Dec 11, 2013 2PM EST - FDA Webinar: 20 Years Later – Returning to FDA to Regulate Tobacco

[rothenbj]

He said something about premium cigars. I don't remember exactly how he phrased it but it gave the impression that they aren't worried about cigars at $8 a pop (too expensive for chillren, I guess).

Made me think of the line in Titanic -

"Now they will retreat into a cloud of smoke and congratulate each other on being masters of the universe. "Rose DeWitt Bukater (Character) - Quotes

I wonder if I should mention in my next set of comments to them that my APV cost me $200.

Good, regulate the convenience store models and leave the APVs alone. It would be better for the introduction of new smokers anyway.

 

[ElectronicHookah]

So do these lunatics have a chance, or are they going to fail again like in 2009?

 

[Elnroth]

It appears my tweet urging people to direct their congressmen to #AskDirectorZeller and compare it to the Q&A has magically disappeared

Well at least from #AskDirectorZeller

 

[AgentAnia]

A quick write-up by CSPnet of Zeller's presentation: http://www.cspnet.com/category-mana...data/articles/fda-target-underage-tobacco-use

■Electronic Cigarettes: Zeller acknowledged electronic cigarettes' growing popularity and that his agency continues to investigate how it will regulate this emerging sector. He cited anecdotal evidence praising e-cigarettes as a cessation device for long-term smokers, but said the agency must also forecast the long-term impact e-cigarettes could yield. For instance, he lamented, "CDC report showed youth e-cig use doubled … there are people who challenged that, but the data is what the data is." This point echoed an earlier message during which he explained the legal role of the FDA--"the FDA must look at both individual-level risk and population-level harm."

■Cigars: On a question concerning regulation of cigars, especially singles and mini-packs, Zeller pointed to conversations with suppliers in the industry and hinted at a different approach between premium and lower-end cigars. "I've gotten the message that there may be differences with premium cigars that the FDA needs to take into account." Specifically, he said, the claim that minors do not buy more expensive cigars.

Interesting that he thinks the claim that minors will not by expensive cigars weighs more than that minors will not buy ecigs, whose starter kits probably cost more than a "premium" cigar... (Don't have a clue how much premium cigars cost, and yes, I realize that a disposable ecig may be cheaper than said cigar, but still....)

 

[Fulgurant]

"CDC report showed youth e-cig use doubled … there are people who challenged that, but the data is what the data is."

I love this. "People have pointed out that the data doesn't say what the CDC claimed it said, but I'm gonna ignore that cuz ... Uh, cuz I can."

Interesting that he thinks the claim that minors will not by expensive cigars weighs more than that minors will not buy ecigs, whose starter kits probably cost more than a "premium" cigar... (Don't have a clue how much premium cigars cost, and yes, I realize that a disposable ecig may be cheaper than said cigar, but still....)

Important officials like to smoke high-end cigars, after all. Anti-tobacco measures have always been regressive -- disproportionately onerous to the poor. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[Uma]

According to this article, a Caravella on auction has the cigar beat by double.
http://www.therichest.com/luxury/most-expensive/top-10-most-expensive-cigars-in-the-world/

 

[Fulgurant]

What gets me is FDA's insistence on "population levels" vs. individuals. So ecigs have to prove they save the life of a population before they'll be accepted. How do you save the life of a population. A population is made up of *individuals*!

Yeah, this is my least favorite argument too. "You may have quit smoking using e-cigarettes, but E-cigarettes haven't been proven to help large populations quit smoking!" First of all, the sheer size of the vaping industry kinda-sorta suggests that there is some proof, you officious dimwit, but let's leave that aside. Secondly, and more to the point, if e-cigarettes have helped me to quit, then why the hell should I care that there isn't any large-scale data on smoker quit rates?

Thirdly, since when do commercial products have to be proven affirmatively good for the population (y'know, as opposed to just reasonably safe) to escape punitive regulations? The burden is on you, Mr. Puffed-Up Authority, to prove that the e-cig I enjoy presents a real danger to the community at large before you can justify taking it away from me. It is not my burden to prove to you that e-cigs will usher in a golden era of world peace before the FDA condescends to allow me to use one.

The whole premise is asinine. It's petulant filler masquerading as an argument: if the FDA (or whoever) could supply compelling evidence that e-cigs are unsafe for large populations, then that would be one thing. But if the FDA (or whoever) could supply that evidence, then they wouldn't need to wring their hands about the quit-smoking-success rate for e-cig users. And given that the FDA cannot supply evidence that e-cigs are unsafe, the observation that e-cigs haven't been proven to help large populations of smokers to quit is irrelevant.

In any case, wasn't all of this talk about smoking-cessation rates officially put to bed when the Court handed down its decision in 2009? The FDA lost the authority to regulate e-cigs as if they were medicines. Obviously all of us must acknowledge that e-cigs are safer than cigarettes; that's a major component of any realistic discussion on the subject, but from a legal standpoint, the FDA shouldn't evaluate e-cigs on the basis of their therapeutic value. They should evaluate e-cigs as a safer alternative to cigarettes. Even smokers who don't quit entirely can improve their health by substituting some portion of their daily smoke intake with vapor.

 

[WorksForMe]

"the FDA must look at both individual-level risk and population-level harm."

I'm thinking he meant that e-cigs re-normalize the act of smoking, which harms the larger population. If it looks like smoking, it must be bad.

J.R.

 

[Uma]

Yeah, this is my least favorite argument too. "You may have quit smoking using e-cigarettes, but E-cigarettes haven't been proven to help large populations quit smoking!" First of all, the sheer size of the vaping industry kinda-sorta suggests that there is some proof, you officious dimwit, but let's leave that aside. Secondly, and more to the point, if e-cigarettes have helped me to quit, then why the hell should I care that there isn't any large-scale data on smoker quit rates?

Thirdly, since when do commercial products have to be proven affirmatively good for the population (y'know, as opposed to just reasonably safe) to escape punitive regulations? The burden is on you, Mr. Puffed-Up Authority, to prove that the e-cig I enjoy presents a real danger to the community at large before you can justify taking it away from me. It is not my burden to prove to you that e-cigs will usher in a golden era of world peace before the FDA condescends to allow me to use one.

The whole premise is asinine. It's petulant filler masquerading as an argument: if the FDA (or whoever) could supply compelling evidence that e-cigs are unsafe for large populations, then that would be one thing. But if the FDA (or whoever) could supply that evidence, then they wouldn't need to wring their hands about the quit-smoking-success rate for e-cig users. And given that the FDA cannot supply evidence that e-cigs are unsafe, the observation that e-cigs haven't been proven to help large populations of smokers to quit is irrelevant.

In any case, wasn't all of this talk about smoking-cessation rates officially put to bed when the Court handed down its decision in 2009? The FDA lost the authority to regulate e-cigs as if they were medicines. Obviously all of us must acknowledge that e-cigs are safer than cigarettes; that's a major component of any realistic discussion on the subject, but from a legal standpoint, the FDA shouldn't evaluate e-cigs on the basis of their therapeutic value. They should evaluate e-cigs as a safer alternative to cigarettes. Even smokers who don't quit entirely can improve their health by substituting some portion of their daily smoke intake with vapor.

The method to their madness is to trick a vendor or company into admitting they do indeed help us quit smoking. Deceitful catch 22

 

[ennagizer]

Concerning underage smoking, not once did I hear the word "parents" used. That bothers me.

 

[Anjaffm]

Yeah, this is my least favorite argument too. "You may have quit smoking using e-cigarettes, but E-cigarettes haven't been proven to help large populations quit smoking!" First of all, the sheer size of the vaping industry kinda-sorta suggests that there is some proof, you officious dimwit, but let's leave that aside. Secondly, and more to the point, if e-cigarettes have helped me to quit, then why the hell should I care that there isn't any large-scale data on smoker quit rates?

Thirdly, since when do commercial products have to be proven affirmatively good for the population (y'know, as opposed to just reasonably safe) to escape punitive regulations? The burden is on you, Mr. Puffed-Up Authority, to prove that the e-cig I enjoy presents a real danger to the community at large before you can justify taking it away from me. It is not my burden to prove to you that e-cigs will usher in a golden era of world peace before the FDA condescends to allow me to use one.

The whole premise is asinine. It's petulant filler masquerading as an argument: if the FDA (or whoever) could supply compelling evidence that e-cigs are unsafe for large populations, then that would be one thing. But if the FDA (or whoever) could supply that evidence, then they wouldn't need to wring their hands about the quit-smoking-success rate for e-cig users. And given that the FDA cannot supply evidence that e-cigs are unsafe, the observation that e-cigs haven't been proven to help large populations of smokers to quit is irrelevant.

In any case, wasn't all of this talk about smoking-cessation rates officially put to bed when the Court handed down its decision in 2009? The FDA lost the authority to regulate e-cigs as if they were medicines. Obviously all of us must acknowledge that e-cigs are safer than cigarettes; that's a major component of any realistic discussion on the subject, but from a legal standpoint, the FDA shouldn't evaluate e-cigs on the basis of their therapeutic value. They should evaluate e-cigs as a safer alternative to cigarettes. Even smokers who don't quit entirely can improve their health by substituting some portion of their daily smoke intake with vapor.

You hit the nail right on the head

 

[AgentAnia]

I'm thinking [re population-level harm] he meant that e-cigs re-normalize the act of smoking, which harms the larger population. If it looks like smoking, it must be bad.

J.R.

Interesting. I hadn't made that connection. If this indeed their thinking, then in effect they're using the gateway theory to justify regulating ecigs, despite the fact that *no one* has scientifically or stastically proven that theory to be true. (If you parse all the statements extolling the gateway theory, you'll see that they all use those verbs so beloved by the ANTZ: may be, seem to be, appears to be, might be, could be, is likely to be, etc.)

 

[AgentAnia]

From fulgurant:

In any case, wasn't all of this talk about smoking-cessation rates officially put to bed when the Court handed down its decision in 2009? The FDA lost the authority to regulate e-cigs as if they were medicines. Obviously all of us must acknowledge that e-cigs are safer than cigarettes; that's a major component of any realistic discussion on the subject, but from a legal standpoint, the FDA shouldn't evaluate e-cigs on the basis of their therapeutic value. They should evaluate e-cigs as a safer alternative to cigarettes. Even smokers who don't quit entirely can improve their health by substituting some portion of their daily smoke intake with vapor.

Precisely! But that is exactly what the FDA is doing, albeit in a backdoor, behind-the-hand kind of way.

 

[Spazmelda]

I'm more and more thinking that this is all going to have to be fought out in court battles.

 

[Vocalek]

My favorite new phrase: "you officious dimwit."

 

[SupplyDaddy]

Concerning underage smoking, not once did I hear the word "parents" used. That bothers me.

There are no parents in the NWO....

 

[Elnroth]

There are no parents in the NWO....

Sure there are, Mommy big gov. But she will be busy, so your nanny, the FDA, will take care of you.

 

[SupplyDaddy]

I was speaking as the FDA did... Individuals don't count....

 

[Elnroth]

Are we able to get numbers on how many were viewing the webinar?

 

[AgentAnia]

Are we able to get numbers on how many were viewing the webinar?

...and will a transcript of the Q&A session be available?