Smoking Everwhere's new full page ad:

[HaploVoss]

You know what guys? The FDA exists for a reason. I hate what is going on over e-cigs because I enjoy them and don't want them to go. I hope they don't and that in some fashion, one company or the other gets ther stuff together and we are all up to our necks in PV stoofs for all time. I may not like the FDA. Is it corrupt? Sure it is - just like most all of our large government agencies and figureheads, but my nephew said something to me yesterday that really shocked me...
"I guess the system really works after all Unc." And he was dead serious. I asked him what he meant - he started talking about all the conflict he's heard an noticed that all the changes that have been made back and forth over the last several months... because of people. He's right. He is absolutely friggin' right. So no matter what you believe if you believe in it - keep fighting for it in the USA and guess what? You can bring together more and more people and effect change. End of story.

Take care,
- Hap

[Symmetric]

Why should they be burdened with providing scientific studies? Why can't they quote the testimony of thousands of satisfied customers?

Is this a real question? You can find testimony from thousands of people that huffing gasoline makes you feel good, does that mean that Exxon can go out and advertise that their gas makes you feel good?

Legally, can those of us with a stake in the availability of PV's (namely, all of us) file a cease and desist order against SE for their marketing?

[aditas]

Is this a real question? You can find testimony from thousands of people that huffing gasoline makes you feel good, does that mean that Exxon can go out and advertise that their gas makes you feel good?

Legally, can those of us with a stake in the availability of PV's (namely, all of us) file a cease and desist order against SE for their marketing?

Are you purposely being dense? And yes, as long as Exxon is making truthful statements they can say that huffing gasoline is good for you. Isn't freedom of speech grand?

[ladyraj]

Why should they be burdened with providing scientific studies? Why can't they quote the testimony of thousands of satisfied customers? If you're accusing them of lying it should be up to you to prove it. Until then you have to assume that the statements they make are truthful.

Just to clarify some concepts: Testimonies of satisfied customers are considered anecdotal evidence and scientific studies represent an objective analysis that overcomes the placebo effect. Our current system has become more and more based on a concept called the "Precautionary Principle" that states until a risk is demonstrated to be not a risk, it is treated as a risk. Thus the idea is that one must prove no harm, or less harm, before the product can be widely distributed. Proof is considered scientific research.

[ladyraj]

Sun, with all due respect, I beg to differ. If changing the law was as easy as "seeing your congressperson", things would be a whole lot different in this country. Heck, I'd be on the phone with mine 4 hours a day.

Nor does this have anything to do with "snake oil". This has to do with the government overstepping its boundaries. It has too much power. This lawsuit is just a symptom of a much bigger problem. "Personal responsibility" has given way to "government responsibility". That just doesn't work for me.

Our representatives create laws so if you seek a change contact them. The FDA was empowered by our representatives and given authority under congressional creation of laws.

Snake oil is alluding to countless medical claims that actually ripped people off. The practice became so prevalent that Congress empowered the the FDA to protect the people from criminal acts of fraud. This action also opened the door to seeking financial claims against individuals who promised the world and gave you crap.

Personal responsibility is different than protecting a population from shysters, salesman, and contaminated products. Protecting loved ones from drugs that cause harm by ingestion is normally a good thing and a demand of the populace. Considering the PV a drug delivery device for nicotine skirts the same issue...for right or wrong.

[aditas]

Just to clarify some concepts: Testimonies of satisfied customers are considered anecdotal evidence and scientific studies represent an objective analysis that overcomes the placebo effect. Our current system has become more and more based on a concept called the "Precautionary Principle" that states until a risk is demonstrated to be not a risk, it is treated as a risk. Thus the idea is that one must prove no harm, or less harm, before the product can be widely distributed. Proof is considered scientific research.

Granted. That's a valid position if we're talking about a NEW drug. Let's say that all we have to go by about the safety of these devices is anecdotal evidence. You may choose not to consume because of lack of FDA approval. That's the free marketplace at work. Everyone is happy.
However, "you" seem to advocate that since it is not good enough for you and you choose not to consume it, my choice to consume should be denied as well. That's what is wrong. Am I making my point?

[JLeigh]

Personal responsibility is different than protecting a population from shysters, salesman, and contaminated products. Protecting loved ones from drugs that cause harm by ingestion is normally a good thing and a demand of the populace. Considering the PV a drug delivery device for nicotine skirts the same issue...for right or wrong.

The FDA does not protect our loved ones from ingesting drugs that cause harm. The FDA routinely approves drugs that can cause our loved ones harm. That is the reality of it. So many people automatically assume that just because the FDA has approved it, that means it's "safe". Countless drugs that the FDA approved for the market have ended up being pulled because they turned out to be dangerous and/or lethal down the road.

My .02

[Rockbassray]

somehow they even got a link ad on facebook. with this.

[jj2]

If you haven't and you're a smoker or even a non-smoker, you're seriously missing out!
.
Well that statement was stupid since they included the non-smoker!!!

[ladyraj]

Granted. That's a valid position if we're talking about a NEW drug. Let's say that all we have to go by about the safety of these devices is anecdotal evidence. You may choose not to consume because of lack of FDA approval. That's the free marketplace at work. Everyone is happy.
However, "you" seem to advocate that since it is not good enough for you and you choose not to consume it, my choice to consume should be denied as well. That's what is wrong. Am I making my point?

I'm not quite getting your point. Nicotine is not a new drug but all makers of NRT as an example were required to make application to the FDA for premarket approval. The drug may not be new but the delivery is different.

I enjoy vaping my e-cig and I advocate their use...but that does not mean I don't understand the other factors involved in the situation.