Or the millions of adults who began habitual nicotine use as adolescents without developmental problems?
FDA FDA response to lawsuits.
- Thread starter skoony
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I know it doesn't matter what I think but no serious resarcher or scientist would seriously consider any study or paper that is not properly referenced backing the claims. There is a good reason for this. Anyone can make claims but where is the proof?
In the case of vaping, without solid proof behind the government's claims of health dangers, or addiction, or attraction to youth, there would be no reason for this whole mess. But wait! This is about money not about health etc. therefore no need of proof.
Now you just hold on there! Just think of how successful a general Dwight Eisenhower could have been if he hadn't taken up smoking at an early age.
How dare you question the legitimacy of concerns for the well being of the cheeldreen? As in: studies have raised serious concerns about the effects of nicotine on the adolescent brain. Or: recent studies have given rise to concerns among leading experts about youth transitioning from ENDS to deadly combustible cigarettes. While the research is not yet conclusive, legitimate concerns about the health and welfare of the cheeldreen have been raised. Therefore, whatever the FDA does is fully justified, if only as a precautionary measure to protect the cheeldreen from the dangers of highly addictive nicotine and other toxic substances which are know to be present in some ENDS products until there is conclusive research addressing these concerns.
See how easy that is? You can't win this argument. Concerns about the cheeldreen, our most precious resource, will always win.
A lack of true science, with documented and repeatable studies, doesn't matter anymore. The mere fact that a concern exists is enough for draconian regulation. This scenario is playing out all over the place, from vaping to climate change. We've become a soundbite culture without the time nor inclination to actually read a study, and critically think about it. People are force fed these concerns from the so-called "experts in the field" without any critical thought applied.
The response: Thanks to @Fozzy71 for posting it elsewhere. Joint Petitioners Opposition and Reply Brief - AS FILED.pdf
thanks. the other thread showed up in my active watched threads so I didn't think to post it here where it certainly belongs as well, or more so.
So who has some legal thoughts to share? I have read the entire reply and think that some of the arguments are well laid out.
Thanks @Robino1 for the link.
Under the heading that words mean something, here's one item
that stuck out to me.
"FDA does not dispute that vaping products offer important
health advantages to traditional tobacco products. Nicopure Mem. 17–18. And as FDA
admits, vaping is “not responsible for the high prevalence of tobacco-related death and disease in
this country”" From the summery.
This is the specific part that caught my eye. It was mentioned more than once in
the pdf.
vaping is “not responsible for the high prevalence of tobacco-related death and disease in
this country”
Right from the horses mouth. This is a definitive statement. This is what a lot of us
have been saying for a long,long time. What do they know that concurs with what
everyone else here has been saying? This is tacit admission that vaping is safe.
This begs the question what is all of this about? (rhetorical question)
This is like saying "We know it isn't hurting anyone,step on it anyway."
They could have said vaping in not responsible for,or it is unknown if or how much
tobacco related disease and illness it causes. They did not say that. They have
said e-liquid and hardware is a tobacco product and "not responsible" for "any"
tobacco related death and disease in this country.
IMHO it can not become much clearer how far this has come. When a government
agency can admit in court papers that they have no reason to regulate something
but do it anyway and,everyone still goes along with the charade. What am I
missing here?
Regards
Mike
Under the heading that words mean something, here's one item
that stuck out to me.
"FDA does not dispute that vaping products offer important
health advantages to traditional tobacco products. Nicopure Mem. 17–18. And as FDA
admits, vaping is “not responsible for the high prevalence of tobacco-related death and disease in
this country”" From the summery.
This is the specific part that caught my eye. It was mentioned more than once in
the pdf.
vaping is “not responsible for the high prevalence of tobacco-related death and disease in
this country”
Right from the horses mouth. This is a definitive statement. This is what a lot of us
have been saying for a long,long time. What do they know that concurs with what
everyone else here has been saying? This is tacit admission that vaping is safe.
This begs the question what is all of this about? (rhetorical question)
This is like saying "We know it isn't hurting anyone,step on it anyway."
They could have said vaping in not responsible for,or it is unknown if or how much
tobacco related disease and illness it causes. They did not say that. They have
said e-liquid and hardware is a tobacco product and "not responsible" for "any"
tobacco related death and disease in this country.
IMHO it can not become much clearer how far this has come. When a government
agency can admit in court papers that they have no reason to regulate something
but do it anyway and,everyone still goes along with the charade. What am I
missing here?
Regards
Mike
Does anyone know if the FDA gets the opportunity to respond to this response brief? If so, is it a 1 week deadline?
What you're missing is the important and crucial question of whether or not electronic cigarettes are a net benefit for public health. If they are attractive to children, and if children start using them and then move on to real cigarettes, then that's super extra double bad.
We think the idea is absurd.
But the FDA just doesn't know at this point.
The government does not, or has not in the past been in the habit of banning something that they admit they know Nothing About! If they had real reservations, they would commission a study to ascertain the facts. No attempt has been made to gather any facts whatsoever. Other Countries have. Such as Great Britain. which presented the Studies to the U.S. Government, which immediately dismissed the findings, as they did not fit the agenda.
I may want to sell shoes. Do I have to prove to the Fed's that a given shoe I am wanting to sell has benefit to the public?
This has NEVER in American History been a criterion for producing a producth. If this stands, what else will it eventually encompass? The Sky's the limit! A full Dictatorial Government seem the end goal lately.
Knife
I may want to sell shoes. Do I have to prove to the Fed's that a given shoe I am wanting to sell has benefit to the public?
This has NEVER in American History been a criterion for producing a producth. If this stands, what else will it eventually encompass? The Sky's the limit! A full Dictatorial Government seem the end goal lately.
Knife
Quit peeking behind the curtain.
Nothing to see there.
There are 413 people in this world that read far enough to see behind that curtain.
And nobody else even cares.
Hence, the curtain, the ever-lasting hypocrisy, the lack of accountability.
The voices of truth are all but silenced.
Maybe some day we'll all see what is happening and vote them ALL out.
Start over without those who make a career of this.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
