Why shouldn't the FDA interfere?

[ninjapuff]

Originally Posted by DisMan

And what liberties are being taken away?

Take this: "Fourth that all the small ecig businesses that we're now dealing with will be put out of business because they can't afford to deal with all the new regulations, paperwork, and testing. Fifth that the new Marlboro and Camel ecigs (that replace the current businesses) will be lower quality and more expensive. Sixth that I will be paying the FDA to do this in the form of income tax."

And add: My right to put whatever the hell I want to into my body as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. Suppliers rights to conduct business without government interference that gives distinct advantages to big corporations that have the resources to affect government mandates via lobbyists. My right to purchase a product whether it has safety features or not (safety features usually imply additional costs, and personally I trust myself to be safe over whatever the FDA mandates).

If an ecig supplier was to address your safety concerns, what benefit would there be to giving the FDA the power to put these suppliers out of business?

Originally Posted by DisMan

And then we allowed corporations in the USA....we learned our lessons.

Evidently not... we no longer have capitalism, we have corporatism, and now it's starting to move towards a corporatism/socialism hybrid where we have socialized programs that corporations are in control of.
History of Corporations (United States)

Originally Posted by DisMan

That's interesting. I thought they were making the tax fairer by finally taxing everybody who uses tobacco..you know, the people skirting the law by not buying regular cigarettes due to a loophole. My bad.

Originally, big tobacco lobbied against the tax increases. Then somebody made a deal, the SCHIP tax increase for RYO tobacco was bumped up to 2173%, and then big tobacco was lobbying for the tax increases.

[Bellinghamster]

Originally Posted by ninjapuff

If an ecig supplier was to address your safety concerns, what benefit would there be to giving the FDA the power to put these suppliers out of business?

The crux of the OP is this:

You CANNOT trust the free market to protect you when it comes to this stuff. It is cheaper to forego safety right up until you kill somebody. Then when the family attempts to sue/prevent future deaths, the corporation will be dust in the wind.

And then my friend, you will have regulation like you never dreamed of.

We're trying to save your liberty to use these devices by being proactively responsible.

[ninjapuff]

Originally Posted by Kate

Only a few traders have voluntarily tried to protect customers from harm with product packaging and testing. Vested interests cannot be trusted to regulate themselves they need government oversight. In the US you have the FDA to protect the public.

A few have moved towards more safety features, and it seems that is the direction that suppliers will be moving in to remain competitive.

How about if we all just put something together and request that suppliers start making these changes?

Government oversight only works when the vested interests aren't in bed with the government.
Exhibit A

Exhibit B

[ninjapuff]

Originally Posted by Nuck

Wall Street is a perfect example of what happens when government regulations are relaxed and corporations are allowed to self-regulate. We all know how well that worked out.

Actually, it's an example of how government regulations don't work. Regulations were in place, and they failed.
John Stossel : A False Sense of Security - Townhall.com

[ninjapuff]

Originally Posted by Bellinghamster

The crux of the OP is this:

You CANNOT trust the free market to protect you when it comes to this stuff. It is cheaper to forego safety right up until you kill somebody. Then when the family attempts to sue/prevent future deaths, the corporation will be dust in the wind.

And then my friend, you will have regulation like you never dreamed of.

We're trying to save your liberty to use these devices by being proactively responsible.

There's no half-assed dealing with the FDA... either they have complete control of it or they don't. The only way to alter FDA's decisions and policies is with millions of dollars of lobbying. In other words, big tobacco will get what they want.

I only see 2 options; let the FDA take control or fight against it.

[Bellinghamster]

Originally Posted by ninjapuff

A few have moved towards more safety features, and it seems that is the direction that suppliers will be moving in to remain competitive.

The flaw in that logic is that cut-rate suppliers will ALWAYS be competitve. While we as informed, enlighted forum members will know what suppliers are safe, the noob who heard about them in the news and Googles "e-cig" will pick what's cheap.

You're defending liberty ONLY on the side of the seller. The buyer has rights too. Like not to be poisoned by a mislabelled/tainted product.

Originally Posted by ninjapuff

government regulations don't work. Regulations were in place, and they failed.
John Stossel : A False Sense of Security - Townhall.com

More flawed logic. If goverment regulation doesn't work at all, should we abolish all regulation? Obviously, a goverment of people is flawed by definition. Mistakes will be made, and even if every safeguard is mandated by law somebody will do something stupid and hurt someone. The point is to put consequences behind these actions to make suppliers think twice before gambling with our lives (I'm the only one who gets to gamble with it )

Your arguement is for Anarchy, which works quite well for a population of one. I agree regulation is often misused, and is not the cure for many problems it is applied to, but this is a legitimate risk to public health that should be addressed.

[DisMan]

I had a very long reply typed up...I couldn't push "post" because I don't have the energy to amplify your 20 point reply into my 50 point which will expand into a 100 point reply...until somebody else has learned. I guess I'm acting like TB now...I just can't argue this anymore. Not on a point by point basis. So, ninja, you wore me down....I won't be responding to all your points.

The market *does not regulate itself* no matter how much you think it does. And it doesn't do that because the corporation is pretty damned clueless about it's consumers. After all, only large corporations can afford the $13,000 consumer reports that tell how the market is...and very few of them would bother. If the product is selling, it's selling. Only when a decrease is detected does the corporation even bother into looking into why. By then, it's too late.

You claim this hurts small business....but I better start seeing some distributors, like Puresmoker and Janty stepping up to these FDA debates and stating that they will work with the regulators. Oh wait, they don't do that *because they are still making their money*.

When the FDA announced the ban, why didn't we see the distributors come together and set an appointment with the FDA then announce that appointment to the consumer? Why not?

Because there was no reason to...profits are still good. Business is still going. So, now the FDA has to shut them down...that's the only way to make them listen.

In the end, the manufacturer will need to foot the bill for the testing and authentication of the product. After all, Puresmoker, Janty, and all the others are just a channel to sell products. The *maker* of the product is the place to force the requirements on.

Wait....those are all in China....where regulation is lax. Where regulation is how *you* want it to be. Where lead paint makes it into children toys and tainted drugs get distributed all over the world.

Anyway, I don't believe I have seen one response from a Supplier or Distributor in this thread. I could be wrong...but I better start seeing it all over the place or we're all going to suffer.

[esqie]

I see Bell's point...we don't know what we are ingesting. I also why that is somehow okay for me. But jeez...not smelling like an ashtray or having too go off by myself to smoke...and paying the government up the ass for that. It's SO worth the risk. A risk that I have assumed.

[Bellinghamster]

Originally Posted by ninjapuff

I only see 2 options; let the FDA take control or fight against it.

I totally sympathize with your distrust of the government. The fact though is that it IS our government. We must do what we can to work within the system in order to protect ourselves and our practices. Your idea of "fighting against it" is invalid. They WILL come. It might not be today. It might not be this month...

But the *first* death attributed to a non-child-safe bottle of e-liquid is going to put all those suppliers you are defending out of business anyway.

[DisMan]

Originally Posted by Bellinghamster

But the *first* death attributed to a non-child-safe bottle of e-liquid is going to put all those suppliers you are defending out of business anyway.

That was the best way to say it. And it won't put them out of business in the nice way. There will be raids, FBI, guns, and many families affected. If some child does die, that is.