QUICKIE: Help Law Firm w/ So Called Research

[davidb]

FYI before you read I am not a lawyer or law expert.

I THINK people may be getting off track here a little it. It states, "SFMS Law is investigating the marketing practices behind E Cigarettes and their potential harm to consumers. "

Well, I have seen quite a bit of false advertising. Despite what you think of the product, you still can not make unsubstantiated claims. There are also many that are using the News format included with fake testimonials, fake endorsements, etc. The FCC is cracking down on this(the problem is that it is wide spread and growing). If memory serve me correct those advertisements for "Get paid to search Google" landed in trouble finally for this type of deceptive marketing.

As for potential harm, well they could go a lot of ways with that. For one, long term effects(im referring to many years). This has not been done because they can not exactly do a 10-year study of something that has not really existed for that long.

Heat from atomizers. More models are jacking up the heat the atomizers work at to produce more vapor and throat hit. There could very well be unforeseen dangers here over the long term.


At any rate, I guess you could compare it teeth whitening. There are legit and shady businesses when it comes to this. Get an approved treatment from your dentist and you can get your teeth whitened safely.

Order online for a 'free trial' and you are getting charged upwards of $50 a month in hidden charges that come from not canceling(If I recall a few members here even admitted some time ago to getting burned by one of these companies) and you could get subpar advertised results because of how they marketed it.

Now out of these two ways to whiten your teeth, one could easily become involved in a class action lawsuit, while the other way(dentist for example) while it advertises the same basic product, remains free and clear of any wrong doing.

I hope my point is clear.

 

[ChipCurtis]

I THINK people may be getting off track here a little it. It states, "SFMS Law is investigating the marketing practices behind E Cigarettes and their potential harm to consumers. "

Well, I have seen quite a bit of false advertising. Despite what you think of the product, you still can not make unsubstantiated claims. There are also many that are using the News format included with fake testimonials, fake endorsements, etc. The FCC is cracking down on this(the problem is that it is wide spread and growing). If memory serve me correct those advertisements for "Get paid to search Google" landed in trouble finally for this type of deceptive marketing.

It would appear that Judge Leon's ruling may have put SFMS off track. The entire ruling was based on the Judge's opinion that these companies may choose to market the product any way they see fit as long as they do not make "health claims" that have FDA or other gov't jurisdiction. So as long as it's marketed as a tobacco product or tobacco alternative (even harm-reduction claims may be made, just not "health" claims), SFMS may only be able to go after those companies that made specific health claims such as "vapor is healthy for you", "vapor can reduce Parkinson's Disease symptoms", etc. But they CAN say "less harmful than real cigarettes" because that's a reduced-harm claim made within the scope of it being a tobacco product.

 

[aubergine]

And you go, Vocalek!

 

[cptr13]

My two cents is this is a waste of time anyway. This is a law firm doing what law firms do. They find people to sue, get a class-action going and make a ton of money. There's nothing easy to find with e-cigs, they'll see that and move on. There's nothing blatently harmful in them, we've established that. In order to establish any negative effects, there need to be long term studies done, which haven't been done yet. There's no misleading marketing by major manufacturers, maybe fly by night places which would be gone as soon as they're served notice. And even if there were...who are they going to sue...DeKang...in china? Good luck with that.

They're looking for easy fixes, and there's simply none to find here. This won't turn into anything.

 

[Territoo]

DEG is used as a humectant in tobacco. The nicotine in the cartridges tested by FDA is extracted from tobacco, which explains how a trace of DEG might show up. We probably should ask for manufacturers to test for DEG and make sure that it isn't in our liquid.

I actually did some research on this statement since I've seen it bounced around so much. DEG is not (deliberately) used as a humectant. The most common humectant for tobacco is VG or PG, although it is possible that DEG could be introduced into the process the same way it gets into other consumables, as a shortcut to save money. If anyone knows of a reference to DEG being used as a humectant, let me know.

From wikipedia:

Examples of humectants include glycerine, propylene glycol (E 1520) and glyceryl triacetate (E1518). Others can be polyols like sorbitol (E420), xylitol and maltitol (E965), polymeric polyols like polydextrose (E1200), or natural extracts like quillaia (E999), lactic acid or urea.

The chemical compound lithium chloride is an excellent humectant, but is toxic.