PM & Reynolds urge FDA to support harm reduction

[Wafflestomper]

There has been talk around here about BT wanting to do that with e-cigs as well (if they ever do take the market over): reduce the nicotine level to the point where they become a supplement to smoking analogs rather than a replacement. That scheme would fit right into BT's agenda.

I guess that would be preferable to it being banned?

I was more worried about them just trying to get a piece of the action in the event that the FDA doesn't succeed should they try to say that vaping is "combustible tobacco" and not truly "smoke free"

But if big tobacco does take a bite, what does that mean for our domestic suppliers here?

 

[Bill Godshall]

The comments Altria submitted to the FDA are available at:
http://media.gatewaync.com/wsj/pdfs/2010/01/altria_fda-2009-N-0294_harm-reduction.pdf
I sent the PDF to the Winston-Salem Journal, and they posted it, along with the two following articles.
Tobacco rivals lobby for smokeless tobacco
and this longer version
Rivals pursue same goal: Reynolds American, Philip Morris prod FDA

I've been circulating a PDF of Reynolds' comments as well, but I'm not aware of anyone posting it yet.

I spoke to David Kesmodel at the Wall Street Journal today about this situation (and I repeatedly mentioned e-cigarettes), and a followup article should run soon.

Per my most recent posting on this thread, I meant to say that each company makes its own policy decisions and don't usually collaborate with each other (but I try collaborating with all of them). That said, I suspect all of the drug companies that market NRT products want the FDA to treat e-cigarettes as unapproved drug delivery devices (i.e. remove them from the market).

I'm not aware, however, that any tobacco company in the US has urged the FDA to treat e-cigarettes as unapproved drug delivery devices.

But in September 2008, Philip Morris Limited submitted the following (see pages 45-48 on e-cigarettes) to the Health Department in the United Kingdom
http://www.e-cig.org/pdfs/2008-PM-DH.pdf

 

[Vocalek]

But in September 2008, Philip Morris Limited submitted the following (see pages 45-48 on e-cigarettes) to the Health Department in the United Kingdom
http://www.e-cig.org/pdfs/2008-PM-DH.pdf

Wow! At that time they must have seen e-cigarettes in the UK as nothing more than competition for their products. Guess they weren't looking ahead to the idea of "How could my company capitalize on this invention?"

 

[TropicalBob]

That was an interesting read and it's clear Philip Morris did not then consider the e-cig to be a tobacco product. PM called it exactly what the FDA did: A drug-delivery device and liquid is a new drug.

Were PM close to perfecting a true electronic cigarette in 2008, this surely would not have been their definition.

But that was more than a year ago. If PM had any negotiations with Ruyan, or with any other maker, then matters might have changed. Of perhaps PM would consider a model like Ploom, where real tobacco can be used instead of a drug cocktail of liquid.

 

[River]

I just completed registration and joined the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. My thinking is the only way to defeat zealots is to outnumber them in their own organization since there are only around 100,000k people in it and urge you to join also. I also used their pre-made government links and action plan petitions to easily contact my representitives and urge them to protect personal vaporizers.

This is me not gloating over how satisfying it is to use their own site to protect my interests from them.

 

[DaBrat]

I am not sure of anyone else's take on this, but the following is just my opinion:

Especially since the recent ruling concerning ecigs, BT would be well-served to enter this market before BP does. Right now, the product produced by pfizer, the nicotine inhaler, has a cartridge very similar to the prefilled cartomizers that are so popular. As a matter of fact, the are almost exactly the same only lacking a method of vaporization.

BT has never pushed much for its smokeless, even though open smoking has been vilified for well over a decade. They were not threatened by the smoking cessation devices (Even the aforementioned inhaler) simply because they did not work, while oral delivery of all types had some social stigma. Along comes the ecig.

I am not sure how successful this device has been in the big wide world but the one thing that is evident just from these forums is that it is a viable alternative to analogs. Post after post relate tales of people smoking for 0-40 years who have never found a reasonable alternative before the ecig and find themselve completely analog free in what appears to be short order. The money shot being that the vaper can chose to attempt to remove the nicotine over time ... or not. It gives flexibility not found in any other nicotine delivery system out there. Light cigarettes used to tout lower tar and nicotine but that does not count if you are inhaling deeper and smoking twice as much.

BT CAN sit on the sidelines but I don't believe that they have been in business for all these years making stupid decisions. Maybe underhanded and manipulative decisions about its product but never stupid, all have been designed to keep the consumer in their court. With the ecig market growing, this is a golden opportunity for them since they have the means to meet all the stringent testing standards of the FDA. From all the converts I am sure that big tobacco has begun to feel the pinch. Lets just hope that in jumping in, they don't start playing with the chemicals and manipulating the ecig for maximum addictiveness.

My only concern is that if they do enter the ecig market, we will be vaping on THEIR terms without the flexibility and freedom we now enjoy. Prefilled carts with crappy contents which will outprice the product (sound like a current ecig seller?) and again drive those who successfully quit smoking back to the analog.

Again, all of the above was just my opinion.