European Ban on E-Cigs?

was.deevey

As I said, and this patent proves, Big Tobacco invented e-Cigs.

No it proves that the Philip Morris were the first to see value in patenting Ecigs in their current form.

Ecigs were "invented" in 1963 by Herbert. A. GILBERT

http://www.google.com/patents/US3200819

tommy2bad

Occam wrote: »

Ok, so how do you explain this patent application from Philip Morris which describes "an electrical smoking article, ....tobacco or tobacco-derived substances, is heated electrically to release a tobacco flavor substance . As the substance is heated, a smoker at the mouth or downstream end of the device draws air in and around the heating element by inhaling, and thereby receives the tobacco flavor substance ."

http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/fnf56c00/pdf;jsessionid=D4C0B7926495326574E4C04ED830BB94.tobacco03

That device has a battery, circuitry, puff sensor, a heater. It is, very obviously, the precursor to the device we now know as an electronic cigarette.

As I said, and this patent proves, Big Tobacco invented e-Cigs.

No they didn't it was a Herbert A. Gilbert invented the first electronic cigarette in 1963. He claims

Those I showed it to could have done it but they chose to wait for the patent to expire and then filed their own versions. I showed it to chemical companies, pharmaceutical companies and tobacco companies and they did what they did to try to protect their markets. - See more at: http://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/ashtray-blog/2013/10/interview-inventor-e-cigarette-herbert-a-gilbert.html#sthash.DSzNC44L.dpuf

Read the interview here;
http://www.ecigarettedirect.co.uk/ashtray-blog/2013/10/interview-inventor-e-cigarette-herbert-a-gilbert.html

Occam

was.deevey wrote: »

No it proves that the Philip Morris were the first to see value in patenting Ecigs in their current form.

Ecigs were "invented" in 1963 by Herbert. A. GILBERT

http://www.google.com/patents/US3200819

Sigh.

While I accept that it is the commonly held view that Gilbert invented them, it is almost certainly not true. There is a vast amount of documentation from within Big Tobacco relating to the development of smoke free nicotene delivery systems undertaken as part of project Ariel particulary in the fifties.

In any case, the relevant point is that Big tobacco have not somehow "only developed an interest in e-Cigs in the last 12 months".

dePeatrick

Occam wrote: »

Sigh.

While I accept that it is the commonly held view that Gilbert invented them, it is almost certainly not true. There is a vast amount of documentation from within Big Tobacco relating to the development of smoke free nicotene delivery systems undertaken as part of project Ariel particulary in the fifties.

In any case, the relevant point is that Big tobacco have not somehow "only developed an interest in e-Cigs in the last 12 months".

Why were they so slow to bring it to the market then? Waiting until the market discovered it for themselves....or just waiting...but why? They could have sold themselves as the good guys bringing the new clean product to the same smokers they created. Something just does not add up here tbh.....

tommy2bad

Scosinfflaw wrote: »

I don't think opening a new distribution chain is that much of a problem, ce I don't think the tobacco companies are involved to such a degree of detail as to have to worry about distributing to a pharmacy on the main street as opposed to the newsagent two doors down.

Nor am I sure that refillables would be much of an issue - how is it different from the current catering to rolled or pipe tobacco?

It's a whole new manufacturing set up and distribution system, medicalization involves a different production standard to consumer goods. The investment in a distribution chain is more than just offering product especially when it on the patch of your biggest competitor. It would be much more easy to just shoehorn ecigs into an existing structure. If refillable are no problem why hasen't one tobacco company produced one? I'm not saying they won't but not untill they estblish brand with as close a product to their existing line as posible. In the meantime we get shafted and they get the monoply.

Scosinfflaw wrote: »

I don't think catering to a diverse and changing market is in any sense a problem for tobacco companies - they currently do so, and have shown their willingness to move with the times by getting into e-cigs as tobacco itself gets more tightly regulated. I think it's a mistake to hold onto the notion that they're "tobacco" companies in the sense of businesses that want to take tobacco and push it to you - their customer market is smokers, tobacco is just a raw material.

So why hasn't this happened already?

Scosinfflaw wrote: »

It's not exactly "slipping it in". Several EU countries were already regulating e-cigs - usually medically. Ireland was also making noises in that direction, so if the impetus for medical regulation of e-cigs stems from anywhere it most likely stems from those national governments in the first instance.

And at this stage, I don't see that a prohibitionist reflex towards any drug requires some kind of special explanation.

A prohibitionist reflex doesn't but this is more. The Prohibition thing failed in almost all cases when brought to court, I suspect this was hoped to get under the radar by adding medical requirement to a product in a tobacco directive. Why not in a medical directive?

Scosinfflaw wrote: »

I have to tell you it, because it's what is the case. The Commission proposed the original legislation. That legislation went to the Council, who adopted their position on it in June, and the Parliament, who adopted their position on it in October. The Commission is not who is opposing Parliament at this stage, it's the Council.

That's how the process works - it's the "ordinary legislative procedure", and it goes like this:

1. the Commission creates a legislative proposal

2. the proposal is submitted to the Council and the Parliament for amendments (1st reading)

3. if the Council accepts the Parliament's amendments the legislation is passed

4. if the Council disagrees with the Parliament, it passes its own position back to the Parliament, which has three months to vote on it (2nd reading)

5. if the Parliament accepts this second Council version, or fails to make a decision, the legislation is passed

6. if the Parliament rejects the Council's version, the legislation fails

7. if the Parliament amends the Council's version, the Council has three months to approve it, in which case the legislation is passed

8. if the Council does not approve the Parliament's version, a Conciliation Committee is formed, which has six weeks to produce a joint text or else the legislation fails

9. if a joint text is produced the Parliament and the Council both need to pass it for the legislation to pass (3rd reading)

We are currently at Stage 3, a trilogue to see whether the Council can accept the Parliament's amendments. The Commission's input at this stage is limited to opinions and mediation. It has no power to overturn the legislation or the amendments, although it can require the Council to act unanimously rather than by majority - I'm not aware that's the case here.

So no matter how justifiable you feel your cynicism is, your claim is not possible, because the Commission cannot overturn the Parliament's decision at this stage. It's not legally possible. The Commission's only legislative function is that of initiative. It has initiated, and the process has moved on.

Ahh my bad, posting late at night and/or while rushed isn't a strong suit of mine.
I was mixing up the commission and the council. You are right. The council is made up of the ministers of the states and advised by the civil serpents of their respective states so their stance is driven by the influence of the health lobbys in the various states. Most of whom favor the elimination of ecigs. Egged on by the WHO.

Scosinfflaw wrote: »

I'm probably the most cynical person I know, but "cynicism" which ignores facts is not something I consider even slightly valuable. In this case the Commission's legislative input is finished, and no amount of cynicism on your part changes the rules of procedure to allow them to be the villain you want them to be.



I would say that's quite a likely outcome. Who exactly that will satisfy is obviously a matter for debate!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ahh no one as the whole thing will go round again and in the meantime a divide and conquer strategy can be adopted with states each enacting their own de facto bans. A harder battle for the consumers and a longer and riskier process for the Prohibitionists. They have failed before trying this and as time and consumer numbers grow are likely to keep failing. Their best hope was to get it through before it became a 'thing' to quote Linda and before the market justified the legal cost of calling them to court.

Thanks for the good description of how the byzantine EU works, I had a foggy idea and still keep getting mixed up between the commission and the council and the powers of each. We think we are bad with an inffective senate, how would we manage a tricamera system.

was.deevey

In any case, the relevant point is that Big tobacco have not somehow "only developed an interest in e-Cigs in the last 12 months".

Of course not ... they grow tobacco which is currently the only viable source of Nicotine, so the tobacco industry have most likely had a big stake in E-cigs from that start, even if not as ecig manufacturer then certainly as a product wholesaler to the companies who need thousands of tons of tobacco to process it for their juice.

If you have the most expensive and difficult to process/grow Raw Material already on hand it stands to reason any good business should/would would be keeping a close eye on the products using those Raw Materials and their client businesses using them. If the products are gaining traction they'd be the first to know and buy into those companies early.

Big Tobacco being what it is even if europe as a whole passes a ridiculous directive they can still make a pretty penny from the other 89% of the worlds population AND probably make a fortune selling tobacco for extract to the Medical Industry!

dePeatrick

My understanding of this is that a far less quantity of tobacco is required to produce nicotine and flavouring than would be used in traditional methods of smoking. Loss of revenue by the growers has been cited to governments as an anti-E-cig argument.

tommy2bad

Occam wrote: »

Sigh.

While I accept that it is the commonly held view that Gilbert invented them, it is almost certainly not true. There is a vast amount of documentation from within Big Tobacco relating to the development of smoke free nicotene delivery systems undertaken as part of project Ariel particulary in the fifties.

In any case, the relevant point is that Big tobacco have not somehow "only developed an interest in e-Cigs in the last 12 months".

So Big tobacco not only invented the vapor cigarette, they invented vapor ware too? Let it go man, it's obvious BT had no intention of producing an ecig that only uses a tiny extract of their main product.

Occam

dePeatrick wrote: »

Why were they so slow to bring it to the market then? Waiting until the market discovered it for themselves....or just waiting...but why? They could have sold themselves as the good guys bringing the new clean product to the same smokers they created. Something just does not add up here tbh.....

In fact Big Tobacco did launch smokeless cigarettes, but they failed spectacularly. The market just didn't want them. Nobody was really worried about smoking in the 80s (mostly because of the propaganda from big tobacco which tried to keep a lid on any fears).

Google for Premier, which was launched by RJ Reynolds in the 80s, one of the biggest marketing flops in history.

tommy2bad

Premier tasted like sh1t by all accounts inhaling the heated air from warm moist tobacco. Not exactly an ecig mind but in fairness an attempt at reduced risk products.
After some googling I found this nugget "In addition, there was the damaging rumour that the smokeless cigarette could be used as a delivery device for crack cocaine. Hardly the kind of brand association RJ Reynolds had wanted to create."
Sound familiar? Same sh1t, different day eh!

In addition, there was the damaging rumour that the smokeless cigarette could be used as a delivery device for crack cocaine. Hardly the kind of brand association RJ Reynolds had wanted to create.

Ahem, it was 1988, secondhand smoke was accepted (though it a crock even now). The notion that smoking was dangerous was well established. That's kinda why Premier was produced.

dePeatrick

Occam wrote: »

In fact Big Tobacco did launch smokeless cigarettes, but they failed spectacularly. The market just didn't want them. Nobody was really worried about smoking in the 80s (mostly because of the propaganda from big tobacco which tried to keep a lid on any fears).

Google for Premier, which was launched by RJ Reynolds in the 80s, one of the biggest marketing flops in history.

Indeed....$325 million spent on it and it failed completely and was withdrawn after only 4 months! ReLaunched as Eclipse at a further cost if $125 Million brand in the 1990's and flopped again!

Now Reynolds have a brand I have heard of....Vuse.

I had never heard of them in either the 80's or 90's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_(cigarette)

tommy2bad

Ha ha it gets better from the same article on Primier;

One of the major forms of controversy was the brand’s possible appeal among younger people. Here is an extract from a statement by many leading US health organizations shortly after RJ Reynolds announced the new project:

The American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, and American Lung Association have filed a petition with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), asking that Premier be regulated as a drug. In filing this petition, we are not calling for an outright ban on Premier. We want simply for it to be properly tested before people use it.

We are especially concerned that Premier’s intriguing high-tech design will lure children and teenagers into the web of nicotine addiction.

RJR’s marketing emphasis on ‘clean enjoyment’ also may lull people who already smoke into a deceptive sense of safety when they really ought to give up the habit altogether.

Go have a read, http://brandfailures.blogspot.ie/2006/11/brand-idea-failures-rj-reynolds.html

Occam

tommy2bad wrote: »

So Big tobacco not only invented the vapor cigarette, they invented vapor ware too?

Yes actually - the devices produced under project Ariel in the late 50s and 60s heated a liquid containing nicotine, in order to produce a vapor to be inhaled. . The mechanism of heating the fluid was not electric early on, but it was clearly, as you might call it "vapor ware".

tommy2bad wrote: »

Let it go man, it's obvious BT had no intention of producing an ecig that only uses a tiny extract of their main product.

RJ Reynolds spend 300 million dollars on smokeless cigarettes in the 80s. They had and have every intention to produce such a device.

dePeatrick

tommy2bad wrote: »

Ha ha it gets better from the same article on Primier;

Go have a read, http://brandfailures.blogspot.ie/2006/11/brand-idea-failures-rj-reynolds.html

I was already reading it and smiling at the same use of...."think of the children"

dePeatrick

Occam wrote: »

Yes actually - the devices produced under project Ariel in the late 50s and 60s heated a liquid containing nicotine, in order to produce a vapor to be inhaled. . The mechanism of heating the fluid was not electric early on, but it was clearly, as you might call it "vapor ware".



RJ Reynolds spend 300 million dollars on smokeless cigarettes in the 80s. They had and have every intention to produce such a device.

No doubt about it, they were trying to develop a viable e-cig for some time and managed to produce what seems to have been as or even more toxic than cigarettes. Seems the fibre glass in the filters is what really halted them.

I do remember hearing rumours about fibre glass in filters in the 80's 90's, wonder is this where it originated!

grindle

Occam wrote: »

RJ Reynolds spend 300 million dollars on smokeless cigarettes in the 80s. They had and have every intention to produce such a device.

Considering you view BT as the innovators, why haven't they made one that works well? They've got far more money in reserves and at stake than the tiny-by-comparison ecig companies have/had.
The devices BT are (counter-intuitively?) releasing are akin to Apple releasing dial-operated iPhones or Lamborghini releasing a horse and cart.

Occam

grindle wrote: »

Considering you view BT as the innovators, why haven't they made one that works well?

What makes you think they haven't?

The difficulty for them is likely not in producing the device, but the effects of releasing the device. They would kill the golden goose if they were to release e-B&H or e-SilkCut right now - politically it would be a disaster, as it would increase the chances of medicalisation, which would reduce the market.

grindle wrote: »

They've got far more money in reserves and at stake than the tiny-by-comparison ecig companies have/had.

Yes, they have more money, and that is why they can just buy out small brands whenever they wish.

dePeatrick

https://www.vusevapor.com/modules/Security/Login.aspx?isMobile=true

Their third attempt, and they are at pains to state this is not an E-Cig, this is a Digital Vapour Cigarette. It does not have E-liquid, it has V-Liquid.....:rolleyes:

Scofflaw

dePeatrick wrote: »

No doubt about it, they were trying to develop a viable e-cig for some time and managed to produce what seems to have been as or even more toxic than cigarettes. Seems the fibre glass in the filters is what really halted them.

I do remember hearing rumours about fibre glass in filters in the 80's 90's, wonder is this where it originated!

Famously, Major cigarettes - gave you a nice warm feeling in your lungs. On account of the internal bleeding.

reminiscently,
Scofflaw

dePeatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

Famously, Major cigarettes - gave you a nice warm feeling in your lungs. On account of the internal bleeding.

reminiscently,
Scofflaw

Ha ha haa...they were referred to as Coffin Nails, the "Hard Man's cigarette" what a toxic brand they were too, it was Rothmans that I had heard had fibre glass in the filters but could never find anything to back this up. now I think it was possibly the Reynolds brand of e-cig and the rumour trickled slowly over here.

Scofflaw

tommy2bad wrote: »

So Big tobacco not only invented the vapor cigarette, they invented vapor ware too? Let it go man, it's obvious BT had no intention of producing an ecig that only uses a tiny extract of their main product.

Tobacco is not the main product of tobacco companies. They are smoking companies, or nicotine companies, and tobacco is no more than a cheap raw material (sufficiently cheap that there's a price support system for it). It's like calling McDonalds a beef company.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Green Hornet

Scofflaw wrote: »

Famously, Major cigarettes - gave you a nice warm feeling in your lungs. On account of the internal bleeding.

reminiscently,
Scofflaw

Jaysus, were they rough! Short but really flipping rough.

tommy2bad

Occam wrote: »

Yes actually - the devices produced under project Ariel in the late 50s and 60s heated a liquid containing nicotine, in order to produce a vapor to be inhaled. . The mechanism of heating the fluid was not electric early on, but it was clearly, as you might call it "vapor ware".



RJ Reynolds spend 300 million dollars on smokeless cigarettes in the 80s. They had and have every intention to produce such a device.

You don't know what vapor ware is do you?
Bit of a hobby horse for you, the idea that ecigs are a big tobacco conspiracies. Unfortuniatly it's an evidence free theory. The ecig was not marketed by big tobacco,ever. And of all the ecigs on the UK market only 2 are from Big T. However now that the market has been demonstrated and fear of loosing their existing market takes hold they are all buying their way on-board.
Go on admit it, this one thing that can't be laid at big T's door.

tommy2bad

Scofflaw wrote: »

Tobacco is not the main product of tobacco companies. They are smoking companies, or nicotine companies, and tobacco is no more than a cheap raw material (sufficiently cheap that there's a price support system for it). It's like calling McDonalds a beef company.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ahh the old switch routine, they are nicotine companies! So what are the pharma co's then? Sorry but until the ecig, nic was the exclusive property of pharma. It was incidental to tobacco as they sold, well tobacco. Yes nic was the ingredient that made tobacco addictive but as has been well demonstrated by NRT not what made smoking attractive. Actually calling MackyD's a beef company is closer to calling big tobacco nicotine companies. One is as incidental to their product as the other.

I think you have swallowed tobacco control's propaganda that nic is the demon to be restricted. It's the rock they will perish on. To win the war on smoking related illness (this is what this is all about remember?) needs a clean nicotine delivery system not some pie in the sky dream of a tobacco free world.

Occam

tommy2bad wrote: »

Sorry but until the ecig, nic was the exclusive property of pharma. It was incidental to tobacco as they sold, well tobacco.

Well i think this is best contradicted by Big Tobacco Themselves :

“We are, then, in the business of selling nicotine, an addictive drug”
- Brown & Williamson

“The cigarette should not be construed as a product but a package. The product is nicotine..”
- Philip Morris

tommy2bad wrote: »

The ecig was not marketed by big tobacco,ever.

Big Tobacco have been researching smokeless nicotine delivery systems for 50 years, and have previously brought them to market.

Why would they view e-Cigs any differently than a broader "smokless cigarette"?

tommy2bad

Occam wrote: »

Well i think this is best contradicted by Big Tobacco Themselves :

“We are, then, in the business of selling nicotine, an addictive drug”
- Brown & Williamson

“The cigarette should not be construed as a product but a package. The product is nicotine..”
- Philip Morris



Big Tobacco have been researching smokeless nicotine delivery systems for 50 years, and have previously brought them to market.

And got it spectacularly wrong every time, once bitten?

Occam wrote: »

Why would they view e-Cigs any differently than a broader "smokless cigarette"?

Simples because they are not ready and because they have failed to produce anything that has mass apeall. Try they might but all their products resembled cigarettes too much to work as an alternative. The form works against it. To produce a viable alternative, one that delivers nic as well or better than a cigarette, requires a new form. The generation 1 devices showed what was possible but failed to deliver the 'hit' needed. No one understands smokers better than the tobacco companies and they realized that familiarity was what a habitual smoker wanted so they went with the familiar cylindrical tube with a red end and a brown end. We all started with cig alike and quickly realized the potential the tech offered. We moved on bypassing the familiar for the new. Chasing the nic hit but leaving the tar and particles behind.
Unlike with the approved and recommended NRT we kept the behavior that delivered the nic. It may be the self titration or it could be just the familiarity of hand to mouth habit. Either way it's a trick that the tobacco companies missed as did the NRT sellers but then again they are designed to reject the behavior for no more good reason than ideology. Certainly not for any health reason.
BTW do you have something against big tobacco producing a clean nicotine delivery device?

Occam

tommy2bad wrote: »

all their products resembled cigarettes too much to work as an alternative. The form works against it. To produce a viable alternative, one that delivers nic as well or better than a cigarette, requires a new form.

So why are cig-alikes are doing so well for Lorilard - their sales of the cig-alike blu are now over 60million, per quarter which they reckon to be half the US e-Cig market. In fact, its the most popular e-Cig in the world.

Thats 4% of their total sales from e-cigs. Not Bad.

Of course, I'm sure the form is wrong :rolleyes:

tommy2bad

Occam wrote: »

So why are cig-alikes are doing so well for Lorilard - their sales of the cig-alike blu are now over 60million, per quarter which they reckon to be half the US e-Cig market. In fact, its the most popular e-Cig in the world.

Thats 4% of their total sales from e-cigs. Not Bad.

Of course, I'm sure the form is wrong :rolleyes:

Yeah, that's interesting. For some reason the US market is dominated by cigalikes. The rest of the world is dominated by second gen egos and clearos.
It may be down to public perception of smoking and the fear of the new (the US is horribly conservative about new tech) or it could be just plain advertising push. I don't understand it myself.
Yes the form is wrong, ask a vaper instead of asking wikipedia.

Scofflaw

tommy2bad wrote: »

Ahh the old switch routine, they are nicotine companies! So what are the pharma co's then? Sorry but until the ecig, nic was the exclusive property of pharma. It was incidental to tobacco as they sold, well tobacco. Yes nic was the ingredient that made tobacco addictive but as has been well demonstrated by NRT not what made smoking attractive. Actually calling MackyD's a beef company is closer to calling big tobacco nicotine companies. One is as incidental to their product as the other.

I think you have swallowed tobacco control's propaganda that nic is the demon to be restricted. It's the rock they will perish on. To win the war on smoking related illness (this is what this is all about remember?) needs a clean nicotine delivery system not some pie in the sky dream of a tobacco free world.

Hmm. OK, I can see why you need this to be true, but I don't think your reasoning works, because it involves denying some basic commercial realities as well as quite a lot of facts.

You seem to have a nice black and white narrative of "big bad tobacco" versus "our saviour the nice and small e-cig people", and you don't want that boat rocked. But that boat will be rocked, because denying reality isn't the same as changing it.

If that comes off as harsh, I don't mean it to be - to be honest, I find it interesting. But I think I might repeat your advice to me back to you - be more cynical. I think you're not "following the money" here in favour of a constructed narrative with clearly delineated and convenient heroes and villains, leading to your preferred outcome of being able to vape legally while feeling that a cancerous evil has been banished from the world.

Big tobacco don't care about tobacco. It's what currently delivers them money, but if alternative nicotine delivery systems deliver them money, they'll happily fight big pharma for that pie, and if they can get consumer-style legislation for e-cigs, then they'll win - and conversely if they can't, they'll probably lose. Since losing on that front will probably go hand in had with increasing restrictions on actual tobacco use, this is an existential issue for them. They know that in the long term, they're fighting a rearguard action to keep smoking alive - but if they can break out again through vaping, they can stay in business.

The issue is not existential for big pharma, because not only are quitting aids such as patches and tablets and gum only a part of their market, they can and will continue alongside e-cigarettes.

Smokers are nicotine addicts - the idea that they're anything else is actually tobacco company propaganda. Nicotine addicts are the target market for big tobacco, not tobacco addicts, because there's no such thing. If they can't reach their market of nicotine addicts using tobacco, they will be perfectly happy to reach them using vaping, and they have the money, in a field currently occupied by small companies, to buy their way in. But they can only do so if the basis of e-cigarette regulation is consumer, not medical.

They are fighting against the "nicotine interests" of big pharma for legislative freedom in a lucrative market, and they are also fighting health groups who, while they may also be representing pharma interests, have put their finger on a quite genuine issue, which is that the tobacco companies see this as a way to continue inducting new addicts. And while their prohibitionist instincts may not relate to being correct, they are correct.

While smoking remained not only legal but socially acceptable, there was no real impetus for the tobacco companies to follow up their patents with action, because they would have had to create the market for e-cigs from scratch. But in the developed world, not only is legislation closing in on them, so is social acceptability - but addicts remain addicts, and if they can continue to get their drug in a delivery system which promises to abolish all the old ills, they will do so. So the market is creating itself, and now the tobacco companies are buying into it. And they know - who better - that nicotine addicts will persuade themselves of the safety and desirability of e-cigs.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dePeatrick

This is from the German Vapers Association and was translated by Hazel on ECF.

It is quite long so I will just link to it here

I know most of this info has been posted/linked here before but no harm in doing so again....

It is interesting how Big Tobacco/Pharma will bend and twist to get control of profits and at the end of the day the courts are the only place they can be stopped.