Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
European Ban on E-Cigs?
Options
Comments
-
The thing is tobacco controle is driven by the WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. This plan to reduce smoking prevalence was adopted in 2003 before ecigs were part of the mainstream options. Theirs no allowance for them in the framework and the WHO view ecigs as an attempt to circumvent it.
Any studies are being dismissed by the who and Governments are signed up to the framework take all their policy on tobacco control within the terms of the framework.
Whats worse is that success in tobacco control is measured by how well a country implements this framework not by the reduction in smoking. Ireland scores highly at 4 having brought in the smoking ban and the minimum pack size rules but has seen an increase in smoking. Sweden wont singe up to the ban on snus. It scores a low 18 out of 23 Eu signatories. Sweden has the lowest adult smoking rate and the lowest smoking related illness rate in the developed world.
http://www.who.int/fctc/en/
ok right. ''driven'' to what extent? and so there's no provision for an individual country to go against any individual articles of the protocol? i've only started into the 44 pages of it. tough going.0 -
I know you may think I am being pedantic, but if you are going to discuss scientific research, you need to be very careful of the language you use.
While I understand what you are trying to say, you should have qualified the above statement,with the phrase " over tobacco smoking". It totally changes the meaning of what you are saying. You may think it is implied, but its not.
Again I'm unsure if there is some hidden qualifier to this in your mind, but what you are claiming is just not correct. Look up the Gratziou paper. Just because a study is of poor quality, low sample size, or doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean you get to pretend it doesn't exist.
It is implied. Very obviously. Anybody reading my words who thinks "Oh, he means it's safe like broccoli!" needs their head examined if they can't understand the context of the conversation. If somebody says their sandwich tasted nice I wouldn't wonder if that was in comparison to a tractor, the context is obvious.
The Gratziou study isn't in favour of ecigs, but none of the numbers actually make a case against ecigs.
If she published a study tomorrow that stated "When drinking warm caramel the throat gets covered temporarily in a viscous layer" would we call that a case against caramel? "Oh no, we can't swallow as efficiently while imbibing caramel!!!"
Or would we think she was mentally incapacitated/a scumbag shill for trying to make something out of nothing?0 -
No, they are and have released press releases welcoming regulation. This from the Vype site "Where a medicinal framework is proposed, such as for e-cigarettes in the UK, these products should still be sold over-the-counter through general retailers such as supermarkets, newsagents and grocery stores – just as regular painkillers and cough medicines are already sold in the UK.'
You do realise that you are actually proving my point here?
They want e-Cigs available over the counter in general retail, meaning they are against EU regulations which would could cause e-Cigs to be only available in a pharmacy :rolleyes:0 -
all studies have come back in favour of ecigsThe Gratziou study isn't in favour of ecigs
Can you not see the obvious contradiction in what you are saying?There has been no study that has found them dangerous (yet?) by the numbers. Not even one.
Well I've already given you one example, which doesnt seem to matter to you. Perhaps there was another implied qualification here? Did you mean "There has been no study that has found them dangerous that I like " ?she was mentally incapacitated/a scumbag shill for trying to make something out of nothing
Thats a pretty horrible thing to say about someone, why have you got such a grudge?
In any case? Who would she be shilling for ???0 -
Okay, I'll qualify the obvious. No numbers have come out to discredit ecigs. At all. Opinions have. Science has favoured them thus far.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.ie/2012/09/researcher-who-is-unsure-that-smoking.html
Pfizer, Chantix of all things. Proven to have caused deaths.0 -
Advertisement
-
You do realise that you are actually proving my point here?
They want e-Cigs available over the counter in general retail, meaning they are against EU regulations which would could cause e-Cigs to be only available in a pharmacy :rolleyes:
But their is no EU legislation to restrict sales to pharmacies! That's not whats proposed, what the EU want is medical authorization same as paracetamol or existing NRT. Sales restrictions would then be acording to individual states. Here in Ireland aspirin and such is generally available and NRT restricted to pharmacies. In the UK both are over the counter products. The problem with medical regs is cost and restrictions that apply to medicines specifically.
The real problem is that neither the regulators nor the governments understand what ecigs are. Tobacco companies see them as a replacement product for cigerettes, looking as close as possible to existing products. The regulators see them as NRT and want them to act as nrt.
The thing is Ecigs are not a reduced harm cigarette, the are a new way to use nicotine recreationaly, somewhere between cigarette replacement and a new product entirely.
The best analogy is the mobile phone, it may have been seen as a simple replacement for the landline but was such a game changer that it's now a new category of product.0 -
Checked who the good professor works for and they give no indication of who funds them. I doubt it's out of their own pocket though and suspect that like most of the tobacco control organizations the ERS Tobacco Control is most probably dependent on grants from the pharmaceutical industry, you know the people who produce NRT.In any case? Who would she be shilling for ???
Grindle has nailed it, I forgot about that revelation.0 -
ok right. ''driven'' to what extent? and so there's no provision for an individual country to go against any individual articles of the protocol? i've only started into the 44 pages of it. tough going.
I suppose their is provision for countries to go their own way but according to WHO;
I suspect financial help is dependent on following the convention. Even without that, the level of lobbying is huge and this is credible lobbying as far as governments are concerned. Smoking is so vilified and the anti anti smoking lobby so marginalized that it effectly a clear run for the tobacco control movement.The Convention Secretariat promotes multisectoral, comprehensive tobacco-control policies at country level and close coordination with international and intergovernmental organizations (in line with Articles 22–26 of the Convention).
All this is a good thing untill it became a dogma that refused to see any option other than complete nicotine abstinence as it end game. When drawing up the framework, this seemed like the only option so I won't blame them for it. What I do blame them for is blindly following this failed policy after other options became available.
That's my reasonable side now my tinfoil hat side is having it's say.:D
The WHO is funded by big pharma, staffed by big pharma and is so entwined with the pharma industry that it might as well be big pharmas PR branch. They are pushing this framework fully aware of how it can never achieve a tobacco free world. They don't want that as the pharma industry depends on smoking to keep churning out quitters and patients. Anything that threatens this hegemony will be opposed by lies, half truths and lobbying for bans. Ecigs might not have been an option before 2007 by smokeless tobacco products were and they lied about the risk they presented and pushed to have snus banned outside of Sweden.
Pharma is the largest criminal organization in the world if we use fines levied and convictions achieved as a measure of criminality.0 -
Okay, I'll qualify the obvious. No numbers have come out to discredit ecigs. At all. Opinions have.
You are free to disagree with the methodology, data and interpretations of studies. However, denying the existence of data, calling researchers scumbags and contradicting yourself in order to avoid admitting a mistake will not help your argument.
As it happens, I agree with a lot of your points - e-Cigs are a great alternative to smoking tobacco, are relatively safe and should not be heavily regulated. However, as there almost always is, there is some conflicting evidence and it should not be hidden, even if you disagree with it.0 -
You are free to disagree with the methodology, data and interpretations of studies. However, denying the existence of data, calling researchers scumbags and contradicting yourself in order to avoid admitting a mistake will not help your argument.
As it happens, I agree with a lot of your points - e-Cigs are a great alternative to smoking tobacco, are relatively safe and should not be heavily regulated. However, as there almost always is, there is some conflicting evidence and it should not be hidden, even if you disagree with it.
No their is conflicting interpretations of evidence. All the evidence so far is that vaping is orders of magnitude safer than smoking. The presentation of this evidence is the problem as it's agenda driven.
Unless you can link to some of this evidence (the actual data not the conclusion) I call bulsh1t.0 -
Advertisement
-
But their is no EU legislation to restrict sales to pharmacies! That's not whats proposed
Sigh. It is. If the currently proposed legislation is passed, it would have the automatic effect of restricting e-Cig sales to pharmacies in some EU countries. Not all EU countries allow retail sale of medicines, in the manner we are familiar with in UK and Ireland.
The other countries (such as UK and Ireland) would make their own decision as to how to categorise e-Cigs, and consequently whether they will be available outside of a pharmacy.0 -
All the evidence so far is that vaping is orders of magnitude safer than smoking....Unless you can link to some of this evidence .... I call bulsh1t.
Straw man - I've never claimed there is evidence that smoking is more dangerous than smoking.
My (and I would have thought this was quite a simple) point was that it is not correct to say there are no studies which show that vaping might be dangerous.0 -
-
can you link to whatever studies you think exist that show vaping might be dangerous?
Here you go ...
Further discussion of the study can be found here
"Although this study demonstrates that e-cigarettes are safer than tobacco cigarettes, it also refutes the idea that e-cigarettes are safe in an absolute sense. "0 -
bbbbbbuuuuuuut.... that study's claim of the levels of toxins found in vapour being in a range from 9-450 times lower than tobacco smoke, and comparable to the levels in the control device - a nic inhaler.... does not prove they're harmful.
it proves the levels of toxins found in vapour was in a range from 9-450 times lower than tobacco smoke, and comparable to the levels in the control device.
and 'not safe in the absolute sense' doesn't equal harmful either. i don't think there's any pro-ecig proponent out there, in a lab coat or behind a vendor site that's ever claimed vaping is 100% safe - is there?0 -
And that right their is the problem. 'Safe in an absolute sense'. Without a definition of absolute this means nothing. Lets for the sake of argument take it to mean that no one ever has or ever will be harmed by the use or misuse of ecigs then we cant say that. We cant say that about anything, water, food, urban air or transport. Exercise and medicine. We don't use the term safe to mean that and never have. We mean generally safe to use. Contra indications may appl."Although this study demonstrates that e-cigarettes are safer than tobacco cigarettes, it also refutes the idea that e-cigarettes are safe in an absolute sense. "
The opponents of ecigs are insisting on absolute safety as a minimum for ecigs but don't apply the same to anything else.
It's scaremongering not factual evidence of the product being described.0 -
And that right their is the problem. 'Safe in an absolute sense'. Without a definition of absolute this means nothing.
Absolute is a basic term used in science,which is well defined and known to anybody in the science community. To even begin to understand some of the papers which you are dismissing you would need to learn the basic terminology.It's scaremongering not factual evidence of the product being described.
Why don't you quote something from that paper which is factually incorrect then?i don't think there's any pro-ecig proponent out there, in a lab coat or behind a vendor site that's ever claimed vaping is 100% safe - is there?
People on this thread have been throwing around terms like "it poses no danger" and "all studies have been in favour of ecigs".
The facts are :
1) There is no data on the long term safety of e-Cigs
2) Existing data is limited, and difficult to draw any conclusions from
3) There are some studies which would indicate that there may be dangers associated with vaping
4) There is general agreement that vaping is much, much safer than smoking tobacco
5) More research is needed
5) eCigs are a massive industry, has a powerful political lobby, and is one of the high growth areas for some of the most unscrupulous companies in the world0 -
1) There is no data on the long term safety of e-Cigs
2) Existing data is limited, and difficult to draw any conclusions from
3) There are some studies which would indicate that there may be dangers associated with vaping
4) There is general agreement that vaping is much, much safer than smoking tobacco
5) More research is needed
5) eCigs are a massive industry, has a powerful political lobby, and is one of the high growth areas for some of the most unscrupulous companies in the world
1] true. but we're talking about a product that only been around for what - 6 years is it? how long do you propose to expect me to wait for your absolute before you think i should be allowed make a personal decision based on the studies we DO have?
2]what sort of data do you think is missing then and what's in the data available now that you find it difficult to draw conclusions from - and what conclusions?
3] what studies? i have seen where studies add a caveat that more research is needed on long term effects. but again that doesn't equate with there being associated dangers. what dangers?0 -
Absolute is a basic term used in science,which is well defined and known to anybody in the science community. To even begin to understand some of the papers which you are dismissing you would need to learn the basic terminology.
Give us the standard definition then, not that it matters because we are discussing the wording as understood by ordinary consumers.
Why don't you quote something from that paper which is factually incorrect then?
See below!
People on this thread have been throwing around terms like "it poses no danger" and "all studies have been in favour of ecigs".
The facts are :
1) There is no data on the long term safety of e-Cigs
So we extrapolate from existing data to decide hpow to regulate and to evaluate the dangers.
2) Existing data is limited, and difficult to draw any conclusions from
Limited but not showing anything that would raise major concerns.
3) There are some studies which would indicate that there may be dangers associated with vaping
Yet to see one, other than implied in the abstract.
4) There is general agreement that vaping is much, much safer than smoking tobacco
Is their? Grudging recognition of the lack of data that proves harm more like.
5) More research is needed
Well yes duh
5) eCigs are a massive industry, has a powerful political lobby, and is one of the high growth areas for some of the most unscrupulous companies in the world
Ecigs are a small industry, have no lobby to speak off and is being looked at as a possible growth area for the tobacco companies who have a bad record but so what? They are not the arbiters of the safety or dangers of the product.
That's from the presentation by Christina Gratziou the full thing is behind a paywall.New research has shown that despite electronic cigarettes being marketed as a potentially safer alternative to normal cigarettes, they are still causing harm to the lungs.
The use of the word 'despite' implys that they are in fact not safer. First untruth.
Still causing harm to the lungs without any definition of harm. It turns out this harm was no more than airway resistance similar to 20 minutes exercise. Second untruth.
She is careful to word her abstract to cause as much damage to ecigs as possible without ever clearly explaining what the data actually showed. That ecigs were 90 time less toxic than cigarettes. She lied.
From the abstract of the same study; We found that the e-cigarette vapours contained some toxic substances. The levels of the toxicants were 9-450 times lower than in cigarette smoke and were, in many cases, comparable with trace amounts found in the reference product.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/234676560 -
the kind of research you're talking about is already out there. the problem is that who exactly is going to fund an irish university... to test what exactly? who's going to pre-emt [sp??] the kinds of parameters any future health committee members will think they need to capture everything? who sets those parameters? how many different commercially available brands of ingredients do you test? what brands? how many different manufacturers of PG, VG, flavouring, colouring, EM and other additives even are there?
rhetorical questions here btw.
have you sent your local representatives research like that recent casaa study, the clearstream study from italy, the michael siegal cessation study, the njoy rebuttle of the 2009 FDA report, the ECITA/legal rebuttle of medicinal classification? what do they say when you do?
i'm not saying that what's out there is going to be enough for o'reily's advisors and health dept ''officials'' - what i'm saying is there's things we can do in the interim that are useful.
Points well made, and accepted, I just think some sort of "Irish" perspective on the very basics would contribute to "the cause":)
Did email a minister, no reply.0 -
Advertisement
-
Take it for what it is, the electronic cigarette business at the moment is worth millions and soaring by the day, EU are trying and will find a way to get a good slice of the 'cake', it's inevitable..... Just like salt and millions of other products, EU just going through the motions....0
-
Ecigs are a small industry
Frankly, this is laughable. You can't seriously believe this?
Analysts reckon it will be worth 3 Billion by 2015.
LinkyEcigs .....have no lobby to speak of
Are you joking?
Are you honestly trying to say that the big tobacco firms are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a product, which will create a market worth billions of dollars, without an associated investment in lobbying, even tho heavy regulation could jeopardise the whole plan?
There are over 90 tobacco lobbyists in Brussels, and the lobbyists used by the US eCig makers are some of the best in the business.
Even our own Paul Murphy has spoken openly about the tobacco lobbyists contacting him, and using their usual tactics to influece e-Cig regulation.
Astonishingly they are even actually sending MEPs nicotene products
tobacco lobbyist have been sending gifts, such as e-cigarettes and invitations to drinks and dinners in order to sway MEPs.
“On a scale of 1 to 10, they’re 11... They’re lobbying us to death ”.Still causing harm to the lungs without any definition of harm.
I understand you are clearly not used to reading scientific abstracts, or papers, but they do not, and should not contain basic definitions of terms. Just because you do not understand something does not mean that it is wrong.
You sound very childish when describing researchers as liars and scumbags just because you disagree with the research presented, it distracts from the point you are trying to make.Take it for what it is, the electronic cigarette business at the moment is worth millions and soaring by the day, EU are trying and will find a way to get a good slice of the 'cake', it's inevitable..... Just like salt and millions of other products, EU just going through the motions....
Very interesting, and I suspect accurate point. I would have thought direct taxation on nicotene based products would have been the answer for them tho, presume treating them as medicines would make this more difficult?1] true. but we're talking about a product that only been around for what - 6 years is it? how long do you propose to expect me to wait for your absolute before you think i should be allowed make a personal decision based on the studies we DO have?
I don't really care when or if you make any decisions about e-Cigs.1]
2]what sort of data do you think is missing then and what's in the data available now that you find it difficult to draw conclusions from - and what conclusions?
The main piece of data we have at the moment showing safety is that millions of people are using the devices, and no one seems to have dropped dead, so far, thankfully.
However, data showing the safety of long term use is missing. Its pretty easy to remember lots of things we once thought were safe, and we now know to have serious long term effects.1]
3] what studies? i have seen where studies add a caveat that more research is needed on long term effects. but again that doesn't equate with there being associated dangers. what dangers?
Read earlier in the thread, or any of the opinions presented by BMJ, FDA, world health organisation. I suspect you are well aware of these studies however.0 -
[QUOTE=Occam;86243200
Even our own Paul Murphy has spoken openly about the tobacco lobbyists contacting him, and using their usual tactics to influece e-Cig regulation.
Astonishingly they are even actually sending MEPs nicotene products
tobacco lobbyist have been sending gifts, such as e-cigarettes and invitations to drinks and dinners in order to sway MEPs.
“On a scale of 1 to 10, they’re 11... They’re lobbying us to death ”.
[/QUOTE]
...and this shows how much/little you know of the situation. Vaper's forums/groups were pigeonholed as astroturfing tobacco lobbyists.
The company that sent the ecigs was Totally Wicked, an ecig company with no ties to a tobacco company, yet they're still lumped in as tobacco lobbyists. MEPs could do with an updating of their own definitions.
I called Gratziou a scumbag because she's been quoted as saying people shouldn't use ecigs as a replacement for tobacco. In other words, don't quit, smoke. If you do try to quit, use one of the products proven to work least. Her study can't be taken seriously - she states the lungs are harmed and calls ecigs dangerous because the ingredients form a slick coating for 20 minutes.
I'd hazard a guess that she measured after an hour and after a day as well but because those figures don't back her claim she hypes the figures at the 20 minute mark.
It's not meant to strengthen my arguments at all, but anybody engaged in the practise of causing more deaths than they save is a scumbag in my eyes. You may have a different definition.
You seem to have an unhealthy bias towards pharma propaganda yourself.0 -
...and this shows how much/little you know of the situation. Vaper's forums/groups were pigeonholed as astroturfing tobacco lobbyists.
I'm not sure why you are bringing this up?
My point is that Big Tobacco spend millions of euros on lobbying in Europe, and have almost 100 full time lobbyists in Brussels alone!
Given that Big Tobacco have invested hundreds of millions of euros in e-Cigs, and that we have MEPs saying they are being lobbied heavily by Big Tobacco against e-Cig regulation, it makes the claims on this thread that there is no e-Cig lobby laughable.The company that sent the ecigs was Totally Wicked, an ecig company with no ties to a tobacco company
I think no ties might be pushing it - it would make sense for them to collaborate with the Big Tobacco lobbyists, given that they are pushing the same agenda regarding e-Cig legislation....yet they're still lumped in as tobacco lobbyists. MEPs could do with an updating of their own definitions.
Its pretty understandable, Big Tobacco are the biggest players in the e-Cig lobby, and are well on the way to dominating the e-Cig industry itself. They are ditching their old brands (which are some of the most valuable in the world) to try and lose the image, but I'm afraid its the same shady companies that told us cigarettes were harmless.
I would however agree that the term Nicotene Industry would be the most appropriate term for everyone involved,rather than Big Tobacco.0 -
Well aware of the studies and also aware that they contain no data that would raise concerns. Apart from the presentation of these results we have no quibble with them. As you said, opinion not evidence.Frankly, this is laughable. You can't seriously believe this?
No, compared to the pharma and cigarette industry ecigs are tiny.
Analysts reckon it will be worth 3 Billion by 2015.
And the property bubble would never end, guesstemates don't make facts.
Linky
Are you joking?
No, We could barely muster 200 people for a protest in Brussels, all the letters are from grassroots org and their are no paid lobyists working for the ecig industry.
Are you honestly trying to say that the big tobacco firms are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a product, which will create a market worth billions of dollars, without an associated investment in lobbying, even tho heavy regulation could jeopardise the whole plan?
Tobacco can do what they want, their tobacco industry lobbyists. Not ecig lobbyists.
There are over 90 tobacco lobbyists in Brussels, and the lobbyists used by the US eCig makers are some of the best in the business.
Again no the lobbyists used by the tobacco owned ecig are some of the best. Difference.
Even our own Paul Murphy has spoken openly about the tobacco lobbyists contacting him, and using their usual tactics to influece e-Cig regulation.
Paul was mistaken and showed himself for the muppet he is.
Astonishingly they are even actually sending MEPs nicotene products
tobacco lobbyist have been sending gifts, such as e-cigarettes and invitations to drinks and dinners in order to sway MEPs.
Sending a sample of the product that is being regulated to the people who are regulating them and have shown a lack of knowledge even as to the form that ecigs exist as is not lobbying, it's education.
“On a scale of 1 to 10, they’re 11... They’re lobbying us to death ”.
Quoting the propaganda from someone who has an anti ecig agenda ...yes that prove your point.
I understand you are clearly not used to reading scientific abstracts, or papers, but they do not, and should not contain basic definitions of terms. Just because you do not understand something does not mean that it is wrong.
Wut? I understand it well, that's why I could show how the data didn't show the claimed harm.
You sound very childish when describing researchers as liars and scumbags just because you disagree with the research presented, it distracts from the point you are trying to make.
I didn't call anyone anything, I pointed out the disconnect between the study results and the statement by the professor. Enough discrepancy to conclude that she lied. Or was too stupid to understand her own study. Fool or knave, you choose!
Very interesting, and I suspect accurate point. I would have thought direct taxation on nicotene based products would have been the answer for them tho, presume treating them as medicines would make this more difficult?
Except the intention isn't to gain revenue from ecigs, its to eliminate or cripple them so as not to interfere with the cash cow that smoking is to both gov tax coffers and pharma income. The tax on cigarettes is based on the harm from smoking, hard to justifies the same tax on nic products. Unless you resort to lieing!
I don't really care when or if you make any decisions about e-Cigs.
Beyond response :rolleyes:
The main piece of data we have at the moment showing safety is that millions of people are using the devices, and no one seems to have dropped dead, so far, thankfully.
However, data showing the safety of long term use is missing. Its pretty easy to remember lots of things we once thought were safe, and we now know to have serious long term effects.
Times change and our ability to judge the risks are far better now than when we first assed the risk of smoking. BTW, how do you suggest we gain long term data?
Read earlier in the thread, or any of the opinions presented by BMJ, FDA, world health organisation. I suspect you are well aware of these studies however.0 -
their are no paid lobyists working for the ecig industry
This is simply not true, and undermines the rest of your points.
Even the first page on google shows federal filings showing Njoy have hired Shockey Scofield Solutions, a bunch of former congressional staffers :rolleyes:
To think that any company would invest hundreds of millions of euros, in any product, that could be vulnerable to regulation, and not lobby would be pretty naive.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/18/12515/e-cigarette-maker-fires-lobbying-effortsTobacco can do what they want, their tobacco industry lobbyists. Not ecig lobbyists.
Big Tobacco are now heavily embedded in the e-Cig industry. Just because they used to also sell tobacco doesn't mean you get to pretend they are not a large, and growing part of e-Cig industry.
Big Tobacco will lobby strongly to protect both their tobacco based interests, and their e-Cig interests.0 -
I'm not pretending they are not part of the ecig industry, I'm asserting that their interest isn't the same as all of the ecig industry. Big tobacco companies will lobby to get rid of the competition. Their model of the ecig market is cigalikes for sale in B&M stores with limited flavors. This is not the goal of most ecig manufactures and retailers.This is simply not true, and undermines the rest of your points.
I might not have been clear, I was contending the bit about the no of lobbyists working in Brussels. Again their are no paid ecig lobbyists in Brussels.
Even the first page on google shows federal filings showing Njoy have hired Shockey Scofield Solutions, a bunch of former congressional staffers :rolleyes:
This is in the US, not applicable but I understand your point.
To think that any company would invest hundreds of millions of euros, in any product, that could be vulnerable to regulation, and not lobby would be pretty naive.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/18/12515/e-cigarette-maker-fires-lobbying-efforts
Big Tobacco are now heavily embedded in the e-Cig industry. Just because they used to also sell tobacco doesn't mean you get to pretend they are not a large, and growing part of e-Cig industry.
Big Tobacco will lobby strongly to protect both their tobacco based interests, and their e-Cig interests.
Lets tell the truth, 5 years ago no one had any interest in ecigs, then they began to bite the pharma products and pharma started a campaign to have them classed as NRT to remove what they considered unfair competition. Once the FDA were stopped from applying medical regs big T got interested. Since then both pharma and big T have lobbied to restrict the market to cigalike with two flavors. Don't confuse the tobacco lobby with the ecig proponents, they have different goals.
Oh and the tobacco control lobby have sought to ban ecigs, at the behest of their paymasters the NRT producers.0 -
Again their are no paid ecig lobbyists in Brussels.
Ok. Lets take British American Tobacco, who have just entered the UK e-Cig market. We know they have a huge, diverse and powerful lobby in Europe, and worldwide. We know they use it, a lot.
What you are suggesting is that although they have paid lobbyists in Brussels, they did not use them to represent the interest of BATs newest e-Cig, Vype, while legislation critical to the success of e-Cigs was drafted and debated?
Maybe BAT forgot that they had lobbyists :rolleyes:
Or maybe even tho they were lobbying on behalf of an e-Cig product, you are going to say they are not ecig lobbyists because that e-Cig manufacturer is also a Big Tobacco company :rolleyes:
Ok, newsflash : Big Tobacco are e-Cigs proponents. Who did you think is paying for all of the flashy advertising and lobbying ?Don't confuse the tobacco lobby with the ecig proponents, they have different goals.
big T have lobbied to restrict the market to cigalike with two flavors
Can you provide a source for this?
Given that Big tobacco e-Cigs already include a range of flavors (many of which will be appealing to children, yay !) including cherry, peach snaps, pina colada, coffee, menthol, vanilla .... Oh and tobacco they either changed their mind, or never held that position.0 -
Sorry Occam, are you in the good old US of A by any chance? you knowledge of ecigs is very us-centric.
No the tobacco owned ecigs come in regular and menthol with the exception of Blu. All the others offer no choice compared with refillable ecigs. And no big tobacco company sell an ego type.
They have different sales models, tobacco company's see ecigs as a direct replacement for tobacco cigarettes not alternative nicotine delivery systems. This could change but at the moment it's not in their interest to offer flavors and variety of battery's.
Ecig manufactures see ecigs as competing with tobacco cigarettes, they offer what tobacco can't. flavors and variety.
When lobbying the tobacco companies have so far supported public use bans, something that ecig companies campaign hard against.
You seem to see a monolith where none exists.
So far no tobacco company has produced an ecig, (even Vype is an off the shelf cigalike that's branded by the tobacco company.) They buy existing companies, they buy cigalike companies. They have no interest in vaping other than to replace customers that they are loosing to ecigs, mostly ego types in Europe but cigalikes in the US hence the rush into the cigalike market first.
They are not our enemy but they are not friends either, more enemy of my enemy.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sorry Occam, are you in the good old US of A by any chance?
No, I'm not, but the fact that I can so easily contradict so much of what you are saying by using examples from the USA is convenient.No the tobacco owned ecigs come in regular and menthol with the exception of Blu.
Of course, if we exclude the ones which prove you wrong, you are right :rolleyes:All the others offer no choice compared with refillable ecigs........And no big tobacco company sell an ego type
Refillable Vype in production apparently.
The differences between e-cigs produced by Big Tobacco, and e-Cigs produced by anyone else are getting much fewer.When lobbying the tobacco companies have so far supported public use bans
Source ?big T have lobbied to restrict the market to cigalike with two flavors.
Can you provide a source for this?Again their are no paid ecig lobbyists in Brussels
Found a group called the Electronic Cigarette industry Trade Association, which is funded by the non big tobacco e-Cig part of the industry, who are open about their lobbying in Brussels.
"Our spend on ‘lobbying’ (much of which is spent on travel to and from Brussels for meetings) is in the low tens of thousands."
http://www.ecita.org.uk/blog/index.php/propaganda-by-press-release/
They are small fry, and Big Tobacco will be spending many, many multiples of what ECITA are admitting to, but they are directly contracting what you are claiming.0
Advertisement