FDA "Health" Groups Urge Price & Gottlieb to Move Forward with Deeming Regs

[Bill Godshall]

Begs the question...who organized it.

Campaign for tobacco Free Kids, which is the same Big Pharma created/funded organization that wrote letters lobbying for FDA's Deeming Regulation since 2011, and that organized these same groups (virtually all of whom were funded by Big Pharma to partner with CTFK) to cosign.

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/content/press_office/2017/2017_05_16_letter_sec_price.pdf

 

[zoiDman]

Hey now, not always.

I'm still capable of understanding that if a product is not harmful or addictive to an adult, it's also not harmful or addictive to a child, even after decades of brainwashing and word association.

That's a pretty Bold Statement.

Considering a Developing Body and Mind is being Compared to one that is Developing and one that is More Capable of Reasonable Thought.

Note: Not Defending the "Save the Children" Argument used in the Letter sent to Mr. Price. Only commenting on the Totality of the Comparison used.

 

[DC2]

That's a pretty Bold Statement.

Considering a Developing Body and Mind is being Compared to one that is Developing and one that is More Capable of Reasonable Thought.

Note: Not Defending the "Save the Children" Argument used in the Letter sent to Mr. Price. Only commenting on the Totality of the Comparison used.

Not wanting to "like" your post, but must do so in the spirit of intellectual honesty.

 

[ENAUD]

Campaign for tobacco Free Kids, which is the same Big Pharma created/funded organization that wrote letters lobbying for FDA's Deeming Regulation since 2011, and that organized these same groups (virtually all of whom were funded by Big Pharma to partner with CTFK) to cosign.

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/content/press_office/2017/2017_05_16_letter_sec_price.pdf

Thanks for that info.

 

[Lessifer]

That's a pretty Bold Statement.

Considering a Developing Body and Mind is being Compared to one that is Developing and one that is More Capable of Reasonable Thought.

Note: Not Defending the "Save the Children" Argument used in the Letter sent to Mr. Price. Only commenting on the Totality of the Comparison used.

It is a bold statement, and one that I believe will hold to be true over time. I suppose the more PC statement would be "has not been shown to be harmful or addictive to adults, or children"

Children, Tourette’s Syndrome, and Nicotine Patches

But are these kids now going to be addicted to nicotine? Thus far, researchers have discovered no evidence of addiction.

From what we understand, nicotine, while helpful in the treatment of withdrawal symptoms, is not the key to developing addiction to tobacco smoke.

 

[zoiDman]

It is a bold statement, and one that I believe will hold to be true over time. I suppose the more PC statement would be "has not been shown to be harmful or addictive to adults, or children"

Children, Tourette’s Syndrome, and Nicotine Patches


From what we understand, nicotine, while helpful in the treatment of withdrawal symptoms, is not the key to developing addiction to tobacco smoke.

Don't really see it as being PC or Not PC. More is the Comparison Valid?

Not going to Go Down the Minors using e-Cigarette Rabbit Hole. And am Sick and Tired, as I'm sure you are also, of reading Articles where one side Plays the "We have to Save the Children" card. Because that Claim isn't very Science Based.

Making Non-Science based Claims seems to be more of an Emotional Based Appeal.

 

[Lessifer]

Let me put it this way.

We understand that tobacco smoke is addictive to adults and teens.
We understand, with new evidence(from the past 20 or so years), that nicotine is not the addictive component in tobacco smoke, at least it is not responsible for addiction development when used alone, in adults.

So, are we supposed to believe, without evidence, that teen minds have a wholly different mechanism for developing addiction to tobacco smoke? That somehow it IS the nicotine, when the person is a teenager, but is NOT the nicotine when they become an adult?

 

[zoiDman]

Let me put it this way.

We understand that tobacco smoke is addictive to adults and teens.
We understand, with new evidence(from the past 20 or so years), that nicotine is not the addictive component in tobacco smoke, at least it is not responsible for addiction development when used alone, in adults.

So, are we supposed to believe, without evidence, that teen minds have a wholly different mechanism for developing addiction to tobacco smoke? That somehow it IS the nicotine, when the person is a teenager, but is NOT the nicotine when they become an adult?

I was thinking more along the lines of Harm verse Addiction. Because the aspects of Addiction is a Very Hard thing for even an "Expert" to define.

Don't want this Thread to turn into (another) should Minors Vape Thread Les. Just say'n that I can't crawl out on the "What is Non-Harmful for an Adult is also Not Harmful for a Child" limb.

Especially seeing that the Degree of Harm for the Adult has not Yet been very conclusively defined on the Individual Level.

 

[Lessifer]

I was thinking more along the lines of Harm verse Addiction. Because the aspects of Addiction is a Very Hard thing for even an "Expert" to define.

Don't want this Thread to turn into (another) should Minors Vape Thread Les. Just say'n that I can't crawl out on the "What is Non-Harmful for an Adult is also Not Harmful for a Child" limb.

Especially seeing that the Degree of Harm for the Adult has not Yet been very conclusively defined on the Individual Level.

Right, and there are many who feel exactly the same as you do, and I believe that is a very large part of the reason we will always be on the defensive.

There is the idea that vaping has to satisfy some very special considerations, even to the extent that when all current evidence points to little to no harm, it's still not good enough, because of the association with smoking.

The argument will always go something like this:
"Access to vaping needs to be protected because it can save the lives of millions of smokers, and is a less harmful alternative."

"Okay, but it could be harmful to kids. We don't have any proof that it is, but it could be. After all, it is tobacco."

 

[zoiDman]

You can Blame things on Anything you want Les. Be them Real or Imaginary.

But the Long and the Short of it is Most People don't really care what you or I put in our Bodies. Because we are Adults. And Adult have earned the Right to make an Informed, or an Uniformed, choice.

The Same Can't be said for Children. And the concept of an Informed Choice just Doesn't work with the Vast Majority of People. To win over this Vast Majority, I think you are going to need to show some Level of "Safety". Because an Adult is Now making (Hopefully) an Informed Choice for the Child.

I see No Reason why e-Cigarette Policy has to be Overly Restrict Adults. And I believe that Following the Same Framework as how Alcohol is Marketed/Age Restricted in the USA is enough.

 

[Lessifer]

The Same Can't be said for Children. And the concept of an Informed Choice just Doesn't work with the Vast Majority of People. To win over this Vast Majority, I think you are going to need to show some Level of "Safety". Because an Adult is Now making (Hopefully) an Informed Choice for the Child.

I call BS because of this line right here, there are VERY few products that carry an age restriction. There are a multitude of products that are definitively harmful to the consumer, some in the short term, some in the long term, and people as a whole couldn't care less if an uninformed child is purchasing and consuming them.

The two most common substances that do have age restrictions are Alcohol and Tobacco. Both can lead to dependence, and both are harmful to your health. Vapor products, as a whole, do not meet either of those criteria.

Take a look at the ingredients on an energy drink and then talk to me about children and informed choices.

Now, I don't believe there needs to be an age restriction on energy drinks, just as I don't believe there is a need for an age restriction on vapor products, without evidence of harm.

 

[sofarsogood]

Kids are attracted to vaping or smoking by the visual part, the clouds. If all adult vapors used no nicotine or flavoring kids will still be just as interested as they are now but if there was flavoring and nicotine but no visible vapor few if any kids would have any interest. It's the clouds bro'. Let the kids take their puffs on ecigs with no nic. Let them satisfy their curiosity and they will move on. I use the tems public health and the public's health to mean entirely different and contrary things. When the tobacco taxes go away most of these groups will be historical foot notes.

 

[zoiDman]

I call BS because of this line right here, there are VERY few products that carry an age restriction. There are a multitude of products that are definitively harmful to the consumer, some in the short term, some in the long term, and people as a whole couldn't care less if an uninformed child is purchasing and consuming them.

The two most common substances that do have age restrictions are Alcohol and Tobacco. Both can lead to dependence, and both are harmful to your health. Vapor products, as a whole, do not meet either of those criteria.

Take a look at the ingredients on an energy drink and then talk to me about children and informed choices.

Now, I don't believe there needs to be an age restriction on energy drinks, just as I don't believe there is a need for an age restriction on vapor products, without evidence of harm.

Doesn't Really Matter if you call BS or Not. And it Doesn't really matter what Other Products are or are Not Harmful. Age Restriction are here to Stay.

Moving this more into Reality, Tell me How Many Federal Reps/Senators are going to stand on the House and Senate Floor and argue for the Lifting of e-Cigarette Age Restrictions? Or if you think the HHS Sec or FDA is really going to even Talk about going down that road?

This whole thing about Children Vaping and Age Restrictions is a good topic. But ya know what? You and I have gone down this Road Many Times.

So why don't we just Agree that we have some Differing Opinions on some things? Similar on Many. But Differing on some.

 

[Lessifer]

Doesn't Really Matter if you call BS or Not. And it Doesn't really matter what Other Products are or are Not Harmful. Age Restriction are here to Stay.

Moving this more into Reality, Tell me How Many Federal Reps/Senators are going to stand on the House and Senate Floor and argue for the Lifting of e-Cigarette Age Restrictions? Or if you think the HHS Sec or FDA is really going to even Talk about going down that road?

This whole thing about Children Vaping and Age Restrictions is a good topic. But ya know what? You and I have gone down this Road Many Times.

So why don't we just Agree that we have some Differing Opinions on some things? Similar on Many. But Differing on some.

In the current climate, none will support it, just as very few will stick up for vaping at all. My point is that the reason for that is we(smokers/vapers) will always lose compared to "children."

It's not about lifting the age restriction, it's about fighting the idea that the age restriction is necessary.

Ask a senator, publicly, if he will support something that could improve the health of 1,000 smokers but could potentially addict a "child" to tobacco products. I'm guessing the answer would be "No, we have to protect the children." As long as that false dichotomy exists, we lose. If it's not false, that changes the fight. Protecting the children will always outweigh the wants of adults.

 

[Rossum]

Kids are attracted to vaping or smoking by the visual part, the clouds. If all adult vapors used no nicotine or flavoring kids will still be just as interested as they are now but if there was flavoring and nicotine but no visible vapor few if any kids would have any interest. It's the clouds bro'.

Have you got some actual evidence of this or are you just speculating?

 

[Verb]

Have you got some actual evidence of this or are you just speculating?

If any, it's the prevalence of zero nic used by the youngins.

For me (back when I was 12 or 13), it definitely was the psychoactive properties and a bit of the cool feeling for breaking the rules.

 

[Firestorm]

I now have a nice alphabetized list of organizations that will never receive charity from me.

 

[sofarsogood]

Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, which is the same Big Pharma created/funded organization that wrote letters lobbying for FDA's Deeming Regulation since 2011, and that organized these same groups (virtually all of whom were funded by Big Pharma to partner with CTFK) to cosign.

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids

http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/content/press_office/2017/2017_05_16_letter_sec_price.pdf

I read the letter. All those groups have put themselves in word-for-word lockstep. There is no nuance or difference iin their opinions. As Franklin put it, they hang together. There is no science in their statement. Science doesn't guide their position (deeming itself relies on no science). They are speaking as moral authorites, not for science or health. The FDA so-called gold standard is suppoed to be guided by science. Where is the science? These groups see their letter as making their position stronger. It could do the reverse if there is contrary reasoning that blows a hole in it. I'm inclined to read and reread their letter and pick it apart.

Have you got some actual evidence of this or are you just speculating?

I was a kid once, at least I think I was. Nicotine has no reputation for getting people high. Kids aren't looking to get high when they smoke. At least I wasn't. It should be possible to test my hypothesis on a larger group.

 

[go_player]

That's because you are intelligent.
Most people are not.

Oh, I'm inclined to think that the people to be most feared are reasonably intelligent. It's not Engineering or Mathematics or anything, but you don't get a doctorate from an Ivy in Public Health or some other nonesuch without being fairly bright.

Wise, on the other hand...

 

[sofarsogood]

100% of the people controling those 51 groups certainly voted for Hillary and NOT for Trump and the administration certainly knows that. Trump is the new president, NOT Hillary. These groups are calling for a political decision without regard to science. Deeming relies on statuory authority, not science. Price and Gottlieb are being consistant with Trump's phosophy if they modify the deeming process. May be they can take the position that the FDA approach to their statutory authority is so flawed that they need to stasrt over.

May be a fair question to ask is what would the people who voted for Trump say if Gottlieb uses authority he may have to modify or stop the deeming process. The Trump administration is planning to change a lot of other things over the objections of mostly Hillary voters.