World Vaping Org Home page
A new vaping organisation just launched today.
Thoughts?
A new vaping organisation just launched today.
More on the site.
Thoughts?
World Vaping Organisation.
- Thread starter tommy2bad
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
It only takes a few seconds to register... we need the strength of numbers...! We need to make such noise, that those bureucrats and dirty politicians will have no other option than to LISTEN to us. The real PEOPLE who have elected them!
Bad start. By falsely claiming that e-liquid is not a tobacco product which it clearly is as the only active ingredient is extracted from tobacco, they are already falling for the lies of the ANTZ that tobacco is the problem. As far as the 9 million or so ST users in the US this group is no better then all of the bogus anti-tobacco gangs, and likely worse as they claim to actually have the moral high ground.
Well, not exactly... it's a grey area.
Some of the people who are actually defendind the e-cig here in Europe, because of the 'secret negotiations' that are currently taking place, have come with the argument that the same liquid nicotine we use, is also used by BP. And yet, pharma products are not considered a tobacco product... so, the argument is: just because the e-cig (may) contain(s) nicotine, that does not mean it should necessarily or automatically be considered as a tobacco product. That classification has been made, until now, mainly because of the negative health impact associated with tobacco. Clearly, the e-cig is way out of that league...
On the other hand (and this was the argument used in the last voting, concerning the medicalization of the e-cig, on the 08th November), the e-cig should also not be considered a therapeutic drug, like parma products. Pharma products were designed to (allegedly) help people deal with nicotine cravings while they are trying to quit cigarettes. We vapers do not use the e-cig in the same way: we use it as an healthier alternative to tobacco cigarettes: we want to keep the behavioural part of cigarette use. We want to still 'smoke', recreationally, a diferent type of 'cigarette', and in many cases, to keep using nicotine as a recreational drug, much like cafeine. Only this time, we chose to use an healthier type of 'cigarette', one that actually allows us to 'quit smoking', in the very strict sense of the word (stop inhaling tobacco smoke).
So, the e-cig should be seen as a general consumer product; a smokeless alternative to tobacco cigarettes. This is what we're trying to push in the EU. If you think about it, non-alchoolic beer is not advertised or sold as a 'therapeutic mean' to fight or prevent alchool abuse. And clearly, it is not an alchoolic beverage either... however closely it may resemble or mimic the real thing.
We use the e-cig in the same way: not to actually give up the 'cigarette addiction' as a whole (behavioral, nicotine...) but rather as a much less hazardous alternative to other products that were already in the market.
So, I truly hope there is still room to debate this in the EU. Because this is the second time in only a month and and half that the lobbies have tried to create a de-facto ban of the e-cig in Europe: first, they tried to medicalise it an failed. And now, against the first voting made by our democratically elected representatives, unelected bureucrats are trying this time to wrongly classify the e-cig as a tobacco product...
Really... this must stop...
The only reason U.S. folks became so gung-ho on classifying e-cigarettes as a tobacco product was because from a regulatory sense in this country, that classification seemed to be protection from being classified as a pharmaceutical product (which would have meant immediate removal from the marketplace.)
Some people mistakenly believe that the U.S. District Court ordered the FDA to regulate e-cigarettes as a tobacco product; however if you read the opinion document, that comes across as more of a suggestion. Basically, Judge Leon wrote that the FDA had failed to provide any evidence that anyone has been harmed by e-cigarettes, but if the FDA was so all-fired adamant that something must be done to protect the public, the FDA had another avenue it could consider. http://casaa.org/uploads/SE-vs-FDA-Opinion.pdf
Keep in mind that in the court case, one of the plaintiffs was arguing that e-cigarettes are a tobacco product, and the FDA was arguing that they were a combination drug and drug-delivery device. Judge Leon pointed out that the definition of "tobacco product" in the Tobacco Act was very broad:
However, Judge Leon certainly did not expect the FDA to regulate these new products with the same antipathy and zeal with which it planned to regulate conventional cigarettes.
At the time, Judge Leon was totally unaware of the horrendous road blocks the FDA would later (March 2012) place in the way of any product that wanted to be classified as a Modified Risk Tobacco Product (MRTP) under the Tobacco Act. This document talks about the types of analysis and studies that need to be completed and documented in the Application (MRTPA). http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/UCM297751.pdf
"Section VI. Scientific Studies and Analyses in MRTPAs" starts on page 16 of the document.
Some people mistakenly believe that the U.S. District Court ordered the FDA to regulate e-cigarettes as a tobacco product; however if you read the opinion document, that comes across as more of a suggestion. Basically, Judge Leon wrote that the FDA had failed to provide any evidence that anyone has been harmed by e-cigarettes, but if the FDA was so all-fired adamant that something must be done to protect the public, the FDA had another avenue it could consider. http://casaa.org/uploads/SE-vs-FDA-Opinion.pdf
Keep in mind that in the court case, one of the plaintiffs was arguing that e-cigarettes are a tobacco product, and the FDA was arguing that they were a combination drug and drug-delivery device. Judge Leon pointed out that the definition of "tobacco product" in the Tobacco Act was very broad:
However, Judge Leon certainly did not expect the FDA to regulate these new products with the same antipathy and zeal with which it planned to regulate conventional cigarettes.
At the time, Judge Leon was totally unaware of the horrendous road blocks the FDA would later (March 2012) place in the way of any product that wanted to be classified as a Modified Risk Tobacco Product (MRTP) under the Tobacco Act. This document talks about the types of analysis and studies that need to be completed and documented in the Application (MRTPA). http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/UCM297751.pdf
"Section VI. Scientific Studies and Analyses in MRTPAs" starts on page 16 of the document.
I agree with this.
Electronic Cigarettes
Were it possible in the U.S., I believe this would be the best way to go. It would not only avoid the medical-ization of the product, but would also avoid the tobacco-ization of the product which raises many potential problems at the state and local levels, including the odds of being wrapped automatically into the misguided and idiotic "tobacco-free zones", taxation schemes, special licensing requirements, and restrictions on sales locations.
Electronic Cigarettes
Were it possible in the U.S., I believe this would be the best way to go. It would not only avoid the medical-ization of the product, but would also avoid the tobacco-ization of the product which raises many potential problems at the state and local levels, including the odds of being wrapped automatically into the misguided and idiotic "tobacco-free zones", taxation schemes, special licensing requirements, and restrictions on sales locations.
To address the tobacco product thing; this is a euro based group and in the EU ecigs fall under tobacco only in the sense that they are classified as Nicotine containing produces and are being regulated under tobacco products even if classed as medicines. They are not classed as tobacco products. A new category has been created NCP and placed under tobacco regs.
I know that this is needed and all, that but I fear that it plays to the astro turf allegations. Once the... ahem, smoke clears on the TPD and we know what regs we are dealing with, the lobby group thing will become less important but more expencive. I think we have put the wind up tobacco control as today I heard a leading campaigner seeking legislation to ban tobacco lobbyists from meeting with public representatives.
He always held this line but only today sought a legal ban.
We have a huge struggle to overcome the anti smoking and vaping lobbyists, we need a more professional campaign once vaping crosses the tipping point which it will shortly. So far armature groups have been the best way to further our cause but as numbers grow the resistance to vaping will increase not decrease. This is inevitable, too much money at stake. We will be fighting taxes, bans and disinformation. We need a strong organization that has people who know how the game works.
We also need to distance ourselves from smoking, not because we are opposed to smoking but because we are not smoking. Settling for tobacco regs will be a severe obstacle to people switching. eCigs advantages are health benefits (for public health as well as individuals) but the attraction is price and lets tell the truth, getting past smoking bans.
I know that this is needed and all, that but I fear that it plays to the astro turf allegations. Once the... ahem, smoke clears on the TPD and we know what regs we are dealing with, the lobby group thing will become less important but more expencive. I think we have put the wind up tobacco control as today I heard a leading campaigner seeking legislation to ban tobacco lobbyists from meeting with public representatives.
He always held this line but only today sought a legal ban.
We have a huge struggle to overcome the anti smoking and vaping lobbyists, we need a more professional campaign once vaping crosses the tipping point which it will shortly. So far armature groups have been the best way to further our cause but as numbers grow the resistance to vaping will increase not decrease. This is inevitable, too much money at stake. We will be fighting taxes, bans and disinformation. We need a strong organization that has people who know how the game works.
We also need to distance ourselves from smoking, not because we are opposed to smoking but because we are not smoking. Settling for tobacco regs will be a severe obstacle to people switching. eCigs advantages are health benefits (for public health as well as individuals) but the attraction is price and lets tell the truth, getting past smoking bans.
It will be years, perhaps decades, before e-cigarettes would be considered anything but a tobacco product or pharmaceutical drug. The belief that nicotine is highly addictive (even though studies show it is NOT particularly addictive when not smoked), causes diseases and may lead youth to smoke will be a huge barrier to nicotine being regulated like caffeine (ie. consumer product.) Legislators and the general public are still just too ignorant of the truth and brainwashed to ever see nicotine on the same level as caffeine.
As I've mentioned many times, even if the FDA did decide to give e-cigarettes their own category, nothing the FDA has done to this point gives us any reason to believe that those regulations would be fair or reasonable. The FDA could require e-cigarette manufacturers and retailers to jump through all sorts of hoops, pay high fees and limit production much in the way that happened in the EU: sealed cartridges only, maximum of 20 mg of nicotine, measured doses and so on. It's naive to think that just because the FDA creates a new category for e-cigs that they wouldn't make them as restricting as possible, putting most existing and small companies out of business to eliminate the competition for pharmaceutical companies.
And once that happens, there is still nothing stopping the state from taxing the heck out of them with a new "nicotine tax."
At least we already know what the tobacco regulations are per FSPTCA. The best bet we have is pressuring the FDA to ease up on the requirements for classification as MRTP (Modified Risk Tobacco Products) and pressuring the states into having tobacco harm reduction policies that don't penalize low-risk products with oppressive taxation and ordinances.
For now, the fight is to get the FDA to treat e-cigarettes, which will likely be placed under the category of "Other Tobacco Products," as low-risk products. The science proves that not all tobacco products have high health risks, only the combustible products do. We must force the FDA to acknowledge this and act accordingly. Low-risk products should be fast-tracked and not hindered or made less effective. The states need to be similarly pushed to do the same.
But if we start demanding a new category - that the FDA would have the power to create at its whim - we likely would end up with something that is as bad or even worse than what the tobacco companies have to deal with to sell their combustible cigarettes.
As I've mentioned many times, even if the FDA did decide to give e-cigarettes their own category, nothing the FDA has done to this point gives us any reason to believe that those regulations would be fair or reasonable. The FDA could require e-cigarette manufacturers and retailers to jump through all sorts of hoops, pay high fees and limit production much in the way that happened in the EU: sealed cartridges only, maximum of 20 mg of nicotine, measured doses and so on. It's naive to think that just because the FDA creates a new category for e-cigs that they wouldn't make them as restricting as possible, putting most existing and small companies out of business to eliminate the competition for pharmaceutical companies.
And once that happens, there is still nothing stopping the state from taxing the heck out of them with a new "nicotine tax."
At least we already know what the tobacco regulations are per FSPTCA. The best bet we have is pressuring the FDA to ease up on the requirements for classification as MRTP (Modified Risk Tobacco Products) and pressuring the states into having tobacco harm reduction policies that don't penalize low-risk products with oppressive taxation and ordinances.
For now, the fight is to get the FDA to treat e-cigarettes, which will likely be placed under the category of "Other Tobacco Products," as low-risk products. The science proves that not all tobacco products have high health risks, only the combustible products do. We must force the FDA to acknowledge this and act accordingly. Low-risk products should be fast-tracked and not hindered or made less effective. The states need to be similarly pushed to do the same.
But if we start demanding a new category - that the FDA would have the power to create at its whim - we likely would end up with something that is as bad or even worse than what the tobacco companies have to deal with to sell their combustible cigarettes.
Another organisation that claims to have the rights of vapers as it's main interest....have my doubts tbh....bandwagon comes to mind....
I don't doubt their good intentions, but we need to band together in order to be taken seriously. Multiple groups with different agendas and messages is only weakening the cause. I joined CASAA because they're the most recognisable and active group campaigning for the interests of vapers. Perhaps there's a argument for national groups (e.g. CASAA UK etc.) but there needs to be some solidarity and organisation otherwise all this effort is wasted.
And I don't want to be a downer, but dubious politicians? Rogue scientists? I love the enthusiasm but the way to get what we want isn't to make enemies of people. A case needs to be made for e-cigarettes to be regulated as consumer products, it needs to be backed by scientific evidence and supported by petitions, emails, media exposure and rallys.
Last edited:
There's always the Groucho Marx reason:
"I dont care to belong to any club that will have me as a member."
...
As I've mentioned many times, even if the FDA did decide to give e-cigarettes their own category, nothing the FDA has done to this point gives us any reason to believe that those regulations would be fair or reasonable.
...But if we start demanding a new category - that the FDA would have the power to create at its whim - we likely would end up with something that is as bad or even worse than what the tobacco companies have to deal with to sell their combustible cigarettes.
QFT. I am right there with you. Excellent post, Kristin.
I agree to the unification point, but I do not feel this WVO is the group to represent me. I see many red flags in their text, or mission statement (?) that sways me away from them. Hopefully their big PR machine did not write this. If so, they need a new machine. I am sure their intentions are good, but I am not left with a good impression.
I agree. All emotions needs to be removed from this argument. A simple fact-based scientific and biological argument must be made with indisputable proof. On the other side of the coin, I do not see elected officials as really having our best interests at heart. The few times I have seen this would be to further their career or because the issue was a 800lb gorilla in the room; too large to ignore.
There is power in numbers, especially when the numbers are united and organized. I think a discussion within the community needs to be had, a top five objectives need to be determined and agreed upon, and next a plan of attack and representation should be formed. We need a clear understanding of what we are uniting and standing for, not just end results. Allies will be needed, especially against the deep pockets and dubious nature of BT and BP.
I can pro and con myself to death.
Last edited:
Kristin,Low-risk products should be fast-tracked and not hindered or made less effective. The states need to be similarly pushed to do the same.
Didn't Congress already ask of this of the FDA? A need to fast track reduced harm and "new generation" products?
Thank you Stubby, I didn't have to wordsmith that myself. Until smoking is isolated as the real culprit in tobacco use, we will never really move forward.
Yes, but what came of it in the FSPTCA were requirements for meeting MRTP that are nearly impossible to meet. Things like essentially proving that the product won't ever increase health risks in any way at any time in the future.
Here is CASAA's public comment on FDA Draft Guidance for Modified Risk Tobacco Product Applications:
CASAA: CASAA's comment on FDA Draft Guidance for Modified Risk Tobacco Product Applications
So, sounds to me that Congress' wishes were not met?? There has not been any follow up on this?
From your link:Subjecting established and thoroughly studied low-risk smokeless tobacco products to the entire gamut of new testing described in the IOM report is unnecessary, expensive, and time-consuming, and creates an unacceptable delay in providing factual information to the public about less hazardous alternatives to smoking. A consequence of this delay is that, lacking such information, most American smokers will continue smoking, and millions of smokers will die.
Well Stated!! Thanks for your reply
Just more evidence of the FDA's intentions moving forward!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
