Smoking Everwhere's new full page ad:

[kristin]

I do kristin, I just don't get the feedback that I get here.

I think you are misunderstanding them.

You seem to think that people here agree with what is happening and think it's ok, but 99% do NOT think it's right - just like you. They are just telling you what the government's/FDA's stance is and that we can't really do anything about it if the FDA gets it's way - there are laws in the US and unless we change them, it's the government's ball, so they call the shots.

That is why so many of us are writing to our legistators and trying to get the word out to gain public sentiment to our side. A few people think that it's too late and we're all screwed, but most have hope that the judge will rule in our favor.

Most people, I think, do agree that the nicotine liquids need some kind of quality control & ingredients listed.

Some people think being classified as a tobacco product is a mistake, I think because the government will "sin tax" the heck out of it & drive the cost up. Others don't want the FDA to be able to classify it as a new drug device, because it'll hold up distribution in testing for years and years and then be turned over to Big Pharma to charge gobs of money in order to buy it. Either way, it comes down to vapers having to pay a LOT more for e-cigs and possibly losing it altogether, if the FDA bans it until they are done with the testing.

It's sort of a catch 22 situation.

I think everyone here agrees that it should be a free marketplace, but they feel like Smoking Everywhere is hurting the chances of the vaping community as a whole by flaunting the e-cig as a stop smoking device, when they are right now sitting in court arguing that they never claimed it was a stop smoking device.

But, other new products put out on the market have to pass various government safety tests - whether it's the FDA, Federal Trade Commission or the UL - even if they use some previously approved components. It was kind of naive to think that e-cigs would be able to slide by without having to go through the same gauntlet.

It probably would have helped if they had put a disclaimer on their products - just as male enhancements and diet pills do - that "these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA" or something along those lines. But, as soon as they started claiming that e-cigs helped people stop smoking, they got the FDA's attention, because the FDA legally controls all products that claim to stop smoking.

 

[dragonpuff]

It's sort of a catch 22 situation.

I think everyone here agrees that it should be a free marketplace, but they feel like Smoking Everywhere is hurting the chances of the vaping community as a whole by flaunting the e-cig as a stop smoking device, when they are right now sitting in court arguing that they never claimed it was a stop smoking device.

The thing i'm really hanging my hopes on here is the fact that the courts and the FDA all have the legal power to treat each manufacturer/retailer of e-cigs separately. Yes, SE is putting the business in jeopardy, but what about Njoy? Njoy's products are currently being used in a study conducted by the National Cancer Institute to determine how effective they are at quitting smoking! I do believe judge Leon will view these cases separately, as well as the FDA.

As for other companies? Many retailers are NOT marketing their products as quit-smoking devices and some, like johnson's creek, are actually registered with the FDA. There are companies out there that are trying to do everything right. Sure, many are not spending billions on medical testing to prove their efficacy, but what's there to prove when you're product is not intended for nicotine cessation?

And that brings me to my next point; there is a huge medical and legal distinction between using e-cigs as a substitute for smoking (even a complete substitute) and using them for nicotine cessation. That's where the FDA comes in. If it's only a substitute for smoking, there is no medical intent, besides possibly harm reduction as a byproduct (which is fine as long as they don't claim it reduces harm without proof). However, if it's for nicotine cessation (i.e. a step-down system), then it's treating a medical condition and you need proof to that end.

Realistically speaking, how are we using these? Are we using them as permanent substitutes for smoking or as nicotine cessation systems? No doubt some are gradually weaning off nicotine, but i'm willing to bet that most of us (estimate 70% or so) intend to keep using these, with nicotine, as permanent substitutes for cigarettes, thus proving that for many of us it is not intended to treat the disease of nicotine addiction.

This is where we enter a huge gray area. There is no legal precedent for a drug to be on the market that is not "grandfathered," does not treat a medical condition and is clearly not unsafe for human beings to use. It's not so much that all drugs outside these classifications are "illegal" for all intensive purposes, just that they are not classified into any "legal" category. And if this does turn out to be the case, it will NOT be up to the FDA to do anything with them at that point. The FDA has no legal power beyond what is handed to it.

It will then be up to our legislators to draft bills with provisions that create and define a new category, or refine an already-existing one, so there is a place for something like e-cigs to fit. Hopefully it will be a new "harm-reduction category". In fact, a provision for this is already built into the new tobacco law; it's not a long shot by any means. Regardless of what that new category is, however, only then will the FDA be allowed to do anything, provided its in the provisions of the new law for them to do so.

My whole point is, we keep trying to predict what will happen based on precedent, what has happened before. The problem with this viewpoint is that nothing like this has ever happened before, so we'll just have to wait and see

Golly, this might just be my longest post yet!

 

[kinabaloo]

I tend to agree with JLeigh and Aditas on the 'what should be', though I think that Kristin spells out calmly the 'what is'.

One way to begin ammending the law is to realise the differences in need for government choice over individual freedom. For medical drugs (most of which are useless/redundant, at best, imo; the benefits being mostly placebo effect in many cases) the level of scientific knowledge to evaluate the risks is very high (maybe even beyond MDs to make an informed decision). The idea that a body can prevent drug companies using the population as guinea pigs makes sense, but can be argued to not work so well as it could. At present the FDA and BP are so close that it is more or less self-regulation, that is self-serving.

The point is that many decisions could be left up to MDs (in the case of medical drugs) and up to individuals in cases where the risks are small. The FDA can have their say in the leaflet and that could be sufficient scope for intervention in some cases; and I'd suggest that the e-cig and liquid goes in that category, after some simple registrations, and basic testing / ingredients review (weeks).

The present classification system is too simplistic, too rigid and too all-or-nothing. And I think the system is far less virtuous than some seem to believe. We need to press for reform.

edit: DragonPuff above is thinking some of the same issues. And though I have some caveats here and there, it's a good post. The law sometimes needs updating.

I hope that we are not so far apart on most things as sometimes it seems; just emphasing different aspects.

 

[BoldDave]

Just wanted to chime in to give you guys a bit of perspective on those websites that were linked to in the original post.

They were NOT made by Smoking Everywhere.

They were made by AFFILIATES of Smoking Everywhere.

There is a distinction, believe it or not. Smoking Everywhere currently offers their product on a free trial basis through CPA (Cost-Per-Action) networks on the internet.

CPA networks are the middlemen between companies like SE and affiliates who are saavy internet promoters. These affiliates make commissions from SE based on how many free trial sales they are able to generate for the company.

This is important information to comprehend, because affiliates often use deceptive (and illegal) methods to promote products and the advertisers are often completely unaware. They can't tell where the traffic is coming from if the affiliate is competent enough to hide the traffic source.

In this case, an affiliate has made a fake news website and a fake blog (flog) in order to promote the SE product in a slightly sketchy manner.

The bottom line is this: SE may not actually even be aware that these websites exist, but that does not remove their guilt in the whole incident. They must remain diligent in weeding out bad affiliates such as the ones who made these pages, because it drags our industry as a whole through the mud.

I hope this makes sense.

 

[BoldDave]

They can't tell where the traffic is coming from if the affiliate is competent enough to hide the traffic source.

By they I mean the advertiser, in this case SE.