's that it isn't being marketed to children.
Again, the issue I have with the AG office's statements on the Smoking Everywhere case is that they include rhetorical anti-smoking language that seems to expose a social agenda that goes beyond the enforcement of the law. I think that's wrong and should be stopped. I have no problems with the AG going after Smoking Everywhere on the grounds that they made unsupported health claims, but expanding the rhetoric in the ways outlined above is inappropriate.
Thank you for taking the time to read my email.
___
___
Dear Mr. Kroger:
I've been watching with interest the AG office's campaign against Smoking Everywhere and have a couple of comments to make.
First of all, let me make it clear that I fully understand that there's a potential legal problem surround Smoking Everywhere's health claims. It's clear to me that Smoking Everywhere should never have made these unsupported claims and should be held accountable for them.
However, and this is the critical part of my comments, it appears to me that the AG's office is using expanded rhetoric against Smoking Everywhere that has nothing to do with their health claims and everything to do with pressing an agenda aimed at banning the devices on other grounds.
One of the primary arguments being used by your office is that the Smoking Everywhere product offers flavored versions of it's cartridges, and that that fact indicates they're being marketed to children. For one thing, this argument has nothing do to with the health claims Smoking Everywhere made. For another it's completely egregious. Many products that are marketed to adults come in a variety of flavors. Cosmetics for example. Bottled water for another. Yogurt for yet another. Are these products marketed to children simply because they come in various flavors? Of course not.
I'm a professional graphic artist. I've worked in an agency environment for many years where I handled accounts including Visa International, Quaker Oats, Northwest Airlines and many others. I can say with absolute certainty that a marketing campaign aimed at children includes many other factors than the existence of flavorings. Adults respond to flavorings just as readily as children. We don't reach some magical age when flavors no longer matter to us. When marketing to children many other factors come into play, each of which build upon the others to create an "ecosystem" that defines the campaign. Among these elements are price, package design, ad placement, shelf placement and many others. If one thing is clear about Smoking Everywhere's product it's that it isn't being marketed to children.
Again, the issue I have with the AG office's statements on the Smoking Everywhere case is that they include rhetorical anti-smoking language that seems to expose a social agenda that goes beyond the enforcement of the law. I think that's wrong and should be stopped. I have no problems with the AG going after Smoking Everywhere on the grounds that they made unsupported health claims, but expanding the rhetoric in the ways outlined above is inappropriate.
Thank you for taking the time to read my email.
___
Well done Surf Monkey. I wonder what level of safety needs to be proven to make a claim that vaping is safer than cigarettes. Considering that catalytic converters and unleaded gasoline do not clean out all of the pollution from automobile exhaust, they can only be said to be safer, but are still required on all automobiles.
If they say they are "Safe", they might be going over the line, but "Safer" seems a reasonable claim.
I don't know what some of these companies were thinking as they began marketing the products,,, but it doesn't seem to be very well thought out. I would guess that SE will be used in marketing courses forever, as an example of how not to do it.
Hopefully, someone will thread the needle and bring eCigs to market in a way that will gain acceptence. It's a no brainer that vaping is the way of the future, and there's a hungry consumer base hoping with all thier might that it will happen.
If they say they are "Safe", they might be going over the line, but "Safer" seems a reasonable claim.
I don't know what some of these companies were thinking as they began marketing the products,,, but it doesn't seem to be very well thought out. I would guess that SE will be used in marketing courses forever, as an example of how not to do it.
Hopefully, someone will thread the needle and bring eCigs to market in a way that will gain acceptence. It's a no brainer that vaping is the way of the future, and there's a hungry consumer base hoping with all thier might that it will happen.
Man I tell ya - I'm so sick of this argument about the KIDS!
Kids would never try real cigarettes - Marketed to them or not?
Or Beer?
Or underage sex? - Or drugs?
OR WHATEVER - THEY ARE KIDS!! - of COURSE they are gonna do things they shouldn't!
That's what PARENTS are for! --
and YES - I have a kid - I raised her - Didn't expect any governmental agency to do it for me - That's just lame and lazy - - - -
Kids would never try real cigarettes - Marketed to them or not?
Or Beer?
Or underage sex? - Or drugs?
OR WHATEVER - THEY ARE KIDS!! - of COURSE they are gonna do things they shouldn't!
That's what PARENTS are for! --
and YES - I have a kid - I raised her - Didn't expect any governmental agency to do it for me - That's just lame and lazy - - - -
- Status
Similar threads
