Our friends at ATR launched a massive counteroffensive

[LaraC]

Huge mistake to name electronic cigarettes, electronic cigarettes imo. I often wonder if we would have these regulatory issues to the same extent, if it was called something else.

I think the regulatory issues would still have been the same, no matter what the devices had been christened.

One of the things that make e-cigs so successful for smokers who want to get away from traditional cigarettes would always make ANTZ froth at the mouth and go nuts:

Exhaling vapor that looks like "smoke."

And I'm not talking about cloud chasing plumes. I think even the tiniest wisp of vapor exhaled after a hand-to-mouth motion would be an abomination in the ANTZ view.

Seeing people exhaling a vapor, no matter what the devices could have been named at the beginning, "normalizes smoking" in ANTZ eyes. We're "undoing decades" of their "successful" efforts to make people stop smoking, don't'cha know.

 

[Kent C]

I think the regulatory issues would still have been the same, no matter what the devices had been christened.

One of the things that make e-cigs so successful for smokers who want to get away from traditional cigarettes would always make ANTZ froth at the mouth and go nuts:

Exhaling vapor that looks like "smoke."

And I'm not talking about cloud chasing plumes. I think even the tiniest wisp of vapor exhaled after a hand-to-mouth motion would be an abomination in the ANTZ view.

Seeing people exhaling a vapor, no matter what the devices could have been named at the beginning, "normalizes smoking" in ANTZ eyes. We're "undoing decades" of their "successful" efforts to make people stop smoking, don't'cha know.

Exactly right - it's the reality not the name and no PC renaming (or 'naming' in the beginning) would have mattered.

 

[LaraC]

From the article i linked above :

“The whole problem with nicotine is that it happens to be found in cigarettes,” she says. “People can’t disassociate the two in their minds.”

So true. Good find, Mazinny.

 

[AndriaD]

I think the regulatory issues would still have been the same, no matter what the devices had been christened.

One of the things that make e-cigs so successful for smokers who want to get away from traditional cigarettes would always make ANTZ froth at the mouth and go nuts:

Exhaling vapor that looks like "smoke."

And I'm not talking about cloud chasing plumes. I think even the tiniest wisp of vapor exhaled after a hand-to-mouth motion would be an abomination in the ANTZ view.

Seeing people exhaling a vapor, no matter what the devices could have been named at the beginning, "normalizes smoking" in ANTZ eyes. We're "undoing decades" of their "successful" efforts to make people stop smoking, don't'cha know.

Which just makes me giggle, because they never stopped me from smoking. In fact one of their stupid PSA commercials was all the motivation I needed to go out and have a smoke. And even though I haven't smoked in 15 months and really have no interest or desire to ever smoke again, being able to blow smoke straight into their self-righteous faces might be a good enough reason to fire one up.

Andria

 

[jwbnyc]

Good articles but:


Actually, some of us don't. Some of us recognize that if everything we claim to be true actually IS true, there is no reason to restrict sales. Some of us recognize that restricting sales to minors only reinforces the idea that vapor products are something that people need to be protected from.

My lovely lady, who managed to quit smoking thinks there should be no limits on who can buy eCigarettes because, 'You just know kids are going to smoke cigarettes otherwise." Can't really disagree with her.

 

[nicnik]

I think the regulatory issues would still have been the same, no matter what the devices had been christened.

One of the things that make e-cigs so successful for smokers who want to get away from traditional cigarettes would always make ANTZ froth at the mouth and go nuts:

Exhaling vapor that looks like "smoke."

And I'm not talking about cloud chasing plumes. I think even the tiniest wisp of vapor exhaled after a hand-to-mouth motion would be an abomination in the ANTZ view.

Seeing people exhaling a vapor, no matter what the devices could have been named at the beginning, "normalizes smoking" in ANTZ eyes. We're "undoing decades" of their "successful" efforts to make people stop smoking, don't'cha know.

I agree that had they been named differently, the ANTZ' and regulators' reactions would've been the same, except that perhaps fewer smokers would have wanted to try them. "Electronic cigarettes" helps frame them as alternatives to analogs.

However, ANTZ seem to be getting very tolerant of people actually smoking other stuff, so I see it as a bit less of an 'it looks like smoking' issue, and more of a money, prestige, power, and control mission.

 

[rico942]

Exhaling vapor that looks like "smoke."

One of the most unique and puzzling aspects of human nature is the ability to react to the same stimulus in radically different ways ...

For instance, in the early 70s, I used the subway system in Philadelphia to get to classes at Temple U. The tracks were in a horrible state of disrepair at that time. Inside of the train cars, the noise level was truly deafening, a screeching, groaning, banging racket louder than any foundry. The lights would go out for long periods of time, showers of sparks would fly from the tracks, and people would sit calmly with their newspapers in front of their faces, even in pitch darkness ...

Yet these same folks would go to an amusement park, pay to get on thrill rides not half as scary as the subway, and scream their lungs out. After the ride ended they would be shaking and soaked in sweat, frightened out of their wits ...

Now I grew up in New Jersey, so from fall to spring we had real weather, bitterly cold humid days when everyone who inhaled outdoors was exhaling huge clouds of highly visible vapor with every breath, thick enough to make any cloud chasing vaper envious. No one ever felt threatened by this, no fake coughing or frantic hand waving, no tearful claims of exposure to imaginary "toxins", or politicians calling for the FDA to ban humidity ...

Why is that ?

 

[Jman8]

I'm thinking if not called eCigs, we lose the Sotera decision. Perhaps not, but I think so. Also shows the FDA was all about trying to regulate one way or another.

 

[nicnik]

Now I grew up in New Jersey, so from fall to spring we had real weather, bitterly cold humid days when everyone who inhaled outdoors was exhaling huge clouds of highly visible vapor with every breath, thick enough to make any cloud chasing vaper envious. No one ever felt threatened by this, no fake coughing or frantic hand waving, no tearful claims of exposure to imaginary "toxins", or politicians calling for the FDA to ban humidity ...

Why is that ?

I don't know why.

Your post reminded me that I've been thinking of using a nicotine inhaler outdoors this winter. Also, that I've been wondering how much the amount of moisture in the air, whether indoors or outdoors, affects the amount of visible vapor. What you said about humidity suggests it might have a significant effect.

 

[choochoogranny]

I agree that had they been named differently, the ANTZ' and regulators' reactions would've been the same, except that perhaps fewer smokers would have wanted to try them. "Electronic cigarettes" helps frame them as alternatives to analogs.

However, ANTZ seem to be getting very tolerant of people actually smoking other stuff, so I see it as a bit less of an 'it looks like smoking' issue, and more of a money, prestige, power, and control mission.

Niknik, been thinking if I'm ever approached about "smoking" that I'd just grin and say, "Pain relief. Have anything to eat?"

 

[mcclintock]

Yes and no. My kids have always told me that it was much easier for the under-age crowd (high schoolers) to obtain the (still unmentionable here) substances than cigarettes. But that's anecdotal and may be only true in my neighborhood, where all stores card mercilessly.

And reportedly it's also easier for most under-age to get those things than for many adults to get them.

According to the video I saw, 47 states have already banned sales of ecigs to minors. Under-age isn't a "bargaining chip" on our side, it's the leading edge of the other sides' offensive -- even though it's already a moot point.

From my email reply from Senator Tim Kaine: "While adults may purchase nicotine products if they so choose, FDA has a legal and public health obligation to keep these products out of the hands of young people. I will be sure to keep your views on this issue in mind as this process moves forward." As a sole defense of the FDA's actions, it is moot and weak. Its base is a false assumption. It has little to do with the job of the FDA and even less to do with what they are planning to do.

The thing is, ecigs not only are a great opportunity for smokers, they're also an opportunity to govern something right for perhaps the first time. For example, the FDA or other agency could act primarily as a source of information and recommendations in a voluntary system. Instead, they're putting the cart before the horse, or rather the force before the thinking.

 

[englishmick]

I think the regulatory issues would still have been the same, no matter what the devices had been christened.

One of the things that make e-cigs so successful for smokers who want to get away from traditional cigarettes would always make ANTZ froth at the mouth and go nuts:

Exhaling vapor that looks like "smoke."

I wonder what would have happened if vaping hadn't had the side effect of making people stop smoking cigarettes. It would still have looked like smoking and contained the demon nicotine. On the other hand it would have been a new thing to tax, instead of taking away a bigger source of tax. My guess is the Anti's would still have hated it but the government would have quite liked it. The FDA would probably have uncovered evidence that it was good for you.

 

[StormFinch]

I have a list of priority targets:

Oooo... you should make playing cards.

 

[WharfRat1976]

LOVE THESE ARTICLES. PHENOMENAL!

I am sending a donation to ATR NOW!

If your a politician and vote anti ecig you will be voted OUT.

If you are a politician and vote pro vaping harm reduction you will be voted IN.

If you are or have been an advocate for pro health issues and vote anti vaping legislation YOU CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS AND FULL OF BS!

Phenomenal!

 

[WharfRat1976]

I understand your point, I just don't see that ever happening. Perhaps at a federal level, but get down to a local level and "not suitable for children" is the basis for pretty much every other restriction. I'm also not willing to tell an underage person that they'll just have to keep smoking until they're 18, sorry.

Buying analogs underage is illegal. Yes, kids get a hold of analogs but it's still illegal.

 

[WharfRat1976]

Well, it's not like you're telling them that. They can't legally buy cigarettes if they are under 18... And if they can get cigs, they probably can get e-cigs, too.

I understand your larger point, and I also believe that vaping should be available to smoking teens, or teens who might be thinking about picking up smoking, but that's a battle for another day. Let's make vaping safe, legal and affordable for adults first.

No. Our concession is restricting 18 and under from vaping. That's on the pro vape agenda.

 

[WharfRat1976]

This is the fight we are in. If you subscribe to the idea of public health, which I actually do to an extent, this argument makes sense:


Our only defense against this is actually our strongest argument, IMO. There is nothing that "the children" need to be protected from, not to the extent that tobacco control regulations go. Consumer protections, truth in marketing, the same as other goods.

I'm still waiting for someone to answer my question. What are we protecting the children from?

Nothing. It's all political; not too hard a concept to grasp.

The children discussion is so moot. The government and the general public will never make concessions here. Using it in discussions to make tangential points is also moot.

 

[Jman8]

No. Our concession is restricting 18 and under from vaping. That's on the pro vape agenda.

.... said no intelligent person. Ever.

 

[Jman8]

Nothing. It's all political; not too hard a concept to grasp.

The children discussion is so moot. The government and the general public will never make concessions here. Using it in discussions to make tangential points is also moot.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

[WharfRat1976]

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Jman, removing all doubt...per usual...