Reply From The FDA

[Uma]

I absolutely agree the FDA and the anti's know exactly what they are doing and will lie when necessary as its about the money.

The issue comes when anti groups, show up, and say (and this is an example):

Hi I'm from the American Lung Association, we are here today to try to get your help to save people from cancer. We'd appreciate your support in banning e-cigarettes as smoking is very bad for everyone's health. If you would like to donate to help us out, great. Thank you for your time.

Of course its a lie, and yes the FDA and the antis do know better. The point is they do not care at the present time. There is money to be made. What we call it now, and I do agree there, is irrelevant as the term has been used for so long. However, I cannot say that the perception doesn't matter, because people don't always dig much beyond the obvious.

I have seen quite a few public comments, that have vehemently argued that because it is a cigarette, it shouldn't be allowed because smoking isn't allowed, and that is their entire argument. Which should tell you exactly how much they really know about the subject in the first place.

So, I guess to clarify my point, I wished it wasn't used so deviously in propaganda, because its a real sad way to help big pharma get exactly what they want. Of course its kind of a moot point now, but you know what they say about hindsight. Sorry if there is any confusion there, so I figured I'd clarify that.

Have a nice day,
Cyatis

If only we could form a true org / "hi, I'm with the True Anti Cancer Organization ....

 

[mg7454]

If only we could form a true org / "hi, I'm with the True Anti Cancer Organization ....

I'm with the True: To avoid lung cancer, Stop Smoking tobacco switch to a PV Organization! ​

 

[Cyatis]

It's a bit off topic, but I *really* want to find a lawyer with a good background in the ADAA and the courage to step up to the big dogs to start challenging that sort of employment discrimination against people with a perceived disability (by urine test) that may be treated by nicotine. The victim doesn't even need to have an actual disability to be protected from employment discrimination on the basis of a perceived disability.

The very first law that discriminated against people who smoke that I ran into first hand, was for working for a bottling plant. I can remember back then thinking ... wow, you can't even smoke on a bench, outside, in the rain, on a break. I never thought I'd ever see people that inconsiderate, but there it is.

To deny someone a living based on whether they use nicotine (in any form), as it is not illegal, is extremely counterproductive.

Trying to convince me that people who act like this, are considerate of people in general is a very difficult concept for me to grasp. What are these people supposed to do, hit rock bottom and end up on the streets, because they did something that was perfectly legal to start with?

I'd be perfectly happy to make a reasonable compromise with all parties. The reality though is the side with the most resources just tends to push, more and more extreme laws unto the general public, without any consideration of what they are doing. Its just simple inhumanity, and I don't care for it.

Some people may think, well your just being extreme, things aren't ever going to get that bad. You cannot smoke at many, places to work, schools and universities, places in public, and places to live.

So lets look at vaping in comparison. You cannot vape at many, places to work, schools and universities, and places in public. I've seen laws proposing that you cannot vape in your rented place to live. So, I'm completely convinced that it can get that bad with very good reason, it has happened before.

Considering that nicotine, is legal to use. Shouldn't it be illegal to test and discriminate against a person for that substance in the first place?

If you answer no to that question, then the case you make, becomes a very complicated affair indeed. This is the thought I had when I read your post.

Cyatis

 

[LeAnn]

I too got this form letter from the Whitehouse, just proves my point yet again, We the People" are nobody,What happened to Freedom, what happened to let the people decide? Our country is going to He__ in a handbasket cause those people in the Whitehouse are in control so what else do you expect from them. I haven't had faith in our government since the '70's and every decade it seems to get worse, but what are you gonna do, leave? Then where do you go?

 

[Uma]

and to think, us smokers were the first to go outside and light up before anyone ever even thought of asking us to go outside. The Antiz decided to power up by taking credit for something that wasn't even theirs to take, and they haven't stopped since. It's like a power trip with them. We blew it by being courteous and caring. They've turned that around and made us look like murdeous beasts. They use OUR courtesy to gain THEIR power. They're a strange lot. But, what goes around comes around, and by vaping (even if I go underground) instead of smoking, I'll get to live to see the day. oh yeh.

 

[Trucapri]

Everyone laughed at me a while back when I posted that I would like to see big roadside billboards advertising e-cigs saying all the things we can "get away " with saying about them, that we can prove. You know.. the things vendors are not allowed to say.

What about organizing something that has known to work in the past like cells that grow. Churches do it, businesses like Multi Level Marketing companies (Tupperware, Avon, Amway, Herbalife etc) does it

These can be done cheaply, starting small and they can grow like a virus. Could be something like house parties for e-cigs. CASAA could help and be involved. Thing is we would need a written structure and origination that is planned out and proven. It could be done in such a way as to not advertise certain brands but the e-cig concept itself. The idea is getting people exposed to e-cigs and letting them in turn run with it and so on.

Even though these would have a written organized structure, it would not have one parent organization at the top controlling things. That would turn people off and create power struggle problems we don't need. This could have a website with guidelines and information and all the members could help contribute to this agreed on structure. All the members themselves would share in the project equally thus eliminating the need for a controlling entity.

The purpose of the "cell" meetings would be to introduce smokers to e-cigs and information about e-cigs as well as have them try some e-cigs and flavorings. This could be helped by putting together a cheap package of small e-cigs to pass around with disposable tips - not for sale, just to try. This would not have to be for profit. The hosts can simply reclaim their tester e-cigs at the end and suggest places to purchase e-cigs if anyone is interested in a purchase. We would not want sales for ourselves.. we would want peoples lives to be changed by a safer alternative that may work for them where other things failed. We would be messengers.

( Of course if a host accepted a companies offer for discounts on products sold during the meetings or discounted "tester packages" for the host to use that would help keep cost down for the host and make money for vendors at the same time - without the host actually being a retailer or vendor. These could be "sponsors" and each host could use as many sponsors as they wished as long as they do not unfairly promote a certain product - This is an incentive to get vendors working together with users to further the cause as a whole. Hint Hint)

Evey host of course would have a computer with internet. This could be used to network with other cells and learn the meeting structure off the website - as well as show people how to order e-cig products online as some people are still uncomfortable with that.

You asked for out the box ideas for advertising e-cigs for the purpose of helping the public become more aware of them, and that's the best I can offer. If something like this could work and people can learn to cooperate together then perhaps a trade association will grow out of it.

The thing is, you forget about fighting the Government. You get this e-cig thing so large and everywhere and accepted that the government will cave to the masses. It has happened in the past with other products.

Just an idea. I think I'm done now.. sorry for the book.

This is exactly how I was introduced to vaping and of the four guests for this little party, four purchased starter kits by the end of the evening. Only one went outside to smoke an analog during the 3-hour social event, and only once. There was no pressure sales tatics at all. Just a group of co-workers invited to a vaporer's home for talk, snacks, and a free chance to try what we'd all been hearing and wondering about. BTW, the one that stepped out for a smoke was the only one who had ever tried a convenient store disposable and was basicly dragged there by his wife LOL, but he bought himself a starter kit once he saw the juice could be easily adjusted to suit him personally.

This would be such a great push for the vaping community!! Not to mention the curious but cautious smokers that just need the right atmosphere and products to believe!

 

[Cyatis]

I too got this form letter from the Whitehouse, just proves my point yet again, We the People" are nobody,What happened to Freedom, what happened to let the people decide? Our country is going to He__ in a handbasket cause those people in the Whitehouse are in control so what else do you expect from them. I haven't had faith in our government since the '70's and every decade it seems to get worse, but what are you gonna do, leave? Then where do you go?

I can understand the frustration. At least you know where you stand. 5000 people can sign a petition and you get back a canned response. No reason to leave, and no its not likely to get fixed or fix itself in the near future. You just know that, these particular people are not on your side, and you remember and live with that.

However, just for hope, I have the belief when people live without common sense, that eventually in time, that lack of common sense will come back in full measure. So when something lacks common sense, eventually it will end up changing simply because trying to keep it in place is unsustainable and worse than the alternatives. Life really should be a lot simpler than what it is imho.

I hope everybody has a great New Years Day, welcome to 2012.

 

[shlacm]

I read all but 3 pages, and skimmed those! So I really hope I didn't miss the answers to my questions! I apologize if they have already been answered!

1. Aren't all nicotine products technically tobacco products? I thought nicotine was derived exclusively from tobacco, including that used for gum, patches, etc. Nevermind, found my answer, lol.

2. Nicotine is still addictive, why aren't tobacco companies latching onto e-cigs as the next product that will rescue them from becoming obsolete?

3. How are e-cigs different from the prescription devices I saw about 10 years ago? They were cigarette shaped and I think they were called inhalers... they delivered nicotine via inhalation. The only place I ever saw them was in a hospital where they were prescribed to patients who had been admitted for an extended stay and for whom the patch was not sufficient to curb their cravings. I was told by a Doctor at the time that they were prescription only and used to quit smoking, though clearly that was not their purpose within the hospital. So what makes e-cigs significantly different from these devices to avoid the need for a prescription? The FDA must have been involved in THOSE.

 

[Vocalek]

Answers:

1. Used herein, "tobacco products" mean the products that are regulated under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (which I shorten to "Tobacco Act"). Currently that includes traditional tobacco cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. Whether or not dissolvable tobacco products are considered "smokeless" is a matter of some controversy. Cigars are not included.

The FDA has announced its intention to try to bring all products made or derived from tobacco under the Tobacco Act for regulation.

2. The tobacco companies are in it for the money. Several are actively looking into branching into e-cigs, and Reynolds (for one) is actively promoting the idea of switching from smoking to its snus products. If you see the term "Tobacco Harm Reduction", this refers to advocating for smokers to switch to smoke-free alternative sources of nicotine, which significantly reduces health risks. As far as disease risks go, to paraphrase an old political slogan: It's the smoke, stupid!

3. The pharmaceutical nicotine inhalers are still prescription only. They do not produce a vapor so there is no "throat hit". The only thing they have in common with smoking is the hand-to-mouth activity. The pharma products do not deliver enough nicotine to satisfy the vast majority of smokers. Yes, the FDA was involved in those. The pharma companies had to conduct years of clinical trials costing millions of dollars to get FDA approval for sale.

What makes something a drug or medical device is the intended use. The Nicorette inhaler was approved to treat nicotine addiction. The purpose is to gradually wean a user off nicotine.

E-cigarettes are intended to serve as a reduced-risk alternative to smoking.

This thread describes the history of how two e-cig companies sued the FDA and asked for an injunction against products being confiscated as they hit the docks in the US. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ut-why-do-we-need-watch-how-get-up-speed.html

The opinion document issued by Judge Richard J. Leon sums up the arguments on both sides and the reason for the court granting the Injunction. See http://www.casaa.org/files/SE-vs-FDA-Ruling.pdf

 

[Poeia]

One of the thing the antis seem to ignore is that, with regard to PVs, the toothpaste is out of the tube. They are not going to get it back in. They may be able to regulate where you vape, but "if" is out of their hands.

1) DIYers have been making mods since before I started vaping. The pretty ones are marvelous but the important thing is that they work. I'm not handy but, come a ban, I'll take some classes in soldering and the like.

2) Unless they are also going to outlaw flashlights, the batteries will always be available. My newest mod, the MBM, uses AA batteries. Can you imaging them requiring people to prove they're 18 before buying those?

3) The biggest problem for DIYers has been the atomizers but I gather those can also be built at home these days.

4) Liquid is easy to make. Mine tastes awful because I haven't bothered to learn to make it better -- it's so much easier to buy good-tasting pre-mixed liquid. The hardest part would be getting the nicotine but that was available before vaping began and will continue to be so.

All bans can accomplish is to make it difficult for new people to join our revolution and put hundreds of small entrepreneurs out of business.

 

[Lethalp]

Back to the OP I found it interesting that it said the 35 yr old male smoker would only add 5 yrs to his life. It didn't say when he started or how much he smoked. But they were certain he would only get 5 more yrs of life. I found that odd, anyone else? I am close to that age,so am I to believe I am only going to add 5 yrs to my life by stopping smoking? If that's the case, it would seem sort of pointless to quit, but maybe that's the message they want to send. "u can't quit, and even if u do ur only gonna get 5 yrs so just keep smoking and shut up gravy train!! " glad big tobacco and pharma do not have their hooks in me anymore, and even if somehow they do succeed in taking my pv away, I won't be goin back to them!!

 

[Poeia]

Lethalp, that 5 years is an average, not a guarantee.

In 2009, the life expectancy in the United States was just over 78 years. But that was for everyone -- men, women, soldiers, school teachers, smokers, ex-smokers, never smoked-ers…

A statistician with access to the raw data can get a lot more specific. So they would know, for example (and the following numbers are made up) that while the typical 35-year-old male in the United States will live for 76 years, that number is made up of
35-year-old men who never smoked - 81 years
35-year-old men who used to smoke but don't - 74 years
35-year-old men who continue to smoke - 69 years

Now that you've quit smoking, you've gone from the last group to the middle one. If you walk out of your house tomorrow and get killed by a falling meteor, it won't change the numbers because they are averaging hundreds of thousands of people.

 

[Cyatis]

Its not all about how many years you get, but the quality of those years you have left.