FDA The "flavors & kids" thing again

Status
Not open for further replies.

aikanae1

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 2, 2013
8,423
26,259
az
Let's play the "spot the argument" game - can you identify the "lessons learned from tobacco control" applied to this other legal substance?

BBC News - Councils issue health warning on 'laughing gas' use

:facepalm: omg. We need a joke thread for these types of articles. :laugh: They just can't go ignored!!!


The gas is inhaled by users in a balloon. The LGA estimates that about 500,000 young people frequently take nitrous oxide.

We used to have big tanks of the stuff in the 80's (I wasn't always this boring).

The association said it was concerned by some internet clips, which had been posted on social networking sites and appeared to show children inhaling the gas.

And we already know the definition of "children" is anyone under 50.

Katie Hall, chairwoman of the LGA's community wellbeing board, said: "It is deeply disturbing that this drug, which can be highly dangerous, is still widely viewed as safe.
"It is imperative that users understand just how harmful it can be. This gas can kill - and much more needs to be done to get this message across."

As in no one ever.

She also called on internet corporations to "step up to the plate" and "show responsibility by providing health warnings and links to drug awareness charities".

I'm not sure I could handle knowing there's a laughing gas withdrawl meeting somewhere.

But a laughing gas seller, who did not want to be named, told the BBC warnings were unlikely to put people off.
"People know the risk and people are taking the risk and there's such a high demand for it," he said.



People are smarter than politicans.

Marolin Watson, from drug awareness charity Hope UK, said using the gas could lead people to experiment with more dangerous drugs.


Like internet joke sites.
 

Alexander Mundy

Ribbon Twister
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Apr 1, 2013
4,408
26,095
Springfield, MO
For anyone having trouble with the link, here's an easier way to post a broken link. You can copy and paste into your browser without problems if you highlight the whole link first:

tobacco.
ucsf.
edu/%E2%80%9Csuper-high%E2%80%9D-nicotine-youth-appealing-electronic-cigarette-flavors

(if there's a "www", just delete that along with any http or https)

Of course, the brilliant folks at UCSF put quote marks in the URL as well (which explains all the nonsense there in part of it)...practically a mortal sin :facepalm:

Is it acceptable to just post the links text with [plain] link goes here [/plain]?

This prevents the forum software from parsing the link into a clickable URL.

For example

[plain] http://www.google.com [/plain]

results in:

http://www.google.com

Which is not clickable like it would be without noparse:

Google

But instead needs to be copied and pasted into a browser bar instead.

If it is this is much simpler.
 

catlady60

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 14, 2013
1,167
1,449
Nazareth, PA
About the "flavors and kids" fearmongering regarding PVs:

I have a sneaky feeling the deeming regs will be nullified by a judge as arbitrary and capricious, since the regs, the way I understand them, don't take into account all the facts and scientific research. The FDA tried and failed to regulate e-cigs as drug delivery devices, and now, with all the emerging research, I think the courts will nullify the idea that e-juice is somehow a tobacco product since it contains no tobacco, except maybe for WTA.
 

catlady60

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 14, 2013
1,167
1,449
Nazareth, PA
That's right: unsubstantiated fear mongering, gateway, and "the chiiiildren". IOW, the paralyzing fear that somebody somewhere is having fun.

Which gives the judicial branch a chance to tell the FDA that their proposed rules are arbitrary and capricious, since they're basing the rule on personal opinion rather than facts.

CASAA: CASAA Submits Comment to FDA on Behalf of Consumers Regarding FDA Proposed Deeming Regulation

Besides, Congress never intended for a de facto ban on nicotine products, be they combustibiles or PVs.
 
Last edited:

Gato del Jugo

ProVarinati
ECF Veteran
Dec 24, 2013
2,568
3,450
US o' A
That's right: unsubstantiated fear mongering, gateway, and "the chiiiildren". IOW, the paralyzing fear that somebody somewhere is having fun.

In 2 or 3 of my FDA comments, I added a sentence or a paragraph or three in each about "the chiiiildren," including one on how flavored nicotine-laced gum & lozenges that look like candy and being sold in bright, colorful packaging were clearly being marketed towards kids...


Use your imagination & twist it around on those who use that argument.. It's actually pretty fun! :banana:
 

Cyatis

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Mar 8, 2011
1,080
2,099
58
Stratford, Wisconsin
Just to be a child about it, as I'm not quite 50.

If I decided to mix up a bottle of draft beer which would likely be quite lousy (it might rival the worst flavor of all time), then I could logically claim that we've already tried prohibition and it didn't work? Note that I do not actually drink anymore, but you know I find the flavor marketing thing to be more than a little bit overplayed and its supposed to favor one side of the argument only ...

A very old argument below.

0068113100576_180X180_zpsfb7b97bd.jpg


This is sold at Walmart ... its not cinnamon gum, but cinnamon rush gum. No marketing involved there. Does this need a picture?

0068113129801_180X180_zps16793a34.jpg


Cherry, am I supposed to to believe this is really going to taste good? Almost looks like cough drops to me.

0068113118728_180X180_zpsf92943e5.jpg


Not fruit, but fruit wave, and I'm supposed to guess what kind of fruit. The pic suggests strawberries and bananas. Isn't there the danger of a non-smoker trying this for the flavor rush? No?, I'm not interested in this either, even with the mystery involved. Hard to say they didn't try to market this though.

0068113192822_180X180_zps266b9781.jpg


Not mint, but cool mint ... as opposed to warm mint, or warm draft beer just to clarify things, or to market it better?

0068113177925_180X180_zps61fe189c.jpg


And finally ... what was the original flavor of this stuff. Was it to terrible to actually find any way to market this at all, so they went with original. Like this stuff is now famous enough for me to just know what it is supposed to be.

This is followed by some facts that quitting smoking is good for you. Promoted by the ALA, no less. I guess its ok for us to get nicotine, and this product does provide exactly that, in some other healthier form, as long as they get to choose it. Oh, but its not about the money, nice try, but it's very hard to convince me of that.

And then the dosing information ... that neglects to tell you, that swallowing 24 pieces of gum a day for 12 weeks, might not be ideal. Though that actually would be following the instructions provided with the product as advertised. It may be in there its to small for me to pick it up though if it is, but they assume the person was a gum chewer in the first place if not which is also not ideal.

It goes on to tell you, why pay for expensive products to quit smoking when you can use this ....

1. It probably won't work. The odds are against it. 4mg, can I just use regular gum and pretend it has nicotine in it, it will likely have the same effect. I know it will empty my wallet at a much slower pace. The actual quit rate of people using products such as these, is really poor. I see nothing in the advertising stating what my chances are though. That is something, I'm not really supposed to know though, of course.

2. Its 25 bucks or more for a 100 pack of nicotine flavored gum. Lets compare that to a regular pack of gum, shall we? Orbit 42 pack of spearmint flavored chewing gum is 2.00 at the same store which in this case is Walmart.

Some simple math ....

Dosing information tells me this that you could likely use, 42 days of 24 pieces, 21 days of 12 pieces, and 21 days of 6 pieces of the product. (42*24)+(21*12)+(21*6) = 1008+252+132 = 1392

1392 pieces of gum at 100 pieces per pack. 14 packs at 25 bucks and I'm being generous is 350 american dollars.

1392 pieces of gum at 170 pieces per pack. 8 packs of the best deal they have is still 200 american dollars.

1392 pieces of orbit at 42 pieces per pack. 34 packs of orbit is 68 american dollars.

My conclusion is there is a lot of money putting an extremely limited quantity of nicotine in gum, but where is the outcry here?
 
Last edited:

sonicdsl

Wandering life's highway
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Aug 11, 2011
17,744
19,244
Is it acceptable to just post the links text with [plain] link goes here [/plain]?

This prevents the forum software from parsing the link into a clickable URL.

For example

[plain] http://www.google.com [/plain]

results in:

http://www.google.com

Which is not clickable like it would be without noparse:

Google

But instead needs to be copied and pasted into a browser bar instead.

If it is this is much simpler.

That's fine too. Either way works fine to copy and paste. :)
 

AndriaD

Reviewer / Blogger
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 24, 2014
21,253
50,806
62
LawrencevilleGA
angryvaper.crypticsites.com
Just to be a child about it, as I'm not quite 50.

If I decided to mix up a bottle of (insert your favorite alcoholic beverage), then I could logically claim that we've already tried prohibition and it didn't work?

LOL!

Organized crime thought it worked great. It made them a whole lot of money! ;)

Andria
 

dragonpuff

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Which gives the judicial branch a chance to tell the FDA that their proposed rules are arbitrary and capricious, since they're basing the rule on personal opinion rather than facts.

CASAA: CASAA Submits Comment to FDA on Behalf of Consumers Regarding FDA Proposed Deeming Regulation

Besides, Congress never intended for a de facto ban on nicotine products, be they combustibiles or PVs.

That's what always got me about the proposed deeming regs: it states that e-cigs will be deemed a tobacco product, and that all tobacco products will have to go through premarket or substantial equivalence approval. It goes on to say that it has yet to define what parts of the e-cig are components versus accessories. Ok, it makes sense if you were to apply regulations like that to most tobacco products; take cigarettes for instance - each part of the cigarette is a component, but lighters, ashtrays, etc. are accessories. Yet that is quite different from trying to apply these regulations to e-cigarettes, which aside from cigalikes, all have interchangeable parts, many of which can easily be used for things other than vaping (nemesis flashlight anyone?). And, as others have stated, various government agencies have not been able to exert authority over pipes, lighters, etc. just because they can be used for illegal activities. The agencies are then considered to be overstepping their bounds. Yet, they are still claiming to apply these regulations to e-cigs, not just to part of them (i.e. liquid).

So, given that it's not exactly a neat fit to apply these regulations to e-cigs, and that it would be more along the lines of forcing a square peg into a round hole, how could applying regulations like this to e-cigs actually hold up in court? It's not that the FDA can't justify any regulation, it's that the regulations as proposed don't fit, at all, the product and industry they were supposedly designed to regulate. I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out how these regulations could actually be held up in a court of law (that may be because I'm not a lawyer, but still).
 

dragonpuff

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dragonpuff, think the letter from the 29 attornies, attorneys.......lawyers general took care of all the components to vaping gear which to my way of thinking would include.....cotton balls! :facepalm:

They did include proplyene glycol which IS approved by the FDA for inhalers which are made by pharma. :blink:

Yeah but they're lawyers, lawyers are often slimy ;)

There is quite the difference in opinion between a :D lawyer :D and a :evil: judge :evil:
 

aikanae1

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 2, 2013
8,423
26,259
az
Is it acceptable to just post the links text with [plain] link goes here [/plain]?

This prevents the forum software from parsing the link into a clickable URL.

For example

[plain] http://www.google.com [/plain]

results in:

http://www.google.com

Which is not clickable like it would be without noparse:

Google

But instead needs to be copied and pasted into a browser bar instead.

If it is this is much simpler.

Go Advanced has a CODE button that does the same {CODE} {/CODE}
I find it easiest to change http/: to hxxp/: (then replace xx's with tt's) rather than hunt down blanks.
 

Alexander Mundy

Ribbon Twister
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Apr 1, 2013
4,408
26,095
Springfield, MO
Go Advanced has a CODE button that does the same {CODE} {/CODE}
I find it easiest to change http/: to hxxp/: (then replace xx's with tt's) rather than hunt down blanks.

CODE results in
Code:
http://www.googe.com
common on programing forums.

NOPARSE results in http://www.googe.com.

Either will make it non clickable, and the reader can highlight the link text, right_click, select "open in new tab" all with a quick use of the mouse alone.

Course with NOPARSE the poster would have to manually type the [plain][/plain] so it wouldn't be a method for most posters, but I wanted clarification from a moderator if it was allowed so I could do it.

Just seemed less work for the reader to do than copying hxxp://www.googe.com, bringing up a new browser tab, pasting it in the address bar, changing the link text with the keyboard, and hitting enter.

Enough rambling from me about BB code, back to the matter at hand.
 
Why wouldn't they try to use the flavors issue against us, they already use the "If these devices are publicly seen to be used for SMOKING than multitudes of non smokers will start smoking because they have seen it done in plain sight" argument. I started smoking at age 13 at that time there was no LEGAL smoking age. Shortly thereafter the implemented one 16 then later 18 do you think that stopped me or Millions of other Teens and preteens from smoking. NO, it just made it more fun to sneak around and smoke, same thing with alcohol. The true definition of insanity is repeating a failed policy over and over and over! I guess they must seem to be doing something just to justify their exhistance, (read Job). I think I've lived too long, nothing suprises me any more if it has Government connected to it :( Keep on Vaping on :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread