Why shouldn't the FDA interfere?

[OutWest]

I think all drugs should be legalised, prohibition doesn't work, the only winners are the black marketeers.

agreed. and spend all that money we're spending on the war on drugs on things like drug addiction prevention and overdose prevention (both through education), disease prevention (by educating about not sharing of needles, etc and having places to get syringes for free), and drug rehab centers.

Here in the states, when ecstasy was legal, it wasnt that big of an issue. Some partiers used it, others didnt, but I never heard of any major incidents as a result of use. After they made it illegal, though, we now have alot more people using it, overdoses occuring, and more.

[Kate]

Yes, regulate, tax, educate and treat. Same for us with vaping.

Driving substances underground does nothing to help sort the problems and costs massive amounts of money in enforcement, treatment and lost revenue. Not to mention the social costs for the disenfranchised.

[DisMan]

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?

Wait a second here. Thousands upon thousands of drugs are marketed every day in the USA. These drugs have the appropriate disclaimer attached to them, which is "These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA...etc etc etc".

So, where would e-smoking be different than say, chromium supplements or Vitamin E marketing materials?

What about some prescription drugs which have the same disclaimers?

Where do you really draw the line? Do you force every company to put everything through extensive testing, only for that test to yield a different result in the southern hemisphere, therefore disproving scientific duplication of results?

Now, there are many people who would say "WE MUST BE SAFE!" but be careful who you give that power to. You'll end up making an industry where only the richest companies can even think about bringing product to market...meaning the first companies to pass will be the only companies around in 30 years.

There is extreme *waste* in your proposal. Extreme wastes that will make candy bars become $20.00 in price due to extremely high development costs.

There's a certain degree of this already in this country. A new company trying to cut into big company profits (can we say "Delorean", forgot how to spell it) will get snuffed out even though their design is extremely good and ahead of it's time.

We really need to think of such statements...

Now, I would have a different opinion if, say, we heard news reports that 300 people died while using e-cigs and there is extreme concern with results that show some actual harm. But we're not seeing that, are we? We're not seeing people dying and croaking from using e-cigs. Jumping the gun and throwing extreme regulation into the mix before any results, good or bad, are published is just as damaging as no regulation at all. Actually, it's more damaging because it already sets precedent that the device is bad.

Think of this the next time you buy your Vitamin E supplement that has 500% of the USDA recommended daily allowance...because you're "trying to make your eyes better".

I would be very careful to call for regulation on e-cigs until the evidence is damaging or supporting. Until then, it is only fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Throwing regulation before product goes to market will make this depression even greater...because only the very large companies will prevail.

And let's not forget something...a "drug" is "a substance that is used as a medicine or narcotic"

So..

Medicine: (medicine) something that treats or prevents or alleviates the symptoms of disease

Narcotic: a drug that produces numbness or stupor; often taken for pleasure or to reduce pain; extensive use can lead to addiction

Numbness: partial or total lack of sensation in a part of the body; a symptom of nerve damage or dysfunction

Stupor: grogginess: marginal consciousness

Now, you look at those definitions. Tell me how it fits into e-cigs. Now think about how it fits into e-cigs when Nicotine is not part of the equation.

Why would you regulate it?

[Cymri]

What really needs to be recognized here is that the FDA has officially declared nicotine addiction to be a disease. They have an agenda to stamp out nicotine use altogether.

It's naive to think that the FDA will simply view vaping in the same light as they view any other drug or device seeking approval. The antismoking lobby has completely infiltrated the FDA and no arguments for relatively safer ways to use nicotine recreationally are going to fly.

The big tobacco companies may be our best hope. We esmokers might be better served by contacting them instead of the FDA or our congressmen. They have the resources to fight, and it certainly seems to me that they should be as excited about vaping as we are since they clearly need a new direction for their business.

Esmoking will only survive as we know it if it can be officially designated to be a tobacco product.

[Sun Vaporer]

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?

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?

TB--Gave the Closing Statment. The Jury is out--the only thing left now is the scope of the verdict----Sun

[DisMan]

TB--Gave the Closing Statment. The Jury is out--the only thing left now is the scope of the verdict----Sun

And what happens to those people who e-smoke with no nicotine? Do we lump them in and totally ban the device outright?

There's a fine line here. The device and the liquid. The FDA should have *zero* jurisdiction over the device. The liquid...I see argument that they can regulate the liquid.

[TropicalBob]

People who would make use an e-cig after a ban on nicotine-liquid would be using the device to treat a medical condition known as nicotine addiction without having the device approved as a medical device. Checkmate.

As Trog said, if a ban is wanted, a reason will be found to ban it. If a ban isn't wanted, then we're home free. Which will it be? The jury is out.

[Kate]

Our only real hope is an ethical win.

Can banning something untested and unproven be justified on the grounds of greater public good when it infringes on the rights of individuals?

Should harm be proven before we are protected from it?

[DisMan]

Should harm be proven before we are protected from it?

Yes. This is simple logic. If you play the paranoia roll, you are suffering from a mental illness as well...known as paranoia.

People who would make use an e-cig after a ban on nicotine-liquid would be using the device to treat a medical condition known as nicotine addiction without having the device approved as a medical device. Checkmate.

Umm, that's not a checkmate...that's a reach. Nicotine addiction does not exist if nicotine is not part of the equation. If you continue to use the device, you are feeding a habit that you have formed during the nicotine addiction days.

That's like saying alcoholics who no longer drink alcohol, but drink coffee instead, or feeing their alcohol addiction...do you ban coffee? Now what if it's caffeine free coffee?

Really, that's a reach...a very long one. After all, somebody who eats a lot of lifesavers in a day to feed that habit of their mouth being busy after quitting smoking...should we ban the lifesavers now?

You're just speaking crazy talk.

[TropicalBob]

You can be bombastic all you want. Let's see how this plays out.

At this point, Disman, I'll just rest on what I've posted earlier. It's not worth trying to penetrate the fog of your analogies.

I'll even let you have the final word -- which I'm certain you'll take advantage of. I promise to respond to you no more. Why try? Realities escape you.