Contact the FDA - Before December 28th!!
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- revolution
- Status
To all members - if you feel writing to the FDA is a waste of time, then by all means, don't bother.
However, please save your comments for another thread.
This thread is for anyone who does wish to be proactive and to discuss ways in which they can contribute to the public comments submissions that are open for the next few days.
All off topic threads will be deleted. All off-topic posts written prior to this post are being moved to another thread in the campaigning forum.
I am not censoring you - I'm happy for you to have your say elsewhere, but this thread needs to stay on topic.
Thanks,
SJ
However, please save your comments for another thread.
This thread is for anyone who does wish to be proactive and to discuss ways in which they can contribute to the public comments submissions that are open for the next few days.
All off topic threads will be deleted. All off-topic posts written prior to this post are being moved to another thread in the campaigning forum.
I am not censoring you - I'm happy for you to have your say elsewhere, but this thread needs to stay on topic.
Thanks,
SJ
I'm confused also, didn't the FDA already approve all parts of e-juice? Lets see, there's #1) DISTILLED WATER (I'm pretty sure that they are still OK with water being safe) #2) CANDY FLAVORING (What could be sweeter) #3) GLYCERIN (Approved, and in everything) #4) THE BIGGIE!! NICOTINE (Just ask Phillip Morris, if Nicotine has been approved by the FDA)[COLOR="red"WHY IS THE FDA BEING ASKED TO EVALUATE PRODUCTS THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY MADE A DECISION ON!![/COLOR]
I'm confused also, didn't the FDA already approve all parts of e-juice? Lets see, there's #1) DISTILLED WATER (I'm pretty sure that they are still OK with water being safe) #2) CANDY FLAVORING (What could be sweeter) #3) GLYCERIN (Approved, and in everything) #4) THE BIGGIE!! NICOTINE (Just ask Phillip Morris, if Nicotine has been approved by the FDA)WHY IS THE FDA BEING ASKED TO EVALUATE PRODUCTS THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY MADE A DECISION ON!![/COLOR]
Done, again 
I discussed all the policy options suggested in my comment, except for the flavoring ban.
Most people don't know how to make their own e-liquid, and I can't believe e-cigs would be as successful without the flavors we all love! They'd just turn back to analogues after getting sick of the tobacco flavors.
I discussed all the policy options suggested in my comment, except for the flavoring ban.
Most people don't know how to make their own e-liquid, and I can't believe e-cigs would be as successful without the flavors we all love! They'd just turn back to analogues after getting sick of the tobacco flavors.
Draft of my submission follows, attempting to avoid certain key words and phrases. (Couldn't think how to avoid "cessation" so i qualified it.)
Do we have a reasonable estimate of how many PV users there are in the U.S. of A?
----------
If you could make one person's life a bit better, a bit healthier, a bit longer, would it not enhance your own life to know that you've done a good thing? And if you could SAVE one person's life, would it not be the crowning achievement of yours? Each and every human life is precious beyond measure, to the person living it and to his or her loved ones.
I'm writing to you because you have the opportunity to enhance THOUSANDS of lives immediately, and over time your decisions now could possibly save MILLIONS of lives.
You can do this by ensuring the continued availability and affordability of personal vaporizers, otherwise known as e-cigarettes. You have the evidence before you to do so with reasonable confidence that these devices are right now affording thousands of former smokers a viable alternative to smoking at greatly reduced risk and with results (in terms of improved health) nearly equivalent to smoking cessation.
I understand your mandate to protect the public health, and i understand that personal vaporizers have yet to be fully vetted. But your Request for Comments specifically asks about possibilities for reduced harm products, and by all indications this product is the single most effective means ever devised for harm reduction. Thousands or perhaps millions of lives are being enhanced right now because of this miracle of technology and innovation, and it would be a tragedy beyond measure if this device were withheld. Again all indications to this date are that personal vaporizers are the very essence of harm reduction and far more effective than any alternatives at getting people to stop smoking.
Please proceed with your investigations of this product, and please implement whatever safeguards you deem appropriate to protect the public health. But just because you may have the authority or means to ban this product does not mean that you have to do so and it certainly doesn't mean that you should. At minimum, we can say with confidence that far more good than harm is being done, and this good should continue while regulations and such are being formulated. On the other hand to deprive thousands of former smokers of this life-altering miracle would be an unspeakable catastrophe on both a personal and social level.
I smoked cigarettes for forty years, until the day I purchased my personal vaporizer. I am cognizant that it is probably not risk-free but I'm also aware that nothing is. From my research and personal experience I would not hesitate to recommend this product to anyone, including my loved ones for whom I also carry a mandate to protect.
It is in your hands and while your name or names may or may not be known and you may or may not be famous for your decision, you have the opportunity to shape the lives of millions for the better and that would be a priceless knowledge to carry with you. May your decision be a joyful one.
Thank you for your consideration.
- joe
Do we have a reasonable estimate of how many PV users there are in the U.S. of A?
----------
If you could make one person's life a bit better, a bit healthier, a bit longer, would it not enhance your own life to know that you've done a good thing? And if you could SAVE one person's life, would it not be the crowning achievement of yours? Each and every human life is precious beyond measure, to the person living it and to his or her loved ones.
I'm writing to you because you have the opportunity to enhance THOUSANDS of lives immediately, and over time your decisions now could possibly save MILLIONS of lives.
You can do this by ensuring the continued availability and affordability of personal vaporizers, otherwise known as e-cigarettes. You have the evidence before you to do so with reasonable confidence that these devices are right now affording thousands of former smokers a viable alternative to smoking at greatly reduced risk and with results (in terms of improved health) nearly equivalent to smoking cessation.
I understand your mandate to protect the public health, and i understand that personal vaporizers have yet to be fully vetted. But your Request for Comments specifically asks about possibilities for reduced harm products, and by all indications this product is the single most effective means ever devised for harm reduction. Thousands or perhaps millions of lives are being enhanced right now because of this miracle of technology and innovation, and it would be a tragedy beyond measure if this device were withheld. Again all indications to this date are that personal vaporizers are the very essence of harm reduction and far more effective than any alternatives at getting people to stop smoking.
Please proceed with your investigations of this product, and please implement whatever safeguards you deem appropriate to protect the public health. But just because you may have the authority or means to ban this product does not mean that you have to do so and it certainly doesn't mean that you should. At minimum, we can say with confidence that far more good than harm is being done, and this good should continue while regulations and such are being formulated. On the other hand to deprive thousands of former smokers of this life-altering miracle would be an unspeakable catastrophe on both a personal and social level.
I smoked cigarettes for forty years, until the day I purchased my personal vaporizer. I am cognizant that it is probably not risk-free but I'm also aware that nothing is. From my research and personal experience I would not hesitate to recommend this product to anyone, including my loved ones for whom I also carry a mandate to protect.
It is in your hands and while your name or names may or may not be known and you may or may not be famous for your decision, you have the opportunity to shape the lives of millions for the better and that would be a priceless knowledge to carry with you. May your decision be a joyful one.
Thank you for your consideration.
- joe
I didnt know what to say I just asked them to please not force me to go back to smoking legal tobacco rolling my own cigarettes since that will kill me and I dont wanna die. I am not great at writing to gods.
my first post, you motivated me "thewomenfolk"
I don't agree with the banning of e-cigs because of:
Pretenting to use the scare tactics about kids might get ahold of them, ha ha, kids will get ahold of anything they want anymore, let the parents be in charge of their children. If you were really concerned about children, the gov. should do something about things like "South Park" and "Family Guy" in the right time slot, it really doesn't take rocket science to know what the right thing to do is.
After smoking for 42 yrs I've been off cigarettes for 2 months now because of the ecig and will never go back to smoking cigarettes, even if I have to move to BELIZE, probably will anyways, I think it's still a free world down there.
Also you might consider the people affected by NOT getting SECOND HAND SMOKE that you are so concerned with, as far as I know the ecig does produce any second hand smoke, it's a VAPOR mist, you might want to see if the lab can figure that one out.
Last but not least, you could make the world a better place if you would start by using a little "common sense".
I really don't have the time to write and tell you things a grown up like yourself should already know but if your interested in keeping your jobs I would suggest start using some common sense.
Thanks for your time
LONG TIME "TAX PAYER"
85234596947385984856034927593751438596847595
---------------------------
Yes, I was YELLING sorry.
I don't agree with the banning of e-cigs because of:
Pretenting to use the scare tactics about kids might get ahold of them, ha ha, kids will get ahold of anything they want anymore, let the parents be in charge of their children. If you were really concerned about children, the gov. should do something about things like "South Park" and "Family Guy" in the right time slot, it really doesn't take rocket science to know what the right thing to do is.
After smoking for 42 yrs I've been off cigarettes for 2 months now because of the ecig and will never go back to smoking cigarettes, even if I have to move to BELIZE, probably will anyways, I think it's still a free world down there.
Also you might consider the people affected by NOT getting SECOND HAND SMOKE that you are so concerned with, as far as I know the ecig does produce any second hand smoke, it's a VAPOR mist, you might want to see if the lab can figure that one out.
Last but not least, you could make the world a better place if you would start by using a little "common sense".
I really don't have the time to write and tell you things a grown up like yourself should already know but if your interested in keeping your jobs I would suggest start using some common sense.
Thanks for your time
LONG TIME "TAX PAYER"
85234596947385984856034927593751438596847595
---------------------------
Yes, I was YELLING sorry.
I read the arguments and decided to submit a short letter. I don't think it will hurt to have our voices heard. It was the least I could do to help protect our right to use these non-harmful devices. The fear and ignorance about the e-cig is staggering. Hopefully, poeple in power will come to their senses.
Yea, I agree....
I just contributed my view for what it's worth. Theyre gonna do what they want and that's the end of it. They want to fund Healthcare on the backs of coughing, hacking, cancer-ridden smokers.
They really should embrace this alternative and build upon it, make it better. Not ban it over trace amounts of PG. Don't even get me started.... I'm gonna shut up now or I'll be ranting for an hour.
I just get tired of big brother tellin' me what's what.
I just contributed my view for what it's worth. Theyre gonna do what they want and that's the end of it. They want to fund Healthcare on the backs of coughing, hacking, cancer-ridden smokers.
They really should embrace this alternative and build upon it, make it better. Not ban it over trace amounts of PG. Don't even get me started.... I'm gonna shut up now or I'll be ranting for an hour.
I just get tired of big brother tellin' me what's what.
Done... my comments are as follows.
My experience with e-cigarettes has been a positive one. I have almost entirely quit smoking. This was unintentional. The act of smoking is not bad, the ingredients associated with it are. Logic and reason assure me that e-cigarettes are safer as a cigarette contains 4000 chemicals and one was just approved (EVA). Plastic was just added to cigarettes. My e-cigarette contains FAR less ingredients. Therefore, it has to be safer. Maybe its not completely safe but I urge you to look at the report here. http://www.supersmokerjp.com/images/ToxicologylaboratoryTestResultsEnglishtranslatiion.pdf This is an unbiased toxicology markup of a common e-cigarette.
Propylene glycol: proposal of the “Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives”
ADI (“Acceptable Daily Intake”) in humans = 0 to 25 mg/kg of body weight, by the “Food and
Drug Administration”, generally assumed to be safe (“GRAS” Statute = Generally
Recognised as Safe”)
[See also the appendix to INCHEM – WHO FOOD ADDITIVES SERIES No. 5]
2-methyl propanal: no exposure limits established, i.e. no MAC (“Maximal Allowable
Concentration”) or TLV (“Threshold Limited Value”) values, inhalation may give rise to a sore
throat, coughing, a burning sensation, shortness of breath and difficulty in breathing,; contact
with the skin and eyes may give rise to pain, redness and burns. The following standards
have been published:
Acute oral toxicity LD-50 (rat) = 960 mg/kg, other study = 3700 mg/kg;
Acute dermal toxicity LD-50 (rabbit) = 7130 mg/kg;
Acute toxicity after inhalation LC-50 (mouse, 2 u) = 39.5 mg/L
Taking account of the calculated upper limit of 0.420 milligram of 2-methyl propanal per
cigarette, i.e. expressed per litre and per use of one cigarette, this value is approx. 100 x lower than the LC-50 value. The value found, 0.420
milligram of 2-methyl propanal, is approx. 100,000 x lower than the reported LD-50 value.
Do not remove these from our market! They Save Lives! They are saving mine anyways! Don't kill me!
My experience with e-cigarettes has been a positive one. I have almost entirely quit smoking. This was unintentional. The act of smoking is not bad, the ingredients associated with it are. Logic and reason assure me that e-cigarettes are safer as a cigarette contains 4000 chemicals and one was just approved (EVA). Plastic was just added to cigarettes. My e-cigarette contains FAR less ingredients. Therefore, it has to be safer. Maybe its not completely safe but I urge you to look at the report here. http://www.supersmokerjp.com/images/ToxicologylaboratoryTestResultsEnglishtranslatiion.pdf This is an unbiased toxicology markup of a common e-cigarette.
Propylene glycol: proposal of the “Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives”
ADI (“Acceptable Daily Intake”) in humans = 0 to 25 mg/kg of body weight, by the “Food and
Drug Administration”, generally assumed to be safe (“GRAS” Statute = Generally
Recognised as Safe”)
[See also the appendix to INCHEM – WHO FOOD ADDITIVES SERIES No. 5]
2-methyl propanal: no exposure limits established, i.e. no MAC (“Maximal Allowable
Concentration”) or TLV (“Threshold Limited Value”) values, inhalation may give rise to a sore
throat, coughing, a burning sensation, shortness of breath and difficulty in breathing,; contact
with the skin and eyes may give rise to pain, redness and burns. The following standards
have been published:
Acute oral toxicity LD-50 (rat) = 960 mg/kg, other study = 3700 mg/kg;
Acute dermal toxicity LD-50 (rabbit) = 7130 mg/kg;
Acute toxicity after inhalation LC-50 (mouse, 2 u) = 39.5 mg/L
Taking account of the calculated upper limit of 0.420 milligram of 2-methyl propanal per
cigarette, i.e. expressed per litre and per use of one cigarette, this value is approx. 100 x lower than the LC-50 value. The value found, 0.420
milligram of 2-methyl propanal, is approx. 100,000 x lower than the reported LD-50 value.
Do not remove these from our market! They Save Lives! They are saving mine anyways! Don't kill me!
I have sent a message as well.
p.s: now that I think about it, it would have been better if I sent a message calling out there actions to kill with regular cigarettes. I pretty much begged them
My letter:
I am here today, to praise the e-cigarettes and pass along a bit of information to you, to help with the Regulation of Tobacco Products. I have been able to Increase my Health substantially in a positive way, all due to e-cigarettes. I was a smoker for about 10 years smoking about a pack a day. I am now completely off analog cigarettes and I'm only using my personal vaporizer (e-cigarettes) and I feel so much better! My family is happy for me, my mind is more clear-focused...all thanks to the e-cigarettes.
I urge you to please make "Fair Regulations" for e-cigarettes as they do not contain any tobacco whatsoever, no smoke, no tar, no other "deadly" chemicals that regular cigarettes do. Please take my personal healthy increase as a positive benefit that was a result of the e-cigarette when you Regulate the Tobacco Products.
Thank You
p.s: now that I think about it, it would have been better if I sent a message calling out there actions to kill with regular cigarettes. I pretty much begged them
My letter:
I am here today, to praise the e-cigarettes and pass along a bit of information to you, to help with the Regulation of Tobacco Products. I have been able to Increase my Health substantially in a positive way, all due to e-cigarettes. I was a smoker for about 10 years smoking about a pack a day. I am now completely off analog cigarettes and I'm only using my personal vaporizer (e-cigarettes) and I feel so much better! My family is happy for me, my mind is more clear-focused...all thanks to the e-cigarettes.
I urge you to please make "Fair Regulations" for e-cigarettes as they do not contain any tobacco whatsoever, no smoke, no tar, no other "deadly" chemicals that regular cigarettes do. Please take my personal healthy increase as a positive benefit that was a result of the e-cigarette when you Regulate the Tobacco Products.
Thank You
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
