An idea for avoiding FDA approval or control

**swanee** · 01-25-2009, 07:52 PM

This is very troubling indeed

**solution42** · 01-25-2009, 08:52 PM

Bad news for you guys, but while you've been extolling the virtues of various flavours and devices, the snowball that is the "nanny state" has been hatching a suprise.

You can't fight it, the logic is impenetrable. Who can possibly argue self harm over protection. The battle was over before it began.

The inaction and apathy displayed by the majority here towards the bans in Mexico and Australia merely cement how fragmented we all are, this is a lost cause. See you in the cancer ward.

**Lithium1330** · 01-25-2009, 08:54 PM

The bomb has been dropped, just wait and see... now pay attention to smoking everywhere look what they will do.

Take an eye on JC too.

Originally Posted by solution42

The inaction and apathy displayed by the majority here towards the bans in Mexico and Australia merely cement how fragmented we all are, this is a lost cause. See you in the cancer ward.

I agree...

**GabbyD** · 01-25-2009, 09:06 PM

Originally Posted by solution42

Bad news for you guys, but while you've been extolling the virtues of various flavours and devices, the snowball that is the "nanny state" has been hatching a suprise.

You can't fight it, the logic is impenetrable. Who can possibly argue self harm over protection. The battle was over before it began.

The inaction and apathy displayed by the majority here towards the bans in Mexico and Australia merely cement how fragmented we all are, this is a lost cause. See you in the cancer ward.

You were right with the first statement. The battle was over before it began. The inaction and apathy is irrelevent, as neither would have had any impact on an FDA ban here. But the FDA held shipments as far back as November, from what I can see, and we still don't have an all out ban. I would imagine for a while, we'll see most of it get through. I doubt they are situated to block it entirely at the moment. We'll see. In any event, I continue to be "inactive" as there really is nothing I can do.

**Bellinghamster** · 01-25-2009, 09:14 PM

Originally Posted by leaford

That's a shock, that's for sure. But lets just wait and see. That may be one local agent or supervisor speaking, and not FDA policy.

I agree Leaford, my shipments from China have been coming through real regular-like.

I think the argument over definitions/semantics could make some lawyers a lot of money and forestall the eventual ban by a few years. But I have every faith our corrupt, short-sighted, and morally bankrupt federal government will ban this eventually, and likely soon.

/end rant

**riddle80** · 01-25-2009, 09:23 PM

Do we have no defense against these claims? Would our actions be pointless? What should the next step be? I wonder if anyone else has received this same response. This was from 2 weeks ago, so many other shipments have came into the US since then.

I think we should start a new thread with this very important information so everyone can put their heads together.

**Reign** · 01-25-2009, 09:34 PM

If I had a shipment held by customs...my first action would be a letter to my congressman requesting a congressional inquery to the customs agents. That gives them a small window of time to respond with what they did, why, and any other information you would need to know.

If they prematurely detained your shipment without any real lawful reason, that would be a huge step in the right direction for our side in the fight and could be used later in court.

If they do not respond to the inquery, people would lose their jobs and you would have your stuff immediately released to you as well as being something to be used later in the fight.

Get the governement on your side by starting with the small fish that need your individual votes to keep their jobs.

**Kate** · 01-26-2009, 01:06 AM

Anyone interested in getting organised and trying to move towards acceptance of vaping should have a look at Right to Vape, especially this thread - Who are the movers and shakers?

Please join in with your own contributions, anything constructive is beneficial. If we co-operate we can achieve more than we could if we just stay a fragmented community of complaining, powerless individuals.

**TropicalBob** · 01-26-2009, 01:30 AM

This is the first time we've seen an e-mail like this one, to my knowledge. This explanation is new. It's policy. I can't believe for even a second that a single agent would write that, without the full authority of the agency. No middle representative would write that and risk speaking for the agency. This is top-level content. It sounds very much like a prepared FDA statement. If that's the case, expect more such interceptions of e-smoking stuff and near-identical e-mails.

This is the sentence that stood my hair on end:

None of these so-called "electronic cigarettes" is covered by an approved NDA. Thus, the marketing of them in the United States would be subject to enforcement action, which is why your products have been detained.

How quickly and how vast will the enforcement action be? With that sentence, no e-cig is acceptable or exempt from "enforcement action."

The next move will be important, since at this time the FDA says only that the "products have been detained." Keep us posted, Smooth. Detained doesn't have to mean confiscated for good. What does the FDA want?