Retracting My Support (?) for ECA
- Thread starter WillPower
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Cigarettes seem to be grand fathered and have already been tested and proven to be harmfull e cigarettes have not been officially tested and gone through the necessary approval process plus tobacco is not governed by the fda but nicotine is
Quick question (cause I don't know). Someone mentioned that analogs are tested every now and then. How are imported cigars tested? Are they tested in the country of origin or are they tested once they arrive in the states? Or are they tested at all?
Good question and I don't know, but they probably have to meet a certain criterior
I've kind of been doing that all along. Then again, I am more concerned about performance at this point. I think more people would buy these if they were pitched to on the basis of similarity to smoking. I think we've all pretty much come to the conclusion that these treat what other things don't - the behavior. So market to the behavior, which can't be banned.
That's what the pipe and hookah people do for those that smoke ze weed! They sell the performance, capacity and like the warranty. Not the effect. That bit you have to figure out on your own
Yeah I have been a bit confused on the FDA's stance on the device. I think all manufacturers should start shipping all devices with zero nic carts or no liquid at all (just blank carts). Atleast we would have a better shot at keeping the devices on the market. Regardless what the FDA says I think they would have a hard time banning the device itself. At this point the 2 items are seen as 1. I think I could get by with some homemade zero nic juice and a nic patch.
Maybe the ECA should look into getting device approval before tackling the nic aspect of it.
I think I could get by with some homemade zero nic juice and a nic patch.Maybe the ECA should look into getting device approval before tackling the nic aspect of it.
I see why TropicalBob did not want to get into not-a-drug discussion. It is like Groundhog Day.
The renewed concern is, however, ECA seems like going with this "safe cigarette" strategy, relying on the "no ban" provision of tobacco to keep the e-cigs on the market (in other words, they can't ban tobacco and we classify e-cigs as tobacco to keep them safe). I JUST DON'T SEE HOW IT WOULD WORK for US suppliers, especially the ones that signed onto ECA.
If e-cigs were tobacco, all federal and state-level tobacco regulations apply. You need to card buyers, sales to minor = fine and maybe jail time. Tobacco tax, smoking ban, all social stigma and attacks from anti-smoking groups (some, but not all of them are anti-nicotine). It is most likely to kill all Internet sales. Is ECA going to lobby state-by-state (even town by town) to make distinction.
You want the exemptions from tobacco regulations except no-ban? Not banned because they are tobacco, but not restricted because they are "safe" tobacco. Why don't you ask for "no ban and no regulations" for e-cigs? Less convoluted, just as unlikely. How about classifying as food and no food restriction?
In the meantime, 10-20 suppliers who signed up for ECA are now in truckloads of civil and criminal liabilities. If there were any questions about the drug/no drug dispute (it's a dead issue), it was the intended usage. ECA suppliers signed onto the claim of Tobacco Harm Reduction and the benefits of smoking cessation. 20 "suckers" nicely packaged for FDA enforcement in a single sweep (excuse my expression), like 20 ducks lined up in a single row, so a hunter can shoot all with one bullet.
*** I stress once again NONE of these apply to non-US suppliers!
Don't forget other civil liabilities for tort and fraud. LLC won't help you if the activities are illegal. Using the proceeds from illegal activities to lobbying for something that draws attention to the illegal activities themselves or establishes the culpability of the activities is not a smart thing to do. I say again fraud is covered under RICO--you may not have the money left to fight with US Attorney, not alone FDA (asset seizure of ongoing criminal enterprise).
Regardless, Godshall (some of his constituents are anti nic addiction, not just tobacco) will be happy to report to his people: "I swept those nic peddlers into the tobacco category, so that we can attack them altogether. Not only I did it, they paid for lobbying, they paid for my services, and thank me for it."
Let's say by some miracle, divine intervention (thanks to Holey Syster and Apostle's prayer), ECA made e-cigs unregulated or safe cigarettes to be sold in the US market. What stops RJR, Philip Moris, big pharma, or any other big companies to jump in and wipe out the ECA suppliers (Thanks, kids. Now beat it!) They had put tobacco in VG and heat it up to generate vapor. They didn't use nic, because it was illegal. If ECA conveniently lift the "ban" for them, well.. At least we might get $10 atomizers that last more than 2-3 weeks after all.
It just doesn't sound right to me... My personal opinion.
The renewed concern is, however, ECA seems like going with this "safe cigarette" strategy, relying on the "no ban" provision of tobacco to keep the e-cigs on the market (in other words, they can't ban tobacco and we classify e-cigs as tobacco to keep them safe). I JUST DON'T SEE HOW IT WOULD WORK for US suppliers, especially the ones that signed onto ECA.
If e-cigs were tobacco, all federal and state-level tobacco regulations apply. You need to card buyers, sales to minor = fine and maybe jail time. Tobacco tax, smoking ban, all social stigma and attacks from anti-smoking groups (some, but not all of them are anti-nicotine). It is most likely to kill all Internet sales. Is ECA going to lobby state-by-state (even town by town) to make distinction.
You want the exemptions from tobacco regulations except no-ban? Not banned because they are tobacco, but not restricted because they are "safe" tobacco. Why don't you ask for "no ban and no regulations" for e-cigs? Less convoluted, just as unlikely. How about classifying as food and no food restriction?
In the meantime, 10-20 suppliers who signed up for ECA are now in truckloads of civil and criminal liabilities. If there were any questions about the drug/no drug dispute (it's a dead issue), it was the intended usage. ECA suppliers signed onto the claim of Tobacco Harm Reduction and the benefits of smoking cessation. 20 "suckers" nicely packaged for FDA enforcement in a single sweep (excuse my expression), like 20 ducks lined up in a single row, so a hunter can shoot all with one bullet.
*** I stress once again NONE of these apply to non-US suppliers!
Don't forget other civil liabilities for tort and fraud. LLC won't help you if the activities are illegal. Using the proceeds from illegal activities to lobbying for something that draws attention to the illegal activities themselves or establishes the culpability of the activities is not a smart thing to do. I say again fraud is covered under RICO--you may not have the money left to fight with US Attorney, not alone FDA (asset seizure of ongoing criminal enterprise).
Regardless, Godshall (some of his constituents are anti nic addiction, not just tobacco) will be happy to report to his people: "I swept those nic peddlers into the tobacco category, so that we can attack them altogether. Not only I did it, they paid for lobbying, they paid for my services, and thank me for it."
Let's say by some miracle, divine intervention (thanks to Holey Syster and Apostle's prayer), ECA made e-cigs unregulated or safe cigarettes to be sold in the US market. What stops RJR, Philip Moris, big pharma, or any other big companies to jump in and wipe out the ECA suppliers (Thanks, kids. Now beat it!) They had put tobacco in VG and heat it up to generate vapor. They didn't use nic, because it was illegal. If ECA conveniently lift the "ban" for them, well.. At least we might get $10 atomizers that last more than 2-3 weeks after all.
It just doesn't sound right to me... My personal opinion.
I am confused at what we are asking the government to do for us, are we asking them to just allow e cigs to come in and leave them unchecked? or are we asking them to treat them as cigarettes? I simply don't understand what it is we are asking.
Considering how many cigars I lost to bugs back in the day (before I learned to freeze them to kill the larva) I'd say there's not much testing or control for them.
I'd even found bits of plastic in some of the cheaper brands.
I don't know how to answer that question. All I was doing in my original post was offering what I think is a valid argument against ecigs requiring an NDA with the FDA. If ecigs were not deemed drug devices under the jurisdiction of the FDA, then they fall back into that gray area they were in before. Some regulatory scheme could certainly be devised, or perhaps the powers that be could decide they were similar enough to other smokeless tobacco products, despite their lack of tobacco, to fit in with them.
But this is all going to be impacted greatly, one way or another, by whether the Waxman legislation gets passed.
To be clear, I'm not speaking for the ECA in any fashion!
How could I? No one but the founding suppliers are members.
In fact, my only mention of the ECA on this whole thread was in referring to Lacy's post urging everyone to write the members of the Senate Health Committee, with reference to the Waxman bill.
How could I? No one but the founding suppliers are members.
In fact, my only mention of the ECA on this whole thread was in referring to Lacy's post urging everyone to write the members of the Senate Health Committee, with reference to the Waxman bill.
The problem with all these "electronic devices", is that they are advertised, (marketed), as being a drug delivery device. They are also advertised as being "Safe" or "Safer", which requires proof beyond assumption of "More is bad, so less is safe or safer." (Though that may be true, it is not medically proven or documented, for these devices.)
In essence... the device is not "Safer", as it can explode, catch fire, melt, cause acid burns, and shock you. (Cigarettes can't even burn you, until you ignite them. Just for one far-fetched argument of the "Device being safer". Not the fluids.)
The fluids are being marketed with the devices, and the fluids are also being marked as safer... but can you tell me what is in there? No, because there are no labels. You could be vaping tea, or cat urine, or monkey poo. I hear cats are popular in China.
Having the name... "xxx Cigarette", "xxx Cig", "Cig xxx", "Cigarette xxx", "Smoke xxx", "xxx Smoke", or imagery and instructions that indicate the device is to be used for lung-consumption, makes the devices a non-food item. (Thus food-safe holds no water. Since the devices/liquids are not being sold to eat.)
This is where everyone is just wrong. (The marketers not the customers.)
If the device said... "Permanent Marker", and advertised as a writing tool... that would be FDA approved, for use as directed. (Does not make it safe, only safe for writing, as directed.)
If that same device said... "Portable High-Stick", and marketed as an entertainment tool... the FDA would ban that item, but that item could be re-marketed as a "Permanent Marker", and the FDA would leave it alone. It could exist on the shelf, right next to the "Permanent Marker", and it would get pulled off the shelves, because of the marketing.
(Disclaimer: Permanent markers should only be used as directed.)
It is the manufactures responsibility to apply for FDA approval, if they want to sell in the united-states, marketed as a nicotine delivery device. The FDA does not just pick items, and say... Ok, we have approved you, here is your stamp. The company has to apply for a review of the device, application, and submit proof of all claims.
In the laws eyes... it is the person who sold the device, without checking if the device was legal to use in that respect, who is breaking the law. The company is not responsible for how a seller has marketed the devices. For all the manufacture knows or cares... you ordered this stuff to kill rats, not to consume.
Don't send money to anyone claiming to be lobbying for approval. There is nothing that can be done about a banning. It has already been proven that the devices are illegally marketed, and making false claims. Unless you are lobbying for them to close their eyes, so the manufactures can continue to sell you unlabeled chemicals of unknown composition, and unregulated, selling possibly 20mg in this 20mg bottle, but oops, we forgot to add water... you got 2000mg in this bottle! Who cares, it is for the Americans... They can sue that e-seller, and get nothing. They paid for unregulated sales.
Find the manufactures, and demand it. Within a year, you will not be able to find any parts, and the manufactures will move on to MP3-players or the next novelty.
Better yet... buy 100,000 an market them as personal mouth-fresheners. Let the liquid guys fight the law. There are more people with bad breath, than there are smokers, who are willing to risk trying a device that sprays mystery chemicals into their lungs.
In essence... the device is not "Safer", as it can explode, catch fire, melt, cause acid burns, and shock you. (Cigarettes can't even burn you, until you ignite them. Just for one far-fetched argument of the "Device being safer". Not the fluids.)
The fluids are being marketed with the devices, and the fluids are also being marked as safer... but can you tell me what is in there? No, because there are no labels. You could be vaping tea, or cat urine, or monkey poo. I hear cats are popular in China.
Having the name... "xxx Cigarette", "xxx Cig", "Cig xxx", "Cigarette xxx", "Smoke xxx", "xxx Smoke", or imagery and instructions that indicate the device is to be used for lung-consumption, makes the devices a non-food item. (Thus food-safe holds no water. Since the devices/liquids are not being sold to eat.)
This is where everyone is just wrong. (The marketers not the customers.)
If the device said... "Permanent Marker", and advertised as a writing tool... that would be FDA approved, for use as directed. (Does not make it safe, only safe for writing, as directed.)
If that same device said... "Portable High-Stick", and marketed as an entertainment tool... the FDA would ban that item, but that item could be re-marketed as a "Permanent Marker", and the FDA would leave it alone. It could exist on the shelf, right next to the "Permanent Marker", and it would get pulled off the shelves, because of the marketing.
(Disclaimer: Permanent markers should only be used as directed.)
It is the manufactures responsibility to apply for FDA approval, if they want to sell in the united-states, marketed as a nicotine delivery device. The FDA does not just pick items, and say... Ok, we have approved you, here is your stamp. The company has to apply for a review of the device, application, and submit proof of all claims.
In the laws eyes... it is the person who sold the device, without checking if the device was legal to use in that respect, who is breaking the law. The company is not responsible for how a seller has marketed the devices. For all the manufacture knows or cares... you ordered this stuff to kill rats, not to consume.
Don't send money to anyone claiming to be lobbying for approval. There is nothing that can be done about a banning. It has already been proven that the devices are illegally marketed, and making false claims. Unless you are lobbying for them to close their eyes, so the manufactures can continue to sell you unlabeled chemicals of unknown composition, and unregulated, selling possibly 20mg in this 20mg bottle, but oops, we forgot to add water... you got 2000mg in this bottle! Who cares, it is for the Americans... They can sue that e-seller, and get nothing. They paid for unregulated sales.
Find the manufactures, and demand it. Within a year, you will not be able to find any parts, and the manufactures will move on to MP3-players or the next novelty.
Better yet... buy 100,000 an market them as personal mouth-fresheners. Let the liquid guys fight the law. There are more people with bad breath, than there are smokers, who are willing to risk trying a device that sprays mystery chemicals into their lungs.
I believe marketing is (was) the key to e-cigs. When suppliers tell people "these devices can be used anywhere to GET AROUND the smoking ban and they are 100% safe" without knowing for sure - that is bad business!
Imagine if a local office supply store decided that sniffing liquid paper fumes was a safe alternative to .... use and marketed it that way! Their liquid paper wouldn't stay on the shelf long (their business wouldn't be open long either)! I have to totally agree with the above poster. As silly as that may sound, it is what it is.
edit: the above is probably a bad example, but maybe you understand
Imagine if a local office supply store decided that sniffing liquid paper fumes was a safe alternative to .... use and marketed it that way! Their liquid paper wouldn't stay on the shelf long (their business wouldn't be open long either)! I have to totally agree with the above poster. As silly as that may sound, it is what it is.
edit: the above is probably a bad example, but maybe you understand
Last edited:
ISAWHIM, that is exactly what people should be doing. These will be officially banned very soon. People just need to re-purpose them. The vaporizers aren't that big a deal. They can be very easily purposed for essential oil homeopathic use, as are many personal vaporizers already are. Look at some of the products in the Vapir line. All are "Herbal Vaporizers". Now the liquid, that is another story. We've been looking at trying to market it as a bio-safe herbal pesticide but we're sifting through all the testing data and almost all of it tests with nicotine sulfate, which is much different than what is in the liquid we use. That is why I am not in support of a trade association. They skirt the fine line of helping their members (the traders) and blatant illegal activity. I have always been in opposition of these organizations. RIAA and MPAA are two that are very recognizable but there are traders associations for about every industry out there. They are not there to help and protect the consumers of that product. Competitors should especially not be engaging in this closed meeting collaboration. Many of these organizations through the years have been big thorns in consumers sides or have been indicted for actions that bring harm to the market and consumer interests. I can't stress enough how important it is to keep these organizations under constant scrutiny.
- Status
