Why shouldn't the FDA interfere?

[Bellinghamster]

@esqie: We ALL assume it. The smart folks know the risks we are taking. MOST of the vaping community does not, and we hear words like "safe", "healthy", and "water-vapor" from manufacturers and distributers every day.

I have good relationships with a lot of the distributors, and I'm not trying to kill their business. I'm just agreeing with DisMan in that they need to invest in getting the studies, safety measures, and approvals in place or there is NO (legal) long-term market for this (in the U.S.).

AND WE LOSE OUR POSSIBLY LIFE-SAVING PRACTICE

Props to those suppliers who TRULY support this community with their efforts regarding packaging, marketing, and activism.

[calligal]

Here is my 2 cents. People dye from sniffing glue, spray paint, putting bags over their heads and for eating tainted meat. All are legal. Hundreds if not thousands of open market items are deadly if used incorrectly. I don't mind a manufacturer needing to be regulized but I resent the fact that someone wants to tell me an e-cig which can be used with 0 nicotine is bad for me while cigarettes would be considered a viable alternative. The problem with the FDA as always been the same. Years of study which denies any viable product the ability to be sold and used while the study is being done.
I am new to this so I admit there is still much for me to learn on the benefits of e-smoking compared to analog smoking but after 3 days of vaping I can easily say that it has been easier for me to quit than using wellbutrin, patches, or commit which have all failed me in the past.

[Bellinghamster]

Hi Calligal - welcome! I'm actually right at the TOP of my soapbox at the moment and I apologize. I'm going to agree/disagree with you on a point or two, but please don't take it personally.

Originally Posted by calligal

Here is my 2 cents. People dye from sniffing glue, spray paint, putting bags over their heads and for eating tainted meat. All are legal. Hundreds if not thousands of open market items are deadly if used incorrectly.

Tainted meat is not legal. Sniffing glue/paint is illegal (while the products are legal, misusing them is not). Bag over the head? I really don't know...

Originally Posted by calligal

I don't mind a manufacturer needing to be regulized but I resent the fact that someone wants to tell me an e-cig which can be used with 0 nicotine is bad for me while cigarettes would be considered a viable alternative.

The FDA will never tell anyone to use cigarettes. Especially compared to 0 nic anything. You may CHOOSE to use cigarettes (which is also indefensible), but in their eyes - you quit or die. It's the only legally safe answer *at the moment*.

Originally Posted by calligal

The problem with the FDA as always been the same. Years of study which denies any viable product the ability to be sold and used while the study is being done.
I am new to this so I admit there is still much for me to learn on the benefits of e-smoking compared to analog smoking but after 3 days of vaping I can easily say that it has been easier for me to quit than using wellbutrin, patches, or commit which have all failed me in the past.

I'm an admitted know-nothing on the internal workings of the FDA, but I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments with being frustrated about potentially being denied e-cigs as an alternative to cigarettes.

OK... I'm offically off the soapbox for tonight. I'm going to relax with my new shipment of e-liquid

Sorry all if I ranted too much.

[ninjapuff]

I should have said this earlier, but I do realize that a lot of what I'm saying isn't possible with the way our government is currently running. Some drastic changes would be needed, like getting corporations out of government, legalizing the Constitution, reestablishing state's rights, and getting back to a limited republic. That's not going to happen overnight, and that's not going to happen soon enough to keep the government out of the ecig biz. What put me over the edge was seeing people voting for how they'd like the FDA to interfere, and I apologize if I lashed out a little. People's rights are being taken away more and more every day, and at some point, We the People need to draw a line, stand up to the government that is supposed to work for us, and say, "no more."

If we followed the Constitution, the FDA wouldn't even exist, because the Constitution doesn't grant the government the power to create such an agency that regulates 25% of all expenditures in the US. The FDA has only been around about 100 years... how did the US ever survive and thrive before then?

Originally Posted by Bellinghamster

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.

Every right carries with it a responsibility. If you have the right to buy whatever product you want, then you have the responsibility to know what you're buying. It used to be "buyer beware", and now more often than not, it's "well, the FDA says it's ok."
Then you end up with stuff like FDA-approved Vioxx which killed 55,000 people by causing heart attacks.

Originally Posted by Bellinghamster

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.

DO read the John Stossel article. I can't add anything to what he has to say about government regulation that would help.

My argument is not for anarchy, but a limited republic with a free market. A free market regulates all by itself. If a manufacturer puts out a dangerous product, then something happens, the consumer can sue them out of existence. In a free market, it is the fear on both sides that keeps things regulated. The consumer naturally fears the product so demands proof that it works and is safe before purchasing, and the seller creates a safe product so they don't get sued. Of course, for this to work, a corporation can't just dissolve themselves and reform every time they get sued like they do now. There must be actual people that are held responsible for their product.

[DisMan]

Every right carries with it a responsibility. If you have the right to buy whatever product you want, then you have the responsibility to know what you're buying. It used to be "buyer beware", and now more often than not, it's "well, the FDA says it's ok."

But at what point do consumers need to be aware? How far does that statement go? Should I be a car mechanic when I go to buy a car from a dealer? Should I be a computer expert when I buy a laptop from Dell? Should I be a doctor when I go to buy a pain reliever? Should I be a plumber when I call a plumber to get my toilet fixed? Should I be a lawyer when I need a defense against a drunk driving claim?

The "buyer beware" logic is a logic that is ultimately destructive. It *implies* that the buyer is as smart, or smarter than, the seller. If that was the case, the seller would not be needed as the buyer would have all the knowledge to take care of the issue him/herself. At that point, we wouldn't need sellers, a bartering system, or even an economy.

Now, if you look earlier in the thread, I was more on the side of the manufacturers...but the poll tells me differently, so I take the side of the poll.

As for the "Oh, the FDA approved it so it must be safe" theory...that is *exactly* how it is supposed to work. The ultimate problem is that mistakes can happen and long term studies cannot be performed on every product that ever hits the market.

At some point, we (as a community) have to say "This may happen. If we take every reasonable step to prevent, and an issue does occur, we can't really hold anyone accountable. We did what we reasonably could do and you can never ask for more than that."

Such a methodology is the only way to keep prices low with safety high. Going too far in safety will create a disastrous raise in prices, creating a poverty stricken nation. Being too lax will create a disastrous raise in deaths, creating a nation that cannot defend itself. It's a difficult line to walk...and that is why the "government" seems like such a bad thing...you have to measure and make reasonable decisions with sound logic.

[Bellinghamster]

Originally Posted by ninjapuff

DO read the John Stossel article. I can't add anything to what he has to say about government regulation that would help.

I did.

And I will not be drawn into a political debate about Libertarianism and its usage by contrarian reporters for personal gain.

We'll just disagree I think.

[calligal]

Silly. My point Bellinghamster was that meat isn't suppose to be tainted but it has been tainted and the FDA does not outlawed it. As to the bag over the head well..that is a sad fact but also an example of my sick attempt to show that there have been deaths reported from the abuse of such simple products found in every home which again would be insane if the FDA outlawed them.

The FDA does not outlaw cigarettes, nor stop smoking products that contain nicotine which are available to the public. So why outlaw the e-cig especially if used with 0 nicotine. I don't know the answer but could it really be more dangerous than a cigarette if used with 0 nicotine? Ha! I know you already agree with me on that one.

Does anyone know of an instance where someone has been hospitalized or died because of e-cig usage?

And would any of us even be here in this forum if tobacco products were legitimate?

[OutWest]

The problem with batch testing, ph level testing, and 3rd party analysis - That's a manufacturer thing (the people in China), not something retailers should be required to do.

By having it required by the FDA, or required by to consumers of the sellers, you can effectively put all the retailers out of business. Reason? There is no way for the vendors to know which bottles are from the same batch. Even in the same shipment they could have gotten liquid from more than one batch. That means every single bottle they recieve would have to be tested. And, 3rd party testing is very expensive.

And, you cant simply do a test on one to determine ingredients and expect it to stay the same for all future production, especially when it's very common in manufacturing to produce "the golden sample" for testing and evaluation.

[DisMan]

By having it required by the FDA, or required by to consumers of the sellers, you can effectively put all the retailers out of business. Reason? There is no way for the vendors to know which bottles are from the same batch. Even in the same shipment they could have gotten liquid from more than one batch. That means every single bottle they recieve would have to be tested. And, 3rd party testing is very expensive.

Batch codes + date code + supplier ID is the way to track such items. Where I work, we constantly label product for this reason.

When people speak of batch testing, it's actually a very simple process and is practiced in the food industry every day. All you do is take one to ten bottles off the line when you're getting ready to ship. You test those bottles. If they come up clean, you ship the product. If not, you scrap it because something went wrong in the process. You would *never* have a bad batch if every process has been followed. Oftentimes, people see bad batches because they didn't follow a cleaning process somewhere in the chain.

Batch testing is a good method. And, if you're really worried about bad batches, then it's smart to keep batches small to make sure a bad batch doesn't cause significant financial distress.

The poisoned peanut butter we experienced recently actually had batch testing..and the testers actually had results with salmonella being evident. They re-tested the batch (just in case of false positive) and the batches cleared. Now, I haven't seen how the re-testing took place....same bottle? Same lane? More stringent test? Anyway, batch testing works unless a person makes the mistake. And I am willing to bet the poisoned peanut butter issue was a production focused individual who made the decision for cash over safety. So they marked it as "passed" when, in reality, it was not a passing batch.

AND, just so you know, batch testing should be enforced at the manufacturer level. You should *never* buy something that doesn't meet your standards. The means distributors like Puresmoker should not buy untested liquid from their China manufacturers.

[UZIBoy]

How many of you remember when the gov suggested airbags and seatbelts for motorcycles?

The decision makers are politicians, they have no clue what they are talking about. Give them too many facts and they stare at you like a deer in the headlights.

The gov wishes to feed it's insatiable hunger for money and control, that's the bottom line.

They will do what is in their best interest.........

rant off...........