Comments Please on AAPHP Petitions to FDA

[kristin]

Put the ban in place, without an actual ban on anything you cannot get vapings status legally clarified.

The "ban" will happen once they become classified as drugs. Once that happens, there is no going back. Who has the funds to challenge that in court? The ban will put any hope out of business.

As a tobacco Product, we can work with it and get a new classification. Once they are banned as "drugs," it's all over.

The SE vs. FDA ruling means nothing to the other hundreds of ecig companies. They'd all have to go to court to prove that they are not drug devices, as well. If Judge Leon's ruling stands, it only helps TWO companies. It'll make it easier for other companies to follow suit, but it doesn't automatically clear the road for them. They'd still have to file their own cases. Bottled liquid vendors would have a harder time than SE or njoy, with their prefilled carts.

Your logic is completely backwards.

 

[River]

Well, I'm wrong on about 10 things per day so this could certainly be one of them but it's difficult for me to watch vaping opponents get schooled as they did in the federal case and more recently in Utah and then watch it all get flushed down the drain by a precipitous move based on fear.

I know you guys have the smoking mentality and you are used to eating $*!@ and asking for seconds because you feel guilty for being a dirty smoker but that crud is over. You are in the right on this one and the time for making concessions and handing over the sudetenland without a fight because you don't feel you have a position of strength is over.

You know vaping may not have worked for you or you may have never even tried it had it been classified as a tobacco product and been mired in the normal rules, regulations, commerce and emotional connections that tobacco and NRTs are mired in.

Why is this the correct responce now? Because it's a link on the ECF home page? You guys are ready to throw in the towel now? Are you sure about that?

Classification as a tobacco product is a huge mistake and I would rather see it banned outright with the potental for a legal battle to place it in it's correct place than forced into a dishonest catagory that it may never recover from.

I'm stunned at your short sightedness because if you think for one second you can just let the talons sink a little way into your flesh and then fix it so it's more comfortabe later you are in for a suprise.

You are being rash and you are trusting people that are not out for your best interests and have a track record of having good intentions and then fouling up those intentions and making things worse and when this whole thing plays out you will wish you had not let fear of loss make your decisions for you.

So here's the deal, I know when it's time to fight the good fight and when it's time to drink the kool-aid so as my penance for being the flat tire on the bus getting ready to drive off the cliff I will leave you folks to give up on a war that has not yet been decided without me getting in the way and raining on your parade.

 

[DC2]

The war you speak of is already over, the FDA has already banned electronic cigarettes.

The only thing keeping them from enforcing that ban is an injuction, and that injunction is currently being appealed by the FDA so that they can continue to seize product and step up their enforcement efforts.

If that injunction is lifted, the FDA will begin seizing product once again, and more than likely begin to step up enforcement even further by fining electronic cigarette suppliers, or even worse.

 

[Firegrl]

You and a few others have made it quite clear that all you people care about is yourselves and your situation.

A lot of insurance companies do NOT cover smoking cessation.

And a majority of people started PVs for the health benefits, not the costs.

I'm willing to pay more to have the luxury of seeing my 3 year old daughter grow up.

And there are millions of smokers out there who haven't even held a PV and don't know about dripping and mods and whatnot. What about them? What options willl they have if these become perscription?

I wager the majority of smokers and vapers don't want to live like potheads, using illegal, homemade juice and devices. We should be able to legally use a legal substance without sneaking around and hookwinking doctors.

And if you think taxes would make vaping expensive, just wait until the pharma companies get their hands on it. Nitotrol is way more expensive than cigarettes.

How about looking a little beyond your own little world a bit more?

I'm sorry, but I thought this was totally uncalled for. We could just as easily put the shoe on the other foot and call the other side selfish for wanting to rush it into a category it clearly doesn't belong in for fear of losing what you enjoy too. I don't think we are being selfish for having our own opinions at all. And yes, I think some of my points show how this classification could hurt the industry, not just me.

Sorry, but some of us would rather argue for a better-fitting solution, then let the FDA bully us into curling up into a ball and admitting defeat...

Fear can drive us to make crazy, irrational decisions....

 

[maxx]

Everytime a legislator introduces a bill, it has built-in giveaways. Things that are not really wanted or needed, but can be used as bargaining chips. You learn that in high school civics class and the current healthcare debaucle is a good example. Now the FDA is no different. They take action knowing they will give away something. Did it ever occur to those of you supporting this petition, that FDA doesn't want to ban e-cigs, but would rather control them as tobacco product in the first place? The astonishing contradiction in FDA thinking that e-cigs are dangerous and need to be banned, but analogs are OK should be the tip-off that something is up.

Banning e-cigs costs money....lots of money. Think about how much money we spend on the "war on drugs". You think they want another drug to police and prosecute? However, making them a tobacco product makes money....lots of it. The current siezing of E supplies is a token. The vast majority is getting through and no websites that I know of have been shut down. It's a bluff...they don't want to stop them, just get our attention...which they seem to have done in spades.

So here is what will happen in the coming months. The FDA will continue to spout off about drug delivery and "safe and effective" questions, keep siezing some shipments....then quietly start to move to regulation as a tobacco product. They will say we tried to stop them, but since they are so ingrained now, it is best to just regulate them to protect the American people. The same argument they use for cigs. Now when this happens, you folks will break open the champagne bottles and pat each other on the back and say, "It was our petition that did this. Hooray for us." Fact is....you are simply giving them ammunition later when they move for regulation as a tobacco product. When the rest of us vapers complian, they will wave your petition in the air and proclaim, "Look, your own people wanted this."

Sadly, I had to take my elderly mother to the hospital this morning. You know what the signs on the property say? They don't say No Smoking. They say "This is a tobacco-free property". Ummm....that means e-cigs folks. All they have to do is change signs. No new laws....just fresh cardboard.

And all the talk about the FDA doesn't have the power to tax? Well duh....they don't need that power. All they have to say is two words "Tobacco Product" and the existing tobacco taxes take effect. Does it really matter if they are the taxing body or not....the result is the same. Petition or no petition....you will get your wish. Eventually, E-cigs will be a tobacco product.

 

[basic_atheist]

Deleted because...

I'm trying to protect a supplier, regardless of differences.

 

[DC2]

Can anyone explain to me what is going to happen once the FDA removes them from the market?
How do we get from there, to the point where they are freely available to everyone, and not taxed?

 

[Mister]

I would rather see it banned outright with the potental for a legal battle to place it in it's correct place

I don't know what you consider to be its right place. Whatever that place is, if we start a fight from a position where there is an enforced ban, there is zero chance that the combined forces of the FDA, the courts, the government, the anti-tobacco groups, Big Tobacco, Big Pharm, and the non-smoking majority of the population will agree to the attempts of some ex-smokers using banned and unregulated devices to make them casually marketable and purchaseable. Give your head a shake.

 

[Mister]

Banning e-cigs costs money....lots of money. Think about how much money we spend on the "war on drugs". You think they want another drug to police and prosecute? However, making them a tobacco product makes money....lots of it.

You are following the wrong money trail.

The FDA doesn't get any direct benefit from taxation. And the entire government doesn't mind having another drug to police and prosecute. The more such things they do, the more they can rationalize high taxation. What motivates these organizations is their own size and power.

Those parts of the government which are motivated by taxation revenue don't care at all about how e-cigs are classified. They will have to pass laws to tax them regardless of whether they are tobacco products or not. And if they see a significant revenue stream there, they will pass such laws. The only outcome where they won't do this is if e-cigs are banned.

The real money trail at work here is Tobacco and Pharmaceutical companies. If e-cigs continue to gain popularity at the rate they have been, these companies will be losing tens of billions of dollars per year very soon. These people and all that money are a brutal force which IS interested in effectively banning e-cigs by keeping the current classification as drugs and getting it enforced. And these companies have an inordinate presence and amount of pull with the FDA.

If e-cigs are reclassified to tobacco products, tobacco and pharmaceutical companies lose big time. The tobacco companies are forced to compete with e-cigs on a level playing field (where they'll lose) and the pharmaceutical companies are out of the picture entirely. It would be a huge victory for us to have e-cigs reclassified as tobacco products.

 

[THeGAMe]

Can anyone explain to me what is going to happen once the FDA removes them from the market?
How do we get from there, to the point where they are freely available to everyone, and not taxed?

A large rock from space, or, change the governing agenda. There are plenty of people out there running for office that are tired of this stuff too. But they dont have a R or a D in front of their names.


Mister..
A thought or two for you.

1. Vaporizers are in use by people that use zero nic.

2. All you will get out of a tobacco product is a more expensive product, and a $3 per cart/juice bottle tax. And with that classification, even no nic juice will be included.

 

[maxx]

Mister, I had planned on parsing your post and replying to each point. But I was laughing too hard. In fact you owe me a keyboard since I was having a drink at the time. So instead of taking each one, I will simply address your final point....

It would be a huge victory for us to have e-cigs reclassified as tobacco products.

....and laugh hysterically some more.

Thanks Mister. The thread needed some lightening up. It was getting heavy.

 

[DC2]

1. Vaporizers are in use by people that use zero nic.

I doubt that even 10% of us are using zero nicotine.

Nobody in their right mind is going to look at the genearl usage of electronic cigarettes and conclude that they are anything but either a device that delivers a drug, or a tobacco product.

Now if we really wanted to fight for something, I suppose we can try to fight to have nicotine considered to be on the same relative playing field as caffeine. I wonder how feasible that is?

 

[Mister]

Mister..

A thought or two for you.

1. Vaporizers are in use by people that use zero nic.

2. All you will get out of a tobacco product is a more expensive product, and a $3 per cart/juice bottle tax. And with that classification, even no nic juice will be included.

These issues have already been addressed by others. To reiterate:

1. Zero nic usage is a small percentage and will remain irrelevant for legal and classification purposes as long as the intended use of e-cigs is an alternative to cigarettes. And even if you could argue that the intended use is to cut down on nicotine (highly debatable, I think the majority of users are like me with no intent to cut down), if you argue this you play right into the hands of the FDA and Big Pharm by supporting the FDA's current position, i.e. by claiming that e-cigs are a smoking cessation product which automatically under existing regulations makes them a drug.

2. If existing e-cigs become legal and gain in popularity they will be taxed. How they are classified has nothing to do with this. If they're legal and there's enough usage for governments to see a significant revenue opportunity, they will be taxed. You have to either accept this as inevitable or support a ban, because a black market for them is the only way they will not be taxed.

 

[zelda]

This is a terrible dilemma. Though I certainly don't want e-cigs banned if they're classified as a tobacco product they can be taxed by the federal and state government.

With cigarettes up to over $8 and $9 a pack here and more taxes on the way I probably won't be able to afford e-cigarettes and e-liquid once they're taxed as tobacco products.

If they're classified as tobacco products will they be able to be shipped across state lines? They'd also be subject to all the laws concerning cigarettes - no smoking inside for instance.

 

[DC2]

I'm unclear on where people are getting the idea that calling electronic cigarettes tobacco products subjects them to any extra taxes or restrictions. I was under the impression that each tobacco product is treated differently, taxed differently, and subject to a different set of restrictions. I was also under the impression that anything can be taxed as much as they decide to tax it, regardless of what they call that thing, or what classification that thing has.

 

[Mister]

Though I certainly don't want e-cigs banned if they're classified as a tobacco product they can be taxed by the federal and state government.

How many times does this need to be said?:

If they're LEGAL they can be taxed by the federal and state government.

Get over it, that's the way our world works.

 

[zelda]

Then I can't sign this petition. It wouldn't matter one way or the other how they were classified if I simply can't afford it.

 

[Drummel]

I know everyone is hot and everyone has their own opinions.

Lets not keep attacking each other, PLEASE! Opinions are great, debate is great, but all of us should just express our opinions. I know some know less or more than others, but an opinion doesn't HAVE to be based on facts. Feelings also form opinions. Do they help? Actually, yes. Feelings are what create a driving force. You don't care? There is no driving force.


Now... Onto more theory?

We seem to be stuck in a loop.

1) PV's are Tobacco types
2) PV's are a drug device

Now we've added

3)(wishful thinking) Do nothing and let them ban it, once a ban is in place we have footing to fight the battle!...??
4) Create a new category.

Ok... Lets jump to number 4. Lets JUST SAY we have a new category created JUST for the niche PV'ers. That won't change much. It may not be classified as a Tobacco product, but you can pretty much stamp a guarantee on it that it will end up being voted into more taxation, you can also guarantee it being voted into the "child protection program", you can also guarantee it being voted into the ban those flavors campaign.

They use the same ammunition every time, and to the same effects. Pull on those heart strings and they will vote against you. I know it's a tired approach, but it always works. Anyone that stands against or appears to stand against the children just gets the feeling of being on a black list.

I know some will argue and suggestion othewise. Fine, but realize I'm just running a theory off, I'm not a legal major by any stretch.

Onto number 3!

Let it be banned! Well, there's a problem with that. It becomes Big Pharmacy's arena if we just "let it go". You really think we have a fighting chance at that point? BP will more than likely get any necessary backing / support from the FDA hence forth. So in essence we've just dumped are banning dream right into option number 2. It's a drug device and 10-15 years later...well we know the result of that.

Couple 3 and 2 with this... We got it banned (it's a drug device now), time to hit the local black market, 85% of ECF says they will still vape. Yes, that may be, but now there doesn't have to be any "honesty" regulation. They could mix any sort of crazy concoction they wanted to and sell it with some flavoring. Am I dreaming when I suggest that? No. To live in a real world we take real risks. Vaping legally, or vaping illegally. I could just picture what would happen to those that got tracked down by the legal departments as they cracked down on a black market vaping craze. And what new laws and fines they can dream up to make it not so worth our while. It's NOT a healthy idea - heck, it's not a wise thing to suggest as a good alternative to what we have now with USA vendors.
Yes I know you could argue that could happen now, sure it could, but our vendors our in business to make money, make their customers happy, and to continue being in business. Intentional harm is NOT LIKELY the forefront of their operations.

Now to 1.

Is it the best choice? Probably not, but lets look into the future. Banning was on our future list, now lets look at The Tobacco category as a possible future.

Does this immediately mean flavor bans? No. Will it happen? Probably. Does it mean taxes right away, no. Will it happen? Probably. Hell that almost fits right up there with the potential of it's own category.

I know I know, you will scream, "Pssaw, small victory, seems more like a big defeat." Once it's in the tobacco category it can be lobbied into a recuded harm category. Which could mean taxation changes, or not. We can't say.

Bottom line is everyone is doing what they feel is right. There is a lot of confusion mixed with facts, opinions, and even anger.

I only pray this: When the dust clears we are all suppose to be friends on the "same side" Just because we differ in opinions doesn't mean we still can't stand together from one fight to the next. If you don't agree with the current boxing match NO ONE can make you fight, they just hope you will. Because next time you will be the one wearing the gloves and we will be there for support, petitions, suggestions, or just to vent.

I don't agree wholely with any one side. It's TOUGH to decide. I like a lot of everyone's ideas. Do I choose because harsh words are thrown? Do I choose because it's a last ditch attempt to start the ball rolling for the future? Do I curl up in a ball and let Big Pharmacy claim another victim?
WHAT DO I DO!?

Well hell, son.... I do not know.. We are only doing the best we know how.

I started vaping as an anecdotal healthy alternative. I did not, and do not want to quit "smoking", I just use an alternative. Cost wasn't the total deciding factor. My future was. What is your future worth to you?
I am heartless to only myself as I choose to enjoy my addiction., but at the same time my better half will now enjoy a few more years with me, i still have to get through the healing process FIRST. None of us are out of full danger really. 10 years? That's a long time still for what we did inhale to either lay seeds of destruction, or heal. Some damage cannot be undone.

I'm sorry, I could ramble on. I love you guys here and all of your views. Don't hate each other. We don't have many places to go.

Don

 

[maxx]

I'm unclear on where people are getting the idea that calling electronic cigarettes tobacco products subjects them to any extra taxes or restrictions. I was under the impression that each tobacco product is treated differently, taxed differently, and subject to a different set of restrictions. I was also under the impression that anything can be taxed as much as they decide to tax it, regardless of what they call that thing, or what classification that thing has.

The federal tax code specifically mentions cigs, tubes, ciagrs etc. But it also uses the term (repeatedly) "tobacco products"....which also happens to be the FDA term of preference. See how convenient everything is becoming?

As I mentioned earlier. The goals of the FDA and this petition are the same and inevitable. So I suppose it is pointless to continue. But I wanted to give a tip of the hat to the few others in here that decided to not succumb to blackmail and have tried to change the course of this Titanic. And for River, who seems to be walking around with a target on his back, despite making an excellent Neville Chamberlain analogy. I made you an appropriate Neville Chamberlain for our times..... good fight there...the man from Independence. Appreciated....

 

[Mister]

As I mentioned earlier. The goals of the FDA and this petition are the same and inevitable.

I don't agree but I really do hope that you are right about this. Because if you are right the petition will be endorsed and acted on, and that is what I, as a vaper, very much want to happen.