Zeller's possible leanings on e-cigs in NY Times

[Jman8]

If Mitch Zeller was even slightly interested in THR or scientific evidence (other than to deceive), he would never have:
- proposed the FDA deeming reg that would ban >99.9% of all e-cigs to protect NRT and cigarette markets,

You say this, but it is also deception at work. It is not an outright ban, and you know it. It is (at most) a de facto ban based on idea that to submit applications of approval to market, that most medium to low level companies likely won't be able to afford the currently estimated price of admission. Grandfathering bill would drastically impact this. And is item that is stated in the proposal, though treated as something FDA has no control over.

Anyway, it's not like advocates on our side don't engage in propaganda / deception when it comes to information. The other side does it more, and does it to worse degree. Having people on our side believe the grand deception of "smoking kills" and then using that as way to make eCigs seem more attractive, when in reality, they don't need that extra boost. Only one who touts the lie of "smoking kills" would think they (or we) do need it.

People can change / update their views on these matters, which I think all of us get, compared to where we were say in the 1980's and 1990's with regards to ideology on such matters. It's not like anyone is saying Zeller is about to do a 180, but to even be quoted with what he saying is better than what we were hearing in April 2014. Not way better, but a little better.

 

[DC2]

So, back to Mitch - he's very positive on the continuum of risk, but we have no idea how he plans to steer the FDA towards regulations which actually create a positive impact from that insight.

As long as he believes in "marketing to children" he will never be on "our" side.
That is the Golden Lever which will be used to screw us over.

The idea of reducing "population risk" from tobacco/nicotine is based on those concepts.
And those ideas are written into the FSPTCA as goals that should be used to determine regulations.

And those ideas center on making tobacco/nicotine less attractive.

Notice how Zeller is trying to position himself as an objective moderator and adjudicator between e-cig supporters and e-cig opponents, the latter of whom Zeller has heavily funded (and conspired with) to lie to and scare the public about e-cigs and to lobby for the FDA e-cig ban that Zeller proposed.

Yes, it's hard NOT to notice.

 

[Oliver]

As long as he believes in "marketing to children" he will never be on "our" side.
That is the Golden Lever which will be used to screw us over.

The idea of reducing "population risk" from tobacco/nicotine is based on those concepts.
And those ideas are written into the FSPTCA as goals that should be used to determine regulations.

And those ideas center on making tobacco/nicotine less attractive.

Yes, it's hard NOT to notice.

It's not really a question of what he believes. It's a question of what the dominant narrative is, both in the literature and the popular press. Right now, the narrative is "e-cigs are marketed to children, and e-cig use in children has risen dramatically such that overall "tobacco use" has remained constant".

Mitch is in a political position, steering a bureaucracy. Tom Frieden is the real enemy.

That said, those in the industry who use cartoon characters on their marketing are really, really not doing anyone any favors. Except, perhaps, themselves.

All I'm saying is that Mitch has access to data which paints an exciting picture, and he has to take this into account.

And I absolutely agree that the core of all of this is making the products less attractive. This is insane, and reflects the overall core competency of the bureaucracy, not any one individual's beliefs.

 

[Kent C]

I tend to lean towards Bill's: "Notice how Zeller is trying to position himself as an objective moderator and adjudicator between e-cig supporters and e-cig opponents.."

I imagine there are analogous characters in politics of all countries, but I've seen these 'reach across the isle' types in American politics - the 'reasonable' appearing to be objective, bipartisan types, and although that "role" is taken on by individuals from both parties, that role is shed once it lures those in the other party to play along. McCain would be the poster child of such a dupe, always caving to the Left, wanting better press than any one else from his side and getting it too - from all the right media - Meet the Press, Face the Nation, NY Times, etc. UNTIL.... he is the Republican nominee and then they all turn on him. One of the first stories in 2008 was an old 'affair' story (nothing there really) dredged up by the NY Times. But despite that he never learned a thing.

In this case Zeller is playing that role in order to entice pro-ecig people to be 'reasonable' as well. And we have a few that attempt to mirror that on our side as well. They'll be the McCains when it all comes down, imo.

We've seen this in Zeller many times - acknowledging that for hard core smokers, ecigs is a great alternative.... BUT.... then there's the dual user, enticing new users and the "renormalizing"... and above all - his overarching 'greatest good for the greatest number'(larger 'net' smokers)/public health standard, trumps any of his apparent 'objective' and 'fair-minded' rhetoric.

 

[caramel]

Or maybe they're just playing bad cop good cop.

 

[AndriaD]

I tend to lean towards Bill's: "Notice how Zeller is trying to position himself as an objective moderator and adjudicator between e-cig supporters and e-cig opponents.."

I imagine there are analogous characters in politics of all countries, but I've seen these 'reach across the isle' types in American politics - the 'reasonable' appearing to be objective, bipartisan types, and although that "role" is taken on by individuals from both parties, that role is shed once it lures those in the other party to play along. McCain would be the poster child of such a dupe, always caving to the Left, wanting better press than any one else from his side and getting it too - from all the right media - Meet the Press, Face the Nation, NY Times, etc. UNTIL.... he is the Republican nominee and then they all turn on him. One of the first stories in 2008 was an old 'affair' story (nothing there really) dredged up by the NY Times. But despite that he never learned a thing.

In this case Zeller is playing that role in order to entice pro-ecig people to be 'reasonable' as well. And we have a few that attempt to mirror that on our side as well. They'll be the McCains when it all comes down, imo.

We've seen this in Zeller many times - acknowledging that for hard core smokers, ecigs is a great alternative.... BUT.... then there's the dual user, enticing new users and the "renormalizing"... and above all - his overarching 'greatest good for the greatest number'(larger 'net' smokers)/public health standard, trumps any of his apparent 'objective' and 'fair-minded' rhetoric.

The ONLY *reasonable* position is LEAVE THEM THE HELL ALONE!!!!!!!!! That's as far as I'm prepared to be reasonable. Because it's totally UNreasonable to completely diss the only smoking cessation tool that has EVER worked well.

But since leaving them alone seems vanishingly unlikely, I've got 4yrs of nicotine in the freezer.

Andria

 

[Kent C]

The ONLY *reasonable* position is LEAVE THEM THE HELL ALONE!!!!!!!!! That's as far as I'm prepared to be reasonable. Because it's totally UNreasonable to completely diss the only smoking cessation tool that has EVER worked well.

But since leaving them alone seems vanishingly unlikely, I've got 4yrs of nicotine in the freezer.

Andria

Yep, in this case 'reasonable' doesn't mean rational. ... faking reason, perhaps :- ) And some fall for it.

 

[philoshop]

Were it not for the political aspect, vaping would likely be embraced by all. It's proving to be a tremendously effective THR mechanism in spite of the efforts of some to claim otherwise.
It's the basic concept of vaping that fuels the political side of the debate, and that makes it ideological. The best (maybe only) way to win an ideological argument with a politician is to remove them from power.
Torches and pitchforks aren't to be ruled out.

 

[AndriaD]

Were it not for the political aspect, vaping would likely be embraced by all. It's proving to be a tremendously effective THR mechanism in spite of the efforts of some to claim otherwise.
It's the basic concept of vaping that fuels the political side of the debate, and that makes it ideological. The best (maybe only) way to win an ideological argument with a politician is to remove them from power.
Torches and pitchforks aren't to be ruled out.

And it's the CONCEPT of vaping that makes it so effective! It's a placebo-action! You FEEL like you're smoking, you LOOK like you're smoking... but YOU AREN'T SMOKING!

Andria

 

[caramel]

You FEEL like you're smoking, you LOOK like you're smoking...

... without paying BT, BG and the ANTZ???

How dare you?

 

[Jman8]

I tend to lean towards Bill's: "Notice how Zeller is trying to position himself as an objective moderator and adjudicator between e-cig supporters and e-cig opponents.."

I imagine there are analogous characters in politics of all countries, but I've seen these 'reach across the isle' types in American politics - the 'reasonable' appearing to be objective, bipartisan types, and although that "role" is taken on by individuals from both parties, that role is shed once it lures those in the other party to play along. McCain would be the poster child of such a dupe, always caving to the Left, wanting better press than any one else from his side and getting it too - from all the right media - Meet the Press, Face the Nation, NY Times, etc. UNTIL.... he is the Republican nominee and then they all turn on him. One of the first stories in 2008 was an old 'affair' story (nothing there really) dredged up by the NY Times. But despite that he never learned a thing.

Without this sort of role....
a) how would anything get done that wouldn't displease at least half the people (that have been indoctrinated)?
b) are we not then saying that the enemy (of America) is within (America)?

In this case Zeller is playing that role in order to entice pro-ecig people to be 'reasonable' as well. And we have a few that attempt to mirror that on our side as well. They'll be the McCains when it all comes down, imo.

IMO, we have more than a few. I would say the vast majority are like this. I harp on angle that says unless we are willing to do a full attack on FSPTCA, then we are playing too nice. I feel confident that OP of this thread agrees. I feel fairly confident that person I'm responding to, partially agrees (possibly mostly agrees). Yet, I feel we are in an extreme minority in the vaping community. There's probably 5 to 10 fundamental issues at stake that we constantly are identifying, and I'd be surprised if any two of us agree 100% on all of them. I think we 'mostly agree' on the key stuff, but this point of appeasement to the other side is something I see as prevalent among us, and not seemingly changing anytime soon. A prime example would be any thread on whether or not vaping in public is something that is okay, within vaping community. Lots of McCains on that issue. Probably always will be.

We've seen this in Zeller many times - acknowledging that for hard core smokers, ecigs is a great alternative.... BUT.... then there's the dual user, enticing new users and the "renormalizing"... and above all - his overarching 'greatest good for the greatest number'(larger 'net' smokers)/public health standard, trumps any of his apparent 'objective' and 'fair-minded' rhetoric.

I see Zeller moving from the 5 yard line to the 8 yard line within topic of this thread. To paint it as if he's moved to the 50 yard line and that some of us are thinking that is his position, seems unfounded in the course of what is being discussed.

I also don't get why people who are 'on our side' seem to get free pass as if they are for sure on our side of the field, and praised as if they are guarding our end zone well. The whole shebang around the politics of vaping is too hard to navigate most of the time. But I think everyone that has commented in this thread still sees Zeller as on the other side of the aisle, and is seemingly more favorable to our side than say Frieden or Glantz.

 

[Kent C]

Without this sort of role....
a) how would anything get done that wouldn't displease at least half the people (that have been indoctrinated)?
b) are we not then saying that the enemy (of America) is within (America)?

The biggest problem isn't what doesn't get done, but what has gotten done - in terms of legislation. The reaching across the isle almost always ends in bad legislation, where 'no legislation' is the better option. That said, you're still going to displease half of the people but in that case, too bad for them :- )

Any country can have enemies foreign and domestic. The intent of the Constitution was to limit gov't so that didn't become an enemy.

In that, it has failed - not because what was written, but because those who either didn't know why it was written in that manner in the first place, or that they didn't agree with it and had the majority to change it.

The context of the famous 'if men were angels...' quote:

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

PUBLIUS (James Madison) Federalist #51
The Federalist #51

 

[caramel]

@Kent C : so Kropotnik was right? 'Cause once you enable a government to fully "control" the populace, there's no way to make it "control" itself. It's a "who guards the guards" type of issue.

 

[Kent C]

so Kropotnik was right? 'Cause once you enable a government to fully "control" the populace, there's no way to make it "control" itself.

For communists that wasn't a 'warming' but a plan. Like 1984 wasn't an instruction manual!

I'll just say Madison was right and for the right reasons.

And I was just answering Jman's point in full context, not to get into a communist/free republic discussion.

 

[Jman8]

The biggest problem isn't what doesn't get done, but what has gotten done - in terms of legislation. The reaching across the isle almost always ends in bad legislation, where 'no legislation' is the better option. That said, you're still going to displease half of the people but in that case, too bad for them :- )

Any country can have enemies foreign and domestic. The intent of the Constitution was to limit gov't so that didn't become an enemy.

I don't see how it is possible to not have enemies within when constitution either asserts or states need for government to be in charge of 'national security.' As long as legislation can (or does) exist around that, there will always be those among us who see 'that which can harm' as a matter of national security. Anyone care to show me this magical substance or person that causes zero harm?

And while this thread has taken the inevitable political turn, I see this as related to eCig politics and/or FSPTCA. Clearly, the overwhelming majority believe smoking is (undeniably) harmful to humans, and that legislation is absolutely necessary to curtail that (freedom). eCigs look like smoking. Therefore, those who think anti-smoking legislation is either okay or are favorable toward it, likely will be okay with some form of anti-vaping legislation. Vaping community despises it, as a general rule, but I stand by what I said earlier, which is overwhelming majority of vaping community wants some anti-vaping legislation. The public use one is prime example. The marketing to kids baloney is far superior example as it demonstrates that upwards of 90% of vaping community would deem that 'reasonable regulation.' This is, in my firm opinion, the regulation that drives 'em all, and 90% of us (or for sure at least 70% of us) are what I would call 'carrying the water for ANTZ.'

On that issue, it seems like vaping community can't reach far enough across the aisle to appease our adversaries. While doing zero actual protection of kids, and allowing many other pillars to then be open to harsh regulation. I could harp on this issue for another 5 paragraphs as I feel that strongly about how this is us doing ourselves in. But alas, I realize I'm in a minority who thinks that as long as overwhelming majority are on board with that, then this current round of proposed regulations is rather tame. People think, 'well they could or will do more after deeming is established.' Really, sherlock? And you don't think your appeasement of 'no sales / use by minors' is handing that to them on a silver platter? Every regulation to follow will likely be based on some variation of 'for the children' and everyone on our side knows this, yet doesn't have the heart to fight the larger battle cause, well, that's just the way things are, historically, constitutionally, and habitually (reaching across the aisle).

 

[caramel]

@Jman8 : unfortunately getting into politics is indeed inevitable. And that's because it's the government behind the whole debacle. How many ANTZ do you know that are not on government's payroll (salaries and/or grants)? The whole tobacco industry looks like a government run franchise. Wanna open shop? It's not any different than opening a McDo. Except it's the government that makes the rules and sells the licenses.

 

[wv2win]

Were it not for the political aspect, vaping would likely be embraced by all. It's proving to be a tremendously effective THR mechanism in spite of the efforts of some to claim otherwise.
It's the basic concept of vaping that fuels the political side of the debate, and that makes it ideological. The best (maybe only) way to win an ideological argument with a politician is to remove them from power.
Torches and pitchforks aren't to be ruled out.

Well stated. Let's not forget that the political demonization of vaping started in 2009 when a new administration was elected. That's not a coincidence. An objective study of the "war on vaping" would reveal what happens when political zealots, who want to engineer how people live, are elected to power.

 

[wv2win]

It's not really a question of what he believes. It's a question of what the dominant narrative is, both in the literature and the popular press. Right now, the narrative is "e-cigs are marketed to children, and e-cig use in children has risen dramatically such that overall "tobacco use" has remained constant".

Mitch is in a political position, steering a bureaucracy. Tom Frieden is the real enemy.

That said, those in the industry who use cartoon characters on their marketing are really, really not doing anyone any favors. Except, perhaps, themselves.

All I'm saying is that Mitch has access to data which paints an exciting picture, and he has to take this into account.

And I absolutely agree that the core of all of this is making the products less attractive. This is insane, and reflects the overall core competency of the bureaucracy, not any one individual's beliefs.

My question is: if Zeller is open to more than one narrative on vaping, then why has he not included experts such as Bill Godshaw, Dr. Michael Siegel and Dr. Brad Rodu in the narrative???

 

[AndriaD]

My question is: if Zeller is open to more than one narrative on vaping, then why has he not included experts such as Bill Godshaw, Dr. Michael Siegel and Dr. Brad Rodu in the narrative???

Because Zeller can talk the talk, but has zero interest in walking the walk.

Andria

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

One thing we can't forget is who employs Zeller and while the FDA cannot tax anything how they treat them can affect how they are taxed.

When taken in context with this quote from Andre Calantzopoulos, CEO of Phillip Morris International in a June 16, 2014 issue of Forbes article it becomes clear why they are set on ramming the deeming regulations down our throats as written. They can't afford to allow vaporizers to exist in their present form without full government control and that is much easier when there is a small number of manufactures.

Disruptive innovations like e-cigarettes are going to arrive more frequently, the chief executive says, and PMI has yet to work things out with the most important partner in its business: the taxman. Cigarettes deliver tax revenue as efficiently as nicotine. Of PMI’s $80 billion in revenue last year, $48.8 billion went to the taxing authorities. It’s as if 12 out of the 20 cigarettes in every pack are sold by some form of government.

It hasn't changed, follow the money.

Desk murderers all.