Being Reasonable as a Community

[zapped]

You want to know how "benign" the FDA is? Ask a veteran.

I had my own electronic cigarette business called Zap Electronic Cigarettes. We were selling 901's with no cut-off for 19.99 and business was booming 4 years ago. We had just had a favorable review and invested all of our money (15k dollars) into new inventory.

The FDA illegally seized our shipment of merchandise and then destroyed it. Not only that but they sent us a bill for disposal to the tune of 700 bucks.

I wasn't the only one affected by the FDA seizure, plenty of other e-cig companies were having their inventory seized and destroyed.Unlike me, many were smart enough to make smaller orders, had deeper pockets or only invested what they could afford to lose.

njoy filed a lawsuit against the FDA that was ruled on by Judge Leon who said they were overstepping their authority. It wasn't a class action lawsuit. It only pertained to njoy. Even though it stopped the seizures, many smaller companies who had lost inventory couldn't afford the attorneys fees and trip to New York. As a result they accomplished their goal of shutting us down.

Since then they have tried a number of different avenues to regulate, restrict and otherwise impede the sale of a product that has allowed me to quit a 25 year 2 pack a day habit. As of yesterday, I am 1 year and 1 day completely cigarette free and its all due to electronic cigarettes. Others on here can attest to similar or better results.

It really angers me when someone with a join date of last month and 26 posts comes in here defending the FDA like it has done no wrong. THIS is why its so extremely important to join CASAA and read the information on their site instead of listening to people who dont have a clue about what they are talking about, have ulterior motives, or are here simply to provoke a reaction.

If you dont know what youre talking about then just dont say it. Its okay to ask questions but making a blanket statement thats patently false and asking others to correct you is how misinformation gets spread. Someone with even less experience than the OP can come in here and read that and wrongly take it for gospel.

The FDA isnt our friend and never will be! They have proved that conclusively over the course of the last 4 years but then you'd have to be here to know that.

 

[Myrany]

Anything would have that effect with the ANTZ. You have two choices with them, quit or die, they've already drawn that line. Unless you plan on picking one of those it's already on.

As far as the ads go what can they advertise? They can't say it's healthIER. They can't say quit smoking, vape instead. "It's cheaper" probably doesn't apply to the ones that advertise. "Don't pay taxes" would be picking a bigger fight.
Don't advertise? Fewer people know about it, lower numbers means we lose.

Myk I don't know what else they could advertise on but that one just seems painfully in your face picking a fight. Sorry it just rubs me the wrong way. Actually no I am not sorry it is how I feel about it I won't apologize for feelings.

 

[Ref Minor]

Coming to this forum and being pro-fda is like going to the Star Wars forum and saying George Lucas sucks.

Bad analogy. You obviously haven't seen the prequels, going to a Star Wars forum and saying George Lucas sucks is a sure fire way to get popularity.

As Butters I am sure you remember the time when your friends saw George Lucas abusing a stormtrooper in your home town of South Park.

 

[dice57]

Another thing to consider, now, is that WE DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH AT THIS POINT TO MAKE A WELL-INFORMED DECISION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES ARE BAD FOR US. Common sense tells us that it probably is, but as any good scientist will tell you, science involves a method designed not to be influenced by anything outside of what is observed. There are many studies that I have seen and many of them are conflicting and some are incoherent.


*EDIT* Just want to clear a couple of things up:

1. I did not intend to make a political statement so please stop commenting with polarizing political remarks. This has nothing to do with the economic regulation or Obamacare.

2. If you wish to be productive in your comments, please provide links to EVIDENCE. If you want to prove someone wrong, you have to actually give proof.

**Final Edit**

I'm going to stop replying to comments now as this did not turn in to the productive conversation that I'd hoped it would and now I'm getting some personal attacks. I still think its worth thinking through whether regulation in this situation is an entirely bad thing and how to reason with this agency rather than just being angry about the prospect. In the future, I'll just keep these thoughts to myself.

My common sense tells me nothing of the sort, my common sense says Vape is good for me, I feel healthier than I have in a long time, I'm more energetic and productive than when I smoked. My house smells better and I am a much happier and positive person now, so my common sense seams to make more sense than yours.

have to laugh at your edits, probably the best things in your whole post. You yourself are making claims and conclusion with out the proof and links that you demand of others. The second edit I think made me ROFLFAO!! kind of entertainment. How many times do our intentions not turn out as we planned. lmao, likely most of the time?

Vape long and Prosper.

It's really a shame that you are not going to comment further or read anymore of what you initiated. Guess that's just the measure of your mettle.

 

[kristin]

Oddly, so many seem to trust the FDA when it comes to how safe vaping PG and VG are...

Well, I don't. My opinion on PG is based on reading the actual research that has been done since the 1940's rather than the thumbs-up given to it by the FDA. However, I do know that a lot of Americans trust the opinion of the FDA, so it benefits our cause to mention (to those spouting ANTZ rhetoric) that the FDA considers PG/VG to be GRAS. I'm only comfortable doing that because I've read the actual PG studies on which the FDA bases its opinion.

To the OP (if you're still reading and not a troll):

The FDA has made it clear that it considers e-cigarettes to be unapproved drugs that should be regulated the same as other nicotine drugs (which would also mean millions in fees paid to the FDA for approval). However, the FDA was sued by e-cigarette companies and lost its appeal in 2010, so it has announced it intends to regulate e-cigarettes (with nicotine and nicotine liquid for e-cigarettes) as tobacco products. During the trial, the FDA tested e-cigarettes (conveniently the two brands sold by the companies in the lawsuit) and the testing found the e-cigarettes did NOT contain harmful levels of any chemicals or carcinogens, yet the FDA issued a statement to the public that e-cigarettes contained "anti freeze" and carcinogens. It was a blatant attempt to deceive the public about supposed "dangers" of e-cigarettes.

This is not "conspiracy theories" but cold, hard facts.

It's very difficult to believe the FDA has only our best interests at heart, knowing the history of the FDA lies about e-cigarettes and it's prior actions attempting to remove e-cigarettes from the market. And now a sister agency, the CDC, has jumped on the bandwagon and is undeniably lying to the public about youth use and flavors - just before the FDA is expected to issue its deeming regulations on e-cigarettes.

There is absolutely no sound evidence that the FDA, CDC or other government agencies wish to see "reasonable" regulations of e-cigarettes that would allow the market to continue to flourish with affordable and effective products. Unlike with dietary supplements and even FDA-approved drugs that only get removed from the market or labeled as dangerous AFTER there have been numerous complaints of adverse reactions or injury, the FDA is treating these products as a public health risk without any real evidence and despite evidence to the contrary - including valid research and the fact that after nearly a decade on the market there have been far less complaints about e-cigarettes than there have been for FDA-approved smoking cessation drugs. (And the complaints that HAVE been filed are by and large minor side effects that haven't even been confirmed as having been caused by e-cigarette use.)

It's just impossible to watch the FDA and other agencies and organizations systematically attack and lie about e-cigarettes for 4 years and believe that they just want "reasonable regulations." If the FDA and ANTZ had given us any indication that reasonable regulations was all they wanted (such as sanitary facilities, safe handling, proper and truthful labeling and child-resistant caps) then we would have simply been working with them all of these years.

But all of their actions have made it clear that they see e-cigarettes as a threat to...whatever. Lost approval fee revenue, the denormalization of smoking, sin taxes, the pharmaceutical market, anti-tobacco funding, etc. The "reasonable regulations" that vapers would want to see simply do not fit the ANTZ and government agenda.

 

[shelleyb]

Being an attorney who works for a regulatory agency (not the FDA), I do understand the need for regulation. But I also understand that those writing regulations are sometimes influenced by personal beliefs and not hard scientific fact. I also know that regulatory agencies to consider (and must by law) public comments. When the FDA releases regulations for e-cigs - and they will likely soon after the government shutdown, it is vital that we as a community respond to any unnecessary regulations in rational well thought out responses. The only way to keep over regulation from happening is to give honest rationale comments to any proposed regulations.

I agree with others who have said that the FDA is only proposing to regulate and not ban e-cigs. However, the regulations must be rational - and I do believe that the economy is an important consideration. Banning online sales will hurt a lot of small businesses who offer great products to the vaping community.

This forum is a great way to keep up with what is going on with regulations - keep reading and supporting the forum and be ready to add your voice to the community when regulations are posted --

 

[Cool_Breeze]

Being an attorney who works for a regulatory agency (not the FDA), I do understand the need for regulation. ...--

What compelling needs do you understand for regulation of vaping?

 

[Uma]

so for reference you are talking about the mention of "Charles Connor, president and CEO of the lung association from 2008 to 2012, joined the Electronic Cigarette Industry Group (ECIG) on Thursday as a paid consultant."
While I might be content to see some progress on the science over opinion argument factor this brings, I'm not totally sold on the Electronic Cigarette Industry Group (ECIG) considering a peek at their membership levels; ranging from 5000 to 250,000 annually. with no apparent members and a blog and social media pages that are in their infancy. I'm not inferring that it is a front for something, but I would assume a "consultant fee" for such an individual would not be small and more akin to a Lobbyist than a freedom fighter ... "Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."

like as if lung cancer patients can't wait to ban online sales so they can vendor hop. Wheelchair in the van, wheelchair out, in, out...
Like as if all the vapers dream of spending their lunch hours and off days in traffic jams to buy a new evod. Or... Gas station ecig.
Like as if we vapers support some made up group who tries to fool others that they speak for us. I think not.
That ecig group has a lot of nerve barging In and pretending to be us, just so they can ban online sales.

As as far as the FDA and the angst we feel. They started it. They banned it, they fought it, they tried to make us shell out fees to keep it, they never took back their lies about formaldehyde and anti freeze. Today they are harassed by politicians to hurry through with heavy regulation for the tax money they hope to start collecting.

Here is a historic list of shenanigans but isn't yet updated with 2013 yet. It's got another page of incredible nonsense yet to be included.
E-cigarette History

 

[peterforpats]

Coming to this forum and being pro-fda is like going to the Star Wars forum and saying George Lucas sucks.

he does, but his company is great.....

 

[Fulgurant]

Lol in hindsight that was a bad analogy.

How about this.

It's like going to the Chanel forum and telling everyone Coco was a talentless Hack!

It's like going to a Star Wars forum and telling everyone that Jar Jar is awesome.

 

[kristin]

I agree with others who have said that the FDA is only proposing to regulate and not ban e-cigs. However, the regulations must be rational - and I do believe that the economy is an important consideration. Banning online sales will hurt a lot of small businesses who offer great products to the vaping community.

It's important to fully understand under what law and rules the FDA intends to regulate. Regulating e-cigarettes under the FSPTCA possibly could automatically remove most, if not all, e-cigarettes from the U.S. market as "unapproved new tobacco products." Because of the FSPTCA rules, all new tobacco products must show substantial equivalency for market approval or have been marketed prior to February 2007. Getting market approval if you weren't on the market prior to the cut-off date could prove to be more expensive and complicated for the average e-cigarette company to handle. It could leave us only with the type of e-cigarettes on the market prior to that date - cigarette-styles with pre-filled cartridges, only tobacco or menthol flavors and a low nicotine maximum.

Therefore, if the FDA simply deems e-cigarettes to be tobacco products regulated under the same rules as other tobacco products subject to FSPTCA, it would require most e-cigarettes currently on the market to stop selling and go through an expensive and time-consuming approval process. This is why many consider it to be a de facto "ban" if the FDA regulated e-cigarettes under FSPTCA without making considerations unique to the e-cigarette market.

 

[Butters78]

There's a Chanel forum?

access denied

I figured there would be one lol.

 

[shelleyb]

What compelling needs do you understand for regulation of vaping?

I don't believe I said the need to regulate vaping -- I said the need for regulations. And I do believe there are somethings that need to be regulated. Just being against all government regulation isn't going to get rational regulations. Throwing a fit and said bad bad bad FDA isn't going to help. We, as a community, must show rationale that the FDA is not showing and going off on me and misquoting me is just proving my point.

 

[shelleyb]

It's important to fully understand under what law and rules the FDA intends to regulate. Regulating e-cigarettes under the FSPTCA possibly could automatically remove most, if not all, e-cigarettes from the U.S. market as "unapproved new tobacco products." Because of the FSPTCA rules, all new tobacco products must show substantial equivalency for market approval or have been marketed prior to February 2007. Getting market approval if you weren't on the market prior to the cut-off date could prove to be more expensive and complicated for the average e-cigarette company to handle. It could leave us only with the type of e-cigarettes on the market prior to that date - cigarette-styles with pre-filled cartridges, only tobacco or menthol flavors and a low nicotine maximum.

Therefore, if the FDA simply deems e-cigarettes to be tobacco products regulated under the same rules as other tobacco products subject to FSPTCA, it would require most e-cigarettes currently on the market to stop selling and go through an expensive and time-consuming approval process. This is why many consider it to be a de facto "ban" if the FDA regulated e-cigarettes under FSPTCA without making considerations unique to the e-cigarette market.

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!

 

[wv2win]

You want to know how "benign" the FDA is? Ask a veteran.

I had my own electronic cigarette business called Zap Electronic Cigarettes. We were selling 901's with no cut-off for 19.99 and business was booming 4 years ago. We had just had a favorable review and invested all of our money (15k dollars) into new inventory.

The FDA illegally seized our shipment of merchandise and then destroyed it. Not only that but they sent us a bill for disposal to the tune of 700 bucks.

I wasn't the only one affected by the FDA seizure, plenty of other e-cig companies were having their inventory seized and destroyed.Unlike me, many were smart enough to make smaller orders, had deeper pockets or only invested what they could afford to lose.............................................

...................................
The FDA has made it clear that it considers e-cigarettes to be unapproved drugs that should be regulated the same as other nicotine drugs (which would also mean millions in fees paid to the FDA for approval). However, the FDA was sued by e-cigarette companies and lost its appeal in 2010, so it has announced it intends to regulate e-cigarettes (with nicotine and nicotine liquid for e-cigarettes) as tobacco products. During the trial, the FDA tested e-cigarettes (conveniently the two brands sold by the companies in the lawsuit) and the testing found the e-cigarettes did NOT contain harmful levels of any chemicals or carcinogens, yet the FDA issued a statement to the public that e-cigarettes contained "anti freeze" and carcinogens. It was a blatant attempt to deceive the public about supposed "dangers" of e-cigarettes.

This is not "conspiracy theories" but cold, hard facts.

It's very difficult to believe the FDA has only our best interests at heart, knowing the history of the FDA lies about e-cigarettes and it's prior actions attempting to remove e-cigarettes from the market. And now a sister agency, the CDC, has jumped on the bandwagon and is undeniably lying to the public about youth use and flavors - just before the FDA is expected to issue its deeming regulations on e-cigarettes.

There is absolutely no sound evidence that the FDA, CDC or other government agencies wish to see "reasonable" regulations of e-cigarettes that would allow the market to continue to flourish with affordable and effective products. Unlike with dietary supplements and even FDA-approved drugs that only get removed from the market or labeled as dangerous AFTER there have been numerous complaints of adverse reactions or injury, the FDA is treating these products as a public health risk without any real evidence and despite evidence to the contrary - including valid research and the fact that after nearly a decade on the market there have been far less complaints about e-cigarettes than there have been for FDA-approved smoking cessation drugs. (And the complaints that HAVE been filed are by and large minor side effects that haven't even been confirmed as having been caused by e-cigarette use.)

It's just impossible to watch the FDA and other agencies and organizations systematically attack and lie about e-cigarettes for 4 years and believe that they just want "reasonable regulations." If the FDA and ANTZ had given us any indication that reasonable regulations was all they wanted (such as sanitary facilities, safe handling, proper and truthful labeling and child-resistant caps) then we would have simply been working with them all of these years.

But all of their actions have made it clear that they see e-cigarettes as a threat to...whatever. Lost approval fee revenue, the denormalization of smoking, sin taxes, the pharmaceutical market, anti-tobacco funding, etc. The "reasonable regulations" that vapers would want to see simply do not fit the ANTZ and government agenda.

Being an attorney who works for a regulatory agency (not the FDA), I do understand the need for regulation. But I also understand that those writing regulations are sometimes influenced by personal beliefs and not hard scientific fact. I also know that regulatory agencies to consider (and must by law) public comments. When the FDA releases regulations for e-cigs - and they will likely soon after the government shutdown, it is vital that we as a community respond to any unnecessary regulations in rational well thought out responses. The only way to keep over regulation from happening is to give honest rationale comments to any proposed regulations.

I agree with others who have said that the FDA is only proposing to regulate and not ban e-cigs. However, the regulations must be rational - and I do believe that the economy is an important consideration. Banning online sales will hurt a lot of small businesses who offer great products to the vaping community.

This forum is a great way to keep up with what is going on with regulations - keep reading and supporting the forum and be ready to add your voice to the community when regulations are posted --

When you look at the FDA's history on vaping (two excellent summaries by zapped and kristin), how can any reasonable person trust them at all? There is no "reasonable" rationale for their actions to date. There is evidence to believe they are highly influenced by the Big Pharm. industry. When the people running an agency make decisions that could force millions back to an activity that leads to catastrophic health issues , how do they justify that? Or do they even care?

 

[EvilZoe]

access denied

I figured there would be one lol.

That would be a boring forum...lol

 

[peterforpats]

I agree. I think that's absolutely bizarre. Besides the fact that if you have to tell your doctor about a drug, do you really want such an uninformed person to be prescribing you anything? The doctor couldn't have come to conclusions on his own based on your symptoms? "Oh yeah, Mr. Jones, you know, that DOES sound good. Let's start you out on...how many milligrams did the commercial say?"

The whole advertisement to the public thing is so freakish I don't even know which end to pick it up by.

it's called free speech and the first amendment. a company has a right to advertise and ask you to ask your doctor about their product- which is always their tagline-" ask your doctor if such and such is right for you". or should there be laws to ban them? everybody is sooo selective about what they want banned and what they don't. hmmm where have I heard that before.......

 

[EvilZoe]

it's called free speech and the first amendment. a company has a right to advertise and ask you to ask your doctor about their product- which is always their tagline-" ask your doctor if such and such is right for you". or should there be laws to ban them? everybody is sooo selective about what they want banned and what they don't. hmmm where have I heard that before.......

I'm not sure I saw anyone saying they should be banned. I DID see people talking about how stupid the concept is and how distasteful they found it to be.

 

[TreVader]

The FDA is furloughed, so don't worry. Your e-cigs will stay just as unregulated as your beef/horsemeat imports.

 

[CaliforniaGirl]

it's called free speech and the first amendment. a company has a right to advertise and ask you to ask your doctor about their product- which is always their tagline-" ask your doctor if such and such is right for you". or should there be laws to ban them? everybody is sooo selective about what they want banned and what they don't. hmmm where have I heard that before.......

Errr....I certainly didn't say I want the commercials "banned." That's quite a leap you made there. I said it's bizarre to me...I even specified the "to me" part.

"Everybody is so selective about what they want banned..." There it seems you took that even farther to assume that I not only want the commercials banned, but that I want other things banned...AND that I'm "sooo selective" about what those things are? I don't believe I've ever so much as put my X anonymously to a petition to have anything banned in my entire life. Seriously I can't think of a single thing I've ever wanted "banned"...

You don't even know me, LOL.

Anyway. Sigh. Carry on...