Reality behind possibility of a ban???

[Canute]

Hello again,

So there is a ton of information on this forum and I realize that if I read enough that everything I want to know is probably here. However, I was hoping I could get another thread started for newbies like me that may place up to date info in one place regarding any possible reality of a ban by the FDA on electronic cigarettes. Quick info on me: 24 yr 1 1/2 pack a day smoker who has found my miracle in the Joye 510. Highly ticked off as of last night when I discovered there is potential for my new found miracle to be revoked!!!

Good news is I live in California and just found this little tidbit of info brought to you courtesy of the Governator: (Oops guess I can't post a link as of yet. However look up Schwarzenegger's letter regarding SB400)

I'm sure those with experience are already aware of this but for those of us new to the anti-ban wagon it was nice too see.

Now, could one of you with more experience possibly put together a clear and concise data sheet on what is currently going on with the potential ban. Who/what person/organization is pushing for the ban? Obviously Big Tobacco and FDA but are there known organizations and or individual politicians pushing this? Equally it would be nice to have a clear list of who/what people/organizations are in support. I've read that e-cigs have been pioneered by the Chinese and UK. Who's done the research regarding the health risks on e-cigs vs analogs? And specifically what legislation is currently in the works that would ban or regulate the sale and use (info on local, state and federal legislation would be ideal on this thread so everyone can see it all in one place). Personally if I can get clear verifiable info I will be more than happy to draft a professional letter which I will send to any and all potentially helpful sources from politicians to the media. However, I have to have the info to back it up.

Additionally I'd like to make a newbie observation here. Three weeks ago if I had been walking down the street and seen someone blow "smoke" from a black tube with a blue light on the end I would have asked what they were smoking. If the person had told me that they weren't smoking but that they were "vaping" I would have related that to things as silly as sniffing glue or taking some new form of juvenile drug. Perhaps the "vaping" community would be better served by changing our terminology to a more layman explanation. It's a "personal nicotine inhaler" that satisfies my cravings and nicotine addiction without the carcinogens, smell, ashes, butts etc... is going to be my general description. If we make "vaping" akin to nicotine patches, gum or any of the other smoking cessation/alternatives (which is precisely what it seems to be for most of us) then we will have a far better chance of continuing to have it available to us. Never under estimate the ignorance of the general public and there ability to make a lasting decision based upon nothing more than a first impression!! There are too many people in this world (far too many if you ask me) who simply say xyz=bad therefore ban it! Fact is "vaping" is not healthy for you, but neither are nicotine patches, gum or any of the drugs used for smoking cessation. Let's make sure that everyone we talk to knows that these little beauties we've all discovered are a way to help smokers avoid tar, carcinogens, the litter from butts and ashes, fire danger and second hand smoke!!!

OK....stepping off the soap box now!

 

[ghost_inhale]

Good post. I see your point about the terminology as well. However, I think we can still call it "vaping" as long as we promptly follow up with a more detailed explanation like you stated. I also have found a friend in the 510 and will organize with others against any potential ban on vaping!

 

[arkangel]

To tell the truth, I don't even like the term "e-cigarette" or "electronic cigarette" I see in a lot of the marketing, manufacturers' web sites and in news stories--anything with cigarette automatically checks off some box in an anti-smoker's (and government regulator's) head.


Personal vaporizer, PV, nicotine inhaler, ejuice inhaler...anything's gotta give a different/better vibe than ecig/e-cigarette. To me, these things are NOT cigarettes...their only relationship is that they both deliver nicotine via inhalation...that's it.

E-Cigarette could easily be misconstrued to be an electronic method of burning tobacco like a cigarette does, like some slick way to not have to carry matches or a lighter around. It really does an injustice to the technical savvy that went into the PV's you see on the market and the fact that they produce vapor from a liquid that can be made from a variety of ingredients, one of which could (but not necessarily) be nicotine.

Of course, the horse has left the barn, so trying to un-make the e-cigarette label is not going to happen, but I do my bit when asked or when showing it off by avoiding that term altogether.

 

[Dirtybutts]

To tell the truth, I don't even like the term "e-cigarette" or "electronic cigarette" I see in a lot of the marketing, manufacturers' web sites and in news stories--anything with cigarette automatically checks off some box in an anti-smoker's (and government regulator's) head.


Personal vaporizer, PV, nicotine inhaler, ejuice inhaler...anything's gotta give a different/better vibe than ecig/e-cigarette. To me, these things are NOT cigarettes...their only relationship is that they both deliver nicotine via inhalation...that's it.

E-Cigarette could easily be misconstrued to be an electronic method of burning tobacco like a cigarette does, like some slick way to not have to carry matches or a lighter around. It really does an injustice to the technical savvy that went into the PV's you see on the market and the fact that they produce vapor from a liquid that can be made from a variety of ingredients, one of which could (but not necessarily) be nicotine.

Of course, the horse has left the barn, so trying to un-make the e-cigarette label is not going to happen, but I do my bit when asked or when showing it off by avoiding that term altogether.

I agree with you 100% I dont call them e-cigs at and tell people they are PV's and then explain it a bit more if they want. Calling it an E-cig really does give it a bad name and public opinion.

 

[DC2]

This thread is what you want to read:
Smoking Everywhere V. FDA Daily Docket Sheet Update

It is a very long thread but you will get a lot of various opinions there.

The bottom line is that we are all waiting for a ruling in that case.
And then we'll find out what happens next.

 

[Canute]

Thanks for linking that thread to me.....err maybe not! lol. Another clear example of how we in this country have completely lost sight of respecting the rights and freedoms of others while moderating that with good ole fashioned common sense. Rather we find ourselves falling prey to the special interests of big business and the innate ability of our judicial system to find legal justification to support the lining of those pockets at the expense of our wallets and freedoms. Hate to say it but my opinion from what I've read is that in short order we will either find e-cigs banned or under the complete jurisdiction of pharmaceutical companies or big tobacco. Pessimistic? Probably...but definitely an educated prediction based upon a long standing precedence.

Ya know I've often said this to friends but I'll just throw it out there on the forum here. I'm pretty sure that our forefathers went through the effort of drafting a constitution for the purpose of a outlining a detailed, loop hole proof document that would ensure a basic, common sense, fundamental concept. And that is simply that we in America are to have the right to exercise any freedom we so desire so long as in exercising that right we do not prevent any other citizen from doing the same. Isn't that really what it was all about? I'm relatively sure our judicial system and governing bodies were initially established to ensure exactly that. Amazing to me how it's been twisted into just another form of controlling the population and convincing the masses that it's all being done for our own good! All so that 2% of the population can continue to control 50% of the wealth.

Ah well. Guess I'll kick back and enjoy it while it lasts secure in the knowledge that we will have the documentation provided within this forum for use in our class action lawsuit against the FDA when we all are forced back to our cancer sticks. (You'd never know that a couple weeks ago I had never heard of an electronic cigarette huh? lol)

 

[Canute]

Actually I'm gonna throw one more thing out there. Unfortunately most people I know have never even heard of a PV and the community as a whole is relatively small and insignificant to the powers that be. I think the vaping community, and specifically manufacturers, could fight the FDA and big business on this in a much more effective manner. Ridiculous as it may sound, rather than signing petitions and writing to congressmen, I think manufacturers should be sending free kits accompanied by a professional letter outlining the need for their support to any celebrity or media member known to currently be a smoker if they wish to continue distribution of their product. Let's face it! One movie in which Angelina Jolie rolls her naked .... out of bed and reaches over to the nightstand to grab her 510 would do more to draw attention to our plight than any petition! Funny and sad....but also entirely too true in this society! Better do it before it becomes illegal to do so though!

 

[Kent C]

Actually I'm gonna throw one more thing out there. Unfortunately most people I know have never even heard of a PV and the community as a whole is relatively small and insignificant to the powers that be. I think the vaping community, and specifically manufacturers, could fight the FDA and big business on this in a much more effective manner. Ridiculous as it may sound, rather than signing petitions and writing to congressmen, I think manufacturers should be sending free kits accompanied by a professional letter outlining the need for their support to any celebrity or media member known to currently be a smoker if they wish to continue distribution of their product. Let's face it! One movie in which Angelina Jolie rolls her naked .... out of bed and reaches over to the nightstand to grab her 510 would do more to draw attention to our plight than any petition! Funny and sad....but also entirely too true in this society! Better do it before it becomes illegal to do so though!

Have you checked the media ratings lately? ... the Oscars share? Grammy's share? Almost lowest ever. Hollywood is becoming more of a joke than something someone emulates.

 

[Canute]

Perhaps, but seeing as how vaping is a unique and discussion worthy action I'd be willing to bet that it would draw attention. The fear of course is that the celeb or CNN anchor who was interviewed and asked what the heck they were smoking would give a less than eloquent explanation. Axle Rose saying "I'm vaping man" probably wouldn't cut it! lol

 

[Wireguy]

Have you checked the media ratings lately? ... the Oscars share? Grammy's share? Almost lowest ever. Hollywood is becoming more of a joke than something someone emulates.

It still couldn't hurt.

 

[Kent C]

It still couldn't hurt.

Perhaps. Maybe Michael Moore could make an documentary on it. He gets pretty good numbers.

 

[Canute]

OK with that statement your beginning to sway my theory. The last person on earth I want in my corner is a douche bag like Michael Moore! On the other hand, as much as I hate to concede to the fact, it probably wouldn't hurt the cause!

 

[Harlequin]

To tell the truth, I don't even like the term "e-cigarette" or "electronic cigarette" I see in a lot of the marketing, manufacturers' web sites and in news stories--anything with cigarette automatically checks off some box in an anti-smoker's (and government regulator's) head.


Personal vaporizer, PV, nicotine inhaler, ejuice inhaler...anything's gotta give a different/better vibe than ecig/e-cigarette. To me, these things are NOT cigarettes...their only relationship is that they both deliver nicotine via inhalation...that's it.

E-Cigarette could easily be misconstrued to be an electronic method of burning tobacco like a cigarette does, like some slick way to not have to carry matches or a lighter around. It really does an injustice to the technical savvy that went into the PV's you see on the market and the fact that they produce vapor from a liquid that can be made from a variety of ingredients, one of which could (but not necessarily) be nicotine.

Of course, the horse has left the barn, so trying to un-make the e-cigarette label is not going to happen, but I do my bit when asked or when showing it off by avoiding that term altogether.

Thoroughly agree with the above. The term e-cigarette just doesn't do the job, and might well send up instant red flags given the massive anti-cigarette sentiment.

By the same token, while I understand that it may be seen as necessary to use "smoke" and "cigarette"-related terminology in the short term, I do think it's short-sighted for companies to incorporate those terms into their branding. "Smoke" simply isn't accurate, and cigarettes suffer from such a huge stigma that they're kind of shooting themselves in the foot.

My prediction is that, once tobacco cigarettes have gone the way of the dodo, the term "vaping" will become as widely understood and accepted as "smoking" has been up 'til now. I'm not sure what the physical objects themselves will be called in, say, twenty years (once we've transitioned into a vaping society!) but I hope it's not "e-cigs".

H

 

[Canute]

Well, with another happy day of "vaping" under my belt, I sincerely hope that you are correct about this becoming/remaining a socially acceptable alternative! My fear is that, if not banned, that they will become another target for excessive taxation and I have to say that with cigarette's at $6.00 a pack in my area the current cost benefits are significant!

Hoping for the best and willing to actively support our right to vape in any way I can.

 

[McCordRM]

I think the whole idea of banning these things is stupid.
The FDA put out a report stating that it's dangerous because of a chemical that can be
found in Anti-freeze. You can find water in anti-freeze, too... should we stop drinking that?
Then the fact that this same 'dangerous' chemical has been APPROVED by the FDA for use
in food. .......s.

The Govt. makes a TON of money from the sale of alcohol and tobacco products. At
some point, I'm quite positive they'll legalize marijuana to start profiting from it as well.
This is the ONLY reason the Govt. would want to ban E-Cigs. It's cheaper than analog
cigs and doesn't have the same "hold" on a user since the chemical compounds put in
analog cigs to make you addicted aren't used in E-liquids.

I take that back. With more thought, something else has occurred to me. The potential
for illegal substance use with these devices. If cops come into your home and see a
crack pipe or a .... they can get you on "paraphernalia" charges. This device could
certainly be construed as such, and therefore, just one more way to ticket you.