A couple Questions/thoughts (re: FDA, Tobacco, ATF)

[whistlrr]

First... isn't the Alcohol tobacco and Firearms (ATF) supposed to be in charge of tobacco?

What happens to them if the FDA is taking over? does the ATF just become "AF" -- "Alcohol and Firearms" then?

Other than periodically appearing dramatically on TV with big white ATF on their jackets (and appearing and behaving to sorta be like a SWAT team) I'll admit I've never been clear on really what the ATF are and do (beyond their name and these dramatic displays on TV).. so what do they do now, and what WILL they do when the FDA is taking tobacco over?


Secondly.. now that tobacco is going to be a 'food or drug'... doesnt this actually mean the FDA is going to have to control US tobacco kinda like the Swedish FDA does theirs?

Does this possibly mean for the first time ever that tobacco companies are going to have to completely change the ways and standards of tobacco so its like a food grade or otherwise good quality (pasteurized not.. whatever, etc, so its as good as and like the swedes), really cleaning up then OUR tobacco too?


I cant quite see the FDA having control over a 'food' or 'drug delivery system' that includes 4,000 carcinogens long with that food/drug delivery system and just kinda being 'okay with that'

If the FDA gets/has control and allows nasty cancer infested forms of tobacco instead of the nice clean types such as swede's FDA makes them have), it seems somebody could sue the FDA (for a lot of reasons)

and if so (there would have to be a major clean up on tobacco manufacture and practices and standards), then I am wondering then if RJR and PM etc are going to have their hands full fixing this up, revamping all their factories etc to match new standards than to bother with beating up on e-cigs/trying to replace them, etc

I also read somewhere that with this ruling that the FDA is going to have control of tobacco but is NOT allowed to BAN it

so if E-Cigs are now considered a tobacco product .. that means the FDA cant ban them either

(I also read that even if they can regulate the crap out of tobacco/E cigs as a tobacco product to make in an effect 'de facto' ban they can't actually BAN them).


forth question: and what about all the things you can buy that have remarks like "this statement has not been evaluated or approved by the FDA"?

how many herbs can you buy that promise to not only help you quit smoking but make you stronger smarter younger, bring your ancestors back from the dead, whatever, but they all have that nice little comment on them and all's fine...

so why can't E-cigs have this same little remark, SmokingEverywhere (much as I have a personal grudge against them for the way they literaly tried to scam and charge me for nothing and resurrect a dead 'subscription' etc)...
could certainly have a "this statement has not been evaluated or approved by FDA" statement on them.

I guess I also need somebody to tell my why E-Cigs might have to be held up for years until the FDA is satisfied with testing etc, but yet so many other things only have to have this little disclaimer and all is well for them.

 

[JamieJ]

Good question you raise is why did the FDA get jurisdiction (just a few months ago) over tobacco and not alcohol?

 

[JamieJ]

From what I understand the FDA is trying to classify ecigs are a new "drug and drug delivery device" rather than a tobacco product. If it is considered a "drug" then they can treat it differently than a tobacco product. IF you read the FDA VS SE and NJOY thread under ecigs in the news---you will get quite an education as to what is hapening.

 

[Ryle]

whistlrr,

I think you need to re read a lot of the information your questions are based on but I'll try and give you short simple answers based on my understanding of things..

ATF- I have no clue what their plans are. My understanding is that they will still have control over the policing of things like illegal tobacco sales but the FDA was given the ability to regulate them.

Tobacco isn't considered a "Food and drug" the bill that Obama signed simply gave them the power to regulate it but it's not really going to be any safer. They have plans to lower the nicotine content (which will result in people smoking more), they added that chemical to the paper that makes the cigs go out if unsmoked for too long (resulting in people spending more time actually smoking rather than letting a good portion of their cig burn out in their hand), and removed all flavor options except menthol. There's not really any way to make smoking tobacco safe. Even Swedish tobacco isn't safe. The simple act of burning anything makes it unsafe. Even if you only smoked paper you're still poisoning your body.

If you're referring to the SE,Njoy Vs. FDA case, it is about whether or not the FDA had the right to seize these company's shipments in customs. SE & Njoy took the stance that these ARE tobacco products (prior to the signing of the bill that gave he FDA control of Tobacco if I remember correctly) and the FDA is taking the stance that they are an untested, unapproved drug & drug delivery device that they are fully within their power to regulate.

My understanding of the "these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA" statement is that it simply limits liability in multiple areas in case of law suit. IE.. people can't sue the FDA if that product makes their ears fall off, or if they try and sue the company they bought from on the grounds that it didn't work, then that company can turn around and say "well, we told you that the FDA hadn't tested or approved our product" I doubt this would have any impact on the status of PV's. Also one big difference in the situations, most of those products are herbal or vitamin supplements, nothing like nicotine. For example, last night I was watching tv and a commercial came on for some pill that's supposed to help with blood sugar.. most of what was in it was stuff like cinnamon, or lemon extract, crap that's virutally harmless but not beneficial either.

 

[Dredbull]

These are the brain children telling us what is safe to drink booze wise, safe to smoke and the arm of the FDA for PV.

 

[whistlrr]

Ryle,

I only just now rediscovered this thread.
What you said was helpful and clarified at least some of this quite a bit, the 'whats' even if I'm still left with a few why's that are probably kinda rhetorical at this point (like 'why give tobacco to the FDA and not call it a food or drug, isn't that kind of like randomly decising the Humane Society should suddenly be in charge of postal deliveries or deciding the DMV/Secretary of state should suddenly be in charge of making dentures?")

About the ATF

So I suppose this means that the FDA could theoretically send the ATF to come along in a SWAT-like maneuver after somebody's E-cigarette supplies?

I doubt they'd come after the end consumer,
but I can see this potentially getting quite ugly, scary and dangerous for e-cigarette businesses

(I wonder if Rule No. 6 is "Your Gun Is Not A Q-tip")

 

[ECS-Mike]

What i would like to know is if the FDA is classifying ecigs as a 'nicotine delivery device' then why aren't they policing every head shop that has shelves of hand blow glass pipes.

wouldnt pipes be a nicotine delivery device? Papers? rolling machines? Hookahs? Why isnt the FDA all over these items as well?