Comments Please on AAPHP Petitions to FDA

[OutWest]

just found this thread - saw the other thread linked in notice at top of page and posted there instead, oops.

So, even though cross-posting is a no-no, reposting here since it's apparently where it belongs. And, my apologies if this has already been gone over repeatedly, I havent read the thread yet.

--- post I posted on the other thread ---
Like others, my concerns about classifying as tobacco products will lead to banning of use and high tobacco taxes.

For example, some colleges and businesses have banned the use of ALL tobacco products (whether it be skoal, cigs, snus, etc) on the premises. And we've all seen how they've gone crazy with taxes on tobacco...

Personally, I think it should be in its own category or in health supplements, along with caffeine tablets and energy drinks.

edit to add -

And, as a tobacco product the vendor would have to go through the ATF hoops. Plus, there's that whole "ban on internet sales of tobacco products" isssue. Also, as a tobacco product, vendors would have to obtain tobacco retail licenses from their state as well, which isnt a huge thing, but at the same time... Ie: in Oklahoma, if you get a tobacco retail license you give up your right to a search warrant being required before they can come in and search your home (even if retail license is for your brick and mortar store). And, even if youre not doing anything illegal, there are many things that can be twisted into being illegal. For example, if you have a box of sudafed (legal), a can of paint thinner (legal), and some tincture of iodine (legal), that's enough to be arrested over because those are 3 things used in illegal .... labs.

So, there are many aspects that come into play if it becomes classified as a tobacco product rather than a supplement.

 

[Oliver]

A little list of facts (because they clearly need repeating):

1. The nicotine in e-liquid is derived from tobacco via extraction.

2. Therefore, as stipulated by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA), e-liquid is a tobacco product.

3. Under the FSPTCA, the FDA now regulates tobacco products.

4. The FDA is trying to regulate e-cigs as a drug (which, if they are successful, will remove e-cigs from the market)

5. In his ruling, Judge Leon stated that the FDA was pursuing the incorrect regulatory path (although the ruling itself was simply an injunction against the embargo).

6. The FDA are still going to argue that e-cigs are a drug delivery device.

I presume it will take another court case to force the issue with the FDA? Who will be paying for this court case? Is it conceivable that any further court case will bankrupt the claimant? We already know that Smoking Everywhere has had some issues. Njoy's financial status is anyone's guess. If there are no companies left to fund this case against the FDA, we've lost.

The AAPHP petition should be supported by all vapers who want to continue to be able to purchase their supplies legally. Relying on privately funded court cases against the FDA is fine as far as it goes, but at some point the money may run out and then we are screwed - the FDA wins by default. If the FDA changes it's regulatory position, we can move forward and have the real debates about ingredients etc (the one that most e-smokers would benefit from).

Maxx, River, unperson etc, I just don't know what else you are proposing. I really don't - surely you can see that the issue has already been forced?

 

[Oliver]

Outwest - with respect, the issue is already there, I really can't see a third option right now. This petition is just asking the FDA to change its own stance.

Can anyone tell me how getting the FDA to change its own stance leaves vapers in a worse position?

Again, if the FDA wins and is allowed to regulate e-cigs as drugs, they've won - e-cigs are gone. If they stop trying to, there's a posibility that we can argue the case on it's own true merits.

 

[Oliver]

One final point - would those against asking the FDA to change their regulatory position at least comment on the second petition, demanding that they retract their misleading public statements last year.

Thanks,
SJ

 

[DC2]

Maxx, River, unperson etc, I just don't know what else you are proposing. I really don't - surely you can see that the issue has already been forced?

Maxx and Unperson haven't proposed anything.

River has proposed allowing them to become drug delivery devices so that they will be removed from the market, at which point we can all rise up and fight for something. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what we would be fighting for at that point. I suppose we would be fighting to have them NOT be classified as drug delivery devices and ALSO not be classified as tobacco products.

My guess is our best bet would be to fight for nicotine to be treated the same as caffeine is treated. Unfortunately, not only is that never going to happen, but the current trend is heading in exactly the opposite direction. It is clear from recent research that the efforts to demonize nicotine are already well underway.

 

[telsie]

The FDA has already stated it does not have jurisdiction over e-cigs as tobacco products since they don't contain tobacco. It says it has jurisdiction because they are used to treat nicotine withdrawal and as such are a drug and delivery system.
The judge suggested the FDA treat them in a manner similar to tobacco products.

Wait, is that true? The FDA would not have control over e-cigs if they were classified as tobacco products? If that's the case, it changes everything. I still don't like the idea of lumping e-cigs in with evil tobacco, but if it would prevent the FDA from messing with it, I would be willing to sign the petition. Can I get some verification on that?

Like others, my concerns about classifying as tobacco products will lead to banning of use and high tobacco taxes.

For example, some colleges and businesses have banned the use of ALL tobacco products (whether it be skoal, cigs, snus, etc) on the premises. And we've all seen how they've gone crazy with taxes on tobacco...

Personally, I think it should be in its own category or in health supplements, along with caffeine tablets and energy drinks.

I agree. That's the kind of classification I think e-cigs should have too — something like a dietary supplement (like herbal remedies, vitamins, etc). Whether that's even possible depends on what jurisdiction the FDA has over nicotine itself. It's a very confusing issue and I can't find any clear info on it. I think the situation is that the FDA can regulate nicotine products that make health claims and they can regulate the nicotine levels in tobacco products. Since the e-cig is neither, then I really think we should be fighting against regulation, not for a different classification of regulation.

Outwest - with respect, the issue is already there, I really can't see a third option right now. This petition is just asking the FDA to change its own stance.

Can anyone tell me how getting the FDA to change its own stance leaves vapers in a worse position?

Again, if the FDA wins and is allowed to regulate e-cigs as drugs, they've won - e-cigs are gone. If they stop trying to, there's a posibility that we can argue the case on it's own true merits.

See what Outwest said (and I agreed with) above. Why not try to get e-cigs left alone — treated the same way as herbal remedies and supplements that require no FDA regulation? In other words, fight regulation instead of fighting to change the regulation.

I think at most, I'd be willing to go along with the idea of having e-liquids that contain nicotine and prefilled carts that contain nicotine classified as tobacco products (under the umbrella of anything that's derived from tobacco is a tobacco product). But zero strength carts/liquids and the device itself, absolutely not. If we really want to fight the FDA, why not break it down like that?

The device itself is not a tobacco product, nor does it have to be used with a tobacco product. Calling an e-cig a tobacco product is like calling a shot glass an alcohol product or a lighter a tobacco product.

 

[Unperson]

Maxx, River, unperson etc, I just don't know what else you are proposing. I really don't - surely you can see that the issue has already been forced?

Maxx and Unperson haven't proposed anything.

Umm, I did make a point. Specifically, I think trying to rush the FDA to move quicker in a direction we don't want it to go in the first place is a BIG mistake.

I'm not a ...... I know what is going on here. I see what people are trying to accomplish. I'm simply mired with incredulity. Why? No matter how you word it, we're ASKING the FDA to take this in a direction we truly don't want it to go. We're not asking for help, we're asking them to hurt us less. Please tell me that someone else sees the lunacy associated with this entire petition / thread / discussion. No? Well then, let me see if I can get this straight...

Many people in this thread are trying to get the FDA to budge on a stance they've already taken, but haven't officially succeeded at maintaining. To do so, they are going to try to collect as many people together to sign something they can show the FDA to bolster their argument. In other words, a petition.

By this act, many here believe they have the power to invoke change. Specifically, the power to alter the direction a government agency is currently moving in. Is it possible to break bureaucratic inertia? Yes; it has been done. Are the individuals here likely to win this battle? I don't think so, but let's proceed with the notion that they will.

Okay, people here want change, they are willing to create a petition, pour their energy into seeing it through, rally the troupes, and then lob it at the FDA. Ergo, people here feel they have a voice, power, and capability. Why, then, are they not using it to invoke a change that really matters, such as.. ..Oh, I don't know.. ..getting the FDA to back off from both stances. Answer (from others in this post): Well, we have power, but not THAT much power.

So, everyone here thinks they can make a difference, but not a big enough one for a perfect outcome. Then is this really an effective use of our efforts? Taking a bad win because an ideal one is unlikely? In a previous post, I made the analogy that this petition is similar to individuals on the top floors of a building that is on fire and they are jumping to their deaths to avoid the fire hours before the flames will even reach them. I still believe that is an accurate assessment.

Fine, let's roll with we (here at ECF) are "marginally" effective, but can't win a war by ourselves. How about:

1. Create a petition that will request respected educational, medical, and scientific institutions and agencies to conduct unbiased studies that will show how much better e-cigs are than analog tobacco. Create THAT and I'll sign.

2. Lobby against agencies that are basing decisions simply on the flawed reports the FDA are putting out. Have someone here with strong legal skills rip apart the FDA's claims and expose them in an irrefutable manner and then present them to the world for the "complete crap" (that's lawyer speak for "incomprehensibly incomprehensible") that they are.

Send this eye opening piece of literature to every single group, organization, governmental agency that has ever chimed in or commented on the e-cig debate. Send it to CNN, ABC, Reuters, API, etc.. Send it to the American Lung Institute, the American Cancer Society, and other "anti-you-and-me" groups. Hell, send it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I hear the guy that lives there has been known to spark up. He might dig e-cigs.

Post this "Allegory of FDA Incompetence" on every web-site. Make it the opening mantra of all your blogs. Put meta tags in place and "bot hit" it so it appears on Google, Yahoo, etc.. Make YouTube vids of you reading it out loud and name it "two girls and a cup of e-liquid." Go viral!

3. Find other groups that may want to rally with us. I've seen small groups pop up that seem to favor e-cigs such as celebrities, small town television news reports, other forums, etc. but they all go silent the second the FDA bangs the gong. Find all these groups and network them. Many people are willing to revolt if they think there's another army over the hill that will back them up if the siege goes sour. Don't just limit yourself to the U.S.A., take the search globally.

...

What's my point? What's my proposal? How about instead of taking actions that don't really produce ideal change and instead ask for a "let's shoot our left foot so we don't loose our right foot" outcome, we use our energies to go in a direction that might actually produce better results.

I'm sorry to say this in a blunt manner, but the FDA doesn't care what you think. Do you really think some guy with a tie is sitting behind a desk worrying that a minority group (e-cig) of a minority group (smokers) is upset with them? Unlikely. Especially when he has 80% of America (non-smokers), the authority of the U.S. government, many top medical organizations, AND some real heavy hitters in big business on his side. Sorry, but this petition is going to end with Goliath bending David over a rock and... well, let's leave it there.

Want to address the FDA's poor findings and their attack on our life-saving alternative. Use your collective energies to build a better army and then use that army to show everyone with a set of eyes and ears that the FDA needs to be knocked down a peg or two.

...

Strive to make a change that matters; point your lance at the real demon instead of the windmill standing next to it; ask me to have your back while you present a strong front: Do any of those and I'm in!

Ask me to support this petition or at the very least concede to it's goal. Sorry, no can do.

 

[(So) Jersey Girl]

Wait, is that true? The FDA would not have control over e-cigs if they were classified as tobacco products? If that's the case, it changes everything. I still don't like the idea of lumping e-cigs in with evil tobacco, but if it would prevent the FDA from messing with it, I would be willing to sign the petition. Can I get some verification on that?

No, this is not true. The new tobacco control act gives the FDA authority to regulate cigarettes and tobacco products. The FDA has classified e-cigs as a drug/drug delivery device subject to more stringent approval process. If this classification stands, e-cigs will be banned until they undergo extensive (and expensive) testing and IF approved will most likely be sold as drugs available by prescription only. If they are classified as tobacco products, they remain available on the market.

 

[Mister]

Unperson, your analogies to jumping off vs. staying on a burning building, to shooting one foot vs. the other, don't ring true to me even in your own lengthy description of the situation.

I think a more accurate analogy is of you trying to stay afloat in the middle of the ocean, seeing a lifeboat go by, and saying no thank you, I'll wait for a cruise ship.

 

[Unperson]

Wait, is that true? The FDA would not have control over e-cigs if they were classified as tobacco products? If that's the case, it changes everything. I still don't like the idea of lumping e-cigs in with evil tobacco, but if it would prevent the FDA from messing with it, I would be willing to sign the petition. Can I get some verification on that?

Technically, e-cigs aren't cigarettes. The correct terminology for them is either "personal vaporizer" or "nicotine inhaler" The reason e-cig is widely used is because many people first learning about them will relate to "electronic cigarette" more than vaporizer or inhaler. From a selling standpoint, many need to make their products easier to find.

The device itself is not a tobacco product, nor does it have to be used with a tobacco product. Calling an e-cig a tobacco product is like calling a shot glass an alcohol product or a lighter a tobacco product.

I agree. I made a reference to head shops that sell pipes and rolling papers even though the intended missing ingredient is illegal (shh). I also brought up how nicotine is horrible, but caffiene pills (No-Doz) and Bacardi 151 are okay. What a strange little planet I'm stuck on.

 

[Unperson]

Unperson, your analogies to jumping off vs. staying on a burning building, to shooting one foot vs. the other, don't ring true to me even in your own lengthy description of the situation.

I think a more accurate analogy is of you trying to stay afloat in the middle of the ocean, seeing a lifeboat go by, and saying no thank you, I'll wait for a cruise ship.

If you're paddling the lifeboat.. ..I'll wait for the Love Boat.

 

[kristin]

Buy a large quantity of e-liquid, as many spare batteries and attys as you can comfortably afford, and store them in a cool, dry, dark area of your house.

Great. That helps you and current vapers, but what about the millions of smokers who haven't even discovered ecigs yet?

You realize the highlighted part is fertile ground for anti-e-cig lobbyists to use as ammo against us, right?

No, it's not. Ecigs do NOT contain any tobacco leaves - which this specifies.

This does not, however, translate into "they are already classified as drug-delivery devices". They are currently in limbo and non-classified, and only await various legal maneuvers for final classification.

The only reason some of us see it as "already under FDA control" is because of the FDA's political and financial arm-twisting strength to buttress their position that "it ought to be a drug-delivery device".

They have the power, given to them by congress, to classify them any way they wish. We can't change that! They will consider two options - a drug delivery device or tobacco product. We are lobbying for "tobacco product" over "drug."

They are NOT in limbo. The FDA has declared them drug delivery devices and are requiring appropriate clinical trials and standards. Smoking Everywhere and Njoy are contesting that in court, but they have not won yet.

Personally, I think it should be in its own category or in health supplements, along with caffeine tablets and energy drinks.

edit to add -

And, as a tobacco product the vendor would have to go through the ATF hoops. Plus, there's that whole "ban on internet sales of tobacco products" isssue. Also, as a tobacco product, vendors would have to obtain tobacco retail licenses from their state as well, which isnt a huge thing, but at the same time... Ie: in Oklahoma, if you get a tobacco retail license you give up your right to a search warrant being required before they can come in and search your home (even if retail license is for your brick and mortar store). And, even if youre not doing anything illegal, there are many things that can be twisted into being illegal. For example, if you have a box of sudafed (legal), a can of paint thinner (legal), and some tincture of iodine (legal), that's enough to be arrested over because those are 3 things used in illegal .... labs.

So, there are many aspects that come into play if it becomes classified as a tobacco product rather than a supplement.

The FDA will not give us a third option - you have only the two to choose from - tobacco product or drug.

If they are a drug, they will no longer be legally available. All of the current vendors will be put out of business. They will remain off the market until some big pharma company pays for the clinical trials, gets a monopoly and puts them on the market at 10mg carts for $1 per cart. 3X the cost of a cigarette. We will have no competition to keep prices down and no way to lobby for more effective, affordable ecigs.

As a tobacco product, they will automatically be banned for sale to minors - which will get the "save the kids" antis off our backs. They may be taxes and require a license, but the taxes will be tolerable compared to drug prices and a license, requiring standards, is not exactly a bad thing for vapers.

We will also have an open door to lobby for creating a new tobacco product category - "reduced harm." Once we get that created, we can lobby that ecig be put into that category and for the allowence of effective nicotine levels, appealing flavors and tax breaks.

Wait, is that true? The FDA would not have control over e-cigs if they were classified as tobacco products? If that's the case, it changes everything. I still don't like the idea of lumping e-cigs in with evil tobacco, but if it would prevent the FDA from messing with it, I would be willing to sign the petition. Can I get some verification on that?

I agree. That's the kind of classification I think e-cigs should have too — something like a dietary supplement (like herbal remedies, vitamins, etc). Whether that's even possible depends on what jurisdiction the FDA has over nicotine itself.

See what Outwest said (and I agreed with) above. Why not try to get e-cigs left alone — treated the same way as herbal remedies and supplements that require no FDA regulation? In other words, fight regulation instead of fighting to change the regulation.

1. No, that isn't true. The new law gives the FDA LIMITED control over tobacco. They can't regulate tobacco products as strictly as they can regulate drugs.

2. They have complete control over nicotine that is NOT in tobacco products. The new law explicitly denies them the power to regulate nicotine in tobacco products.

3. There is no time. The FDA has already declared them drugs. If we waste time fighting for a new classification, instead of getting them into the safer tobacco product group, we will lose all FUTURE chances to get that third classification.

Umm, I did make a point. Specifically, I think trying to rush the FDA to move quicker in a direction we don't want it to go in the first place is a BIG mistake.

Strive to make a change that matters; point your lance at the real demon instead of the windmill standing next to it; ask me to have your back while you present a strong front: Do any of those and I'm in!

This is completely backwards. WE aren't rushing the FDA, we are asking THEM to slow down and reconsider the decision they have already made.

What you people don't get is that the FDA has already decided that these are drug delivery devices. No matter what we say, the FDA has regulation over these and they will only consider TWO options - tobacco product or drug. We can try to lobby for a third option, but they will not wait for that to be decided. While we would be fighting for the third option, they will continue to treat these as drugs and will remove them from the market.

Our only hope of getting these into a third category, is to have them declared tobacco products and THEN work to have them catergorized as reduced harm tobacco products, which would alieviate much of the burden they would have as regular tobacco products.

Having them treated as tobacco products now is a STALL on our part to lobby for the third category.

To start fighting for a third category - without protecting them in the meantime - is like leaving your kids in a house fire while you leave to get the extinguisher. You get your kids to safety FIRST and then fight the fire.

We can't fight that battle yet. While we are occupied with it - and it could take YEARS - the FDA will not wait for us. They will simply continue to ascertain it is a drug and move forward with stopping exports and requiring clinical trials and drug safety standards and remove it from the market. Then, the whole time we are fighting for that third category, ecigs will be off the market. At least, as a tobacco product, they will remain on the market while we fight for that third category.

 

[Unperson]

Great. That helps you and current vapers, but what about the millions of smokers who haven't even discovered ecigs yet?

It helps the people currently reading this and it's sound advice regardless of which way the coin lands. Since when is having a backup a bad thing? You can dismiss this as "bomb shelter rhetoric" but even the boy scouts know.. .."Be Prepared!"

We can't fight that battle yet...

Since neither one of us is likely to get through to the other, I'll do you a favor and stop commenting in your thread. Proceed as you see fit. I wrote what I felt was necessary and provided my views (which is my right) and you argued them (which is your right).

...

Meanders out of the thread mumbling, "What was that about hats again?"

Segue "The Crimson Permanent Assurance"

...

 

[Mr_Phil]

After reading and re-reading every post of this and the other thread....

And, after reading and digesting almost every informational link contained in both threads.....

After mentioning that this is as much a civil liberties issue as anything else...

I've come to the conclusion that stockpiling is going to be needed. My ultimate philosophy is to be rational and face/deal with reality. I see a huge catfight in the future complete with blood and guts as well as rants and raves. So in addition to rational thought a bit of pragmatism is called for.

Is there a thread on how to make your own nic juice? I don't mean buying nic laden juice and then flavoring it. I mean is the process of extracting the chemical nicotine and uh "juicing" it spelled out somewhere? I cannot personally afford to purchase fifty batts, fifty attys, and then two years supply of juice that will expire....

Oh, and hire the attorney to initiate the class action lawsuit to fight the inevitable bans and unfair market practices that are on the way.

 

[Mister]

Is there a thread on how to make your own nic juice? I don't mean buying nic laden juice and then flavoring it. I mean is the process of extracting the chemical nicotine and uh "juicing" it spelled out somewhere?

Sorry, no there isn't. There are a number of threads which are about various experiments in this regard, none of which produce anything actually useful. There are quite a few web sites which detail how to extract nicotine from tobacco. Some are simply wrong, some will yield a thick goo which will clog attys, and some will work fine. The ones which work fine require the use of dangerous and volatile chemicals and should not be undertaken by anyone without appropriate training and equipment. I keep hoping some chemist will discover a simpler home method but there isn't one yet and we therefore don't even know if it is possible.

 

[miss MiA]

Be sure to keep kristin's statement in red below together with her ending ones that follow it. What do you think the chances are that the new movement of which some speak would be able to reclaim the ecig concept from BP (or even BT) once ecigs are officially banned and illegal and have been handed to them on a silver platter (to years later be developed into a crap product that none of us would want or could afford regularly anyway)?

If they are a drug, they will no longer be legally available. All of the current vendors will be put out of business. They will remain off the market until some big pharma company pays for the clinical trials, gets a monopoly and puts them on the market at 10mg carts for $1 per cart. 3X the cost of a cigarette. We will have no competition to keep prices down and no way to lobby for more effective, affordable ecigs. [...]

To start fighting for a third category - without protecting them in the meantime - is like leaving your kids in a house fire while you leave to get the extinguisher. You get your kids to safety FIRST and then fight the fire.

We can't fight that battle yet. While we are occupied with it - and it could take YEARS - the FDA will not wait for us. They will simply continue to ascertain it is a drug and move forward with stopping exports and requiring clinical trials and drug safety standards and remove it from the market. Then, the whole time we are fighting for that third category, ecigs will be off the market. At least, as a tobacco product, they will remain on the market while we fight for that third category.

=============================
As has been pointed out, drug paraphernalia currently available in head shops is not an accurate analogy for the argument that our hardware would still be available regardless. The law can and occasionally does sweep cities and confiscate inventories. Enforcement of that ability has just not been a priority. But with ecig hardware it surely would be, as magnitudes more precious blood money for BP, BT and the gov would be at stake in loss of those sales, than it currently is for pot, crack and .....

There's also no point in continuing to ignore the fact that 'science' has already 'scientifically' demonized nic in several ways, not only for the user but for bystanders. And most of the world is readily getting on board with that. It won't be looked at or classified the way caffeine is, even if it should be (and we are in the mad rush of our lives here to try to beat the court verdict, no time to perfect every last thing just yet... and no current position of power from which to do so). Having evidence often counts for nothing, it frequently doesn't even get to see the light of day, since politicians; the media; group-think, peer-pressured doctors and researchers, etc. are so often wimps when it comes to giving voice to anything politically and socially unpopular.

There's probably little reason to think that 0 nic would get a green light either. Still plenty of reasons the FDA could use if they'd rather just get rid of this whole concept, which they would (for the current actors in it, anyway). Won't reinforce/reiterate them here but they do exist. Also remember that in countries where ecigs are already banned, it's often if not always been the whole nine yards, all software and hardware. (Yes there's DIY but I'm referring to the claim that ecigs would probably remain legal/readily available in no nic forms despite classification.)

The bottom line underneath all that is that it is not much about health and safety anyway, as I think we all do agree. Mainly money for BP, BT, the gov; (falsely) winning accolades from the uninformed public over how well they're being protected; pleasing special interest groups; and authoritarianism and societal control for its own sake. Etc. etc. They can find ways to screw with vaping on endless levels. But if it's a tobacco product at least it probably wouldn't be banned (as in made illegal) and inaccessible (legally).

Very speculative on this one but... Even given the hypothetical situation of PACT coming into play and ecigs & supplies not being available via Internet or mail order, I can't imagine that loads of local sellers wouldn't pop up... Of course everyone from entrepreneurs to mom and pops would want to get in on, or continue as they presently are on, a revolutionary new (and newly legal, i.e. safe to invest time and money in) market like this one. One which clearly holds vast and already demonstrated potential for a major boom. Ultimately market competition would probably result in good selections of products consumers liked best, and maybe some of our current industry stars would even have multiple locations and/or supply others. Seems like it wouldn't be a total loss if we could just run out to the store for vaping supplies as we always could for cigs...

Black market... too diverse of a subject in its own right to go into on this thread... So suffice to say, some toss it around like it would be nothing to just use that instead, but for many reasons that's just not an accurate portrayal. It's also not unrealistic that criminal penalties might end up attached to ecigs & related on all ends (especially considering the 'jeopardy' to current and future profits for BP, BT & the gov, including once the ecig concept has been taken over and monopolized).

 

[JLeigh]

Kristin, don't think by my post here that I'm trying to debate with you. I'm just trying to understand everything and make the best decision.

Great. That helps you and current vapers, but what about the millions of smokers who haven't even discovered ecigs yet?

Valid point. However, with FDA regulating ecigs as a tobacco product, and with the impending advent of the PACT act (barring a miracle of sorts), I don't see how the millions of smokers will have a cost-effective and local way to get access to ecigs.

They are NOT in limbo. The FDA has declared them drug delivery devices and are requiring appropriate clinical trials and standards. Smoking Everywhere and Njoy are contesting that in court, but they have not won yet.

And we are still able to get them anyway. I realize, of course, that the final outcome of the court case has yet to be decided, but the FDA has been stopping shipments for quite some time. We the consumers are not, as yet, having much difficulty obtaining needed supplies --even though the FDA has declared them a drug-delivery device.

The FDA will not give us a third option - you have only the two to choose from - tobacco product or drug.

Because of the PACT act, I'm not, as yet, seeing a serious benefit to going down the tobacco products road. As YET.

If they are a drug, they will no longer be legally available. All of the current vendors will be put out of business. They will remain off the market until some big pharma company pays for the clinical trials, gets a monopoly and puts them on the market at 10mg carts for $1 per cart. 3X the cost of a cigarette. We will have no competition to keep prices down and no way to lobby for more effective, affordable ecigs.

Valid point. However, I imagine that if the ecigs become heavily regulated, many of these vendors will go out of business anyway --at least the ones who don't have much capital. Government regulation always costs the little guys more money than they can afford.

As a tobacco product, they will automatically be banned for sale to minors - which will get the "save the kids" antis off our backs. They may be taxes and require a license, but the taxes will be tolerable compared to drug prices and a license, requiring standards, is not exactly a bad thing for vapers.

We will never have the "save the kids antis" off our backs until recreational nicotine is made 100% illegal and wiped off the face of the earth. The more they get, the more they take. This is the same road we have all already been down with smoking. And where has it gotten us?

We will also have an open door to lobby for creating a new tobacco product category - "reduced harm." Once we get that created, we can lobby that ecig be put into that category and for the allowence of effective nicotine levels, appealing flavors and tax breaks.

That is a good goal to have, and one I am fully behind, but I'm sceptical that it could ever be pulled off --or not in the forseeable future, anyway. Tobacco taxes make up a tremendous amount of states revenue. Every time the smoking rate drops, some politician wants to raise the tobacco taxes. If massive amounts of smokers turn to ecigs, the states will lose millions, if not billions, in revenue. That won't work for them, of course, so they will try to recoup their losses by turning to heavy taxes on ecigs. Nicotine addicts are the favorites for excess taxation.


Anyway, these are my thoughts. I have valid concerns about going down this road, for reasons I have outlined above. However, I admit that I may be wrong about how all this will go down. I'm still going to be reading and digesting.

 

[Mr_Phil]

Is there a thread on how to make your own nic juice? I don't mean buying nic laden juice and then flavoring it. I mean is the process of extracting the chemical nicotine and uh "juicing" it spelled out somewhere? I cannot personally afford to purchase fifty batts, fifty attys, and then two years supply of juice that will expire....

Oh, and hire the attorney to initiate the class action lawsuit to fight the inevitable bans and unfair market practices that are on the way.

Sorry, no there isn't. There are a number of threads which are about various experiments in this regard, none of which produce anything actually useful. There are quite a few web sites which detail how to extract nicotine from tobacco. Some are simply wrong, some will yield a thick goo which will clog attys, and some will work fine. The ones which work fine require the use of dangerous and volatile chemicals and should not be undertaken by anyone without appropriate training and equipment. I keep hoping some chemist will discover a simpler home method but there isn't one yet and we therefore don't even know if it is possible.

Thanks. I was hoping that a response like this would come in. It demonstrates that allowing a "ban" is not a desirable option at this time. Rationally speaking, if you cannot get what you want, you fight for what you can get.

As much as I wish I could fight this on constitutional grounds, it isn't going to happen. Our right to do as we please free from the governments intrusion was rendered comatose about three generations ago. If the courts go with a literal definition of e-cig it will become a delivery device in the eyes of the law.

At that point unless you can extract nicotine ..... it is all over but reminiscing about the glory dayz.

 

[JustJulie]

I think the main problem we have is some people want to argue what they feel is a common sense approach. However, this isn't about common sense . . . if it were, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. If it were about common sense, PVs would be embraced by the government and health care professionals with open arms as a common sense approach to reducing harm associated with smoking.

Folks, this isn't about common sense. This is about the law and the current state of our regulatory environment. At this point, we have two choices: drug or tobacco. The people who have spent a great deal of time studying this issue will tell you that at this point in time, there is no third alternative, and that tobacco gives us our best fighting chance at keeping vaping legal and accessible for the foreseeable future.

While I have to admit that on some level I admire the idealism and passion that leads some people to want to pursue a course that rejects both pharma and tobacco, those arguments will ultimately fail because the laws of the U.S. simply are not set up to accommodate a third option.

 

[miss MiA]

So true, of course there are logical and passionate reasons why we don't like or trust this as a tobacco product either. But it keeps sounding as if some of the objectors are looking at it as if they are deciding whether to agree to something -- and I'm not talking about the petition, I'm talking about how far to 'let' the FDA and US gov go and how you'll 'let' them look at and treat ecigs. It sounds as if some think they're deciding whether or not to agree to a compromise with them, to concede this or that, because otherwise they can simply abstain/refuse and things will be left as they are, including whatever 'ease' we now have in obtaining our supplies.

That's not the case, we don't have the option of doing nothing and having things remain the same as they are now. The SE/Njoy court case is the only thing that slowed the FDA down and helped muddy definitions and enforcement. Now the case is about to commence. And if ecigs aren't found to be tobacco products they will be found to be drug devices (no third category or hands-off approach is going to be argued in that trial; it is one or the other, period), and banned/made officially illegal. Large fines and/or criminal penalties could follow. Do you think that meanwhile there's time and money to get together and actually make headway with some separate and by-necessity massive movement (that also includes the requisite scientifically and politically known and respected, connected leaders) demanding a third classification category instead?

The possibility of getting something that is at least currently still legal into a reduced harm or other third category from there, are much better than the chances of getting a banned, illegal (and very attractive to BP) product made legal again and commencing work on a third type of classification in that order. And if it were a tobacco product, it would also be much more likely to remain legal and accessible during any further testing towards reclassification or whatnot.