Would a change dot org petition help us?

[Lessifer]

So a discussion in another thread ended up with, what can we do, right now, to change public and congressional perception in our favor? With the FDA regs due to be released any day, we can wait and react and urge congress to amend things in order to not lose too much of what we have. Or we can urge them to reject the regulations in total. Both of those seem like long shots with the way things are. So, the idea came out to get a petition going. If it grew to national levels, who knows who might take notice?

So I volunteered to get a thread started. I've written a VERY rough draft and would really appreciate input, edits, corrections, etc.

This may be a bit difficult to do if there are lots of replies, but I'll do my best to keep things together. I also have no idea how to start a petition, but that's something I can probably figure out, unless we want someone more official than me doing it, which I would have no problem with.

I will post what I have so far in the second post.

Moderator Edit: Petition · U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, President of the United States: Reject the FDA's Deeming of Vapor Products as Tobacco Products · Change.org

Discussion in Media and General News: Change.org petition for congress to reject the deeming regs | E-Cigarette Forum

Adding link for Lessifer

 

[Lessifer]

To Members of Congress:

Soon you will be presented with regulations proposing to deem electronic cigarettes and other vapor products as tobacco products, bringing them within the regulatory control of the FDA under the FSPTCA.

We, the members of the vaping community, including users of vapor products, ex-smokers, current smokers, and friends and family of smokers and ex-smokers whose lives have been changed by vapor products, urge you to reject the proposed deeming regulations.

The classification of vapor products as tobacco products is tenuous at best. While some vapor products do contain nicotine, many do not, and this is where the link to tobacco ends. The goal of the FSPTCA is to minimize the health effects of tobacco on public health. Vapor products are orders of magnitude less potentially harmful than combustible tobacco.

This disruptive technology has the potential to accomplish what Tobacco Control has failed to do for the past fifty years, unless it is smothered in its infancy. Vapor products, as a recreational consumer good, have the potential to replace combustible tobacco, keeping millions from potential tobacco related illnesses. However, if vapor products are subjected to the same strict regulatory control intended to minimize harm from tobacco products, they could be rendered ineffectual due to the stifling nature of those regulations.

Instead of relegating vapor products to tobacco control, a new category of product regulation can be implemented. One that could inspire innovation along with public health and safety.

Vapor products are not tobacco products, they are a safer alternative to tobacco products which may or may not contain nicotine.

In order to encourage vapor products as a safer alternative to combustible tobacco products, it is important to:

Protect access to flavors, which are an integral part of the vapor experience.
Protect access to online sales that allow consumers to procure the equipment and e-liquids that are best suited for their needs.
Protect access to all nicotine concentrations, which allow the vapor to tailor their experience to their needs which could range from high concentrations to aid in transitioning from smoking to nicotine free for enjoyment and maintenance.
Protect access to open, reusable container system that are more cost effective and environmentally friendly.

The best way to protect this life altering technology is to not place it under the auspices of the FSPTCA, by not deeming vapor products as tobacco products.

ETA: Second draft here Would a change dot org petition help us? | Page 5 | E-Cigarette Forum

 

[Rixsta]

Here here...good read

 

[Thrasher]

Action Home | Petition2Congress

We the People: Your Voice in Our Government | We the People: Your Voice in Our Government


If you start something remember ecf is but one fish in the pond. Hit reddit, facebook and all the other forums as well so everyone knows.

 

[mattiem]

Very well written Lessifer. I can't think of a single thing that needs to be changed.

 

[DavidOck]

To Members of Congress:

Soon you will be presented with regulations proposing to deem electronic cigarettes and other vapor products as tobacco products, bringing them within the regulatory control of the FDA under the FSPTCA.

We, the members of the vaping community, including users of vapor products, ex-smokers, current smokers, and friends and family of smokers and ex-smokers whose lives have been changed by vapor products, urge you to reject the proposed deeming regulations.

The classification of vapor products as tobacco products is tenuous at best. While some vapor products do contain nicotine, many do not, and this is where the link to tobacco ends. The goal of the FSPTCA is to minimize the health effects of tobacco on public health. Vapor products are orders of magnitude less potentially harmful than combustible tobacco.

This disruptive technology has the potential to accomplish what Tobacco Control has failed to do for the past fifty years, unless it is smothered in its infancy. Vapor products, as a recreational consumer good, have the potential to replace combustible tobacco, keeping millions from potential tobacco related illnesses. However, if vapor products are subjected to the same strict regulatory control intended to minimize harm from tobacco products, they could be rendered ineffectual due to the stifling nature of those regulations.

Instead of relegating vapor products to tobacco control, a new category of product regulation can be implemented. One that could inspire innovation along with public health and safety.

Vapor products are not tobacco products, they are a safer alternative to tobacco products which may or may not contain nicotine.

In order to encourage vapor products as a safer alternative to combustible tobacco products, it is important to:

Protect access to flavors, which are an integral part of the vapor experience.
Protect access to online sales that allow consumers to procure the equipment and e-liquids that are best suited for their needs.
Protect access to all nicotine concentrations, which allow the vapor to tailor their experience to their needs which could range from high concentrations to aid in transitioning from smoking to nicotine free for enjoyment and maintenance.
Protect access to open, reusable container system that are more cost effective and environmentally friendly.

The best way to protect this life altering technology is to not place it under the auspices of the FSPTCA, by not deeming vapor products as tobacco products.

Very good!

Maybe change "disruptive" to "new" or something similar. While it certainly is disruptive to BT profits, it may generate negative thoughts. I.e. disruption of the status quo is not a good thing...

High concentrations... again, the framing might be better. "High" is a pretty broad term, and we certainly don't want them banning 100 mg bulk nic, but the word itself might have them thinking "poison." Maybe something like:

... to tailor the concentrations for individual needs based on their smoking history and allow for a gradual lessening of the concentration over time, in a manner similar to the "3 - step" progress on the nicotine patch.

 

[Robino1]

As Thrasher said, when you get it going, post the out of it all over the place. (Just don't go posting it in multiple places on ECF. We frown on cross posting ).

Let others drop a link in other threads, we are good like that.

I honestly don't know how affective these petitions actually are. I do know it can't hurt to try.

 

[roxynoodle]

Do we need to add links to studies to support our points? I think it wouldn't hurt. Backing up all points with actual science lends credence to our petition.

 

[zoiDman]

Good Job Lessifer

It is Nice to take a Day Off. And then when I come Back we are No Longer talking about taking Action, but are Starting to take an Action.

 

[Lessifer]

Very good!

Maybe change "disruptive" to "new" or something similar. While it certainly is disruptive to BT profits, it may generate negative thoughts. I.e. disruption of the status quo is not a good thing...

High concentrations... again, the framing might be better. "High" is a pretty broad term, and we certainly don't want them banning 100 mg bulk nic, but the word itself might have them thinking "poison." Maybe something like:

... to tailor the concentrations for individual needs based on their smoking history and allow for a gradual lessening of the concentration over time, in a manner similar to the "3 - step" progress on the nicotine patch.

The problem I see with that is, it's a little too "vaping as smoking cessation" and many have no intention of stepping down. I'll try to think of a way to cover both though.

Disruptive technology is one of those buzzwords about something that changes everything, like the iPhone.

Do we need to add links to studies to support our points? I think it wouldn't hurt. Backing up all points with actual science lends credence to our petition.

Yes, I think we do, I haven't done that ground work yet and would appreciate any help.

 

[zoiDman]

BTW - Another way to Reach the Masses (that doesn't Include B&M's and or Online Retailers) is to ask YouTube Reviewers to give a Short 30 Seconded Pitch and then Post a Link to something like a Petition.

Someone like Rip Tripper has like 88 Bazillion followers.

 

[roxynoodle]

I haven't exactly bookmarked the studies I've read, but they might be on CASAA.

 

[roxynoodle]

@Robino1 are those pertinent studies on CASAA?

 

[DoctorJ]

I'm all for the idea of your piece, however, you keep saying that vapor products are not tobacco products; yes they are. Any ejuice with nicotine is a tobacco product. Nicotine is derived from tobacco; there is no synthetic form of nicotine. Yes I know 0 nic juice has no nicotine, but I don't believe the powers that be will make that distinction as any ejuice will be bundled as a whole in their eyes.

Also you say vapor products are a safer alternative to tobacco products which may or may not contain nicotine. Are there studies that prove this? I'm not aware of any; mainly just opinions from "experts". If there are studies, you need to point these out. Any time you make declarative statements such as this, you must cite a source to prove your point.

As I said, I'm all for what you said, however, sadly I believe that vaping products will be treated just like cigarettes. There will be restrictions on marketing and flavors. However, we vapers do have one ace in the hole. Now that BT has entered the vaping industry, specifically Phillip Morris and their Vuse e-cigs, that might help our cause (I think it's Phillip Morris right?).

In the end, once the FDA makes all their pending regulations the boom of the industry will be lowered dramatically. These regulations will force many vendors out of the market being unable to comply due to financial constraints. The biggest hit will be to vendors who rely on ejuice as the biggest part of their business model and, therefore, there will only be a select few ejuice vendors that have the financial means to comply with the regulations. I know this sounds like a Chicken Little scenario, but I'm afraid what I've said is most likely what is going to happen. I hope it doesn't, but face facts, once a government agency such as the FDA gets involved, there are going to be some really "stupid" things happen as is par for the course when any government agency gets involved in anything (take education for example and the No Child Left Behind Act, this idiotic piece of ...I'll stop here, I could go on all day about this subject having taught in the public school system and tried to work around this).

One thing though, I think the FDA regs might help the vaping industry to a certain degree as well. Vendor's products will have to meet certain standards and criteria. In the long run I highly believe that it will make vaping more "safer" than it is already.

In the meantime, fight the powers that be! I support you all the way!

 

[Tmg666]

Do we need to add links to studies to support our points? I think it wouldn't hurt. Backing up all points with actual science lends credence to our petition.

The thing i hate most is when other vapors argue points that arn't completely true, then have no refrences to how they got the information. Scientific data would greatly help the partition and maybe help others that are less informed gain some knowledge on the topic. A few credible non biased resources would mean more to me then number of names signed.

 

[Robino1]

@Robino1 are those pertinent studies on CASAA?

I haven't done a search on them. I do know that CASAA has a lot of reference material on their site. It would stand to reason that Dr. F's stuff will be there.


ETA: Clinical Research: Electronic Cigarettes

I don't see Dr. F's stuff on there. You should be able to do a forum search... Maybe just type in his name?

I will try to check it out later.

 

[Wow1420]

I'm all for the idea of your piece, however, you keep saying that vapor products are not tobacco products; yes they are. Any ejuice with nicotine is a tobacco product. Nicotine is derived from tobacco; there is no synthetic form of nicotine.

I think he has it right as it stands. There is no tobacco in my e-liquid. It has nicotine that was sourced from the tobacco plant. Accepting the label "tobacco product" instead of "vapor product" or "alternate nicotine product" is the first step that leads right to the FDA deeming and all the consequences that follow from that point.

 

[bluecat]

I'm all for the idea of your piece, however, you keep saying that vapor products are not tobacco products; yes they are. Any ejuice with nicotine is a tobacco product. Nicotine is derived from tobacco; there is no synthetic form of nicotine. Yes I know 0 nic juice has no nicotine, but I don't believe the powers that be will make that distinction as any ejuice will be bundled as a whole in their eyes.........

The powers that be are elected by us and should represent our views.. not their own political agenda and power grabs which is rampant in Washington. Somehow we keep voting them in.

Nicotine is also present in tomatoes, potatoes, cauliflower, green pepper and black tea is suggested as having it. Cotine

Tomatoes 7.1ng/gr
Potatoes 15ng/gr
Eggplant 100ng/gr
Teas - vary.. Instant teas have 285ng/gr
Peppers 7.7ng/gr
Cauliflower 16ng/gr

Yes it is in a smaller dosage but it is still present. Tobacco is just more efficient means of extracting it.

The issue is "Is nicotine harmful at our dosages or is it everything else in a smoke?"
It is similar to saying chlorine will kill you, yet, swimming in a pool that has chlorine in it won't.

Lessifer, very nice writing. I wish my letters to my house and senate members were as good.

 

[DoctorJ]

I think he has it right as it stands. There is no tobacco in my e-liquid. It has nicotine that was sourced from the tobacco plant. Accepting the label "tobacco product" instead of "vapor product" or "alternate nicotine product" is the first step that leads right to the FDA deeming and all the consequences that follow from that point.

Uhhhhh, if it comes from a tobacco plant, then it's a tobacco product no matter how you want to rationalize it.

 

[Hans Wermhat]

A very good start, and a lot of good points in the replies. Cite some actual scientific data (I know there isn't much out there because there is NO long term usage yet to analyze since there is no actual long term usage) and change a few of the semantic issues and I would happily sign it. A thousand signatures won't do anything. A hundred thousand will get attention. A million signatures must be addressed. If the LGBT community (which is only 3% of the American population or around 900K people) can sway public opinion and social perception of their way of life, a million vapers should have no problem getting some attention from our government. And no, I have nothing negative to say about the LGBT community, so please, nobody play that card. I was merely using them as an example of a group of about a million people who have swayed the general public. There are far more than a million vapers in america. If we can find a single voice and use it collectively it will be heard.