Possible Ban of Online Sales

[Proetus]

Wall Street Journal

This would be devastating imo

From ECF

SmokeyJoe

Banning online sales would, of course, decimate the industry and destroy the amazing pace of innovation we've been witnessing over the last 5 years.

Things we don't know from the article:

1. Whether they have the authority to ban online sales under the provisions of the act.

2. Whether this is being mooted, or if it's a done deal (as far as they're concerned).

3. Whether restricting online sales will require an amendment to the PACT act (and whether or not this is already in play)

4. What the policy is regarding everything else (flavorings, E-liquids versus sealed units, nicotine strength, ingredient specifications etc).

5. Whether the age restriction will also be imposed on tobacco cigarettes.

Regarding the last point, raising the age of sale to 19 year olds seems bizarre if its not being done with a commensurate raising of tobacco age limits. Essentially, they're raising the bar on a product that is vastly less harmful, while leaving the product it intends to replace untouched.

Also, from the article, it's clear that they have no doubts that they will be deeming E-Cigarettes as tobacco products in the near future.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Proetus

[Proetus]

Anyone need a Flashlight ?

I think i will start collecting them!

[bcartervol98]

My biggest fear out of all this is the ban of online sales. I swear I am going to order enough of the flavors I like to last at least a year prior to their announcement in October I think.

I mean tax it, fine everything else is taxed, establush a legal age, fine, but this nanny state bull **** telling adults that have worked their asses off is getting super old. I earned the money I spend, and if I can buy cigarettes, drug paraphernalia, liquor, and many other things some consider bad then anything beyond establishing a minimum legal age and taxes is ridiculous. There are ways to establish the age of a patron online.

[Proetus]

All this means is that they will be putting alot of American Business's out of business. They can not stop us from buying from Health Cabin and Fasttech. They also can not stop the sale of components of DIY, wire, wick etc. We'll all be using RBA type devices.

I will also be stocking up on Nicotine prior to then.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Proetus

[bcartervol98]

I don't think they can ban hardware sales online. I mean you can buy pipes and bowls-bongs online under the label of "for tobacco use only". I am of the opinion if online sales are banned it will only apply to the actual liquid containing nicotine, the regulated substance. A six foot bong is completely legal until you smoke pot in it. Sake principle would apply I think.

[Proetus]

Correct.

[WillBlack]

I don't think they can ban hardware sales online. I mean you can buy pipes and bowls-bongs online under the label of "for tobacco use only". I am of the opinion if online sales are banned it will only apply to the actual liquid containing nicotine, the regulated substance. A six foot bong is completely legal until you smoke pot in it. Sake principle would apply I think.

Unless you are Tommy Chong, who was prosecuted and jailed for selling bongs.

[bcartervol98]

Unless you are Tommy Chong, who was prosecuted and jailed for selling bongs.

I believe that was under state law not federal, not sure, I remember seeing the special on HBO about it.

[irwink]

US tobacco industry introduces ecigs to be sold in stores - FDA follows suit banning online competitors.

Why does this surprise anyone? Does anyone still not believe that corporate interests own and operate the US government?

[Aquatroy]

I believe that was under state law not federal, not sure, I remember seeing the special on HBO about it.

For being linked to website that sold to minors..

[Grant951]

US tobacco industry introduces ecigs to be sold in stores - FDA follows suit banning online competitors.

Why does this surprise anyone? Does anyone still not believe that corporate interests own and operate the US government?

I know plenty of people that do unfortunately. And the Tommy Chong scandal was over him selling to a narc in a state that had outlawed buying paraphernalia online I believe. He refused to do it for quite a bit of time, but the guy kept bugging the crap out of him until he did it. So much corruption these days .

[loneranger721981]

This is starting to get out of control with the government. Im sure that as soon as the online stores are set to close (if it even passes) that big tobacco companies will start selling their own for sure. Every huge business has their hand in someone elses pocket anymore. I for one know that this stuff lasts about 2 years on the shelf. I will be stocking up on enough supplies to make at least a years worth of diy juice. they cannot ban the sale of flavorings and ingredients due to the nature of them. I can see the nic being taxed and banned from online sales. I do not believe you can ban the sale of batteries online nor a pv. If anything you can label them as medicinal use only and still be able to sell it. Just some thoughts that I had.

[kerk]

Will it now be regulated and enforced by the ATFE&EL? Or will it be the ATFE&NJ?

[kerk]

This is starting to get out of control with the government. Im sure that as soon as the online stores are set to close (if it even passes) that big tobacco companies will start selling their own for sure. Every huge business has their hand in someone elses pocket anymore. I for one know that this stuff lasts about 2 years on the shelf. I will be stocking up on enough supplies to make at least a years worth of diy juice. they cannot ban the sale of flavorings and ingredients due to the nature of them. I can see the nic being taxed and banned from online sales. I do not believe you can ban the sale of batteries online nor a pv. If anything you can label them as medicinal use only and still be able to sell it. Just some thoughts that I had.

'Starting'? I would say it started 'starting' with FDR........and their use of the 'boil the frog slowly' strategy has worked like a charm.

[DharmaJ]

US tobacco industry introduces ecigs to be sold in stores - FDA follows suit banning online competitors.

Why does this surprise anyone? Does anyone still not believe that corporate interests own and operate the US government?

Bingo. The FDA is not an organization that is looking out for the health and safety of citizens, as they say. They are an organization that is looking out for the intrests of the elite.

[spydre]

Read my latest post in the above pinned thread straight from the mouths of CASAA. The WSJ article (which the only other source I found was QUOTING the WSJ article), according to the FDA was reporting unsubstantiated RUMOR as fact. The FDA released a statement to CASAA this morning, which I quoted in the in thread linked at the top of everyone's page highlighted in pink, and CASAA was scheduled to meet with FDA Monday anyway. Evidently these "listening sessions" happen regularly.

[Uma]

Meanwhile, daily URGENT CALLS from CASAA keep rolling in because of towns following Glants propaganda are banning ecigs in their towns ... Sneakily, without much notice...CHECK YOUR TOWNS PAPERS DAILY FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS!!!

They are terrified Headshops will sell ecig items too, and are suddenly picking on them after all these decades of them being in business. It's an effin war out there. Get your honeys & your hineys signed up with CASAA.ORG and fight fight fight these horrible Nanny Control Freakin ANTZ.

Edited August 27, 2013 by Uma

[Ntensevape]

I just wonder if the online stores can still sell flavor shots of their unique brands. Just sell a 0 nicotine version and then you will probably see unflavored nicotine show up in stores and you can just mix it up yourself. Buy a 3-4 month size bottle of unflavored nicotine and keep buying from your favorite vendor.

Surely there has to be a work around for a business this big. They can't just snuff it out completely. Can they?

[spydre]

Okay, not to incite more panic - here is a "summary" of a French study that studied 10 whole e-cigs (by the language, I'm still thinking faux analogs). http://www.medicaldaily.com/do-e-cigarettes-have-carcinogens-french-consumer-study-finds-some-toxins-same-levels-cigarettes

I don't know if the quote by the FDA was IN RESPONSE to this study, or at another time and added to the story for context.

For those that haven't read it, here is a link to ANOTHER CASAA article about the Drexler University study - this time with more details. This also links to the study itself (a pdf doc) and CASAA's original press release. http://antithrlies.com/2013/08/08/breaking-news-new-study-shows-no-risk-from-e-cigarette-contaminants/

Seems to me that the Drexler U study had a larger sample size (although they didn't say how large) and also addressed issues brought up by studies in the past - that there is exposure to the vaper himself of some of these substances, but they are well below concerning levels. Anyway, just thought I'd throw this out there, as I just learned of it last night.

[Bebop]

That looks like "tabloid" bs to me.

[bcartervol98]

That looks like "tabloid" bs to me.

Between this and some posts in the other thread in "News", there is enough BS to fill a semi trailer.

[Dejavu]

Wall Street Journal

This would be devastating imo

From ECF

Anyone that didn't see this coming is A) An Idiot..... or Living in a Dream World

Tobacco lobbyist's are big $/influence in Washington & they see an entire generation of smokers leaving their product for E-cigs.

So #1 ...Big Tabacco is loosing $

And #2 .... The Govt wants their cut of any $ being made

You can expect the $3 per-pack tax to apply to e-liquid orders etc. You can also expect existing e-liquid providers to be put out of business over-night when they can't afford to get liscensed/tested daily by the FDA. Their manufacturing facilities (usually someones house as it stands right now) will have to meet all kinds of FDA requirements, which will put 1/2 of them out of business....the tax's/licensing will put the other half out of business. The only remaining e-liquid providers will be "* NEW COMPANIES *" that appear ovenight....which will no doubt be subsidaries of Phillip Morris / RJ Reynolds etc.

You can bet your bottom dollar.....that right now......the FDA/Tabacco Firms are ordering E-liquid from every prodiver....running tests, and eventually there wil be 100's of news stories talking about how e-liquid providers are manipulating nicotine levels to get people hooked etc.

It's going to be a ****-storm of epic proportions. If you are a e-liquid provider....I suggest you tighten up on your methods, make sure you start running your nicotine additives in a very scientific/clinical manner immediately. To ensure the same amount in every 30ML every single time....unless you want to be the poster boys on the evening news.

[spydre]

That looks like "tabloid" bs to me.

If you are talking about the yahoo news link that I put on there about the French study, yeah, it looks it, but it's not. I'm not sure if I can find the link to the larger article that I had on it, but that link only worked about 1/2 the time, which is why I posted it the yahoo news link. But the info is out there, and frankly, it's way out of proportion. Read an analysis of it that compared it to a previous study done, it was NO NEW NEWS, and the same chemicals that were detected in a study in '08 were detected this time, in similar proportions. But the French government seems to be even more so anti-smoking/anti-e-cigarettes than the US. All of this is accessible at CASAA's fb group.

But with any studies that have anything to do with nicotine, I think there is going to be this overreaction and blowing things out of proportion. I don't know if you know who Richard Dawkins his, but his foundation's fb page put a meme up the other day about the cycle of scientific research (as he IS an evolutionary biologist) - from what happens when the scientist makes his conclusions, all the way through what happens when the "normal" people hear what is presented on the news, how it is presented on the news, and make their own interpretation of it.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151798757370155&set=a.496176595154.294030.8798180154&type=1&theater

Seems pretty accurate to me. I saw a similar reaction when the first surgeon came forward with his theory for CCSVI for people with MS (basically, looking for kinked up veins and partially blocked veins in the brain that needed angioplasty, cleaning them out, putting in stents). The symptoms would go away - for a while. It was called the "miracle procedure". Except the stents that could be used in brain blood vessels are not as sturdy as the ones that can be used elsewhere in the body, and they broke free. Or, well, as you know, if you tend to develop blockages in veins and arteries at one point in time, it will continue to happen. So the MS symptoms would only go away as long as there were no even minor blockages (now, this procedure was never even approved for experimental use in the US, you had to go to other countries to get it done, Canada, Italy, I think Israel. Hell, Montel Williams even had it done). I believe they were discussing starting experimental trials in the US when the Canadian study, and I think even the Italian study came out that it had no measurable long term effect on MS symptoms at all - but because this ONE surgeon got this wild hair up his butt and used his wife as guinea pig (which is where he says he got the original data from), people were all over this for three to four YEARS. I guess that's actually the OPPOSITE effect of the meme on Dawkins' site, but you get the picture. That's how the conspiracy theories that diet soda, metal fillings, and all sorts of other things caused peoples' MS came about, and none of them were true.

[Bebop]

If you are talking about the yahoo news link that I put on there about the French study, yeah, it looks it, but it's not. I'm not sure if I can find the link to the larger article that I had on it, but that link only worked about 1/2 the time, which is why I posted it the yahoo news link. But the info is out there, and frankly, it's way out of proportion. Read an analysis of it that compared it to a previous study done, it was NO NEW NEWS, and the same chemicals that were detected in a study in '08 were detected this time, in similar proportions. But the French government seems to be even more so anti-smoking/anti-e-cigarettes than the US. All of this is accessible at CASAA's fb group.

Exactly, though I'm slightly confused by your statement that it isn't, but then go on to say that it is.

By "tabloid bs" I simply mean "the regurgitation/sensationalizing of old or no news for the purposes of manipulating a public toward an intended response". I.e, written with an agenda.

[Uma]

That French study is total MALARKY.

Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives

French e-cigarette study, media misrepresent facts

Posted: 28 Aug 2013 04:06 PM PDT

An article published Monday in The Daily Mail announced "E-cigarettes are as harmful as cigarettes and could cause cancer, claims study." The article stated that a French consumer magazine, 60 Millions Consommateurs (60 Million Consumers), had branded the devices as 'far from the harmless gadgets they're sold as by manufacturers'. Soon, news outlets from all over the world were reporting that "E-cigarettes may be carcinogenic" and "E-cigarettes as harmful as cigarettes."

According to the 60 Millions Consommateurs, which is published by the National Consumers' Institute (a government-funded organization somewhat similar to Consumer Reports in the U.S.), their researchers tested 10 e-cigarettes. This "report" comes after the French government announced in May this year its intent to ban electronic cigarette use in public places, which has outraged French e-cigarette consumers and sellers.

After the news broke, Clive Bates, former head of ASH-UK and a tobacco harm reduction advocate, announced on his blog that he had issued a complaint about the Daily Mail article to the Press Complaints Commission .

"There are many flaws in the Mail article, mostly shoddy health journalism and lack of balance or proportion, and life is too short to go into them all," Bates wrote in a post titled "Lazy, stupid, wrong – the Mail can’t stop itself."

The web version of the article has since been re-titled "E-cigarettes contain chemicals that make some 'as harmful as normal tobacco'."

On Tuesday, the magazine posted another article with a few more details about its test results, which allowed experts to partially evaluate the findings.

MSN.com reported an interview with Drexel University Professor Igor Burstyn, who told them he is skeptical of the study. The article was titled "Rumor: E-cigarettes are as harmful as the real things," and it concluded that the rumor was "unconfirmed" and that "the bulk of research says they're much safer."

According to the MSN article:

Dr. Burstyn recently published the largest, most comprehensive assessment of research on E-cigarette safety released thus far. (Peering through the mist: What does the chemistry of contaminants in electronic cigarettes tell us about health risks?) That meant looking at dozens of studies done all over the world involving more than 9,000 subjects. His conclusion: “Current data do not indicate that exposures to vapors from contaminants in electronic cigarettes warrant a concern.” A conclusion supported by other health researchers in Palgrave Macmillan, a journal of public health policy.

After reviewing all available information, the Scientific Director for The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives, Dr. Carl V Phillips, surmised that "it is almost certain that they used faulty methods, overheating in particular, because that is what produces high levels of acrolein. In previous studies, high levels of formaldehyde have been identified as lab errors, not output from the e-cigarettes. As for the metals, Burstyn has already explained that without knowing what molecular form they were in, the information is useless."

"This is why real scientific publications include a methods section," he continued. "We basically have no idea what they did, though it is pretty clear their methods were faulty to the point of this being almost completely junk. The 'almost' refers to the fact that perhaps high levels of acetaldehyde are created by certain flavorings. But, again, since we have no idea what they tested or how, we can make no sense of what was reported."

Dr. Phillips concluded, "this is more of a marketing con than a scientific study."

"The same chemicals were tested in 12 brands of e-cigarettes in a study by Goniewicz and coworkers that was published earlier this year," added Dr. Konstantinos Farsalinos, a researcher at Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center in Athens-Greece, in a commentary on Ecigarette-Research.com. "So, nothing new was tested in the French study. More importantly, the results of the French study are almost identical to those of Goniewicz."

"I cannot explain why worldwide media refer to this study as if it is the most important discovery about e-cigarettes," he wrote.

In the MSN article, Burstyn said his professional research has even informed his personal life, as he told them that he's worked hard to convince his wife to quit traditional cigarettes in favor of the newer e-versions. "Smoking a regular cigarette is like running on the highway in flip-flops," he said. "E-cigs is taking a taxi."