Why shouldn't the FDA interfere?

[HK45]

Tauk,

Spot on!

[redvengeance]

Seriously, if the Chinese wanted to kill us...they probably could. However, our cultures are quite co-dependent. Without the Chinese, we wouldnt have all the inexpensive items we love here in America. And without America...the Chinese wouldnt have as many factories and as much business to support their huge populace. And hey, its not nice to bite the hand that feeds....right now, America owes China a huge amount of money that we have borrowed because our economy is not self-sufficient.

I feel that the FDA is pretty much operated to suit lobbyist groups. Can you think of one other product that has so many serious health consequences as analog smoking that has not already been banned or firmly regulated? There arent any!

More or less, almost everything we consume could be called a "drug" according the expanding FDA definition. They already have their foot in the door by regulating certain herbals, and why tobacco has been excluded from that is very strange to me.

But I dont need regulation to tell me how to live. If you do, its time to take a good hard look at your own lifestyle and make some changes.

[DisMan]

It's the smart thing to do. It's the right thing to do. It's a "human" thing to do. Sheep flee in fear; people use intelligent reasoning and resolve to make the world safer and better.

It's also the most wasteful thing to do.

I'll tell you what the result of doing what you say....elitism. When one person finds a way to "prevent" other people from dying, that one person often gets the feeling they should help the other people by limiting their ability to "harm themselves". This "smart" thing to do always turns into a form of control and damages other's freedoms.

I'm limited for time right now...but do a few comparisons..

DUI Convictions vs. Lives Saved
Sex crime convictions vs. Decreased cases of molestation
Drug bans vs. Drug usage vs. Drug victims
Airlines sales vs. Terrorist attacks

There's a huge list...every one of them represents freedoms lost in the name of safety. And I'm willing to bet that every one of them represents more lives ruined from the enactment of security policy over the lives that are ruined over the crime that gets committed.

[MisterPuck]

People die. It just happens that way. Stupid people tend to make stupid decisions and die faster, this is called survival of the fittest.

Aside from the fact that trying to prevent everyone from dying is akin to trying to stop the tides with a broom, you are actually making the whole of humanity stupider.

For every single person you save by printing a label that says "dont put this bag over your head and take a nap" you create one more person that has to be hand fed through life. If they are seriously that ignorant, let them die.

Sorry people, but life isn't sacred, it's over-abundant.

[DisMan]

Sorry people, but life isn't sacred, it's over-abundant.

lol. Let's not forget that it is your parent's job to insure you survive until your 18th birthday. It is then your job to insure you survive past that and that your kids survive until their 18th birthday.

If you have a poor parent...sorry kid.
If you are a poor parent...sorry kid.

The good news is that natural selection was moving society towards greater intelligence. The bad news is that government moves people in the opposite direction.

Government is the opposing force to natural selection. Interesting theory...

[Nuck]

Most of these theories were discarded by reasoning human beings before they left high-school. Some days I seriously feel old.

[Scrimshaw]

The companies that have good labelling and packaging have already started to show a commitment to us, how about we do the same and force the rest to either follow suit or go out of business ?

Dead on!
If we as a group wish to see long term change then it only makes sense to support the people that are already prepared to work for the same aims.

As for the rest, survival is never compulsory.

[DisMan]

I do have to agree with you all...I believe *informing* is the way things should be done. I disagree with the *limiting* actions that some people take.

If you have a label on your product in *plain and simple english*, then I think that is all you should need to do. Johnson's Creek is a great example...their product is labeled. They don't have a child proof cap (except upon first opening)..and I believe this is how it should be.

[TropicalBob]

Lotta "straw men" brought into this thread. Disregard them all. In the end, the only question the FDA will have is this one:

Is is okay for a foreign (or American) company to sell or market a new drug and drug delivery device to the American consumer without that product having met specific safeguards, all carefully spelled out in law and met by other products of a similar ilk?

That's the e-smoking question. It's not a question of limiting freedom of choice, conspiring to reward Big Tobacco, expanding the nanny state, or left or right-wing ideologies. Those are great issues on which to agree or disagree -- but they aren't the question before the FDA now about e-smoking.

Stand back, look at the big picture, and then say you'd just let those Chinese companies sell whatever they like as long as people will buy it. Nah, you wouldn't say that if you care about the public good. You'd say it needs approval first, like other drugs have obtained.

I can't see this any other way. And "information" doesn't come close to public protection and assurances needed.

I'm more than willing to be wrong when the FDA rules .. hope so .. I want to keep doing this. But seriously ... what do we expect given the present situation?

[taukimada]

sadly Tbob is correct... there is no other way about it.. the fda IS going to get involved... the best we can hope for is, IF the manufacturers and suppliers take proactive actions and show they CAN be responsible for themselves and the customers, it may LESSEN the damage.. ie. restrictions and oversight vs an all out ban. even then it's not likely... they'll still attempt to ban our ecigs and accessories.. but if the people higher up can show responsibility ON THEIR OWN.. it MAY be resolved quickly.. it's up to them