FDA to Regulate Electronic Cigarettes as Tobacco Products

[rothenbj]

It would seem to me that this would be a good time to start educating our representatives on this new tobacco product. A good campaign of educational material about what the state of the E Cig market is could be beneficial. The FDA can promulgate all it wants, but the real damage would need to come through the legislature in terms of laws restricting the product.

I realize the law suits really never addressed the separation of the nicotine product from the hardware but in the real world they are two distinct products. I'd like my representatives to understand that difference when proposing any regulations. There is no logical reason that electronic equipment should be considered a tobacco product and with the right guidance perhaps the law makers will force the FDA to only concentrate on nicotine based product.

I would think the lobbyists will be pushing for PACT inclusion on many levels. Altria and RJR certainly will, when they finally introduce their entries into the marketplace. Their distribution network is set up and they'll work hard to eliminate existing competition and there is no better methods than PACT inclusion, prohibiting internet sales and generally disrupting existing networks. JMHO

 

[kristin]

Jim, I do agree with you, but how would you make the argument? What if they said, well, what else would this battery and atomizer be used for other than in e-cigarettes with a liquid? I'm talking about non-mods, because the mod market most likely won't be affected by this. Mods can be sold in pieces and are sold to knowledgable vapers. A mod site could be successful without any mention of e-cigarettes, nicotine, vaping, etc, because it is just selling hardware that people already know they want.

Basic e-cigarettes target new and less knowledgable vapers. They have to use keywords like "e-cigarettes," "nicotine," "cartridge," etc for newbs to understand. They sell equipment that is obviously made for one purpose: vaping. Just as we fought the FDA with "intended use" that e-cigarettes were a smoking alternative and not a treatment or cure for nicotine addiction, they could use the same argument on basic/standard e-cigarette equipment really serves only one purpose - to be put together and used to vaporize a nicotine or non-nicotine liquid as a smoking alternative. (Yes, I know the non-nicotine thing is a triucky one, as well.) I understand that the batteries in a Chuck could be used elsewhere, but a Joye 510 battery or atomizer can't be used with anything else for any other purpose.

For things like a .... or pipe, it "could" be used with other "herbs," (with an obvious wink and nod that we all know the truth), but most e-cigarette equipment is so specifically purposed and the liquid can really only be used WITH the devices (or at least how the vast majority will use it,) I'm having a hard time seeing how the government will separate them from each other. Especially since so many companies sell them in kits together or on the same web site. It's like trying to argue that the government shouldn't regulate a hot glue gun, but only the glue stick that is being used in it. The two are are forever linked because they have to be used in conjunction, so of course the government is going to make sure the glue gun is safe to use with the glue that is used in it.

So, while I agree with you that many mods would be exempt, it's a bit hard to argue that the majority of devices sold are intended to be used for anything other than with some sort of liquid as a smoking alternative and shouldn't be regulated as a part of the vaping system. I'm not arguing your point, I'm just having trouble with formulating a rebuttal in this case.

 

[GMoney]

... but how would you make the argument?...

Miniature air-operated flashlights that come in flavors and can be held between your lips for convenience, lol JK

...(Yes, I know the non-nicotine thing is a triucky one, as well...

I think the ability to use them with 0 nicotine is really the key, I agree with you 100% about mods, but I think there is a really strong argument to be made that regular e-cigs can be used as an alternative to cigarettes and can be used with no tobacco products.

So, off the top of my head, I would argue something like -

You should not ban, under tobacco regulations, a product that has as one of it's major intended uses to provide a great public benefit - giving tobacco users a safer alternative which contains NO tobacco products - simply because one of it's other uses is the ability to use it with an extraction from a tobacco plant, albeit a safer usage. .... That would be like banning apples because someone could make a .... out of it. lol

 

[Bill Godshall]

rothenbj wrote:

I would think the lobbyists will be pushing for PACT inclusion on many levels. Altria and RJR certainly will, when they finally introduce their entries into the marketplace.

Altria and RJR are NOT going to lobby for including e-cigarettes in PACT. Besides, Congress has a billion far more important priorities, and is not going to amend PACT in the foreseeable future.

I've been urging Altria and Reynolds to research, develop and begin marketing e-cigarettes for the past three years, but neither company has yet to begin test marketing any products, and that process will take a year or two. But I expect tobacco companies to begin marketing e-cigarettes at some time in the future, and the sooner the better for e-cigarettes, consumers and public health.

All the gloom and doom predictions about the FDA's announcement causing massive tax hikes, PACT changes, e-cig sales and usage bans are silly distractions from reality.

The potentially forthcoming FDA regulatory rulemaking process is going to be by far the key issue involving e-cigarettes.

 

[BCB]

Wow, Bill. I'm always so amazed and impressed at how much more you know than anyone else about everything. Thanks for so humbly sharing your omniscience with others here on ECF. Always appreciated.