Why we should not promote ecigs

[ThreePutt]

Exactly, that needs to change. Facts are facts, and unless we stand up and speak up about it, they are going to run all over us as if we are smokers and that's wrong. Once places like NY put a $50 dollar tax per 10 ml bottle the battle will have been lost.

That could either set up a black market for the stuff, or the juice makers will get inventive, and start calling it "liquid incense" or some other lame name (similar what they do with the synthetic MJ and coke).

I certainly hope it doesn't come to this.

 

[UntamedRose]

Exactly. Ecigs are officially ruled a tobacco product and will fall under the same rules and regulations. However, my understanding is that the ecig industry wants eciges to be ruled as tobacco products so they are no longer regulated by the FDA. The rulling is a win for the ecig industry.

Back on the point of my thread. Why would anyone promote ecigs if it means that ecigs will be on every regulatory agency's radar screen. If you promote ecigs, then you have become your own worst enemy.

Dave

No the FDA regulates Tobacco as well.
What the ecig industry didnt want was for these to be regulated and treated as New Drug delivery devices. Where it would be pulled off the market until Major(Read $$$$) studies had been done, and then you needed a prescription to purchase.

 

[Uncle Willie]

I wouldn't say you're "wrong" per se. But rules is rules... at least until rules change.

The primary reason most organizations banned "tobacco products" wholesale was that smokers often resorted to dipping or chewing, resulting in people spitting into something. Even if they're doing it into cans or bottles as opposed to the nearest trash can or water fountain it's a bit "gross", and if you've ever encountered a spill of such a container... well, it's just not pleasant.

Of course, within the set of "tobacco products" e-Cigs are a whole different class. No smoke, no spit. So they might be exempted from such policies, but it would have to be "official" to get by without repercussions.

I would say that as long as no one complains, vape away! There's probably little to be gained from bringing it up right away. However... you should be prepared for the day someone does say something, at which time it would be worth bringing the issue up with whoever sets the policy to see if it can be changed.

Keep in mind that the onus will be on you to prove that the vapor is equal to or no worse than an air freshener or someone's cologne/perfume -- especially if others in the office are known to use those items (I know us vapers believe that, but to my knowledge such a claim is not incontrovertible - at least, I have no solid evidence to point to yet). So until then I would gather up as much evidence as you can to support that claim to back up an exception for vaping.

You might even draft a revision yourself. If you do so, a trick I recommend is to write it the stuff you want added in as close to the same wording and format as the original (which makes it more difficult for them to want to change) and include or leave in some items that, psychologically, they cannot prevent themselves from changing (which makes them feel important for having broken out the red pen). This can only increase the chance that they will leave the stuff that's important to you alone.

Good luck and let us know how all this turns out.

Great post .. I'm curious, when I saw your signature .. how was smoking handled on a sub .. ??

 

[Uncle Willie]

Exactly, that needs to change. Facts are facts, and unless we stand up and speak up about it, they are going to run all over us as if we are smokers and that's wrong. Once places like NY put a $50 dollar tax per 10 ml bottle the battle will have been lost.

I myself don't see how the market can be regulated or even taxed .. we are using a device that in and of itself requires other ingredients .. those ingredients include the PG/VG which is readily obtainable and cannot be banned or made illegal without other industries suffering .. that leaves the tobacco extract itself .. so, any taxation or regulation would be strictly on the tobacco extract .. and it appears to be readily available and would continue to be so ..

After all, folks routinely order prescription drugs from other countries and get them ..

 

[Uncle Willie]

and then there is this stuff ..

Nicogel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ThreePutt]

After all, folks routinely order prescription drugs from other countries and get them ..

Great... can't wait for the spam from "Canadian Nic Store"

 

[fray]

A little regulation might not be a bad thing though. It would cost more (probably a lot more) but so far the industry has not been doing a great job regulating itself.

Things are horribly inconsistent and leak. There is no guarantee that 18mg is actually 18mg.

It would end this wild west era of cheap stuff with no red tape. I would miss it when it was soo much easier. But maybe things wouldn't leak all over, and a doa atty or carto is unheard of.

It's all how you look at it. I don't really want more regulation, but I could see how it may be better.

 

[Stevew443]

The problem about having e-cigs considered a tobacco product is that not all liquids contain nicotine. I can purchase 0 nic liquid, so there is nothing tobacco related about me vaping 0 nic liquid.

 

[CES]

There were two possible alternatives: regulation as tobacco products or regulations as drug and drug delivery devices. The second would have resulted in a complete ban. Regulation as tobacco products isn't great- but it was the better option of the two. It allows PVs to remain on the market. It'll also take the FDA a bit of time to draft the actual regulations- and that's one place we can get involved- because there will be a comment period before any regulations take effect.

We're not under the radar. The current battles are state by state. That's another place where we need to be involved- speaking up against inclusion of PVs in indoor smoking bans ('cause it's NOT smoking). Join CASAA, CASAA | The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association watch the calls for action. contact and educate your state representatives- because the groups who are opposed to PVs certainly are talking to your representatives.

 

[wdave]

No the FDA regulates Tobacco as well.
What the ecig industry didnt want was for these to be regulated and treated as New Drug delivery devices. Where it would be pulled off the market until Major(Read $$$$) studies had been done, and then you needed a prescription to purchase.

I did have the wrong facts about who is still regulating ecigs. I suppose I was assuming the agency would be the old Bureau of Tobacco an Firearms, which I'm not sure even exists anymore.

But regardless of how ecigs will finally be classified, they will always be just another "vice". There is nothing particulary spectacular about ecigs to the vast majority of the world. The only vice I know of that's looked upon favorablly is the King of Beers. Back on the point of my post, we need to stop promoting a vice to the general public. It will be our undoing.

Dave

 

[bjannr]

Isn't there some nicotine in tomatoes? I feel that since nicotine has almost the same effect on the body as caffeine, if companies allow one they should allow both.

 

[wdave]

I'm going to ask one more time that posters keep to the topic of this thread. If we can't keep on topic, I'll ask the moderators to delete this thread.

Dave

 

[lolady]

...we need to stop promoting a vice to the general public. It will be our undoing...

I totally get where you're coming from. Your point is more than good, it's compelling.

At the same time, being the person who failed to promote e-cigarettes to a late, lamented member of the general public whose grieving loved one now stands weeping before us is not without some serious undoing potential of its own.

Your argument about strategy comes with a big ol' can of ethical dilemma included at no extra charge!

 

[Iffy]

Am I wrong?

Dave

YES! And very selfish...

 

[wdave]

YES! And very selfish...

No not selfish. Just experienced with people who have addictions. NO ONE can convince an addict to give up the addiction. They have to decide for themselves and there can be NO reservations.

Typically an addict will not stop until the misery the addiction causes outweighs the pleasure derived from the addiction. And unfortunately the cigarette addiction is even harder to give up, because there are very few acute health problems with cigarettes. The affects on health occur over a long period of time, and smokers can pretend they aren't being affected.

If you push an addict to give up his addiction, he will most likely be very negative about ecigs and when he tries them will come up with many excuses why he can't quit the addiction.

As the saying goes in AA, "Attraction, not Promotion". You need to allow a cigarette addict to see you being successful with vaping for a long period of time. Maybe even several years. So you need to worry about staying with vaping yourself, not anyone else.

HTH,
Dave

 

[Iffy]

I'd like ecigs to remain a closely guarded secret. Am I wrong?

The basis for my disagreement and comment ^^^

Nice try on the 'lane change'.

 

[wdave]

The basis for my disagreement and comment ^^^

Nice try on the 'lane change'.

The world wide web used to be a big secret

I hope you had a great fourth of July. Let's end this on a friendly note. Good luck to you as we both try to make vaping part of our day-to-day existence.

Dave

 

[Iffy]

Let's end this on a friendly note.

Let's do... Cheers!

 

[yagottawanna]

I'm not sure I would classify it as a "tobacco product" nicotine can be had from other sources and just how much percent does the nicotine make up of the liquid? Is nicotine gum,patches and lozenges considered tobacco products?

Might have to let the Supreme Court decide that at some point down the road.

Just saying

If gum, patches, lozenges, and the nicotine inhaler are not considered "tobacco" products, the same should apply to e-cigs. But - as long as the word "cig" remains connected to these devices, it will be labeled a tobacco product and "smoking". I think the word "cigarette" has to go.

True but...

If it CAN be had from other sources then they cant call it a "tobacco product" but rather its a natural occurring alkaloid found in plants. Tobacco just seems to be the most cost effective way of getting it.

Someone here provided me with a link indicating that there is nicotine in:

eggplants
tomatoes
potatoes
bell peppers
cauliflower
tea

and a whole host of various medications used to treat a fairly long list of health problems.

So - where is the "danger" in using nicotine?

Exactly, that needs to change. Facts are facts, and unless we stand up and speak up about it, they are going to run all over us as if we are smokers and that's wrong. Once places like NY put a $50 dollar tax per 10 ml bottle the battle will have been lost.

This is my biggest fear - as a NY resident.

The last round of tax increases brought a pack of cigs (generic brand) up to around $8.65 a pack (in my specific area). However, never have they slapped those same type of taxes (which usually come on a yearly basis) on cigars and pipe tobacco. Now why do you suppose that is? Because "the powers that be" (senators; legislators; congressman; governors; etc.) use those products. (Which is also why you don't see these huge taxes on alcohol.) Instead, they slap these humungous taxes on the "lowly" cigarette smokers - banking on the fact that our addictions will continue and we will keep the state afloat. Believe me, they don't care one iota about my health, your health, or your teenage kids health. It's ALL about the money.

So - after this latest round of taxes is when I became involved in the world of rolling my own cigarettes. The machine cost me $44.99 (locally - could have gotten it cheaper online) - which paid for itself in one week. A box of tubes (200 blank filtered 100's) was $4.99 locally (but can be had for as little as $2.99 a box) and a pound of "pipe tobacco" was $24.99 locally. A pound gets me around 2 and a half cartons of cigarettes (depending on how tight I pack them).

Now - here's the really interesting part. If I purchased loose "cigarette tobacco", a pound would be over $60 - because they ("powers that be") slapped the tax on that as well when they learned people had resorted to rolling their own and they ("powers that be") were losing all that tax revenue. One good turn deserves another, so - certain loose tobacco suppliers pulled a switcheroo (to help out addicts like me) and put the "cigarette" tobacco in bags labeled pipe tobacco - so that I (and many others) could not only continue to hang on to their addiction, but do it in such a manner that a RYO pack of cigarettes now costs what it did way back in the 60's or 70's.

I am not encouraging anyone to go this route (RYO) - simply pointing out why it would be a very, very BAD thing if vaping continues to be considered a "tobacco" product - and the words "cig"; "cigarette"; or "smoking" remain attached to it. If something doesn't change - and change soon - by next year (come budget time) there will be all kinds of taxes slapped on everything and anything related to vaping - and I would not be the least bit surprised to find them making the purchase of everything and anything related to vaping illegal in NY (internet sales or otherwise).

Can anyone else see that "writing on the wall"?

 

[wdave]

I totally get where you're coming from. Your point is more than good, it's compelling.

At the same time, being the person who failed to promote e-cigarettes to a late, lamented member of the general public whose grieving loved one now stands weeping before us is not without some serious undoing potential of its own.

Your argument about strategy comes with a big ol' can of ethical dilemma included at no extra charge!

I just just saw this post. I don't understand what happened that would make you feel like you failed someone.