I think a number of misconceptions have come into play on this thread and I'd like to address them.
1. That the FDA wants e-cigs regulated because they can then be taxed. This is a misconception. FDA regulation has nothing to do with taxation.
2. That e-cigs are currently unregulated and it would be better to keep them that way. This ship has sailed. The FDA has classified e-cigs, has decided to regulate them as drug delivery devices, and is only waiting for the court's decision in the current case before ramping up enforcement.
3. That the petition plays into the FDA's hand. It is actually the opposite. The FDA is fighting to retain its declared position that e-cigs are drug delivery devices. The petition goes against this FDA position.
4. That the petition plays into someone's big money. It does the exact opposite. The FDA's current position maintains the huge revenue streams of Big tobacco and Big Pharm. The petition seeks to reclassify e-cigs in a way which threatens huge amounts of BT and BP money. It may well be that BT/BP money is a large part of what's behind the FDA's current position.
5. That classification of e-cigs as a tobacco product somehow "tars us with the same brush" as smokers. Classification as a tobacco product is a legal issue of great importance. But it is not an issue which affects public perception. Public perception will be molded by the media from the top down and by us as vapers from the bottom up. Every non-smoking friend I have has endorsed (heartily in most cases) my use of an e-cig. That's where we'll win in the perception arena; the legal classification won't affect this.
6. That categorizing e-cigs as tobacco products is wrong because they aren't made of tobacco. "Tobacco products" is a category for the purpose of establishing what kind of regulation is appropriate, nothing more. When you consider all the toxic crap in a cigarette, "tobacco product" is a pretty good category to be in when you want a minimum of regulation! It is a reasonable category because e-cigs are primarily meant to be an alternative to smoking and because the most important ingredient used in an e-cig for most users is obtained from tobacco (nicotine.) To those who point out alternatives, please research the cost of obtaining nicotine from various sources. Tobacco is THE source of nicotine for all of our suppliers due to cost.
7. That the November election will have any impact on e-cigs. It won't. Politicians will not be motivated by the small number of existing vapers. They will be motivated by Big Tobacco and Big Pharm who both want e-cigs classified as drug delivery devices and most definitely do not want them regulated as tobacco products. An election won't make any difference to this.
8. That there is a third choice such as creating a new classification for e-cigs or reclassifying them to be unregulated aside from general consumer protection laws. The government, the FDA, the non-smoking population, the "quit or die" activist groups, and the large commercial interests involved will not agree to a reclassification of e-cigs from drug-delivery devices to an unregulated product. And there isn't anything near the required voter base to create a new classification, not to mention the BT and BP dollars which would fight any such attempt.
9. That classification as a tobacco product is in some other way inherently bad for vapers. E.g. that it automatically implies no candy or fruit flavors. There are no such automatic consequences. Restrictions on cigarettes are specific to cigarettes, not to all tobacco products. Once reclassified as tobacco products, any restrictions the FDA ends up trying to apply to e-cigs will be challengable independently of restrictions applied to cigarettes.
10. That reclassification of e-cigs as tobacco products somehow negatively impacts our existing e-cig vendors. It does not! But the existing classification as drug delivery devices hugely impacts them, it will pretty much kill all existing small vendors if not changed.
11. That reclassification to an over-the-counter drug might be preferable. That's exactly the kind of classification the FDA has already made. It will require years of testing and huge expenditures by existing e-cig vendors before we see their products again, something they (and we!) can't afford.
12. That technicalities such as classification of the hardware, which can be used with 0mg liquid, have an impact on the end result of all of this. They don't. We are in a fight against two groups: 1) Big Tobacco and Big Pharm, both with a huge financial interest in seeing e-cigs categorized as the FDA currently does, i.e. as drug delivery devices, and 2) Quit or Die mentalities who don't care whether e-cigs are actually safe. Both groups will base their final fight on the delivery of nicotine. They'll shift to fight the devices or the liquids according to what works best for them. Technicalities such as ability to deliver a non-harmful smoking experience won't slow them down.
1. That the FDA wants e-cigs regulated because they can then be taxed. This is a misconception. FDA regulation has nothing to do with taxation.
2. That e-cigs are currently unregulated and it would be better to keep them that way. This ship has sailed. The FDA has classified e-cigs, has decided to regulate them as drug delivery devices, and is only waiting for the court's decision in the current case before ramping up enforcement.
3. That the petition plays into the FDA's hand. It is actually the opposite. The FDA is fighting to retain its declared position that e-cigs are drug delivery devices. The petition goes against this FDA position.
4. That the petition plays into someone's big money. It does the exact opposite. The FDA's current position maintains the huge revenue streams of Big tobacco and Big Pharm. The petition seeks to reclassify e-cigs in a way which threatens huge amounts of BT and BP money. It may well be that BT/BP money is a large part of what's behind the FDA's current position.
5. That classification of e-cigs as a tobacco product somehow "tars us with the same brush" as smokers. Classification as a tobacco product is a legal issue of great importance. But it is not an issue which affects public perception. Public perception will be molded by the media from the top down and by us as vapers from the bottom up. Every non-smoking friend I have has endorsed (heartily in most cases) my use of an e-cig. That's where we'll win in the perception arena; the legal classification won't affect this.
6. That categorizing e-cigs as tobacco products is wrong because they aren't made of tobacco. "Tobacco products" is a category for the purpose of establishing what kind of regulation is appropriate, nothing more. When you consider all the toxic crap in a cigarette, "tobacco product" is a pretty good category to be in when you want a minimum of regulation! It is a reasonable category because e-cigs are primarily meant to be an alternative to smoking and because the most important ingredient used in an e-cig for most users is obtained from tobacco (nicotine.) To those who point out alternatives, please research the cost of obtaining nicotine from various sources. Tobacco is THE source of nicotine for all of our suppliers due to cost.
7. That the November election will have any impact on e-cigs. It won't. Politicians will not be motivated by the small number of existing vapers. They will be motivated by Big Tobacco and Big Pharm who both want e-cigs classified as drug delivery devices and most definitely do not want them regulated as tobacco products. An election won't make any difference to this.
8. That there is a third choice such as creating a new classification for e-cigs or reclassifying them to be unregulated aside from general consumer protection laws. The government, the FDA, the non-smoking population, the "quit or die" activist groups, and the large commercial interests involved will not agree to a reclassification of e-cigs from drug-delivery devices to an unregulated product. And there isn't anything near the required voter base to create a new classification, not to mention the BT and BP dollars which would fight any such attempt.
9. That classification as a tobacco product is in some other way inherently bad for vapers. E.g. that it automatically implies no candy or fruit flavors. There are no such automatic consequences. Restrictions on cigarettes are specific to cigarettes, not to all tobacco products. Once reclassified as tobacco products, any restrictions the FDA ends up trying to apply to e-cigs will be challengable independently of restrictions applied to cigarettes.
10. That reclassification of e-cigs as tobacco products somehow negatively impacts our existing e-cig vendors. It does not! But the existing classification as drug delivery devices hugely impacts them, it will pretty much kill all existing small vendors if not changed.
11. That reclassification to an over-the-counter drug might be preferable. That's exactly the kind of classification the FDA has already made. It will require years of testing and huge expenditures by existing e-cig vendors before we see their products again, something they (and we!) can't afford.
12. That technicalities such as classification of the hardware, which can be used with 0mg liquid, have an impact on the end result of all of this. They don't. We are in a fight against two groups: 1) Big Tobacco and Big Pharm, both with a huge financial interest in seeing e-cigs categorized as the FDA currently does, i.e. as drug delivery devices, and 2) Quit or Die mentalities who don't care whether e-cigs are actually safe. Both groups will base their final fight on the delivery of nicotine. They'll shift to fight the devices or the liquids according to what works best for them. Technicalities such as ability to deliver a non-harmful smoking experience won't slow them down.
