FDA Congress can stop this thing?

[Sirius]

With the revised GDP, the economy has shrunk another 1%. Is the present administration worried about that? I think not. They have better things to worry about such as global warming. No worries though, the president will get the military to fight global warming per his West Point address this week.
One would think the Congress and Senate would agree that superficial legislation that limits manufacturers from making new products for consumers is not a good idea. But those legislations exist none the less. I would hope everyone would tire of this so the ball would get rolling that would bring new jobs instead of outsourcing.
It would make too much sense to just leave ecig vendors alone to do business here in the US, but by all means write your senators with this point. I am a vaper and I vote!
I have ended all my emails to senators in that manner. Thanks OP for the thread. I won't be posting here much because the opportunity to bash the present political powers now controlling the Senate is much to great.

For the first time in three years, the American economy contracted over the course of a quarter. In the interim report on GDP, the BEA estimates that the US economy shrunk by a full point in 2014 Q1, a downward revision of the advance estimate of 0.1% growth:

Real gross domestic product — the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States — decreased at an annual rate of 1.0 percent in the first quarter according to the “second” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter, real GDP increased 2.6 percent.

<...>

Source:
Boom: Q1 GDP revised downward to -1.0% « Hot Air

 

[wv2win]

I nominate Senator Burr.

Can we get a second to the motion?

Jman, I believe you are referring to my comment. I do not have the time right now to explain why I made that statement, but intend to do so this weekend. I had a conversation with a Senate Legislative Assistant on our issue. I just don't have the time to go into detail at the moment.

 

[Stosh]

Influencing congress, or having them stop the FDA is a great idea, and would help. As a solution it may leave a lot to be desired.

We have a legislative branch that would agree that "the sun rises in the west and sets in the east" or "Pi = 3.00" science be damned if it will get themselves reelected. A 3-5% change in an election cycle is a landslide, incumbents have less chance of losing their jobs than most Americans.

We are trying to influence a group who live and die by opinion polls, and the polls list the most important issues are, Economy, Job creation, Health care, Gov. spending, Education, Social Security, Gov. ethics and corruption, Taxes. Where might vaping regulations fit into the list as a vital issue. You just have to look at the attendance for the last Senate hearing, even senators whose constituents would be directly effected didn't show.

The ANTZ have been somewhat successful in framing the issue as "saving the children". A blurb in a campaign mailer, flyer or 60 second spot commercial about how "I'm fighting to save the children" is irresistible to politicians. And support for vaping can be attributed in error to "supporting smoking", "addicting the children", "in bed with the tobacco companies", truth seldom wins the day in what is portrayed in the media.

I'm very afraid that we are going to win or lose in the hands of the bureaucrats or the courts, and the courts would be a long protracted war.

 

[Sirius]

Influencing congress, or having them stop the FDA is a great idea, and would help. As a solution it may leave a lot to be desired.

We have a legislative branch that would agree that "the sun rises in the west and sets in the east" or "Pi = 3.00" science be damned if it will get themselves reelected. A 3-5% change in an election cycle is a landslide, incumbents have less chance of losing their jobs than most Americans.

We are trying to influence a group who live and die by opinion polls, and the polls list the most important issues are, Economy, Job creation, Health care, Gov. spending, Education, Social Security, Gov. ethics and corruption, Taxes. Where might vaping regulations fit into the list as a vital issue. You just have to look at the attendance for the last Senate hearing, even senators whose constituents would be directly effected didn't show.

The ANTZ have been somewhat successful in framing the issue as "saving the children". A blurb in a campaign mailer, flyer or 60 second spot commercial about how "I'm fighting to save the children" is irresistible to politicians. And support for vaping can be attributed in error to "supporting smoking", "addicting the children", "in bed with the tobacco companies", truth seldom wins the day in what is portrayed in the media.

I'm very afraid that we are going to win or lose in the hands of the bureaucrats or the courts, and the courts would be a long protracted war.

The most truthful post that has been written on this subject that I have yet to read! TY Stosh!

 

[Myrany]

Maybe we need to start a "Save the Parents" campaign!

 

[DeeLeeKay]

Maybe we need to start a "Save the Parents" campaign!

This is "for the children" after all.

 

[Bobbilly]

Maybe what's needed is "if you are against vaping you are for tobacco. "

 

[Sirius]

Maybe what's needed is "if you are against vaping you are for tobacco. "

What is needed is for people to wise up and kick these fat cat politicians that have never so much as ran a hot dog stand out of office. Worry about fixing the economy first before anything else much less if vaping LOOKS like smoking! The rule should be, if you've never ran a business you have no business being in Congress or the Senate.
I fail to see what is expected of the current president that took on such a large corporation as The United States Of America, when he had absolutely no business in his background. Some thought he would do it by some natural talent beside just being cool. Or surrounding himself with other than yes men. People that would say,"No Mr. President, that wouldn't be the wise thing to do for the country."
Instead we have fat cats that got rich off of lobbyist money and kickbacks from BT and we are stuck with it. For now anyway.

 

[Jman8]

We have a legislative branch that would agree that "the sun rises in the west and sets in the east" or "Pi = 3.00" science be damned if it will get themselves reelected. A 3-5% change in an election cycle is a landslide, incumbents have less chance of losing their jobs than most Americans.

We also have a legislative branch that currently has an approval rating that is probably equal to BT.

We are trying to influence a group who live and die by opinion polls, and the polls list the most important issues are, Economy, Job creation, Health care, Gov. spending, Education, Social Security, Gov. ethics and corruption, Taxes. Where might vaping regulations fit into the list as a vital issue.

Vaping regulations fit in with: economy, job creation, health care, gov. ethics and corruption and taxes.

Vaping is not seen as a vital issue right now, but political winds blow fast. I don't see vaping ever being top 10, even while it may be top item in DC on a particular day. Yet, as long as smoking is huge deal (and still not even top 10 in scheme of things), vaping stands to have a platform with huge megaphone from which to speak. As long as "preventable deaths from smoking related illnesses" is #1 on that sort of list and touted up as #1 on that list, vaping has a megaphone.

The ANTZ have been somewhat successful in framing the issue as "saving the children". A blurb in a campaign mailer, flyer or 60 second spot commercial about how "I'm fighting to save the children" is irresistible to politicians. And support for vaping can be attributed in error to "supporting smoking", "addicting the children", "in bed with the tobacco companies", truth seldom wins the day in what is portrayed in the media.

Because currently national Dems are influencing the politics of regulations while Pubs are not. If Pubs entered into the debate (like Burr just did, along with Alexander) and stated a position and stuck to it, it could change things very dramatically.

I don't think anyone (intelligent) buys the "for the children" position. I'm pretty sure (politically aware) children don't even buy it. That's how pathetic that position is. All the items you have in quotes above would be rather easily dismissed if Dems had opposition at the national level. Could be other Dems as far as I'm concerned. But Pubs are more likely candidates and could easily bring distinction to smoking vs. vaping and sanity that pro-vapers are familiar with. Was hard to find much of anything where Burr was off base on what he was saying in the hearing, while easy to find comments where Harkin was off base.

 

[Bobbilly]

We also have a legislative branch that currently has an approval rating that is probably equal to BT.



Vaping regulations fit in with: economy, job creation, health care, gov. ethics and corruption and taxes.

Vaping is not seen as a vital issue right now, but political winds blow fast. I don't see vaping ever being top 10, even while it may be top item in DC on a particular day. Yet, as long as smoking is huge deal (and still not even top 10 in scheme of things), vaping stands to have a platform with huge megaphone from which to speak. As long as "preventable deaths from smoking related illnesses" is #1 on that sort of list and touted up as #1 on that list, vaping has a megaphone.

.

#1 preventable death is a news bit. Someone surely could commission studies if they wanted to regardless of whether it's deemed under the FDA. It's all about a frame of reference. The FDA can't be heavy handed until it's under their control and they see it as a threat.

I think a politician needs to stand up and find a body that can actually investigate it. Not as a tobacco product or a modified risk product but a product that can increase benefit of society.

 

[the_vape_nerd]

There is no such certainty and I don't believe anyone has ever said so. If they did, they're mistaken. What is more probable though, is if Sen. Alexander or Sen. Burr, for example, were the Chairman of the Senate Help committee, there might not have been the urgency to come up with the deeming doc and there may have been alterations of the grandfather date. When the majority side sends letters to the FDA, it means something more to those who have to carry out laws that are made by that body.

didn't the OP open up with this? That it was a near certainty? In the first post?

 

[Jman8]

didn't the OP open up with this? That it was a near certainty? In the first post?

As OP, I can say that it is there, and that I've either heard Bill G. state this or imply it.

 

[Kent C]

didn't the OP open up with this? That it was a near certainty? In the first post?

Ok wv2win commenting on the WHO article that said a change in Europe is making a difference and he commented that "almost assuredly" the same would happen here if such a change was made in the senate. "Almost assuredly" isn't certainty but in this thread, the OP jman questions this with the title of the thread and "I'd like to have that explained. Pretty sure anyone can do so, but the "almost assuredly stop" language is of high interest." So it isn't like he was 'asserting certainty'.

And I'll just go back to my post to you - that the probability is greater. I could go into the politics and history (and the exceptions and the reasons for the exceptions), but when you have 8-12 Dem. Senators (and no Republicans) sending a letter to the FDA demanding action to highly regulate ecigarettes, that should tell something.

 

[Kent C]

As OP, I can say that it is there, and that I've either heard Bill G. state this or imply it.

Again, not absolute certainty... much less than that:

Bill G
"Also, if Republicans take over the US Senate later this year, the chances of Obama's FDA issuing a Final Rule on the deeming reg (and many other regs proposed by Obama agencies) will greatly diminish."

... but see the rest of the post...#28:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-cig-industry-big-tobacco-3.html#post12959615

 

[Jman8]

Again, not absolute certainty...

Agreed that this wasn't stated, nor would anyone argue for that.

I would say there is high degree of confidence in that as #1 approach going forward that makes most sense to that type of politically aware vaper.

Would be interesting to list all the options going forward (even the pessimistic ones) and then obtain a sort of consensus on what vaping community (here on ECF) feels most confident with.

I am currently most confident on moving the grandfather date, but do not see that as anything approaching absolute certainty that it will occur.

 

[bigdancehawk]

E-cigarettes are being lumped together with "light" and "reduced tar" cigarettes as harm reduction products. It appears, to me at least, that these analog cigarettes are what the enabling legislation was crafted to target. I doubt there was much, if any, consideration given to e-cigarettes in the hearings and discussions leading up to enactment, as at the time the industry was in its infancy, usage was not widespread, and not much was known. I haven't read the entire statute, but I don't believe e-cigarettes are even mentioned, whereas "light" and "low tar" cigarettes are mentioned specifically and, in fact, targeted for rigorous regulation.

This language is taken from the statute, some of which I've bolded:

(36)It is essential that the Food and Drug Administration review products sold or distributed for use to reduce risks or exposures associated with tobacco products and that it be empowered to review any advertising and labeling for such products. It is also essential that manufacturers, prior to marketing such products, be required to demonstrate that such products will meet a series of rigorous criteria, and will benefit the health of the population as a whole, taking into account both users of tobacco products and persons who do not currently use tobacco products.
(37)Unless tobacco products that purport to reduce the risks to the public of tobacco use actually reduce such risks, those products can cause substantial harm to the public health to the extent that the individuals, who would otherwise not consume tobacco products or would consume such products less, use tobacco products purporting to reduce risk. Those who use products sold or distributed as modified risk products that do not in fact reduce risk, rather than quitting or reducing their use of tobacco products, have a substantially increased likelihood of suffering disability and premature death. The costs to society of the widespread use of products sold or distributed as modified risk products that do not in fact reduce risk or that increase risk include thousands of unnecessary deaths and injuries and huge costs to our health care system.
(38)As the National Cancer Institute has found, many smokers mistakenly believe that low tar and light cigarettes cause fewer health problems than other cigarettes. As the National Cancer Institute has also found, mistaken beliefs about the health consequences of smoking low tar and light cigarettes can reduce the motivation to quit smoking entirely and thereby lead to disease and death.
(39)Recent studies have demonstrated that there has been no reduction in risk on a population-wide basis from low tar and light cigarettes, and such products may actually increase the risk of tobacco use.
(40)The dangers of products sold or distributed as modified risk tobacco products that do not in fact reduce risk are so high that there is a compelling governmental interest in ensuring that statements about modified risk tobacco products are complete, accurate, and relate to the overall disease risk of the product.
(41)As the Federal Trade Commission has found, consumers have misinterpreted advertisements in which one product is claimed to be less harmful than a comparable product, even in the presence of disclosures and advisories intended to provide clarification.
(42)Permitting manufacturers to make unsubstantiated statements concerning modified risk tobacco products, whether express or implied, even if accompanied by disclaimers would be detrimental to the public health.
(43)The only way to effectively protect the public health from the dangers of unsubstantiated modified risk tobacco products is to empower the Food and Drug Administration to require that products that tobacco manufacturers sold or distributed for risk reduction be reviewed in advance of marketing, and to require that the evidence relied on to support claims be fully verified.

 

[Sirius]

Well so far so good on the debate. Unlike most places where I a Libertarian,(no not Republican with libertarian views) but a member of the party, does not get shut down by Dems and Repubs with typical, (well you are for almost anything as long as government stays out of your life ) type comments. Kudos to all.
BTW on the FDA deeming regulations, I guess some here would agree with me. Get out and stay out of our vaping lives.

 

[Stosh]

We also have a legislative branch that currently has an approval rating that is probably equal to BT.

Yet the vast majority will be reelected in landslides. Such polls are bogus, half are answering congress sucks because the "other side" won't surrender to what their side wants....

Vaping regulations fit in with: economy, job creation, health care, gov. ethics and corruption and taxes.

Vaping is not seen as a vital issue right now, but political winds blow fast. I don't see vaping ever being top 10,

If you're not in the top 10, you're not worth a line in a political commercial, you're a nice fringe group to pat on the head and recite banalities to...

Because currently national Dems are influencing the politics of regulations while Pubs are not. If Pubs entered into the debate (like Burr just did, along with Alexander) and stated a position and stuck to it, it could change things very dramatically.

Neither side has spent much time on vaping, other than to "save the children" or "save the tobacco farmers"

I don't think anyone (intelligent) buys the "for the children" position. I'm pretty sure (politically aware) children don't even buy it. That's how pathetic that position is.

You mistake intelligence with the average voter, the two don't equate.

Was hard to find much of anything where Burr was off base on what he was saying in the hearing, while easy to find comments where Harkin was off base.

To an intelligent voter who read the science, no contest. How many do you figure will read the 214 pages of the deeming regulations, or the many studies, and research who did the study, why they did the study, who paid for the study, etc....(sometimes ECF is the perfect Ivory Tower)

"VOTE for Senator Doofus, I saved the children" in a 30 second spot largely determines our representatives. Not saying it's right, just the reality we are living under.

 

[Sirius]

Neither side has spent much time on vaping, other than to "save the children" or "save the tobacco farmers"

You mistake intelligence with the average voter, the two don't equate.

To an intelligent voter who read the science, no contest. How many do you figure will read the 214 pages of the deeming regulations, or the many studies, and research who did the study, why they did the study, who paid for the study, etc....(sometimes ECF is the perfect Ivory Tower)

"VOTE for Senator Doofus, I saved the children" in a 30 second spot largely determines our representatives. Not saying it's right, just the reality we are living under.

My sentiments exactly..what a fine Libertarian you would make Stosh! Jk No matter the political party, sound wise comments all.

 

[Sirius]

Most voters don't even know who their county and states representatives are, much less their voting records. I swear this has to be the most politically uninformed voting age generation in all of voting history!