Tobacco Control Act. We must find a middle ground

[zoiDman]

Because we are talking about a product that purports to replace the act of lighting something on FIRE and inhaling the SMOKE--an activity that is a natural threat to health and safety.



I don't see anyone saying that e-cigs are safe. NOTHING in existence is safe. E-cigarettes and other smoke-free products are "not a safe alternative" in exactly the same way that reading books is not a safe alternative to burning them.



Yes, it is most certainly all about money...but there's a real good chance that the biggest profiteers on the whole thing don't even realize how much it is about money. ANTZ actually believe most of the lies they spew and think they are actually doing the world a favor by enacting draconian laws to demean, demoralize, and denormalize people who are unwilling to quit or who have successfully quit smoking but have been unable to maintain long term nicotine abstinence.



Actually unregulated products are taxed all the time: Just go to any GNC in a state with a sales tax.

Gigantic Corporations like those associated with tobacco and Pharmaceuticals do tend to support increased taxes and regulations on their products because, although this increases their overhead--those costs are passed onto the consumer in the form of higher prices in exchange for the fact that it makes it nearly impossible to compete in the market unless you are also a gigantic corporation with nearly unlimited resources. Who doesn't like higher prices and less competition? The consumer, that's who.



I hope you're wrong about that. Like Elaine said, compromise requires that BOTH sides make concessions. We've given up lighting anything on fire and inhaling smoke, and we're probably willing to give a little bit of ground on where we are allowed to vape indiscretely and/or what flavors should be available in retail stores and maybe even pay a reasonable tax....but exactly what concessions do you think FDA and their "clients" who sell BILLIONS of dollars worth of drugs and other products every year to treat diseases caused by smoking will be willing to concede?? We've resorted to calling them Anti-Nicotine/tobacco ZEALOTS for a reason.

You do like to Multi-Quote Don't you? LOL.

Hey. I promised kristin that I wouldn’t Debate these Threads so much so I’ll just say this.

These issues aren’t about Good and Bad, Right or Wrong. Or even Scientific data, yet.

There Really Legal and Money Issue.

BTW – The Compromise won’t be with Big Business. It will be with Policy makers.

If I’m a Policy Maker and some Pro-Vaping Group approaches me with ways that they can help me achieve some of the things that the Anti-Group wants, Age Verification, Indoor Bans, Regulation of e-Liquid Ingredients, Standardize Labels with Heath and Safety Info, Regulations of Types of Plastics that can be Used to Store e-Liquids, etc, I would Listen to them. I would work with them.

But if they were Adversarial on Every Issue and were fighting me Tooth and Nail I would not.

As an Elected Official, it is better to have Somewhat Happy Voters on Both Sides of the Issue. Because my Only Real Goal is to Get Re-Elected.

 

[Semiretired]

Zoidman - sometimes you make sense... I have worked with a lot of research areas, but nothing in this type of field - just tech stuff, but I sure wish I knew what it would really take to not only know the truth and whether the truth turns out to be good or bad to be able to get it out there unbiased and untethered... And do not tell me money - it will take more than just money...

 

[zoiDman]

Zoidman - sometimes you make sense... I have worked with a lot of research areas, but nothing in this type of field - just tech stuff, but I sure wish I knew what it would really take to not only know the truth and whether the truth turns out to be good or bad to be able to get it out there unbiased and untethered... And do not tell me money - it will take more than just money...

I get Lucky Once and Awhile. The Key is to catch one of my Rare Posts when I Do.

If you are talking about the "Truth" for the Health and Safety of e-Cig use then I think it is awhile away.

Until Multiple Long Term Clinical Studies are done on the Effects to Humans of Vaping VG, PG and Nicotine by Independent Nationally Recognize Doctors, the "Truth" is not going to be known.

Studies by the e-Cig Manufactures are Never Going to be seen as Un-Biazed. Same with Studies from the Anti-Vaping Groups. One of the Hardest part is going to be Finding someone who Doesn't have a Vested Interest in Vaping One Way or the Other.

We may Never be Known about Long Term Use of the Other Chemical Compounds found in e-Liquids (ie: Flavoring, Sweeteners, Colorants) because there are So Many Different Chemicals Used to Make the Rainbow of Flavors that are Currently for Sale on the Internet.

But then again, I don't think that the way Flavored e-Liquids are made and sold will remain in their Current Form Forever.

 

[Semiretired]

That is part of what I am afraid of. Laws restrictions etc. will be passed against the unknown and then if they ever do find out the truth and it is favorable then they will never undo it. If it turns out to be unfavorable - even in the slightest aspect - then they will over glorify their decisions.

I have a friend that runs a lab that tests medicine and such. I have asked her what could be done or if she could help - she said she would not touch it with a 10ft pole right now - she is backed up and really needs a larger lab

Oh, I just cannot wait for what they finally determine what flavors are acceptable - they will be something that will reduce the effectiveness of ecigs in getting away from cigarettes. I was not able to fully drop my smokes until I quit vaping smoke flavored eliquids.

 

[zoiDman]

That is part of what I am afraid of. Laws restrictions etc. will be passed against the unknown and then if they ever do find out the truth and it is favorable then they will never undo it. If it turns out to be unfavorable - even in the slightest aspect - then they will over glorify their decisions.

I have a friend that runs a lab that tests medicine and such. I have asked her what could be done or if she could help - she said she would not touch it with a 10ft pole right now - she is backed up and really needs a larger lab

Oh, I just cannot wait for what they finally determine what flavors are acceptable - they will be something that will reduce the effectiveness of ecigs in getting away from cigarettes. I was not able to fully drop my smokes until I quit vaping smoke flavored eliquids.

You never know.

Perhaps a Compromise can be struck when the Real Restrictions start to come down the Road.

But the Issue of Vaping Indoors in Non-Smoking Areas I see Very Little Hope for in the Future.

But I could be wrong.

 

[Semiretired]

If that was the only sacrifice I would generously agree, but that is not where it will stop. They have states not allowing smoking in open parks or even in the parking lot outside the park. Someday there will be no smoking (and no vaping) in the state itself... Sure hope they build short turnpikes around those states...

 

[zoiDman]

I never said it will stop with Indoor Non-Smoking Area Bans. It won't.

I'm just saying that when if a Battle isn't Winnable, a Good General will Pull Back his troops to Regroup verses Rushing that same Hill Again and Again and Again.

A war is a Series of Battles. You don't have to Win All the Battles to be able to get Something out of a War. And you don't Ever want to Squander Resources when those Resources could be Better Used in Other Areas.

There are going to be Bigger Battles to Fight.

 

[DC2]

As an Elected Official, it is better to have Somewhat Happy Voters on Both Sides of the Issue. Because my Only Real Goal is to Get Re-Elected.

As an elected official it would be better if you were not known as someone willingly killing people.
Legislators opposed to electronic cigarettes are killing people, whether they actually know that or not.

Any legislation that hinders or obstructs a smoker's access to reduced harm products could be deadly.

If a legislator know thats, then they are willingly killing people.
And if they don't know that then it is our duty is to make sure they know that.

And if legislators are willingly supporting such legislation we need to make sure they feel the heat of that decision.
That is the only way we are going to win with the resources we currently have.
That is the only way we are going to get them to back off.

Obviously, directly accusing them of willingly killing people is not a good strategy.
But I think making sure it is implied is a smart move on our part.

Are there potentially better ways? Sure.
There are always better ways when you have more money.

But we don't have more money just yet.

 

[sherid]

If you don't FIGHT as Vocalek says, you will LOSE: there is no compromise with these zealots. America was founded on revolution. It's how we came to be. A large group of teenagers nattily dressed but wholly determined eventually brought the end of the Vietnam War. It can be done. Let's do it. The anti-smoker movement is a war against all things pleasurable, including cigarettes, food, and alcohol. Eventually, they will probably find a way to limit sex "for the children." FIGHT them.

 

[kristin]

IMO, the flavor issue is directly related to CASAA's involvement with the Tobacco Harm Reduction movement. If e-cigarettes and dissolvables are accepted as THR products, unless it can be shown that any "non-tobacco" flavors somehow increase the health risks to equal or exceed cigarette smoke (highly unlikely) or increase use by non-smokers or never smokers to the point that the negative health risks gained exceed the negative health risks lost by smokers making the switch (extremely unlikely), there is no valid justification for banning non-tobacco flavors in THR products anymore than they would be justified in banning them from NRT products. Tobacco control won the ban on flavored cigarettes with the argument that it increased youth initiation (untrue but the argument worked nonetheless) and thereby increased public health risks. In a THR product, the flavors simply wouldn't be a factor - which is why it is so important to gain acceptance for THR.

 

[sailorman]

I challenge any of you who are willing to accept being treated and taxed like a smoker to do a google search on "safety electronic cigarettes". Now, disregard the phony review sites. In the first 10 pages, you will find an abstract of the BU article and a reference to the Health New Zealand paper. At least 90% of everything else is negative. Comments from non-vapers in any of the article sites or news sites run overwhelmingly against us. The PR is heavily stacked toward the view of the ACS, Tobacco Free Kids, the ALA, et. al. It looks to me like they are winning the propaganda war without breaking a sweat.

Why? Because it's all about the children and the stupid confusion caused by the conflation, both intentional and unintentional, of PVs and cigarettes and of smoke and vapor.

This is what Joe Average thinks of vaping and vapers: "You people look like you're smoking and my child is going to get the impression that smoking is acceptable.", "Who are you to smoke in public?", "It's still a cigarette, even if it's an electric one", "I don't want to be breathing in your drug", "They look just like cigarettes and they make them in pretty colors to attract kids", "I smelled that smoke in a mall and it reeked worse than a cigarette", "those things should be taxed to make it as expensive as smoking regular cigarettes".....and on, and on, and on. Even smokers were jumping on the bandwagon and declaring they'd never use an electric cigarette, even though they know they should quit. To the public, e-cigs are methadone and vapers are just junkies to be treated like junkies. These propaganda sites and campaigns are killing people. What is our response? CASAA is on page 9 of the google search results and we talk about "sensible taxation and regulations", compliance with smoking bans and going outside to vape with the smokers. When there is no distinction between us and smoke, between PVs and cigarettes, between vapor and smoke, we will have only ourselves to blame.

This is a war. We can't let ourselves reinforce the disinformation and propaganda campaigns by appeasing those who will not be satisfied until PVs are banned, taxed and/or demonized to the exact same degree as cigarettes are.

Indoor bans are unacceptable. We are not smoking. There is no evidence of any harm from vapor. The only harm is to the ego of those who cannot stand the idea of something that looks like smoke emanating from someone's mouth. It's to the ego of the lazy parent who is too stupid or lazy to teach their kids the difference between vapor and smoke. Even if vapor is not 100% innocuous, it cannot possibly be as bad as any one of a thousand other indoor air pollutants. And it's certainly not as bad as the pollution any corporation in America is allowed to spew into all our air.

Extra taxes are unacceptable. Tobacco and alcohol is taxed to discourage use and pay for health costs. They are sin taxes. There is no public health cost to vaping. If anything, we should get a tax incentive. When you start accepting a tax on something just because someone derives pleasure from it, you have crossed the line from responsibility to submissiveness.

Treating nicotine like Plutonium is unacceptable. Nicotine has been sold, unregulated, forever. There is no logical reason to suddenly treat it like a controlled substance. A lot of things are poisons. Personally, if I wanted to poison someone, I could go into any WalMart and come out with a dozen things that would do a better job than nicotine. If you're a DIYer and you want assurance of quality and purity, buy pharmaceutical grade nic from a reliable supplier and get a testing kit.

Treating juice like medicine is unacceptable: When we start acting like juice vendors are making medicine, our juice will be regulated just like medicine. Personally, I have no problem with someone making juice in their kitchen. I buy vegetables at a farmer's market. I buy eggs and bread there too. If you insist on laboratory standards, buy it from a laboratory. Don't insist everyone else treated like a paranoid just because you are. Do your own research when choosing juice vendors.

Every one of those issues has the potential to harm someone if left unregulated. But if they start regulating them and taxing us like smokers, we might as well just give the whole industry up to Pharma. There are powerful interests that will never be satisfied until PVs are banned entirely. Regulation in the name of guaranteed safety is exactly the mechanism they will use to de-facto destroy the e-cig industry and send us back to tobacco. Every time we try to compromise and sound reasonable, they will ratchet up the stakes a little higher. A ratchet only moves in one direction

 

[ctourtelot]

I challenge any of you who are willing to accept being treated and taxed like a smoker to do a google search on "safety electronic cigarettes". Now, disregard the phony review sites. In the first 10 pages, you will find an abstract of the BU article and a reference to the Health New Zealand paper. At least 90% of everything else is negative. Comments from non-vapers in any of the article sites or news sites run overwhelmingly against us. The PR is heavily stacked toward the view of the ACS, Tobacco Free Kids, the ALA, et. al. It looks to me like they are winning the propaganda war without breaking a sweat.

Why? Because it's all about the children and the stupid confusion caused by the conflation, both intentional and unintentional, of PVs and cigarettes and of smoke and vapor.

This is what Joe Average thinks of vaping and vapers: "You people look like you're smoking and my child is going to get the impression that smoking is acceptable.", "Who are you to smoke in public?", "It's still a cigarette, even if it's an electric one", "I don't want to be breathing in your drug", "They look just like cigarettes and they make them in pretty colors to attract kids", "I smelled that smoke in a mall and it reeked worse than a cigarette", "those things should be taxed to make it as expensive as smoking regular cigarettes".....and on, and on, and on. Even smokers were jumping on the bandwagon and declaring they'd never use an electric cigarette, even though they know they should quit. To the public, e-cigs are methadone and vapers are just junkies to be treated like junkies. These propaganda sites and campaigns are killing people. What is our response? CASAA is on page 9 of the google search results and we talk about "sensible taxation and regulations", compliance with smoking bans and going outside to vape with the smokers. When there is no distinction between us and smoke, between PVs and cigarettes, between vapor and smoke, we will have only ourselves to blame.

This is a war. We can't let ourselves reinforce the disinformation and propaganda campaigns by appeasing those who will not be satisfied until PVs are banned, taxed and/or demonized to the exact same degree as cigarettes are.

Indoor bans are unacceptable. We are not smoking. There is no evidence of any harm from vapor. The only harm is to the ego of those who cannot stand the idea of something that looks like smoke emanating from someone's mouth. It's to the ego of the lazy parent who is too stupid or lazy to teach their kids the difference between vapor and smoke. Even if vapor is not 100% innocuous, it cannot possibly be as bad as any one of a thousand other indoor air pollutants. And it's certainly not as bad as the pollution any corporation in America is allowed to spew into all our air.

Extra taxes are unacceptable. Tobacco and alcohol is taxed to discourage use and pay for health costs. They are sin taxes. There is no public health cost to vaping. If anything, we should get a tax incentive. When you start accepting a tax on something just because someone derives pleasure from it, you have crossed the line from responsibility to submissiveness.

Treating nicotine like Plutonium is unacceptable. Nicotine has been sold, unregulated, forever. There is no logical reason to suddenly treat it like a controlled substance. A lot of things are poisons. Personally, if I wanted to poison someone, I could go into any WalMart and come out with a dozen things that would do a better job than nicotine. If you're a DIYer and you want assurance of quality and purity, buy pharmaceutical grade nic from a reliable supplier and get a testing kit.

Treating juice like medicine is unacceptable: When we start acting like juice vendors are making medicine, our juice will be regulated just like medicine. Personally, I have no problem with someone making juice in their kitchen. I buy vegetables at a farmer's market. I buy eggs and bread there too. If you insist on laboratory standards, buy it from a laboratory. Don't insist everyone else treated like a paranoid just because you are. Do your own research when choosing juice vendors.

Every one of those issues has the potential to harm someone if left unregulated. But if they start regulating them and taxing us like smokers, we might as well just give the whole industry up to Pharma. There are powerful interests that will never be satisfied until PVs are banned entirely. Regulation in the name of guaranteed safety is exactly the mechanism they will use to de-facto destroy the e-cig industry and send us back to tobacco. Every time we try to compromise and sound reasonable, they will ratchet up the stakes a little higher. A ratchet only moves in one direction

Is it possible to start a slow clap on a forum? Very VERY well said!

 

[TennDave]

Slow CLAP...A LITTLE FASTER.....CLAP!! Faster Clap.... STANDING OVATION!!!!

 

[Newwell]

Slow CLAP...A LITTLE FASTER.....CLAP!! Faster Clap.... STANDING OVATION!!!!
Sailorman, I don't even know where to begin...Wonderfully said, articulate, to the point. Absolute STANDING OVATION here

 

[LeDean]

com·pro·mise/ˈkämprəˌmīz/

Noun:

An agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

Compromise is only possible when the two sides are fairly evenly matched in power. If one side has the vast majority of the power, the weaker side has only two choices:

Capitulate

Fight


If you believe that the worst case scenario is that we will have to make our purchases at brick and mortar stores, then you haven't been reading Bill Godshall's analysis of the wording of the Tobacco Act. The worst case scenario is much worse.

Section 905 calls for extensive proof of "substantial equivalence" for marketing any tobacco product that was introduced to the market later than February 15, 2007. (See Page 1794).

So, assuming that the FDA doesn't come up with some trick to ban the products altogether, they could insist that we give up the newer improved products that are working well for us and go back to the Ruyan RN 4081 model that is made to look like a cigarette, that uses batteries that go dead after a few hours (take plenty of spare, charged batteries with you!), with cartridges that hold 1/3 ml of liquid soaked into a fibrous filling that begins to shed threads for you to inhale when the liquid level drops too low.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ31/pdf/PLAW-111publ31.pdf

The odds of someone becoming very ill by being exposed to nicotine liquid from a package that has sprung a leak is rather slim. The liquid, which contains from 0% to 3.6% of nicotine on average, is nowhere near as poisonous as we have been led to believe. Many of us have been spilling liquid onto our hands for years with no ill effects.

I don't believe that legislators are really concerned about minors ordering tobacco products over the internet. That's an excuse. They want to quash internet sales to preserve and protect taxes.

I'm sorry, but vaping 0% nic juice while wearing a nicotine patch will not do it for me. If the nicotine patch didn't work by itself, why would vaping 0% nic juice make it work any better?

Since I have insufficient power to compromise, and I have no desire to capitulate, I'm left with the only other option: Fight.

YOU are my hero. (I wanted to say heroine, but you know how it is. lol) <3 <3 <3