From CNN.com Today/Eissenberg study with feedback

[DC2]

Although I obviously don't support regulation as a drug delivery device, and think that would be silly, that is NOT the same thing as banned.

No, you are of course correct, but I contend that it is ESSENTIALLY the same thing.

If regulated as a drug delivery device, which is apparently what Dr. Eissenberg is hoping for, and lobbying for if I may be so bold, then everybody who sells either juice or equipment would be subject to a very lengthy (many years) and very expensive FDA approval process.

That in my view is the exact same thing, for all intents and purposes, as a ban.
Although I suppose it might be more fair to call it a long-term temporary ban.

[DC2]

I am sorry to go to this length, but it is fact, and needs to be said...

Dr. Eissenberg has been viewing this thread for much of the day, and he has not countered any of the assertions that claim that he is in favor of electronic cigarettes being classified as drug delivery devices, just as Mr. Godshall has implied.

How much more time do we give him to tell us that he is in our corner?

Tell us good doctor, WHERE DO YOU STAND?

[voltaire]

No, you are of course correct, but I contend that it is ESSENTIALLY the same thing.

If regulated as a drug delivery device, which is apparently what Dr. Eissenberg is hoping for, and lobbying for if I may be so bold, then everybody who sells either juice or equipment would be subject to a very lengthy (many years) and very expensive FDA approval process.

That in my view is the exact same thing, for all intents and purposes, as a ban.
Although I suppose it might be more fair to call it a long-term temporary ban.

If it should come to that, I'll be right there with you demanding that analog cigarettes be subject to the same process (in which case it will never happen), particularly since not only are they much more harmful, but they also contain much more psychoactive compounds (drugs) than mere nicotine. A cigarette is simply WAY more of a drug than an ecig is, by ANY measure.

And if they do somehow manage to effectively ban ecigs, I'll be right there with you in the new black market! Which probably won't be much different than our current gray market, and may even be better in some ways.

[deewal]

(edit)

So you see, I lost nothing, except for the time it took to respond to your worthless post.

Well if my post was pointless at least i've only made one.
What are the worth of your posts in this thread. What do you hope to achieve with all your quibbling and point scoring. In fact what is the worth of this whole thread. The FDA and BP and BT want E-cigs banned. Gone. Extinct.
What are You actively doing to oppose their ACTIONS.
Nothing. You are just pontificating on a Web Forum which suits them fine.
The only people you are addressing here are people who are Vaper's and do not wan't their E-Cigs taken away.
Every Word you write Here means Nothing to the FDA or the Media.
It just satisfies your ego.
It's about time everbody wakes up and realises that the FDA are SERIOUS.

[teissenb]

Actually, I haven't been viewing this thread at all until tonight. I have been busy at work and I also had a tournament squash match to play.

As for where I stand on the question you ask, I don't think I know enough about the ramifications of either option (or if there is a third option) to have a firm position. If I understand current affairs correctly, the decision will be made by the courts. If the courts are to make the decision then I am not sure how my position matters -- I won't be in the courtroom and I won't be doing the regulating. Is it so hard to believe that someone who has been testing, for more than 10 years, the nicotine delivery and other effects of potential reduced exposure products for tobacco users is motivated by a scientific interest in the nicotine delivery and other effects of electronic cigarettes?

A moment ago I was reading Bill's post that seems to imply that others scientists are soon going to be reporting results similar to my own, and that some of them are also going to report that cartridges labeled as containing nicotine do not in fact contain nicotine (do I have that right or am I misreading it?). If that is correct, surely everyone here should favor regulation so that everyone can be sure that they are getting/inhaling what a package says they are getting/inhaling?

[voltaire]

I am sorry to go to this length, but it is fact, and needs to be said...

Dr. Eissenberg has been viewing this thread for much of the day, and he has not countered any of the assertions that claim that he is in favor of electronic cigarettes being classified as drug delivery devices, just as Mr. Godshall has implied.

How much more time do we give him to tell us that he is in our corner?

Tell us good doctor, WHERE DO YOU STAND?

I don't think anybody ever expected him to be in our corner, and he never claimed to be. It's clear he thinks they should be regulated, and I agree that it would be nice to know what form he thinks that regulation should take. But maybe, just maybe, he hasn't fully formed a firm opinion on that yet, or maybe he simply wants to avoid as much of the politics as possible. (Tough line to walk, but I can't blame him.) In any case, there's no reason we can't have a civil discussion with someone whom we disagree - those are usually the most enlightening kind of discussions for everyone involved.

[Mister]

surely everyone here should favor regulation so that everyone can be sure that they are getting/inhaling what a package says they are getting/inhaling?

Some regulation makes obvious sense, for example no sales to minors. (The e-cig industry is already mostly doing that.)

But in no circumstances should there be any regulation affecting e-cigs which are more onerous on manufacturers than the regulations applied to cigarettes, nor which are more onerous on consumers than regulations applied to cigarettes. All evidence to date indicates that e-cigs are vastly less harmful than cigarettes and that many smokers find them an acceptable alternative. To regulate them more stringently than cigarettes flies in the face of reason. It would be regulation which directly causes harm by favoring use of a much more harmful product (cigarettes) over e-cigs.

Regulating e-cigs as drug delivery devices would subject them to far more expensive and stringent rules than cigarettes and should not be considered. This is why people on this forum are particularly sensitive to the term "drug delivery" - that's a term with specific meaning to the FDA which implies stringent regulation.

As to the specific case of regulating demonstrably accurate nicotine content, why? Cigarettes are well known to deliver vastly different levels of nicotine to users than what the approved testing processes measure and what is thus on the labels. If some e-liquid manufacturer is inconsistent in the levels of nicotine or tries to save pennies by shorting consumers, the free market will take care of that problem by itself.

[Brewster 59]

Well if my post was pointless at least i've only made one.
What are the worth of your posts in this thread. What do you hope to achieve with all your quibbling and point scoring. In fact what is the worth of this whole thread. The FDA and BP and BT want E-cigs banned. Gone. Extinct.
What are You actively doing to oppose their ACTIONS.
Nothing. You are just pontificating on a Web Forum which suits them fine.
The only people you are addressing here are people who are Vaper's and do not wan't their E-Cigs taken away.
Every Word you write Here means Nothing to the FDA or the Media.
It just satisfies your ego.
It's about time everbody wakes up and realises that the FDA are SERIOUS.

Well you are right but what do we do about it? Ill tell you what Im doing about it I am stockpiling and can care less what these air bags have to say.

[voltaire]

Well if my post was pointless at least i've only made one.

Now two.

What are the worth of your posts in this thread. What do you hope to achieve with all your quibbling and point scoring. In fact what is the worth of this whole thread.

Should be self-evident, but to give you the cliff notes, my efforts have been toward keeping open discussion going. Your previous post was the exact opposite of that.

The FDA and BP and BT want E-cigs banned. Gone. Extinct.
What are You actively doing to oppose their ACTIONS.
Nothing. You are just pontificating on a Web Forum which suits them fine.

See above.

The only people you are addressing here are people who are Vaper's and do not wan't their E-Cigs taken away.

I somehow doubt Dr. Eissenburg is a vaper - and he has a hell of a lot more chance of making a difference than any of us do. In fact, I believe the best chance I'll personally ever have to make a difference is by participating in a discussion with him.

Every Word you write Here means Nothing to the FDA or the Media.
It just satisfies your ego. It's about time everbody wakes up and realises that the FDA are SERIOUS.

See mirror.

P.S. I think I've made my points, and I am done for now. Get your last dig in if you must. I'll respond only to posts of substance, or when I feel I might contribute to the discussion, if any remains.

P.P.S. Mister: Very good point in your last paragraph!

[DC2]

I don't think anybody ever expected him to be in our corner, and he never claimed to be. It's clear he thinks they should be regulated, and I agree that it would be nice to know what form he thinks that regulation should take. But maybe, just maybe, he hasn't fully formed a firm opinion on that yet, or maybe he simply wants to avoid as much of the politics as possible. (Tough line to walk, but I can't blame him.) In any case, there's no reason we can't have a civil discussion with someone whom we disagree - those are usually the most enlightening kind of discussions for everyone involved.

I would agree with you if I didn't see so much evidence that his mind is made up already.