Carl Phillips on the dangers of radical policy action

[nicnik]

Carl Phillips writes about the FDA's seeming lack of foresight regarding the consequences of their plans for radical regulation of the vaping industry, focusing on the huge black market it will result in. He compares it to the obliviousness to the unintentional consequences of invading Iraq in 2003 by its planners. I think the same could be said about the rest of the anti-vaping leadership in Public Health and Government. For me, the article is a real good read.

Similarly, the anti-smoking establishment, as many have pointed out, never seem to have planned for the unintended economic consequences of greatly reduced numbers of smokers, leaving themselves in an obvious state of panic, and escalating their tactics of deceit.

The main take home for me in the article is the discussion of the black market that we all see on the horizon. If the FDA drops the bomb they've threatened to, they'd better be prepared for the aftermath.

FDA and e-cigarettes: the dangers of radical policy action

 

[Kent C]

Just reading this, and the first sentence is a mystery:

"If U.S. FDA had succeeded in banning e-cigarettes in 2009 as they did a decade before that, it would have been a bad policy action for many reasons."

I must have missed the 1999 banning. Pretty sure the first ecigs were introduced in 2006 or 2007. Strange.

Prohibition is a better analogy than the 'Asian' country of Iraq. Invoking how well obamacare has done has not much to do with the FDA possible ban. Nice Ramble....

 

[bobwho77]

Just reading this, and the first sentence is a mystery:

"If U.S. FDA had succeeded in banning e-cigarettes in 2009 as they did a decade before that, it would have been a bad policy action for many reasons."

I must have missed the 1999 banning. Pretty sure the first ecigs were introduced in 2006 or 2007. Strange.

Prohibition is a better analogy than the 'Asian' country of Iraq. Invoking how well obamacare has done has not much to do with the FDA possible ban. Nice Ramble....

I tend to agree with you on this one, Kent.
I think that the 18th Amendment is a MUCH better comparison here.
I'd go farther, and say that the consequences of FDA deeming have been absolutely forseen, and are VERY intentional.
Deeming will:
A) Drive many current vapers back to analog cigarettes, and traditional NRT.
B) TurnTurn control of the industry over to the major BT/BP players.
My guess is that they're already planning on either trying to bring new products through the approval process fast enough to short circuit the development of a black market, or profiting from the black market themselves.
The future of vaping is quite likely to be decided by the courts, but there are glimmers of hope in that. US courts have, in the past, shown a willingness to smack down overzealous regulation. It's also pretty easy to see the folly of trying to "Overturn" 10 years of technological advances

 

[Jingles]

I think everyone at the FDA should go back to using their 2007 cell phones. Surely, they were safer back then. They didn't have all the bells and whistles of today's cell phones! (Sarcasm)

 

[sofarsogood]

In the e-cig forum there is an area for Singapore vapers. Vaping is banned there. The thread reflects anxiety, fear, stress, etc. In the US there must be lots of different kinds of people who used to smoke and now vape. There would be shut ins, people with psychiatric disorders, great age, poor health, low incomes, the list goes on. The FDA nor any of the anti crowd shows the slightest concern or awareness for those people. The issues this process ignores speaks the loudest.

 

[Kent C]

I think everyone at the FDA should go back to using their 2007 cell phones.

Or ban them from using cell phones at all.

 

[Kent C]

My guess is that they're already planning on either trying to bring new products through the approval process fast enough to short circuit the development of a black market, or profiting from the black market themselves.

Don't see either of these happening - although anything could happen. I don't think they'll fasttrack any and I don't see how they could profit from the black market. They'd have to somehow break into the nicotine base business - possible I guess, but not likely. One way they could 'profit' is by having a ecigarette police force - "The Unvapables" (as in Untouchables) - Swat teams - expand FDA jobs - more money, weapons, ammo, creating informants - neighborhood watches, DARE-type programs that don't work and actually cause kids who never thought of using, to get interested, School programs that instruct students to tell on their parents, grandparents, etc. etc. the stuff China did in their 'one child' program.

 

[skoony]

Don't see either of these happening - although anything could happen. I don't think they'll fasttrack any and I don't see how they could profit from the black market. They'd have to somehow break into the nicotine base business - possible I guess, but not likely. One way they could 'profit' is by having a ecigarette police force - "The Unvapables" (as in Untouchables) - Swat teams - expand FDA jobs - more money, weapons, ammo, creating informants - neighborhood watches, DARE-type programs that don't work and actually cause kids who never thought of using, to get interested, School programs that instruct students to tell on their parents, grandparents, etc. etc. the stuff China did in their 'one child' program.

You just nailed it. There are many "stakeholders?" in the shadows. Expanding government bureaucracy is
one amung many. Along with BT,BP, the medical establishment and, governments at all levels trying to
recoup lost taxes or, get in on the windfall.
Yes there are a lot of "stakeholders" in this game. Unfortunately we are not "stakeholders".
We are the steak.

Regards
mike

 

[Kent C]

One way they could 'profit' is by having a ecigarette police force - "The Unvapables" (as in Untouchables)

Rico. Youngblood.

 

[nicnik]

Just reading this, and the first sentence is a mystery:

"If U.S. FDA had succeeded in banning e-cigarettes in 2009 as they did a decade before that, it would have been a bad policy action for many reasons."

I must have missed the 1999 banning. Pretty sure the first ecigs were introduced in 2006 or 2007. Strange.

Prohibition is a better analogy than the 'Asian' country of Iraq. Invoking how well obamacare has done has not much to do with the FDA possible ban. Nice Ramble....

Yeah, that first sentence had me confused. I tried to find what he was referring to, and I think it was RJR's Eclipse, though that was a little less than a decade before, and it was a vapor cigarette (heat, mostly not burn tobacco cig), not an ecig. If that was what he meant, he could have just said so, but he seemed to want it to be delivered mysteriously.

The Obamacare stuff was misplaced. I think maybe he was attempting to convey that vaping advocacy isn't just a form of anti-regualtion extremism, inhabited by Libertarians and the very conservative, but there are better ways to get that across, and perhaps as part of a different article.

The stuff I found about the FDA vs Eclipse is very interesting.

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/Apr02/041502/01p-0570_c000001_01_vol2.pdf

Lots of the same issues as today with the FDA and vaping. Check out the section labeled
"V. EXERCISING JURISDICTION WOULD DETER THE DEVELOPMENT AND MARKETING OF OTHER REDUCED-RISK PRODUCTS."

Interesting to read this CFTFK article, too:
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids

 

[nicnik]

I'd go farther, and say that the consequences of FDA deeming have been absolutely forseen, and are VERY intentional.
Deeming will:
A) Drive many current vapers back to analog cigarettes, and traditional NRT.
B) TurnTurn control of the industry over to the major BT/BP players.

The article was not about the intended consequences, but the unintended. A massive black market.

 

[Kent C]

I tried to find what he was referring to, and I think it was RJR's Eclipse, though that was a little less than a decade before

The Eclipse was still in production in 2014 - but no longer. But like the smokeless cigarette, abandoned by RJR not banned.

but there are better ways to get that across

Perhaps.... I thought it may have been a swat at Bill G - who knows? Off topic imo....

 

[philoshop]

Thanks Kent for the Belushi/Akroid pic. Always good for a few minutes of 'fond memory' chuckles!

 

[Kent C]

Thanks Kent for the Belushi/Akroid pic. Always good for a few minutes of 'fond memory' chuckles!

Thanks. It might date us but they are in reruns now and rico942 through in a 'like' and made me recall seeing both. "Rico! Youngblood!" by Ness/Stack and Aykroyd.

 

[philoshop]

Now I'm laughing again!
Belushi going off the wall on SNL about the Rockefeller drug laws. A priceless, epic rant!!