Retracting My Support (?) for ECA

[redrose]

I'm sticking with my conclusion that the shipments that get stopped are leaking, open or in some way calling attention to themselves. In most cases, they get sent back to the shipper and are resent.
What I do know about the liquid, and what major institutes know, is that there's more in them that what's listed, but nothing that will kill us. I'm good with that.
What I think about the ECA is that they should either rename themselves to the ECTA (electronic cigarette trade association) or have 2 divisions of equal standing. One consisting of suppliers and one of consumers, because at some point, the best interest of the consumer, to be allowed to obtain them, will differ from the supplier's best interest, to be able to sell them. I, for one, don't want my abilty to obtain them, be compromised by an association asking for the improbable, and saying they represent the consumer. I'm not saying I don't applaud their efforts, but I feel it's ridiculous for 12 or 20 vendors to be the voice of all. I also think we loose sight of the fact that e-cigs are fast becoming huge, and most of the people who use them are not on this board. I don't believe they will ever be banned in the US, only improved. And unfortunately, the early suppliers will likely go the way of the mom and pop shops.

 

[AnglVapin]

This has been a very interesting read.

I am curious about something... If the FDA is concerned with the drug "nicotine," how or why should that affect me if I don't vape with any nicotine at all?

I have three pink ones... they look nothing like a cigarette and they don't deliver nicotine to me. So what gives the FDA the right to mess with me and even suggest that this pink thing is some sort of cigarette?

Yes, I know I am playing the devil's advocate here... but seriously... Why?

 

[Retina_Burn]

This has been a very interesting read.

I am curious about something... If the FDA is concerned with the drug "nicotine," how or why should that affect me if I don't vape with any nicotine at all?

I have three pink ones... they look nothing like a cigarette and they don't deliver nicotine to me. So what gives the FDA the right to mess with me and even suggest that this pink thing is some sort of cigarette?

Yes, I know I am playing the devil's advocate here... but seriously... Why?

It won't affect you at all AnglVapin. Even if you vaped with nicotine. This ban will only affect the suppliers. It is being proposed to prohibit the Marketing and sale of these items. The devices and a non nic solution couldn't possibly be banned. You'll just have to find a supplier that does not use any marketing that has any reference to a cigarette or nicotine or anything like that. Or order your equipment from another country. I was advised to have it marked "for personal use" on my packages. Regardless, any supplier in the US will have to be very careful as to how these are marketed after a ban otherwise they'll get a cease and desist pretty quickly.

 

[katink]

Yvilla: I'm still with you on your opinions (among others the 'FDA-interpretation is just that, until it is made clear, by trials or whatever, that in fact their current (!) interpretation is the correct one.

As to 'filling in the grey area' - perhaps the solution would be, for government to appoint (or make) an agency that will have oversight over the whole 'harm-reduction'-field? Because I think practically all harm-reduction things are running into the same issues as we are... in fact, falling between the cracks (untill someone, in their rights or not, just grabs hold of that new piece of power that overlooking them represents...)

As to 'the big boys' in the e-cig field perhaps not being affected by border-issues: perhaps there could be a link found between this 'not having trouble' (IF true) and who has stakes in these 'big boys'? NJoy had Big Pharma come join them (in ownership) a while back... anyone been looking into (part-)ownership of the other big ones? Perhaps a common line would be found, who knows?

 

[Faethe]

This has been a very interesting read.

I am curious about something... If the FDA is concerned with the drug "nicotine," how or why should that affect me if I don't vape with any nicotine at all?

I have three pink ones... they look nothing like a cigarette and they don't deliver nicotine to me. So what gives the FDA the right to mess with me and even suggest that this pink thing is some sort of cigarette?

Yes, I know I am playing the devil's advocate here... but seriously... Why?

From what I have read the FDA is proposing a ban against the devices because they are considered a drug delivery agent, regardless of whether nicotine goes into them or not.

Will this happen? I don't know. Why is this being thrown around? One of the senators who is against these has big pharma as a pretty big contributor. Big Pharma, Big Tobacco are not going to be in favor of this.

As a consumer, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Like get your supply lines sorted out, and create relationships with people if something strange does happen. As a supplier, I think, after reading the FDAs concerns, it's an issue of labelling what these things are going to be used for.

For juice manufacturers, well, Johnson Creek and some others have taken steps to be registered with the FDA.

I think everyone is awaiting input from the FDA on what it is they require, what needs to happen. Lots of pros and cons for and against, and it's not all bad news

 

[Boston George]

It won't affect you at all AnglVapin. Even if you vaped with nicotine. This ban will only affect the suppliers.

RB I fear that this is wrong and frankly shortsighted. It seems every day another 'western' country bans e-cigarettes. How do you think that affects the manufacturers? Do you really think they are going to continue to mass-produce these things as their potential markets get decimated?

Even if you think people will order them from overseas. Without active marketing( which is illegal) the growth of the consumer base will be negligible. Some of us are fine with wiring money to china to get our e-cigarettes but there are a lot of people who aren't.

No, we are all in the same boat. Suppliers are feeling the heat from the FDA now, you will soon enough. Putting this all on the suppliers is just hurting the community.

 

[tpboles]

George - even though the e-cig has been banned in several countries so far I doubt it has hurt production. I would love to know how many of our friends in Canada quit using ecig devices the day they were banned? Have any stores offline or online in Canada got a cease and disist order yet? I know several of our Aussie friends are still ordering devices and juice without too many problems.

I still believe it is all in the labeling. Personal vaporizer would probably be a good alternative name, but I'm not sure at this point. Just about every device box I have mentions health, healthy, cigarette, ect. Those are keywords the manufacturer should stay away from. Wonder how many "personal vaporizers" would be flagged at customs?

 

[Nuck]

George - even though the e-cig has been banned in several countries so far I doubt it has hurt production. I would love to know how many of our friends in Canada quit using ecig devices the day they were banned? Have any stores offline or online in Canada got a cease and disist order yet? I know several of our Aussie friends are still ordering devices and juice without too many problems.

I still believe it is all in the labeling. Personal vaporizer would probably be a good alternative name, but I'm not sure at this point. Just about every device box I have mentions health, healthy, cigarette, ect. Those are keywords the manufacturer should stay away from. Wonder how many "personal vaporizers" would be flagged at customs?

I'm not aware of a any supplier in Canada getting official notice. The ones that closed seemed to do it voluntarily. Supplies are still coming in regularly as well. It really does seem like was more of an advisory than anything else.

 

[ISAWHIM]

The best purpose for an association like this, is to find the addresses of all the manufactures and the individual sellers, and gather the contact info.

Use an online form to auto-mail, or create an e-mail content, that users can send the sellers. (Don't actually e-mail from a web-site, or it will be hacked in a day, and be used to spam the world with junk-mail.)

This information should be used, so that us users can e-mail and snail-mail those people, to request that they provide the information or demand it from their suppliers. Informing them that we are a prospectable customer who desires this information before making a purchase. (Not for the purpose of harassing any group or individual seller.)

Point out the lack of mention of the cited dangers and age-limit, and any potentially fraudulent information. But point it out as if you are doing it in an informative manor, to keep them from being shut-down. Not in a threatening manor, as if you are going to turn them in, if the information is not removed or added. State things like... "I don't feel comfortable buying from someone who can't provide adequate knowledge about the item they are selling.", or, "I don't feel comfortable directing my friends and family here for purchases.", or, "I need to be sure there is truth behind your claims before I continue to do business with you.", followed by, "Thank-you for your time. In the future, I hope you can provide the requested information, or limit your advertised claims to facts only."

Anyone who focuses on "Testimonials", is shady. They are attempting to use their customers as the ones who are liable for any future "Issues", which may arise. Then they legally turn around, and say... "But I didn't say it, billy-bob said it. Here is his testimonial."

Part of all this drama is the phone-game...

The original ads would say... "With brand-x-cig, you can quit smoking cigarettes.", which later gets shortened by sales-men of sales-men of sales-men, into "Quit smoking with brand-x-cig." (Those statements are not the same. The first one implies that the device gives you an option of quitting smoking, and thus, actually says nothing, and implies nothing. "With ANYTHING, you can quit smoking cigarettes." However, the second statement, after the phone game, is a direct statement, which may not be true. "Quit smoking with ANYTHING.", implies and states that ANYTHING (The brand), will make you quit smoking.)

Testimonials, when used properly, are not the focus and primary advertisement of the page. Used legally, they defend statements, as legal proof. (For certain claims that are not medical, or are not related to claims of life/safety.)

EG...

"Over 1000 people have claimed to quit smoking cigarettes with brand-x-cig. *"

followed by... (On a back-pages, not on the front-pages as a super long list of useless testimonials from those who got a discount for submitting a positive testimonial.)

"* Here is a list of actual testimonials from over 1000 users who have used this device to quit smoking cigarettes. They have completely switched-over to using brand-x-cig as a replacement for smoking, or have used the device to completely quit, as of the time of writing the submitted testimonial. Results may vary. No follow-ups have been provided for the permanence of the quitting duration."

(Not to mention, quitting smoking is not even a strong selling point. At this point, it is just a nice bonus!)

 

[ISAWHIM]

Another interesting set of data... for those with fear of nicotine, as if it were the plague...

Many plants and fruits of the Solanaceae family have nicotine.
This includes... tomatoes, potatos, eggplants, and peppers.
Hmm, addicted to french-fries, potato-chips, ketchup, and stuffed-peppers?
Can't find any relation there. (The pot calling the kettle black.)
Solanaceae - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From now on, I want tomato-nicotine instead of tobacco nicotine, just to be safe. (Um, testimonially safer.)

 

[Boston George]

Many plants and fruits of the Solanaceae family have nicotine.
This includes... tomatoes, potatos, eggplants, and peppers.

You know I actually looked into this as a possible nicotine source. Tobacco has much higher concentrations then anything el. Hence, why its grown and used in cigarettes.

 

[scintar]

You know I actually looked into this as a possible nicotine source. Tobacco has much higher concentrations then anything el. Hence, why its grown and used in cigarettes.

Growing wild here in Florida and also banned in Florida
Brugmansia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[strayling]

Growing wild here in Florida and also banned in Florida
Brugmansia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Someone should tell the Floridians about a guy called Cnut. He has a demonstration for them about legislating the natural world.

 

[WillPower]

Can someone explain or double-check this for me?

Godshall said:

"Section 102 (page 30) of the Burr/Hagan bill (S. 579) would exclude e-cigarettes from FDA regulatory oversight (which would preempt the FDA from banning them), and would authorize e-cigarettes (and all tobacco products) to be regulated by a new Tobacco Regulatory Agency."

He is saying e-cigs are not going to pulled off the market by FDA, ie no FDA jurisdiction per Burr/Hagan.

Then, I looked up the bill:

"(a) Exclusion of Tobacco Products and Nicotine-Containing Products From the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act- No tobacco product or nicotine-containing product shall be regulated as a food, drug, or device under subsection (f), (g), or (h) of section 201, or chapter IV or V, of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(f), (g), or (h), 341 et seq., and 351 et seq.), except that any tobacco product commercially distributed domestically and any nicotine-containing product commercially distributed domestically shall be subject to chapter V of such Act if the manufacturer or a distributor of such product markets it with an explicit claim that the product is intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals, within the meaning of section 201(g)(1)(C) or section 201(h)(2) of such Act."

So, my read on this subsection is that e-cigs (and nicorette, and other nicotine delivery systems) are not under FDA, only if they are not marketed as NRT (smoking cessation).

In other words, NJoy and TrueVapor are screwed (under FDA) because their claim. Puresmoker and JuicyLiquid are okay from FDA. Right?

This is a really screwed up bill. Due to the way it defines tobacco product and nicotine-containing product, if you don't make NRT claim, you can sell e-cigs to 5-year old kids. That's Government for you.

I am pretty sure that wasn't the intent. Someone should contact youth org or contact Burr/Hagan to fix this.

 

[WillPower]

Just hanging out a welcome sign!

If Burr/Hagan passes, they will be coming... I hope. Make the market little more interesting. I wonder if they know they can market e-cigs to 5-year old kids. (Just a joke... I am sure they will fix it long before they pass the bill). That's if they passes, not when.

 

[Lesliea]

For one thing, about shipments being stopped, I think we've all seen the news segments about how they can't scan all shipments for bombs and radioactive material, let alone screen ALL packages for potential nicotine.

Willpower, as for why Canadians should care what is happening on this subject in the U.S., Canada and the U.S. tend to take each other's scientific and medical studies seriously. So for instance, if a big study were done in the U.S. which said that e-cigs were "safe" (or not) it would likely be taken into consideration here (as long as it were a reputable instutution). That being said, a ban in the U.S. does not mean a ban in Canada and visversa. There is a relationship though.

What I am a bit curious about (and this is a bit of a tangent, so I apologize in advance) is how "herbal cigarettes" like Honey Rose and bidi's (Indian clove cigarettes) got approved,but then again, it's the NICOTINE which is the trouble in all of this.

There are a lot of very intelligent people, with a lot of very intelligent arguments, but I'm not sure of that is going to be the "only" answer. Figuring out a legalistic argument that works would be great, but I don't think we should ignore the psychological aspect of it too. How to make nicotine as acceptable as alcohol or caffeine. It's a huge uphill battle and does not lend itself well to reason, unfortunately.

Hey, can caffeine be absorbed through the lungs like nicotine??????? That might be our edge for getting the devices approved!!!!! Get the mighty Starbucks on our side!!!!! If only it were that easy.....

 

[Retina_Burn]

RB I fear that this is wrong and frankly shortsighted. It seems every day another 'western' country bans e-cigarettes. How do you think that affects the manufacturers? Do you really think they are going to continue to mass-produce these things as their potential markets get decimated?

Even if you think people will order them from overseas. Without active marketing( which is illegal) the growth of the consumer base will be negligible. Some of us are fine with wiring money to china to get our e-cigarettes but there are a lot of people who aren't.

No, we are all in the same boat. Suppliers are feeling the heat from the FDA now, you will soon enough. Putting this all on the suppliers is just hurting the community.

BG, I'll have to respectfully agree to disagree on this one. Anglvapin was wondering how the ban affects her personal use of this product. As with many items that have been banned for sale and marketing in our country, ephedrine for example, have always been available for use, for a long time you had to buy it from an international source (main producer is China) but supply was never cut off or reduced. Many people marketed and still market those items as if they are in short supply but I never see them run out. Ephedrine and ECA stacks are a multi billion dollar industry and were banned for quite some time in many countries. The bans stimulated research to appease many governments by those that manufacture and sell the items. The cat is out of the bag on these "e-cigs" so to speak and consumers will find ways to get them. I don't think we have to fear the major Chinese manufacturers going out of business anytime soon. I think that Chinese regulation is all we have to fear in that respect.

As to the thread. I do not support the idea of the ECA because in my opinion it bears strong resemblance to a trade association and with all the suppliers and manufacturers that are on board, I really cannot see how they will get around that classification. They are competitors that are working together for industry legislation and want to lobby for reform.

Here is a very informative link to some dangers of these groups Antitrust Laws & Trade Associations - Electronic Transactions Association.

Price-fixing, membership, standardization and certification, and industry self-regulation are a few things that are under strict scrutiny for anti-trust. A few of those ideas have been floating around. It is my opinion that trade associations flirt too closely to consumer threat and I will not support them. I would like to see a consumer led non profit arise that will help us build funds to further research and help educate people. This is quite an optimistic goal and will probably not happen but in my opinion be a much greater asset to the consumers of these products. It would also allow support of suppliers without behavior that could be interpreted as harmful. In my opinion, I am quite justified to be concerned. I also am not impressed with how this group is handling things and am worried of the harm that could do to the image of this industry.

 

[WillPower]

What I am a bit curious about (and this is a bit of a tangent, so I apologize in advance) is how "herbal cigarettes" like Honey Rose and bidi's (Indian clove cigarettes) got approved,but then again, it's the NICOTINE which is the trouble in all of this.

There are a lot of very intelligent people, with a lot of very intelligent arguments, but I'm not sure of that is going to be the "only" answer. Figuring out a legalistic argument that works would be great, but I don't think we should ignore the psychological aspect of it too. How to make nicotine as acceptable as alcohol or caffeine. It's a huge uphill battle and does not lend itself well to reason, unfortunately.

Hey, can caffeine be absorbed through the lungs like nicotine??????? That might be our edge for getting the devices approved!!!!! Get the mighty Starbucks on our side!!!!! If only it were that easy.....

Yes. Image and social stigma are an important issue. Many people wants to lump nic and vaping with tobacco. That's what Godshall wants. Two senators from NC, the most pro-tobacco senators, Burr and Hagan want to lump us with tobacco too. Uhh... Both pro- and anti-tobacco want to throw us in with tobacco? What's up with that?

 

[AnglVapin]

Thanks for the replies.

Had trouble finding my way back to this thread... but have it marked down now. lol

 

[yvilla]

Can someone explain or double-check this for me?

Godshall said:

"Section 102 (page 30) of the Burr/Hagan bill (S. 579) would exclude e-cigarettes from FDA regulatory oversight (which would preempt the FDA from banning them), and would authorize e-cigarettes (and all tobacco products) to be regulated by a new Tobacco Regulatory Agency."

He is saying e-cigs are not going to pulled off the market by FDA, ie no FDA jurisdiction per Burr/Hagan.

***

So, my read on this subsection is that e-cigs (and nicorette, and other nicotine delivery systems) are not under FDA, only if they are not marketed as NRT (smoking cessation).

In other words, NJoy and TrueVapor are screwed (under FDA) because their claim. Puresmoker and JuicyLiquid are okay from FDA. Right?

This is a really screwed up bill. Due to the way it defines tobacco product and nicotine-containing product, if you don't make NRT claim, you can sell e-cigs to 5-year old kids. That's Government for you.

I am pretty sure that wasn't the intent. Someone should contact youth org or contact Burr/Hagan to fix this.

Seems you missed something: The part of Godshall's post quoted by you, that I have highlighted.

The Burr/Hagan bill would be a tremendous improvement over Waxman! It's design is to encourage harm-reduction strategies.