The costs of running this huge site are paid for by ads. Please consider registering and becoming a Supporting Member for an ad-free experience. Thanks, ECF team.

Daily Illini - Legality of E-Cigarettes may run into 'gray area'

Discussion in 'Media and General News' started by judasburrito, Mar 18, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
  1. judasburrito

    judasburrito Senior Member ECF Veteran

    Nov 11, 2008
  2. VapeAllDay

    VapeAllDay Unregistered Supplier ECF Veteran

    Feb 12, 2009
    Jacksonville, Florida
    That article sucked! It interviewed one unpassionate supplier and did nothing to mention how it has saved soo many people from continued tobacco use. And the idiot that said they wouldnt like them because they want the feeling of smoke in their lungs hasn't even tried these and I would bet she would change her mind.

    What useless article, at least find some people who use the product to interview.
     
  3. Lorddrek

    Lorddrek Senior Member ECF Veteran

    Mar 6, 2009
    I get a really good smoking sensation while vaping. Sounds like she never tried it. Typical.

    This is exactly what vaping provides. Why write an article and ask someones opinion with no knowledge whatsoever is beyond me. Must be his girlfriend. You sir get an "F" for all your lazy reporting.

    Lorddrek
     
  4. TropicalBob

    TropicalBob Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 13, 2008
    Port Charlotte, FL USA
    I have no idea what your problem is with that article. Do not expect cheerleading pieces. That's just not going to happen, except in corporate PR statements.

    Expect to read of legal issues, of health concerns, etc. That's the NEWS. Do not expect vapor products to be compared to tobacco cigarettes. There's no way to compare, since no one really knows ONE THING about e-smoking's health consequences. This was a very fair article, presenting news about something to readers.

    And read public comments to see that not everyone thinks sucking vapor is a great thing, especially if they're a current smoker. E-smoking does not replicate cigarette smoking. It's foolish to claim that it does.
     
  5. Lorddrek

    Lorddrek Senior Member ECF Veteran

    Mar 6, 2009
    If this article annoyed you then contact the editor. I cut this from the website.

    Corrections: If you think something is incorrectly reported, please call Editor in Chief Steve Contorno at 217-337-8365

    Let your voice be heard!

    Lorddrek
     
  6. Nuck

    Nuck Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Feb 14, 2009
    Ontario, Canada
    Article was a hollow, bubble gum piece.
     
  7. VapeAllDay

    VapeAllDay Unregistered Supplier ECF Veteran

    Feb 12, 2009
    Jacksonville, Florida
    It doesn't replicate smoking? Thats wierd, I thought it did, that's why I have used e-cigs now for 3 months without a single cigarette. I guess I will go back to smoking tobacco, because I thought I was replicating smoking, but I guess I wasn't... :(
     
  8. TropicalBob

    TropicalBob Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 13, 2008
    Port Charlotte, FL USA
    So glad you're getting all you were getting from cigarettes. Many, if not most, are not, me included, and I've done this 14 months.

    But here's a point on this article: Some here seem to be adopting the stance that there are only two positions regarding e-smoking: for us or against us. Not true. There is an intellligent middle position that says we don't know enough about e-smoking to render an absolute and final judgment. On safety. On healthiness. Or just about anything definitive. But ...

    We have thousands of people now using them daily, some having successfully quit cigarettes, some using them to replace many of a day's usual cigarettes. All to the good. And we've had no serious incidents in more than a year of increased sales and use. So this might just be "the next great thing." Might. That kind of finding needs proof.

    What a perfect place to undertake a study: The University of Illinois. Let the writer team with an editorialist and craft an editorial asking if the university would like to undertake a study of the safety and efficacy of e-smoking. Topical. Of interest to students. NEEDED.

    Don't look for us versus them in every report. Look for them helping us find and spread Truth. That's what e-smoking desperately needs now.
     
  9. kkimmons

    kkimmons Full Member ECF Veteran

    Nov 22, 2008
    Everyone needs to get a grip on reality A little research would calm everyone's nerves on this issue The United States Supreme Court has already ruled on the FDA's ability to regulate tobacco.

    I know is is long but it is plain and simple.

    The Supreme Court rules that the FDA has no authority to regulate tobacco - FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (U.S.2000)

    No product is more closely intertwined with the history of the United States than tobacco. From early colonial days, tobacco was a major export. In some colonies, tobacco was legal tender and the colonies paid their own debts in tobacco, at governmentally recognized rates denominated in pounds and barrels and hogsheads. During the revolutionary period, tobacco was valued more highly than continental money - Wharton v. Morris 1 U.S. 125, 1 Dall. 125, 1 L.Ed. 65 (Mem) Pa. Apr Term 1785. During this long history, the federal government's regulation of the health effects of tobacco have only been before the United States Supreme Court in one previous case, Cipollone v Liggett Group, Inc. 505 U.S. 504 (US 1992), which dealt with whether Congressional regulation of tobacco advertising and promotion preempted state tort claims against cigarette manufacturers.
    FDA v. Brown & Williamson arose from the FDA's assertion of authority over the production and sale of cigarettes. This was based on finding that nicotine was a drug and that cigarettes were thus a drug delivery system. The FDA proposed to regulate cigarettes as a hybrid involving both a drug and a medical device. The FDA proposed rules through notice and comment rulemaking and when these rules were finalized, Brown & Williamson moved to have them enjoined because they exceeded the FDA's statutory authority. The District Court found most of the rules valid, but held that some exceeded the FDA's authority. The 4th Circuit reversed, finding that the FDA had no authority to regulate tobacco. The United States Supreme Court accepted cert., and announced its ruling in this case.
    The question before the court was simple: does the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act (FDCA), as amended, give the FDA the legal authority to regulate tobacco? The court reviewed using classic administrative law precedents, beginning with the two-step analysis from Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984). The first step of Chevron is to determine whether the plain language of the statute allows the agency's action. If that statute is silent on the matter at issue, then the second step is to determine if the agency's assertion of authority is permissible under the statute, considering the plain language of the statute, possible conflicting statutes, and relevant constitutional limitations.
    Ironically, the majority opinion and the dissent agreed on the basic issue that tobacco is an extremely dangerous product that should be regulated: "This case involves one of the most troubling public health problems facing our Nation today: the thousands of premature deaths that occur each year because of tobacco use." The importance of tobacco regulation drove the majority to conclude that if Congress intended for the FDA to regulate tobacco, it should say so. In contrast, the dissent believed that tobacco regulation is so important that the FDA should have the right to regulate tobacco unless Congress forbids it that right. Jurisprudentially, the case is interesting because the judges reverse their usual roles. Scalia, who usually demands that the court look only to the words of the statute, signs on without separate comment to a majority opinion steeped in legislative history. Breyer, who usually cares more about what Congress thought about than what it wrote, dissents because the court ignores the plain meaning of the statute and delves into the morass of congressional intent.
    Both the majority and the dissent concede that congress has been silent as regards the FDA's authority to regulate tobacco. The only mention of the FDA by congress in regard to tobacco was a statement that a particular labeling regulation did not affect the FDA's authority over tobacco, whatever it might be. At the same time, both the majority and dissent agree that the plain language of the FDCA seems to give the FDA the authority to regulate nicotine, and, through that, cigarettes. The problem with this plain reading is that for nearly 50 years the FDA denied that the FDCA gave it authority over tobacco. While agencies may change their minds as politics change, such a shift undermines their claim for deference because of their expertise in the subject. The majority focuses on history of tobacco regulation by Congress and finds that Congress has passed tobacco regulations six times since 1965. During this period Congresses accepted the FDA's assurance that it had not jurisdiction over tobacco and in none of these laws did it give any power to the FDA to regulate tobacco. Since tobacco regulation is such an important issue, this failure to give authority to the FDA in previous tobacco regulatory law convinces that majority that Congress could not have intended such an important task to fall the FDA through inadvertence.
    The majority also looks at the logic of the FDCA and what it would mean to regulate tobacco under it. The FDCA gives the FDA the power to assure that drugs and medical devices in interstate commerce are safe and effective. The Act clearly deals with therapeutically valid drugs and devices and seems to leave no room for the sale of substances such as tobacco that have no therapeutic value. (Ignoring the very limited therapeutic role for nicotine itself.) The dissent disagrees, reading into the FDCA a cost benefit analysis based on allowing bad substances because not having them will be worse. Under this analysis, the FDA would not ban tobacco because of the potential risks of smuggling and other tobacco- related illegal activity. The dissent does not discuss that this particular theory has been completely rejected in American drug policy, with its focus on prohibition except for very strictly controlled medical use. Short of methadone clinics, there is no useful analogy for the dissent to draw on.
    The core of the majority's reasoning is that Congress is aware of the need to regulate tobacco as evidenced in the other tobacco regulations it has passed and that tobacco regulation is very complex and not well-suited to the provisions of the FDCA. The majority opinion is a call to Congress to step in and pass a law clearly stating its views on further regulation of tobacco. The dissent would prefer to allow the FDA to proceed, thus forcing Congress to act if it disapproves of the FDA position. Given that this case is a close call, both of these views are supportable under traditional administrative law jurisprudence. The court's choice is a political one, and it implicitly recognizes this by pushing the decision back to Congress. Since the court found that the FDA had no authority over tobacco, all of the FDA regulations affecting tobacco are now voided. The FDA's retains it's authority to regulated nicotine, which does have some therapeutic uses beyond its use as an anti-smoking agent, but it cannot use this authority to regulate tobacco products. It is not clear what role the FDA has as regard to "smokeless" cigarettes, which are very clearly a nicotine delivery device and do not involve the a traditional use for tobacco. This opinion does not affect state level regulation of tobacco, to the extent that it does not conflict with other state laws, nor does it affect the FTC and other agencies that do have statutory authority over tobacco.


    All of you who are going in circles over this - you can stop
     
  10. Sun Vaporer

    Sun Vaporer Moved On ECF Veteran

    Jan 2, 2009
    Florida
    KK--Hardly going around in Circles here. I do not care about the plight of tobacco--as you state --or devices have nothing to do with tobacco and the FDA has jurisdiction to regulate them. The plight of Nicotine Water is much more on point in the instant case and that took years to settle--So we are not going around in circles here as the FDA has stated alreadt stated that these devices are illegal to sell---Sun

    See timeline on the plight of Nicotine Water--

    Nicotine Water
     
  11. Nuck

    Nuck Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Feb 14, 2009
    Ontario, Canada
    Interesting read but entirely irrelevant to our discussion. The final paragraph state:

    "The FDA's retains it's authority to regulated nicotine, which does have some therapeutic uses beyond its use as an anti-smoking agent, but it cannot use this authority to regulate tobacco products. It is not clear what role the FDA has as regard to "smokeless" cigarettes, which are very clearly a nicotine delivery device and do not involve the a traditional use for tobacco."

    It appears the FDA and the courts are as confused as everyone else is.
     
  12. Sun Vaporer

    Sun Vaporer Moved On ECF Veteran

    Jan 2, 2009
    Florida

    Nuck--thank you --I thought it was only me--LOL--Sun
     
  13. TropicalBob

    TropicalBob Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 13, 2008
    Port Charlotte, FL USA
    How rapidly a thread disintegrates ..

    That is so old news. The FDA grabbed for tobacco control, was rebuffed by the Supreme Court that said only Congress could grant such control. So Congress is right now doing just that. The bill got House approval this month; it will soon be brought up in the Senate, where it's sponsored by Ted Kennedy -- and Obama has already said he will sign it. The FDA will get control over tobacco products. But even that's irrelevant to e-smokers who don't use a tobacco product. Why post that massive missive here?

    Now can this get back to proper responses to the article in the U of Illoinois student paper? We can throw away opportunities or try to help our cause.
     
  14. VapeAllDay

    VapeAllDay Unregistered Supplier ECF Veteran

    Feb 12, 2009
    Jacksonville, Florida
    My main complaint with the article was not that it had negative tones to it, but more that it was a very limited sample of people intervied. Almost like the writer put a half ... effort into it.

    Yes she had a supplier, but then the other two people were one guy with a cigar shop who wants to only smoke real cigars and then a girl who never tried an e-cig....

    I just wish there would be a story that covered more angles. I just don't see many that talk to actual e-smokers about their experiences.
     
  15. strayling

    strayling Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Feb 25, 2009
    Seattle, USA
    The article itself was reasonable enough - not a puff piece, but not especially negative. However, the journalist is getting awfully defensive in the comments which is a bad sign. We don't need to make an enemy here.
     
  16. VapeAllDay

    VapeAllDay Unregistered Supplier ECF Veteran

    Feb 12, 2009
    Jacksonville, Florida

    I was reading the comments, but I didn't see anything from the journalist. Which comment did she write?:confused:
     
  17. strayling

    strayling Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Feb 25, 2009
    Seattle, USA
    He. His name is Erik Allgood and he'd added a couple of comments when I looked earlier.
     
  18. JJames68

    JJames68 Full Member

    Jan 25, 2009
    it will be interesting to see if the courts decide they would prefer people smoke rather then vape - think people's health may take a back door to $$$ in this issue, but I could be wrong - then again as another poster stated on another thread, they could always sell a non-nicotine version - in fact, they should stop selling the filled carts with the devices
     
  19. strayling

    strayling Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Feb 25, 2009
    Seattle, USA
    Ineresting - all the author's comments and the responses to them have been removed.
     
  20. VapeAllDay

    VapeAllDay Unregistered Supplier ECF Veteran

    Feb 12, 2009
    Jacksonville, Florida

    Guess thats why I didn't see them! Were they unprofessional? If so, maybe thats why they were removed... Wish I could of seen them.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice