Oregon Sues Smoking Everywhere

[kardjunkie]

As for SE---they caused a lot of what is going on right now and I need say no more about this company who has not bothered to even run one test on their product while at the same time ripping customers off with overpriced e-cigs.
Sun

I agree with you Sun but we need companies in the front line battling for their product. Im not defending them on their over priced products but any profit is going to be ate up in legal costs. There are a lot of people jumping up to make a profit off these things, just look at all the vendors on here, and very few if any or playing the game right. I don't like the way the FDA or Oregon has handled this and im not defending them but Sun your a moderator right? What do you do if someone here doesn't play by the rules? How many people are selling liquid they buy in bulk and then repackage it? Do they do test to see what is actually in them since they are selling them but not manufacturing them? Has anyone applied for FDA approval? Has anyone done anything according to government procedure with these devices and nicotine? Sun if someone does something they arent suppose to do on here you correct them right or delete or move or whatever, right? How many people on here have a job where they have to enforce rules or company policies? I DON'T like the way this is being handled by our government and dont like even more the way all the people who are making money off these products are handling it either. I know your going to bash me so go for it but ecig companies down to the manufactures, distributors, and resellers ARE NOT doing the right thing either. I only hope some companies that are making money off these things are spending money for the test and research they do need and using the correct channels to make these things available to us. Eat me up ECF, I probably deserve it.

 

[davidb]

I support SE at east standing up and shelling out a lot of money to do it.

I disagree that E-cigs are not attractable to kits. While it has yet to take off, or if it ever will on a really large scale. The flavors do have th ability to attract kids. Just like alcohol drinks such as mikes hard lemonade does. But also remember at that age, not too many(IMHO) care so much about th health consequences. I dont think they are worried about cancer then. I know I wasn't.

Also it would be popular among kids who go to boarding school(I wish I had this when I was there) or want to smoke and hide it from their parents or use it at school. Its perfect for that.

As for the comment about kids not wanting to clean them, etc. Kids do use drugs, kids do have to clean drug devices. Plus not everyone puts that amount of care in it.

 

[SLDS181]

There is a very distinct difference between marketing to kids, and kids being attracted to something.

Kids are attracted to lots of things, and the only way I know to deal with that is to be explicit about all factors.

Kids still drink. Kids still smoke. Kids still do drugs. Though, I can't remember the last time I saw a commercial for smoking pot, can you?

Its a bad argument, it was always a bad argument, and it will always be a bad argument.

 

[justchkn]

I saw on the news that Lindsy Lohan's father is an investor in smoking everywhere. Maybe they have some $bucks$ for the fight. I saw this about 4 or 5 months ago on t.v. and this is what got me interested in
e-smokeing. It was a short news peice, forgot if it was on fox, nbc, or abc.

 

[surich]

as long as its not steak or burger or chicken flavored cause then we'd have peta on our tails too!!

Actually, Decadent Vapors has both Roast Beef and Roast Chicken flavors! LOL! (Haven't tried them myself)

 

[Sun Vaporer]

It may be a "bad argument" about "kid", but not addressing it is a mistake as it is specifically addressed in the newly passed legislation and it is all about kids.

TOBACCO & YOUTH

Will FDA raise the minimum age to purchase tobacco products?

As required by the bill, an expert panel will be convened to conduct a study on the public health implications of raising the minimum age to purchase tobacco products. The results of this study are to be submitted to Congress.
What will FDA do to curb tobacco use among children and adolescents?

FDA will employ many effective public health strategies to reduce the burden of illness and death caused by tobacco products. One of the first items aimed at reducing tobacco use among children and adolescents will be to reissue the 1996 regulation aimed at reducing young people’s access to tobacco products and curbing the appeal of tobacco to the young. When this becomes effective, a number of measures will take effect, including:

• Tobacco manufacturers may no longer sponsor athletic, and entertainment events using tobacco product brand names and logos;
• Tobacco manufacturers may no longer sell or give away clothing or other items which bear the brand name or logo of a tobacco product; and
• Tobacco manufacturers will no longer be able to distribute free samples of cigarettes, and free samples of smokeless tobacco will be allowed only in adult-only facilities.

Wheather that work or not is not the issue--the e-cigs ability to adhearing to it is.

Sun

 

[src97]

i think its pretty naive to think SE is going to court in Oregon because of potential profit loss. Obviously, they are doing it to make a stand and get public notice.

PG, glycerine, etc has been used for ages in nebulizing treatments. Medicine knows there is no risk in the base fluid. That's a no brainer. The nicotine purity is no worse than what you inhale in a cigarette, and the FDA has proven that inadvertantly.

There is enough of evidence from various sources to prove they have the right to sell in oregon. Imagine the ramifications if they WIN.

You criticize SE because they are overpriced. They are kiosks in a mall. Guess what, thats a bit more overhead than selling out of a store room or a garage. But hey, smart shoppers use the internet.

Unsubstantiated claims? What in freaking hell are you doing vaping e-cigs?

Loyalty to our product people. We all know why we use this stuff. We intuitively know is better (at least relatively) than analogs.

The day a chinese manufactor provides long term and expensive studies for the safety of these liquids will not come. It will not happen.

The only people who will prove anything here is the US suppliers and most do not have the means to do so. SE is one of the few companies with the capital to fight the court cases.

Do not knock them because you sit on a high horse.

Sun and TB you expect the same tests and lab results as a multi billion dollar pharm company? Then I suggest you finance it.

E Cigs will only be legitimized in the US by proving they are an alternative to tobacco. period. THERE IS NO MONEY TO PROVE IS EFFICACY AS A DRUG.

 

[grimmer255]

raise it to 21 and you'll still have underage smokers. ecigs should abide by the same laws as tobacco...b/c ecigs mimics the analogs behavior....

the FDA should also put an age limit on caffeine b/c it to is a drug. Oh while congress is at it they should raise the voting age to 21 b/c its obvious they dont look at 18 year olds as adults even though if they break the law there trialed as one. And if you are trialed as an adult and can vote at age 18 you should have the same rights as any adults out there which to include drinking and smoking or whatever.
Our laws contradicted each other and it makes no since at all.

 

[HighTech]

No--that has nothing to do with long term exposure, so nothing is proven yet. The reports we have seen are scant at best, but do look very promising. The point being is that, but for the cronic use of tobacco with its deadly toxins, we would not be seeking out to switch over the the e-cig.

As for SE---they caused a lot of what is going on right now and I need say no more about this company who has not bothered to even run one test on their product while at the same time ripping customers off with overpriced e-cigs.

Sun

Agreed, and they continue to sell inventory by any means possible before this judgement comes down. This fiasco in Oregon is a blatant disregard for the law and the industry as a whole.

Edit: Well maybe they are taking a stand or something, IDK..

 

[Sun Vaporer]

The only people who will prove anything here is the US suppliers and most do not have the means to do so. SE is one of the few companies with the capital to fight the court cases.

Do not knock them because you sit on a high horse.

Sun and TB you expect the same tests and lab results as a multi billion dollar pharm company? Then I suggest you finance it.

E Cigs will only be legitimized in the US by proving they are an alternative to tobacco. period. THERE IS NO MONEY TO PROVE IS EFFICACY AS A DRUG.

SCR--you should really do your homework before you come out with unfounded statments. We already have 2 US Companies that have made appilcation to the FDA and are funding studies and most have never even heard of them.

So before you go on some rant please get your facts straight. Just to give you an example that it is not that cost prohibitive, here is a company that is going throght all the application and FDA approvals with testing and it is not a giant by any means.

See Smoke-Break®

So please get all the data before lashing out at Members here. There are many companies that have not made such outragous claims as SE such as NJOY and Janty that have plenty of capital to go though the regulatory process.

We also have a Supplier right on this forum that is doing so as we speak that is a very small entity.

Thanks,

Sun

 

[src97]

smoke break is a smoking cessation device. dont see the relevance.

and things do not get approved by the fda by paying an independent lab to run a few tests.

you ever hear of pfizer pharmaceuticals? i have, i work for them.

fda requires EXTENSIVE research before giving their stamp of approval and no few independent lab tests will prove get that.

you are an expert on law and the fda...right?

 

[Sun Vaporer]

smoke break is a smoking cessation device. dont see the relevance.

and things do not get approved by the fda by paying an independent lab to run a few tests.

you ever hear of pfizer pharmaceuticals? i have, i work for them.

fda requires EXTENSIVE research before giving their stamp of approval and no few independent lab tests will prove get that.

you are an expert on law and the fda...right?

Smokebreak:

Smoke-Break is a new smoke-cessation device currently undergoing FDA-allowed clinical studies. Smoke-Break resembles an unlit cigarette in size and shape. The clear tube contains a fruit-flavored gel, along with 1.5 mg of nicotine, about as much as in a light cigarette. Users consume the liquid by lifting the tube to their mouths and sipping through a mouthpiece, much like they would draw on a cigarette. Smoke-Break has not yet been approved for retail sale. Please check back periodically for updates.


Whether Smoke Break is an NRT of not is irrelvant, what is relevent the unfounded statement that no one but big companies like SE can fund the requiste testing and gain FDA appoval. Smoke Break is a prime example of small companies that do it all the time. They are about to get FDA apporval.

While we are glad you work for Phizer, your contention the only Big Phama and Big Tobacco can fund an FDA appoval simply lacks merit.

Add to that the in relative terms, Smoking Everywhere is a very small company who just has a China Manufacture rebrand and lable its product.

Sun

 

[src97]

maybe this will help...

Fast Track, Accelerated Approval and Priority Review

"-- Fast track designations for new drug candidates have grown substantially, from an average of 22 per year during 1998-02 to 49 per year during 2003-07.

-- Anticancer candidates received the largest share of fast track designations since the program began.

-- Fast track indications are more likely to be terminated during development than non-fast track indications, with efficacy being the primary reason for termination of fast track-designated candidates. "

i dont think so. it will never work and be legitimized the way some people here dream. it has to be through the courts and it has to be proven its a tobacco alternative. but thats my opinion and apparently only certain opinions are valid here.

 

[src97]

i thought it would be fun to look at all the fast tracked approved medications by the FDA.

now you are saying, not necessarily in this thread but in others, that this is the way e cigs could go.

Fast Track Approvals

look at the manufacturers and the money involved.

now the reason i bring all this up is, instead of getting down on SE (as much as they suck for a billion different reasons); i think we need to root for them. its our only chance.

 

[jigtg]

@Sun:
You think it is all about law but you forgot that laws were made by people based on public opinion and various other interest including money. Should I also mention that Ruyan is a pharma company they are playing this game as a pharma company would. And their products are indeed overpriced. SE could very well loose this case but I'm confident that they will win public opinion on their side which might just as well be more important than the case itself. What is striking is that this is the same strategy Banzhaf from ASH has used several times - sue big companies and extort them based on the bad publicity brought by the court case. This should piss of Banzhaf really good and they can either continue their mission of ridiculous claims(hanging themselves in the process) or back off.
Should I also remind you that majority of contries in the world have not posed limitations for sales of these products even after couple years that these have been available. Why have not other countries set limitations to these products? Perhaps because they see it as a "right" answer driven more of less by plain common sense. But we know others will follow follow decission made by FDA which brings us to the next question. What makes you think your country knows the "right" answer to this question? To me it seems like a very small group people are deciding what is right or wrong for majority of people. Where is the public debate over the "right" answer and who are involved in it right now. Right, it is ASH and couple other anti-smoking organizations alleged of having conflicting interest. Everyone else just sit quiet and watch the show. While there is no honest public debate I'm keeping my stance defined by common sense and if that means they get banned because of that then so be it. At least it gives an opportunity to expose this group.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Duckies--SE decided not to comply with the settlement agreement and has dug its heals in---just like they are doing in the SE v. FDA case.---walking on toes is not good business practices.

Sun

Not exactly. They pulled their kiosks out of Washington Square and Lloyd Center over a month ago.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Jigtg--It is not all about the law by any means, but at the end of the day that is what prevails so do not shoot the messenger my freind. Also, you do not have tell me about ASH--I was the first one on this Forum to warn that ASH was playing with Supplers and Paypal.

Now ASH has owned up to it right on their front page. On top of the fact that I have to go around here and delete Linkbacks created my "members" here that really work with Ash.

So I am not sitting here and just watching some show--and I do not expect others to either. I just am not going to sit here and hear garbage about how only Big Pharma and Big Tobb are the only companies that have the capital to go though the FDA approval process.

That is garbage and an attempt to disway---So again, do not shoot the messenger.

Sun

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Not exactly. They pulled their kiosks out of Washington Square and Lloyd Center over a month ago.

Surf--I was using a "figure of speach"--what I am saying is that they are not backing down to their position, which is their right---but might not be in the best interest of all.

Sun

 

[Surf Monkey]

I understand what you meant. But I think pulling their retail locations indicates that they're prepared to give up the fight. If they were really standing firm, they would have continued to sell product here IMO.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

I understand what you meant. But I think pulling their retail locations indicates that they're prepared to give up the fight. If they were really standing firm, they would have continued to sell product here IMO.

Surf--isn't each kiosk franchised and maybe these that you are refering to decided to call it a day for want of product or litigation--or even the malls I have heard have been evicting them for selling illicit products--this I know has happened in VA and FL? So might the closings you are refering to be collateral damage rather then preperation to conceed?

Sun