Being Reasonable as a Community

[Robino1]

Was there? But in that case, wouldn't somebody have gotten hurt? I mean the users would have had no way to know that they were "overdosing," correct? So surely someone would have had something bad happen in the wake of an event like this. Do you have a link to this? I'm curious.

Google Box Elder and ECF. If I remember correctly, someone was suspicious about their nic. There is a chemist that is a member that offered to test the nic. What he found were inconsistencies in batches. People were warned to not use the nic from that company. Lives were saved because the community policed itself. Some nic was testing dangerously high.

It is truly remarkable how well this community looks out for each other.

 

[Jman8]

1) ecigarette material should not be sold to minors

To clarify, you do mean eCigarette material that contains nicotine, yes? Or do you believe minors vaping 0% nicotine products poses a risk to them? If yes, please cite what that risk would be either in your opinion or from links.

no other regulation is necessary..?

Response to the first item, and my question above, would help in understanding 'no other regulation necessary.'

As I see regulation likely, due simply to the drug of choice that vapers enjoy vaping, I don't see how it is plausible to think FSPTCA can exist while eCigs are somehow, magically, not needing any regulations.

 

[B1sh0p]

I do read some tin foil hat, general anti-government posts on the site that really turn me off. Some posters tend to inject other political beliefs into their arguments that I don't care to be associated with and, IMO, reflect poorly on the community.

 

[Fulgurant]

Many in the ecig community are not "throw the baby out with the bathwater" types, and do not actually want to dismantle the entire FDA and govt. over ecigs.

I suspect that few, if any, would try to argue with a straight face that the FDA should be dismantled entirely, much less the entire government. Where have you seen that rhetoric?

Please remember, some of you who are saying that members with differing opinions and even differing political view aren't welcome here, remember that you don't speak for all of us, and that as far as I can see ECF has no history of treating members badly over their political views. !!!!

(Emphasis mine.)

Who's suggested that? If you're referring to the original poster of this thread, he wasn't forcibly driven away. And during the farcically short period of his engagement here, the OP wasn't ridiculed simply because he had a differing opinion or political view; he was ridiculed because he opened the thread with an unsupported, mealy-mouthed argument in obvious opposition to the prevailing interest of those who frequent ECF, then he demanded proof for any counter-arguments, and finally he pulled the martyr card when people supplied evidence and clear reasoning to refute him.

The OP's first post can be summed thusly:

"Title: [Painfully Patronizing Civility-Troll Title from Newcomer]

"Body: [The FDA is a benevolent and incorruptible organization, and therefore any regulation they propose will be in your best interest. Prove me wrong!]

"EDIT the first: [LOL, I said provide EVIDENCE. Any of the following will suffice -- a stone tablet inscribed by God himself, and, um ... Nope, that's it!]

"EDIT the second: [Having no answer to all of the rebuttals I've received, I will now depart in a snit rather than remain here to be defiled by ad hominem tossing savages!]"​

This guy is either an anti-vaping evangelist in sheep's clothing, or he's just trolling because he's bored. Either way, his superficially reasonable-sounding appeal was clearly disingenuous. Civility trolling is a common tactic among the unscrupulous (or their proxies), because it shifts the conversation away from the opposition's real grievances and concentrates instead on the opposition's tone. In essence, it creates a new grievance out of thin air ("you used immoderate words!"), a new grievance with which the griever may charge the aggrieved to deflect just criticism.

 

[wheezal]

anytime there are organizations or groups that end up clashing, there are types that may be considered extremists. neither side of this argument can claim they dont have them. i've seen plenty of postings from people so anti-government, i almost wonder if they aren't a threat of some sort. and i've seen those who post ridiculous statements that e-cigs are the reason the sun will explode and this rash i have wont go away (dont worry ladies, the topical ointment is working).

you just have filter past the over-zealous types, ignore them, and find the more reasonably produced arguments from both sides. it's called the internet, and no matter where you go, it's going to be this way.

 

[kristin]

"The Government" is not one contiguous entity. Do you think NASA gives a **** about you smoking your e-cigs? TSA? ANYBODY besides congress?

The reason the FDA is moving to regulate E-Cigs is not because they hate freedom or the secession of smoking or any reason besides PEOPLE calling CONGRESS and asking them to regulate it. Nobody else deserves blame.

Congress passed FSPTCA in 2009 without any mention of e-cigarettes. Its the anti-tobacco powers-that-be at the FDA that were/are leading the charge to regulate e-cigarettes - first as unapproved drugs and when that failed, as tobacco products. FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg is a longtime anti-tobacco crusader. Ironically, she also crusaded for "harm reduction" for AIDS victims by endorsing needle exchanges - an experience one would think one could easily translate into understanding the benefits of tobacco harm reduction. Yet, when it came time for the FDA to release draft guidance on MRTP (modified risk tobacco products), the FDA rules essentially made it virtually impossible for a product to be marketed as MRTP, while it's relatively easy to release a new cigarette, so long as it's shown to be substantially equivalent.

Meanwhile, Congress has been pretty much silent on the issues of e-cigarette regulation.

All I'm trying to say is that you aren't going to stop the proposed regulations and you aren't going to stop final regulations with ill thought out ranting - I'm just trying to say that it is possible to get rational regulations (or even no regulation) if you make well reasoned arguments through the public comment process. You can sit here and rant all you want, but when the proposed regulations come out, and I do believe they will, we need to make good reasonable arguments and not just rant!

I was specifically responding to this part of your statement:

I agree with others who have said that the FDA is only proposing to regulate and not ban e-cigs.

I was simply pointing out that the FDA's idea of regulation could easily lead to an (unintended, if you give them the benefit of doubt) de facto ban. So, when the FDA says "we only intend to regulate, not ban" they may not have any other option but to call for removal of products under the FSPTCA rules.

Of course we understand that there is a comment period and CASAA intends to take advantage of that comment period. But until the FDA actually releases proposed regulations to the public there isn't much else we can do but "rant on forums" and raise awareness of the possible consequences of FDA deeming regulations. We need people aware of the threat and be prepared to help in the fight.

If the FDA chooses to just announce that "e-cigarettes are tobacco products and will be regulated under FSPTCA as such," rather than a specific list of new rules separate from existing rules for tobacco products, we are pretty much screwed. Because the FDA would essentially be announcing that e-cigs are covered under EXISTING regulations that are already set and those are not up for public comment any longer. We'd have to argue that e-cigarettes should not be regulated under current FSPTCA rules (which is what Bill Godshall has been saying all along).

 

[Cool_Breeze]

To clarify, you do mean eCigarette material that contains nicotine, yes? Or do you believe minors vaping 0% nicotine products poses a risk to them? If yes, please cite what that risk would be either in your opinion or from links.



Response to the first item, and my question above, would help in understanding 'no other regulation necessary.'

As I see regulation likely, due simply to the drug of choice that vapers enjoy vaping, I don't see how it is plausible to think FSPTCA can exist while eCigs are somehow, magically, not needing any regulations.

...not sure who you are referring to when you say 'you' above. The questions I offered were intended to reflect the outlook of shellyb.

 

[Jman8]

Here's an easy way - sign this petition:
http://www.change.org/petitions/fda...utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition

A petition once again that leaves me with more questions for a CTA that I can't actually get behind. The specific language in that petition that I take issue with is:

But Sections 905 and 910 would ban all e-cigarettes, and other provisions of Chapter IX would also decimate the e-cigarette industry, protect cigarette markets and otherwise threaten public health.

I've now reviewed those sections for my 3rd or 4th time and don't read it as a ban on all eCigs. I have looked at other areas of CASAA website that do cite small portions from those sections and then inflates the theory of all out ban, ya know like the one that was surely going to happen in April of 2013.

I do think the eCig industry would be, to some degree, decimated. But as we currently are living in a gray market for eCigs, I think that is to be expected going forward. Would I prefer it be different? Yes. But my approach to this broad topic and the principles I care to argue for aren't the exact same as other vapers. I don't expect them to be. Yet, our 'strength in numbers' position is also decimated unless we are all on the same page. I am not on the same page, I think, as CASAA in petitioning government to ease restrictions or challenge those that I see as going too far, i.e. get rid of all flavors other than tobacco and menthol. CASAA and I might agree on this one, but I honesty put it as #1 thing to get behind, whereas I don't see it as CASAA's #1 item on the agenda.

And then go here: Find Your Representative · House.gov and find your Congressperson and here:
U.S. Senate: Senators Home and find your Senator.

These sort of links are always helpful. Thanks.

And send them a personal email -- you can simply copy and paste from the petition or better yet write in your own words why it's important to you --

I also send links to good articles and studies on e-cigs to my Congresspeople! Once you find them and have their email, it's easy to forward to them.

And they do pay attention to emails -- my son worked for a Congressman and for a Senator as an intern when he was in college and he read every email and letter and kept track of what was being said --

Another good suggestion. I wish we had the strength in numbers and could create a cohesive message that all vapers could sign onto and thus send one message with say 100,000 signatures. But alas, that remains my wish. Perhaps someday, the cause will be more clear and direct in its scope.

IMO, the oppositions' argument stems from the 'all about the kids' talking point. I think this gets lost in the shuffle when having to parse language on something like FSPTCA, just to figure out what constitutes a 'tobacco product.' Vast majority of citizens, I believe, could care less about that parsing, while vapers/smokers are very interested in finding loopholes in that language. And ANTZ are there to try to plug loopholes as they become aware of what opposition is doing today to circumvent the issue. So, the two sides are seen as diametrically opposed and fighting an everlasting technical battle. One side gets to keep coming back to the principled position of "think about the kids" while other side gets to hang its hat on idea that it is looking out for those self destructing, and very dangerous, smokers.

To this day, I despise the eCig industry and vapers who need to compare vaping to smoking, and sell products based on this ideology. Its like a cigarette but better/less dangerous when we seek to attract more vapers, but nothing remotely similar to a cigarette when we are dealing with ANTZ. My asking the eCig industry to get away from all comparisons to smoking is about as likely to occur as my asking the FDA to not regulate eCigs in any way, shape or form. I realize I could ask, but chance of success on both fronts seems less than 1%.

IMO, once they win on the flavors thing, and I'm not convinced they will, the other provisions/deeming regulations won't be too hard to pass. Am always glad to talk about this one in further detail, especially as it relates to the 'for the kids' position, but for now I'll just keep it short.

Cause reality is, that it is a gray market that could go the way of the black market (via bans), but I simply do not see it going this way. Some of you all were grossly mistaken about April 2013 and yet so certain prior to that period that you were absolutely right. I think the market is destined for change, that likely includes some unwanted regulations. I will likely learn to live with those regulations as I did with the smoking ones, almost all of which I disagree with. But as regulations are actually proposed, I will take a stand that I see as extremely pro-vaping, though not so ready to back down when the 'for the kids' thing is put forth. IMO, kids can vape too. Just not sure anyone under 15 ought to be vaping nicotine. Even while some reading this smoked nicotine at that age, and are magically alive to tell about it 20+ years later.

 

[EvilZoe]

yes , it's number 5 in the forum directory.......

 

[kristin]

A petition once again that leaves me with more questions for a CTA that I can't actually get behind. The specific language in that petition that I take issue with is:



I've now reviewed those sections for my 3rd or 4th time and don't read it as a ban on all eCigs. I have looked at other areas of CASAA website that do cite small portions from those sections and then inflates the theory of all out ban, ya know like the one that was surely going to happen in April of 2013.

April 2013 "didn't happen" because the FDA pushed out its deadline to October 2013. Had the FDA issued deeming regulations back in April, we'd be having a completely different discussion right now. You cannot say that the concerns of a de facto ban in April were "wrong" or unwarranted just because the FDA passed the deadline and nothing happened. The discussions about what would happen in April 2013 were based not on that date, but on the FDA deeming regulations on that date.

As far as an "all out ban," it's been explained on several occasions that it is not an "all out ban" but essentially a de facto ban on most and possibly all e-cigarettes currently on the market. If the FDA deems that e-cigarettes are tobacco products and says that there are no e-cigarettes currently on the market in the U.S. that are substantially equivalent to e-cigarettes on the market in February 2007, that would mean that all e-cigarettes currently on the market are subject to FDA market approval and cannot be sold until gaining such approval. If no e-cigarettes currently sold in the U.S. have market approval and they are told to stop selling in the U.S. until getting such approval, it's not technically a "ban" but it pretty much has the same effect as one, no?

I don't know who posted that change.org petition, but it's not a CASAA petition.

 

[Jman8]

...not sure who you are referring to when you say 'you' above. The questions I offered were intended to reflect the outlook of shellyb.

I meant you. But others are free to reply, as it is open forum.

 

[Cool_Breeze]

I meant you. But others are free to reply, as it is open forum.

If you want to ask about the thoughts expressed in that post that you referred to with quoted text, you'll need to address shellyb. Those seemed to be her thoughts.

 

[Caridwen]

Closing. OP has exited the thread.