The Elephant in the Room

[Rossum]

Well, suppliers will have standards that they have to comply with. I don't think that that's something that's undesirable.

If these "standards" drive most of today's suppliers out of business, I think they're VERY undesirable.

If I have to answer that for you then you have a lot to learn about liquids, where they are made

I know exactly where most of the liquids I buy are made -- right in the shop that I buy them in. Unfortunately, if the FDA gets their way, they probably won't be able to offer their own liquids.

I'm not even gonna go into all the possibilities of liquids anyone can buy on the web that contain who knows what. Just do reading in more then one place. I think its easy to find if your looking for unbiased facts on the dangers of unregulated liquids. Or perhaps contact your local law enforcement and ask about what they've been seeing being sold in the open in some stores.

You're making interesting insinuations here without providing a shred of evidence.

 

[Bored2Tears]

I'm sure everyone here is more informed on this topic than myself. Surely the vaping community has determined that some form of regulation is coming. I don't understand those who want to fight any/ all regulation. It seems obvious to me that is overly idealistic and futile. Regulations are going to come.

Where is a coherent list of regulations that the vaping community would be accepting of? It's hard to negotiate on any topic unless both parties are willing to make concessions on both sides. I have read much of what is on the CASAA website. I don't see anything concise about stated goals for the vaping community.

Personally, I've already conceded that some regulation is necessary and inevitable. I am glad that some of you know with great confidence what's in your e liquid. Not sure how you discovered that information. Guess I am too new and uninformed to have done all the research. And, I think even if I asked my liquid suppliers .....it's unclear I could trust the response. A few liquid retailers have already been called out for lying on this.

So what points are we willing to concede? For me personally , I would be completely accepting of at least the following: 1. No sale to minors under 18. 2. No advertising (same guidelines as required for tobacco). 2. Warning labels that although safer than tobacco use, it is not proven to be harm free. 3. Warning labels about flavorings that may contain harmful chemicals to inhale. 4. Warning labels that give guidelines for safe levels of these chemicals being inhaled.

I can't make an informed consumer CHOICE unless I know what's in my liquid, and what are safe levels of any particular chemical / flavoring / etc. Not everyone (average consumers) is going to get a quasi -PHD in chemistry to understand all of this. To me, that's the point of some governmental regulation.

I should not be expected to do 400 hours of research to learn what is in my e liquid and what is a safe level for vaping. With some standards, the average consumer should be able to obtain this information in plain language. Right now, there are none. I may as well be purchasing stuff to inhale from some guy in a dark alley. Right now, I am acting on faith that it's not contaminated with stuff I didn't intend to inhale.

 

[Racehorse]

You're making interesting insinuations here without providing a shred of evidence.

Perhaps he is restricted by the forum rules that certain subject matter and/or links to sites cannot be posted.....

 

[Alien Traveler]

Sure regulations are needed. Something equal to food industry regulations with addition of prohibition of selling to minors.
What is not acceptable is equating vaping goods to tobacco goods.

 

[Bored2Tears]

Sure regulations are needed. Something equal to food industry regulations with addition of prohibition of selling to minors.
What is not acceptable is equating vaping goods to tobacco goods.

OK. Explain to me why it isn't acceptable. I am open to the reasoning. But, first I'd like to say the framework for tobacco is already there. It's a lot easier to obtain the regulation based on existing framework. And, I'd argue to be careful what we wish for. If we completely refuse the existing framework, the alternative framework may be a lot worse.

 

[Alien Traveler]

OK. Explain to me why it isn't acceptable. I am open to the reasoning. But, first I'd like to say the framework for tobacco is already there. It's a lot easier to obtain the regulation based on existing framework. And, I'd argue to be careful what we wish for. If we completely refuse the existing framework, the alternative framework may be a lot worse.

Explain? It's easy. Vaping is much healthier that smoking. So, prohibitive taxation should not be applied as it is not applied to sugar industry (sugar is somewhat unhealthy, isn't it?)

 

[Racehorse]

prohibitive taxation should not be applied as it is not applied to sugar industry (sugar is somewhat unhealthy, isn't it?)

Which is why you need a lobby group.

 

[Bored2Tears]

Explain? It's easy. Vaping is much healthier that smoking. So, prohibitive taxation should not be applied as it is not applied to sugar industry (sugar is somewhat unhealthy, isn't it?)

Vaping is more similar to tobacco use than it is to sugar consumption. They are going to be viewed in the same light by the vast majority of the population. I think it's too idealistic to think otherwise. The fact is that the majority of vapers are former smokers. Most of us got here as an alternative to smoking.

I think the attempt to portray vaping as unrelated to tobacco use is an unrealistic goal. They are different, but very much related. That's all I mean. I don't think the vaping community is being honest enough with themselves on this point. Big Tobacco has a fight in this game because the customer base is the same. I'd argue we are better off admitting that. The vast majority of us are former smokers.

The public sees vapers as smokers. We haven't done enough to educate them on why it's different I guess. Very few people understand that vaping is less harmful. We are in the extreme minority.

 

[Lessifer]

So what points are we willing to concede? For me personally , I would be completely accepting of at least the following: 1. No sale to minors under 18. 2. No advertising (same guidelines as required for tobacco). 2. Warning labels that although safer than tobacco use, it is not proven to be harm free. 3. Warning labels about flavorings that may contain harmful chemicals to inhale. 4. Warning labels that give guidelines for safe levels of these chemicals being inhaled.

I can't make an informed consumer CHOICE unless I know what's in my liquid, and what are safe levels of any particular chemical / flavoring / etc. Not everyone (average consumers) is going to get a quasi -PHD in chemistry to understand all of this. To me, that's the point of some governmental regulation.

I should not be expected to do 400 hours of research to learn what is in my e liquid and what is a safe level for vaping. With some standards, the average consumer should be able to obtain this information in plain language. Right now, there are none. I may as well be purchasing stuff to inhale from some guy in a dark alley. Right now, I am acting on faith that it's not contaminated with stuff I didn't intend to inhale.

1. I don't personally agree, but I know I'm in the minority, so ok, for liquids containing nicotine.
2. No advertising, I don't actually agree with this one, because I don't agree that vaping poses the same risks to "public health" as regular tobacco use.
(2.) Warning labels "not proven to be harm free." Nothing is harm free, so no.
3.How about "Warning: may contain nicotine and/or natural or artificial flavorings"
4. We don't have guidelines for what is or is not safe to inhale, in the way that we're inhaling them.

There comes a point where warning labels become meaningless. In California we have these proposition 65 labels that warn us that chemicals that have been found to be harmful by the state of California have been found at a location, building, park, etc. The problem is, these are now EVERYWHERE because the list of chemicals is 23 pages long and there is no information about exactly which chemical was found or at what levels. So, the warning signs are mostly ignored. You can only fit so much on a juice bottle. I think an ingredients list should be sufficient.

As far as why it is unreasonable to apply Tobacco Control standards to vaping, it's because vaping, according to the most recent research, is 90-99% safer than smoking cigarettes. The "reason" tobacco is so tightly controlled/restricted is because we have been told that the negative effects far outweigh any possible positive ones. This is not the case with vaping.

 

[Robino1]

Vaping is more similar to tobacco use than it is to sugar consumption. They are going to be viewed in the same light by the vast majority of the population. I think it's too idealistic to think otherwise. The fact is that the majority of vapers are former smokers. Most of us got here as an alternative to smoking.

I think the attempt to portray vaping as unrelated to tobacco use is an unrealistic goal. They are different, but very much related. That's all I mean. I don't think the vaping community is being honest enough with themselves on this point. Big Tobacco has a fight in this game because the customer base is the same. I'd argue we are better off admitting that. The vast majority of us are former smokers.

The public sees vapers as smokers. We haven't done enough to educate them on why it's different I guess. Very few people understand that vaping is less harmful. We are in the extreme minority.

Because vaping "looks" like smoking, people are already predisposed to think of vaping in a negative light. No argument there. The part that pisses me off, the media jumps on the negative aspect and runs with it, the FDA is no better. Hmmm come to think of it, I really need to pay attention to what ads are being run during the local and national news. I should start watching the news again. I quit when they started being biased towards whomever was paying their bills.

How many posts have we read where someone tries to educate a friend, loved one, co-worker, passerby... and they have bought into all the negative media and have no interest in listening to what we, as people that have felt the benefits, have to present to the table?

Uphill battle.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

Explain? It's easy. Vaping is much healthier that smoking. So, prohibitive taxation should not be applied as it is not applied to sugar industry (sugar is somewhat unhealthy, isn't it?)

There is currently no taxation proposed, nor does there have to be.

 

[Bored2Tears]

1. I don't personally agree, but I know I'm in the minority, so ok, for liquids containing nicotine.
2. No advertising, I don't actually agree with this one, because I don't agree that vaping poses the same risks to "public health" as regular tobacco use.
(2.) Warning labels "not proven to be harm free." Nothing is harm free, so no.
3.How about "Warning: may contain nicotine and/or natural or artificial flavorings"
4. We don't have guidelines for what is or is not safe to inhale, in the way that we're inhaling them.

There comes a point where warning labels become meaningless. In California we have these proposition 65 labels that warn us that chemicals that have been found to be harmful by the state of California have been found at a location, building, park, etc. The problem is, these are now EVERYWHERE because the list of chemicals is 23 pages long and there is no information about exactly which chemical was found or at what levels. So, the warning signs are mostly ignored. You can only fit so much on a juice bottle. I think an ingredients list should be sufficient.

As far as why it is unreasonable to apply Tobacco Control standards to vaping, it's because vaping, according to the most recent research, is 90-99% safer than smoking cigarettes. The "reason" tobacco is so tightly controlled/restricted is because we have been told that the negative effects far outweigh any possible positive ones. This is not the case with vaping.

I expect a lot of folks to disagree with my personal opinion on the matter. The only point I am trying to bring forward is that the vaping community has not stated concisely what the goals are. What is reasonable to expect when it comes to legislation?

Burying our head in the sand, or saying no legislation is not going to work, in my opinion. If we can't even agree on a warning label for things like diacetyl or other known harmful ingredients, then I think we will be in a losing position.

#4 above that I bolded is what concerns me about no regulation. As an average consumer, I don't have a PHD in chemistry to do all my own research. I do think vaping is far safer than smoking. But I would like to have the choice about levels of chemicals in the liquid I choose. Show them to me in a label so that I know.

So does the "vaping community" have anything that resembles a consensus on what we are willing to concede? CASAA doesn't make it very obvious in my reading of their information.

 

[Robino1]

There is currently no taxation proposed, nor does there have to be.

Oh come on..... you KNOW that is where this will be heading. The FDA historically starts small and works its way up. We saw what happened to cigarettes. This is following the same pattern. The difference this time, we are willing to fight. They certainly did not expect us to fight this.

They got their first taste of it back in 2009. The reason they took so long to actually make their deeming public, they had to try to make it as foolproof so they don't look like fools again. Covering their hind end this time.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

OK. Explain to me why it isn't acceptable. I am open to the reasoning. But, first I'd like to say the framework for tobacco is already there. It's a lot easier to obtain the regulation based on existing framework. And, I'd argue to be careful what we wish for. If we completely refuse the existing framework, the alternative framework may be a lot worse.

The thing about it all is that the tobacco control doesn't say a whole hell of a lot. The biggest issue right now is the application process, but the FDA could make exceptions to this. You're right. If this whole issue was punted back to Congress, who knows what could happen. As it stands, the industry could get away with pretty minimal consequences. In fact, a lot of people were critical of the legislation because they didn't think it gave the FDA enough power.

The problem, as I see it, is that few people actually worked towards convincing the FDA that there should be alternatives. SFATA is the only group who proposed work arounds within the process. I wish more groups had spoken up about this.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

I expect a lot of folks to disagree with my personal opinion on the matter. The only point I am trying to bring forward is that the vaping community has not stated concisely what the goals are. What is reasonable to expect when it comes to legislation?

Burying our head in the sand, or saying no legislation is not going to work, in my opinion. If we can't even agree on a warning label for things like diacetyl or other known harmful ingredients, then I think we will be in a losing position.

#4 above that I bolded is what concerns me about no regulation. As an average consumer, I don't have a PHD in chemistry to do all my own research. I do think vaping is far safer than smoking. But I would like to have the choice about levels of chemicals in the liquid I choose. Show them to me in a label so that I know.

So does the "vaping community" have anything that resembles a consensus on what we are willing to concede? CASAA doesn't make it very obvious in my reading of their information.

The fact is, most people on here will concede nothing. Not even age restrictions from what I can see.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

Oh come on..... you KNOW that is where this will be heading. The FDA historically starts small and works its way up. We saw what happened to cigarettes. This is following the same pattern. The difference this time, we are willing to fight. They certainly did not expect us to fight this.

They got their first taste of it back in 2009. The reason they took so long to actually make their deeming public, they had to try to make it as foolproof so they don't look like fools again. Covering their hind end this time.

Sure, they probably will. However, I don't know how an alternative framework would help. The government can and probably will tax things. A whole new bill could be drafted that would create entirely different standards for e-cigs and it probably have taxation provisions.

 

[Robino1]

When meetings took place with the FDA, CASAA tried to talk sense into any regulations. This was while they were doing their "fact finding" phase in the deeming process.

 

[Robino1]

Sure, they probably will. However, I don't know how an alternative framework would help. The government can and probably will tax things. A whole new bill could be drafted that would create entirely different standards for e-cigs and it probably have taxation provisions.

I don't have a problem with taxes. As long as they are just like everything else that is taxed. When they start putting those so called Sin Taxes, that is the issue I have. Let there be the regular state taxes just like any other product I buy.

Sin taxes are just glorified money grabbing schemes. We have let them get away with that far longer than we should have.

 

[Robino1]

Granted the FDA doesn't regulate the tax on things but they do make it possible to have things taxed by how they place labels on stuff.

 

[Bored2Tears]

I think that it's the 10th or 11th hour...and time to get realistic about achievable goals. I'd even concede that a tax is coming, so the question is where should that $ be used? For scientific research on the health benefits of vaping? To pay for the testing that needs to be done on liquids? To improve the standards for the average vaper?

Let's face it. It's so easy to condemn taxes. But if society just took up a voluntary collection to fund our schools, our military, our roads, our court system, and the essential infrastructure we have in place....where would we be? I for one believe that taxes are a necessary evil.

Just guessing it's realistic to expect that there will be an imposed tax. But right now I think it's important to give an opinion of how that money gets used.

I also think the framework in place for tobacco is going to be the framework used for electronic cigarette regulation. We'd have to overcome some overwhelming obstacles to change the direction that is headed.

It's time to start talking about what we do agree on and what benefits might come from a little bit of regulation? I do think there are some measurable benefits. I don't want them to be too intrusive either.

Very few people will donate their $. If there's a slight tax imposed to e liquid then there is no choice.

If we can't make any concessions, then we look just as foolish as the FDA about reading the science. It's the political world we live in.