If you guys thought that the FDA was gonna bury their heads on this you were 100% wrong , there was NO WAY they were going to walk away from this .
FDA to regulate e-cig as tobacco
- Thread starter Maxwell_Edison
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
With all due respect, I don't think this is about liberals, or Acorn and Planned Parenthood, or even Harry, Nancy and Obama. Maybe we should put down our political party arms on this one
It appears Randyith has a good point and is absolutely right! Every single state legislator I looked up (with one exception) that is pushing for or is sponsoring an e-cig ban was a Democrat! The list is included below.
You say "maybe we should put down our political party arms on this one", but the way I see it, the has everything to do with political ideology. Liberals want government to be involved in regulating just about everything. Some examples are govt-run healthcare, energy consumption, carbon emissions, your salt intake, banning toys from happy meals, the internet (via net neutrality), corporations, guns, talk radio (via the "fairness doctrine"), financial markets, executive salaries/bonuses, trans-fats, etc. You get the idea ... I could go on forever!
Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to want the government to .... out of everyone's lives and let people make their own decisions. If you want to eat fast food everyday and get fat, be my guest! Sure, some Republicans like McCain and Bush are hardly conservatives, but the new Tea Party members seem to hold this ".... out", small government ideology.
Anyway, just my $0.02. Make up your own minds.
Here's all the state legislators from the New York and Tennessee e-cig bans:
NEW YORK ASSEMBLY - A1468-2011
Linda B. Rosenthal - Democrat
Matthew Titone - Democrat
Steve Englebright - Democrat
Alan Maisel - Democrat
Sandy Galef - Democrat
Michael G. Miller - Democrat
Nelson Castro - Democrat
Ellen Jaffee - Democrat
Karim Camara - Democrat
Steven Cymbrowitz - Democrat
Richard Gottfried - Democrat
Audrey Pheffer - Democrat
Robert Sweeny - Democrat
NEW YORK STATE SENATE - S695-2011
Jeffrey Klein - Democrat
TENNESSEE GENERAL ASSEMBLY - HB 1729
Joe E. Armstrong - Democrat
Joanne Favors - Democrat
Harry J. Tindell - Democrat
TENNESSEE STATE SENATE - SB 0910
Doug Overbey - Republican
I don't see internet sales being banned. However, I do see vendors having to charge sales tax on all sales. If you buy from some vendors off eBay (an example), they charge sales tax because it is their sole income and pay business taxes. Why would it be any different?
IMO, the fact that FDA waited until the very last day to announce they would comply with Judge Leon's ruling indicates that the FDA doesn't yet know what regulations they will place on e-cigs. If you are concerned about what their next move may be, as Bill Godshall pointed out, read and re-read the Family Smoking Prevention and tobacco Control Act of 2009 because that is all the "control" that Congress has given the FDA over tobacco products and the bill was very carefully crafted (with a lot of "help" from the Tobacco companies) to protect the financial interests of the various stakeholders.
My guess is that FDA will "lay low" on regulations of e-cigs as long as possible. It is vitally important that retailers and manufacturers ensure that none of their marketing efforts can be construed as making health claims and they should avoid even mentioning that some people stop smoking when they find a vapor they enjoy--leave that to those of us who still have Freedom of Speech.
Eventually of course the FDA will have to obey the FSPTCA and promulgate some regulations on e-cigarettes as tobacco products that could create some hoops for vendors and manufacturers to jump through. Really, rather than try to figure out how they'll try to regulate e-cigarettes out of relevance, we need to be asking this question: "What rules or regulations governing e-cigarettes will PROTECT public health (without infringing on civil rights)?"
My guess is that FDA will "lay low" on regulations of e-cigs as long as possible. It is vitally important that retailers and manufacturers ensure that none of their marketing efforts can be construed as making health claims and they should avoid even mentioning that some people stop smoking when they find a vapor they enjoy--leave that to those of us who still have Freedom of Speech.
Eventually of course the FDA will have to obey the FSPTCA and promulgate some regulations on e-cigarettes as tobacco products that could create some hoops for vendors and manufacturers to jump through. Really, rather than try to figure out how they'll try to regulate e-cigarettes out of relevance, we need to be asking this question: "What rules or regulations governing e-cigarettes will PROTECT public health (without infringing on civil rights)?"
@Thulium
Aren't you confusing the mission of the FDA somehow?
This is one interpretation of the mission statement of the FDA:
"The FDA will promulgate the pharmaceutical industry's agenda at every possible opportunity. We will never carry out any action that substantially harms pharma income. We will act in concert with pharma to try to increase pharma income even if this conflicts with our statutory duty or the general good of the populace. We will respond favorably to requests from pharma to eliminate their commercial opponents even when this directly contravenes the interest of public health and the general public good. In no case will we overlook the benefits of close association with an industry with unlimited amounts of cash and opportunities, and individually we hope to take maximum advantage of those benefits, both during our employment with the FDA and afterward."
It's a good gig, you can't blame them for milking it for all it's worth. Well, unless you believe in those old values and stuff like that.
From the FDA's 'mission statement' above, we can see that their policy will be to try to eliminate e-cigs as efficiently as possible. Things are now a little bit more difficult for them, so they will go away and regroup. They now need to carefully plan their next assault, and try to take a path that will lead to successful minimization of e-cig sales by strangling all/any attractiveness to buyers, and which can be achieved with the minimum of obstruction by the public. This route is a lot trickier than the simple yes/no legal bit they lost, and requires some skillful administration.
For example: put committees together who look legit but are composed of pharma pawns and rabid antis - have those committees draw up 'new tobacco product regulations' that strangle e-cigs - promote those regs as being the product of 'medical experts' - gradually crush e-cigs by regulation.
Give it a year and they will be back in the fray
The pharma industry spent $267m on lobbying in 2009, and had more lobbyists in Washington than there were Congressmen. They're bigger now. They will lose billions in lost NRT sales worldwide if e-cigs take over. They (and therefore their agent the FDA) will never, ever give up the fight to crush e-cigs, as there is far too much money involved. As each attack is beaten off, they will be planning a new one. They will try product regulations. They will try local area regulations. They will try to stop internet sales. They will try to stop mail-order sales. They will never, ever give up.
That means the FDA will never stop because they don't get their orders from 'public health' - you know where they get their orders from.
Aren't you confusing the mission of the FDA somehow?
This is one interpretation of the mission statement of the FDA:
"The FDA will promulgate the pharmaceutical industry's agenda at every possible opportunity. We will never carry out any action that substantially harms pharma income. We will act in concert with pharma to try to increase pharma income even if this conflicts with our statutory duty or the general good of the populace. We will respond favorably to requests from pharma to eliminate their commercial opponents even when this directly contravenes the interest of public health and the general public good. In no case will we overlook the benefits of close association with an industry with unlimited amounts of cash and opportunities, and individually we hope to take maximum advantage of those benefits, both during our employment with the FDA and afterward."
It's a good gig, you can't blame them for milking it for all it's worth. Well, unless you believe in those old values and stuff like that.
From the FDA's 'mission statement' above, we can see that their policy will be to try to eliminate e-cigs as efficiently as possible. Things are now a little bit more difficult for them, so they will go away and regroup. They now need to carefully plan their next assault, and try to take a path that will lead to successful minimization of e-cig sales by strangling all/any attractiveness to buyers, and which can be achieved with the minimum of obstruction by the public. This route is a lot trickier than the simple yes/no legal bit they lost, and requires some skillful administration.
For example: put committees together who look legit but are composed of pharma pawns and rabid antis - have those committees draw up 'new tobacco product regulations' that strangle e-cigs - promote those regs as being the product of 'medical experts' - gradually crush e-cigs by regulation.
Give it a year and they will be back in the fray
The pharma industry spent $267m on lobbying in 2009, and had more lobbyists in Washington than there were Congressmen. They're bigger now. They will lose billions in lost NRT sales worldwide if e-cigs take over. They (and therefore their agent the FDA) will never, ever give up the fight to crush e-cigs, as there is far too much money involved. As each attack is beaten off, they will be planning a new one. They will try product regulations. They will try local area regulations. They will try to stop internet sales. They will try to stop mail-order sales. They will never, ever give up.
That means the FDA will never stop because they don't get their orders from 'public health' - you know where they get their orders from.
I think all of the people who have been here a while and have been fighting this fight have an excellent point. I know that I came over to this area of ecf for the first time yesterday after reading about the fda decision in the newbie forum. I posted my concerns and, while they are valid, I haven't been here and honestly feel a little foolish for opening my big mouth. While it was completely unintentional, I can see how the people who've been part of this for a while would be incredulous. And i'm willing to bet I'm not the only person to venture over here for the first time in the wake of the fda's recent decision. Don't let us rain on your parade. Embrace the fact that a whole new wave of people like me have now joined the fight. The reality is- this battle may be won, but the war is just beginning. Thanks for everything you've done so far!
Of course that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Of course that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
No my friend, you nailed it right on the head.
Glad you're here now though.
Bring some more newbies with you please.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
Here's the Winston-Salem Journal article on the FDA conceding to Judge Leon's ruling
FDA to regulate e-cigs as tobacco products | JournalNow.com
FDA to regulate e-cigs as tobacco products | JournalNow.com
I second this! I don't want "big tabacco" messing with what is in my juice! Next thing you know... it will be filled with 4000 plus chemicals. Ruined.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
The biggest impact of Monday's FDA announcement on e-cigarette companies and consumers are likely to include:
- Sales/consumption of e-cigarette products will continue to skyrocket,
- More companies (including tobacco companies) are likely to begin manufacturing and marketing e-cigarette products,
- More retailers (including more convenience stores and big box stores) will begin selling e-cigarette products,
- The price of e-cigarette products will go down,
- Sales/consumption of e-cigarette products will continue to skyrocket,
- More companies (including tobacco companies) are likely to begin manufacturing and marketing e-cigarette products,
- More retailers (including more convenience stores and big box stores) will begin selling e-cigarette products,
- The price of e-cigarette products will go down,
Perhaps pending legislation (in various locales) based on the FDA's failed stance will be scuttled/withdrawn? They'll be rewritten, amended, & re-proposed to be sure... but without citing FDA verbiage & the comfortable reference to the higher authority.
Last edited:
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
It will probably be many months (or a year or more) before the FDA proposes new regulations for e-cigarette products and other currently unregulated tobacco products (including cigars, pipe tobacco, dissolvables, gums, lozenges, patches, nasal inhalers, skin creams).
Of the currently unregulated tobacco products, cigars and pipe tobacco (much of which is now repackaged RYO tobacco) are clearly the most hazardous (and there are many scientific studies to document the health risks of cigars and pipe tobacco).
Since the FSPTCA requires the FDA to study and determine that any newly proposed regulation will benefit public health, the FDA is likely to be spending much/most of its time (when drafting proposed regulations for unregulated tobacco products) focussing on cigars and pipe tobacco, which will result in aggressive advocacy by tobacco companies (e.g. Philip Morris is now the largest cigar manufacturer in the US) to oppose unwarranted regulations proposed by the FDA that affect their products. And if PM and Reynolds begin marketing e-cigarettes, they'll also oppose any unwarranted regs that are proposed for e-cigarettes.
After the FDA proposes new regulations for unregulated tobacco products, it is likely to take one to two years before the FDA gives final approval to regs that survive the process.
So there is unlikely to be any FDA regulations for e-cigarettes for the next two years.
If everyone who has negatively speculated about the future of e-cigarettes joined forces with CASAA, NVC, Smokefree Pennsylvania and tobacco harm reduction advocates (to hold the FDA accountable for promulgating sound regulations, to oppose e-cigarette taxes, to oppose e-cigarette sales and usage bans, and to educate the public), we'll continue winning most (and maybe all) battles and e-cigarette sales will continue to skyrocket, which will give us even more clout in the public policy process.
Of the currently unregulated tobacco products, cigars and pipe tobacco (much of which is now repackaged RYO tobacco) are clearly the most hazardous (and there are many scientific studies to document the health risks of cigars and pipe tobacco).
Since the FSPTCA requires the FDA to study and determine that any newly proposed regulation will benefit public health, the FDA is likely to be spending much/most of its time (when drafting proposed regulations for unregulated tobacco products) focussing on cigars and pipe tobacco, which will result in aggressive advocacy by tobacco companies (e.g. Philip Morris is now the largest cigar manufacturer in the US) to oppose unwarranted regulations proposed by the FDA that affect their products. And if PM and Reynolds begin marketing e-cigarettes, they'll also oppose any unwarranted regs that are proposed for e-cigarettes.
After the FDA proposes new regulations for unregulated tobacco products, it is likely to take one to two years before the FDA gives final approval to regs that survive the process.
So there is unlikely to be any FDA regulations for e-cigarettes for the next two years.
If everyone who has negatively speculated about the future of e-cigarettes joined forces with CASAA, NVC, Smokefree Pennsylvania and tobacco harm reduction advocates (to hold the FDA accountable for promulgating sound regulations, to oppose e-cigarette taxes, to oppose e-cigarette sales and usage bans, and to educate the public), we'll continue winning most (and maybe all) battles and e-cigarette sales will continue to skyrocket, which will give us even more clout in the public policy process.
Last edited:
This post should become mandatory reading for anyone discussing this subject in any thread...
Not speculation, informed deduction. I agree with him, and I know that the FDA will try to get its hands on every possible e-cig or supplier liquid for "testing." who knows if they plan on paying for their test samples, but even if they don't, I'm sure there will be juice DIYer's that won't be mad supplying their PG, VG, flavor and nic (a whole 4 ingredients!!!) samples to the FDA so that they can kick themselves in the ... for even thinking this stuff was dangerous.
Correction: Bill's post is the educated and experienced observations of someone who has been active in issues of Tobacco Control for over 20 years.
educated speculation is still speculation. without working for them or having quotes from somebody working for them, we won't truely know. hope for the best but prepare for the worst. that's all i'm saying.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
I don't know what if any qualifications GIMike has in this field, but I've been working for 25 years advocating policies, laws, lawsuits and regulations at the local, state and federal level regarding the manufacture, sale and usage of tobacco products.
From 2004-2009, I educated the public about problems with the FSPTCA, and urging Congress to amend it (they adopted several of my proposed amendments, including the soon-to-be required color graphic warnings on all cigarette packs).
In 2009, I collaborated with SE and NJOY lawyers in their lawsuit against the FDA (urging them to claim that e-cigarettes are tobacco products instead of drug devices), and I filed an amicus brief with the DC Court of Appeals last year in support of SE/NJOY and against the FDA.
From 2004-2009, I educated the public about problems with the FSPTCA, and urging Congress to amend it (they adopted several of my proposed amendments, including the soon-to-be required color graphic warnings on all cigarette packs).
In 2009, I collaborated with SE and NJOY lawyers in their lawsuit against the FDA (urging them to claim that e-cigarettes are tobacco products instead of drug devices), and I filed an amicus brief with the DC Court of Appeals last year in support of SE/NJOY and against the FDA.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
One of the amendments I urged Congress to approve for the FSPTCA from 2007-2009 would have legally classified e-cigarettes and all other clean nicotine products as tobacco products, and since 2009 I've been urging the FDA to classify e-cigarettes as tobacco products.
i'm sorry, i thought this was a discussion. i won't doubt anything you say anymore and bow down to e-cig king like everybody else. long live bill GODshall!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
