Fda crackdown looms

[skex]

Lacey, that video is great, but that quote is not accurate and the FDA will shoot it down in a hurry. Those who choose to quit cigarettes have a plethora of FDA-approved nicotine delivery systems at their disposal, some over-the-counter, some prescription-only. I know, I know, they're not very effective, but we have NO STATS on how effective e-smoking is.

Did they have stats on Nocorette when it came out? How effective was it shown in clinical trials? What was tested? Because as a stop smoking aid these drugs are utter failures and if they are the yardstick against which the E-Cig is measured well it's hard to perform worse than abject failure.

The real question that the FDA has to answer is this. Nicotine is a known chemical that is already sold over the counter in a number of forms marketed both as a drug and as a recreational stimulant in a number of forms including inhaled. So on what grounds are they asserting authority?

They can of course assert anything they want but the legal question remains outstanding and will be determined in a court of law.

I suspect based on the judge hearing the SE case that they will be smacked down.

Honestly these devices have been around for what 3 years now in use world wide and to the best of my knowledge there has not been a single death attributed to their use. That's a pretty compelling stat for them to argue against.

See the thing to understand in science is that science doesn't prove anything ever. What it does is disproves things.

In the case of the E-Cig the theory is that it is safe for human use. This is supported by the fact that there are no documented cases of any health problems being caused and until such time as that theory is falsified by factual data.

This is not a cigarette-versus-ecig matter. It will not be framed that way by the only authority that counts, the FDA. It is about the e-cig only, and whatever evidence or lack of exists for its safety and efficacy.

The video plays well with common sense. If only we had facts to back up our assertions.

Of course the FDA isn't going to frame it any other way the trick is to beat them to the punch on framing the issue. To concentrate on facts like the lack of any documented deaths or health problems attributed to electronic cigarettes.

I think most judges are going to take a dim view on the FDA attempting to assert authority in this manner regarding this matter. Where is the compelling justification for a ban? Medical device? Seriously can anyone demonstrate where such a device is used anywhere for medicinal purposes?

Honestly the push back needs to be on those grounds. We have companies selling contaminated peanut butter to elementary schools , daycares and retirement centers resulting in real sickness and death because of insufficient oversite and the FDA is wasting time and energy trying to assert authority over a device that has shown zero evidence of presenting a health threat?

The only reason they've been as successful as they have been so far is that no one has been pushing back. Now with the SE lawsuit and the ECA getting off the ground the game has changed.

By the way the first rule of framing is never repeat the oppositions frame. These devices are simply a new way of imbibing an existing legal recreational stimulant and the FDA is overstepping its authority to try and ban them in the absense of any compelling health threat associated with their use.

[silverfox]

maybe we should use the "green" argument...switching to e-cigs is kinda like switching to battery powered cars, less emissions...lol...

maybe we should come up with a hand-crank charger to further save on energy..lol...

in my opinion the FDA is on shaky ground already for stopping shipments without there being a ban in place beforehand...i hope the lawsuit against them is successfull because they are definitely guilty of causing monetary damages to small buisnesses in the U.S. already without the real (approved) authority to do it..

[LaceyUnderall]

silver and skex -

excellent points.

[GratefulNerd]

The FDA is likely to site the one, single, solitary study that claims nicotine may be linked with cancer.

FOXM1 Upregulation Is an Early Event in Human Squamous Cell Carcinoma and it Is Enhanced by Nicotine during Malignant Transformation
I can't post links yet:
dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004849

Also here's a link with a more balanced view on the matter.
Does nicotine cause cancer?
healthline.com/blogs/smoking_cessation/2009/04/does-nicotine-cause-cancer.html

Also don't forget that violation/penalty fines serve as an unlimited source of revenue. (motive established)

[LaceyUnderall]

To give my fellow dead head a hand here:

Does nicotine cause cancer?

PLoS ONE: FOXM1 Upregulation Is an Early Event in Human Squamous Cell Carcinoma and it Is Enhanced by Nicotine during Malignant Transformation

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

To give my fellow dead head a hand here:

Does nicotine cause cancer?

PLoS ONE: FOXM1 Upregulation Is an Early Event in Human Squamous Cell Carcinoma and it Is Enhanced by Nicotine during Malignant Transformation

But - the link to cancer in these studies is if you HAVE cancer, this MIGHT accelerate the growth, yes? Nicotine doesn't cause cancer, it might help it along - but sugars do the same thing.

[LaceyUnderall]

But - the link to cancer in these studies is if you HAVE cancer, this MIGHT accelerate the growth, yes? Nicotine doesn't cause cancer, it might help it along - but sugars do the same thing.

Exactly.

And the same issues arise with long term testing of the ecig. How many of us ex-tobacco smokers are positively sure that we do not have any cancer?

The only real test you could do to achieve real results is to test non-smokers... and that would mean converting non-smokers to smokers...

OR wait for a new generation of smokers who smoke only the ecig and are willing to attest to the fact that that is all they are going to ever smoke.

Studies are just studies and can be proven wrong... proven right... come out with a different outcome... they are the best evidence we have, but they are not 100% faultless.

As far as I am concerned, with all of the reading I have done, nicotine is no worse than caffeine and as it has been noted by the ECA, "Nicotine is guilty by association". Nicotine is not good for you, but neither is caffeine and both offer the same side effects. (One is sold to children and the other is not).

[jcoppers]

If I may quote a couple of points in that article..."Screening putative carcinogens in human oral keratinocytes surprisingly showed that nicotine, which is not perceived to be a human carcinogen, directly induced FOXM1 mRNA, protein stabilisation and transcriptional activity at concentrations relevant to tobacco chewers." Also the following statement "We hypothesise"

Facts have not been stated yet, these are hypothesis at the time of this writing.

[LaceyUnderall]

OH! And before I forget... there is a study going on currently in Cali regarding a nicotine lotion that diabetics can apply to rashes that could possibly lead to gangrene and then amputation. The idea is that nicotine would help boost cell growth.

And wouldn't you know I can't find the link in my bookmarks! Crap. I will find it and edit.

[mmmvaping]

Interesting, If nicotine causes cancer to excell then tabacco which contains nicotine is in the same catigory as the e-cigarette. Those who chew get more nicotine at least twice as much. Because there is no cumbustion to lower the nicotine level. ONE cigarette before smoked contains at least 10mg of nicotine after cumbustion it may contain as much as 2mg deoending on how you smoke it. The FDA has no real ground evidence or a solid foundation to ban cigarettes. But they can still win. a few years ago the FDA were given the right over nicotine rights. But not over cigarettes. that makes absalutly no since....Cigarettes contain nicotine. So why dont they have the right over cigarettes? And why aren't they ban when they are known to kill. But the FDA argue that e-cigarettes may not be safe. But they have not one shed of proof. Makes no since. Is this what I pay taxes for.