Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
This L.A. Times article just came out on the deeming rules and history of previous attempts to ban flavors.
The FDA tried to ban flavors years before the vaping outbreak. Top Obama officials rejected the plan
The FDA tried to ban flavors years before the vaping outbreak. Top Obama officials rejected the plan
--
Something I did find to be quite bothersome in the article is what wasn't written about. Take this paragraph -
'By 2014, the CDC reported that in just three years, vaping in middle and high schools had increased by nearly 800%. A national survey by the FDA and National Institutes of Health asked young people who vaped why they did it. More than 80% marked the answer: “It comes in flavors I like.”'
Like how do you know that these kids are vaping, and how did it come to be that these kids were given surveys? I mean mentally I replaced the words that refer to vaping with the thought of kids carrying around bottles of booze, which they shouldn't legally have either. 'Hey you with the bottle of Fireball, can you answer this survey?' (joking, sort of).
Maybe it meant they gave this survey to kids who got busted vaping, but I'd be curious what other choices were offered, and under what conditions.
As for the increase in number of youths vaping, how does the CDC know the number is going up? Maybe they meant the number of kids who are getting busted for vaping has gone up by 800%. It sure would be scary to think that teachers and government officials are not busting kids who they see vaping and just observing, same as it would be if they were ignoring kids wandering around with bottles of booze. Likewise scary if these differentials came from retail store owners selling vapes reporting an increase in sales to minors.
If it is about bust count, that doesn't mean that those kids who got busted continue to vape. If it's about neutral observation while doing nothing, and just letting them, then where is the adult accountability to act?
The problem is the narrative (jokingly) reads like the CDC information is always fact, and the observers just let them run around hitting their pods, swigging their bottles of Jagermeister. I swear, those kids! I count 8x more of them now then I did last time I counted. Meanwhile the FDA, being scientific, hands out survey cards to youngsters, which of course the kids gladly checked the 'Yes, I vape box' and that option of because of the candy flavors. Kidding again, but only sort of.
The FDA tried to ban flavors years before the vaping outbreak. Top Obama officials rejected the plan
The FDA tried to ban flavors years before the vaping outbreak. Top Obama officials rejected the plan
--
Something I did find to be quite bothersome in the article is what wasn't written about. Take this paragraph -
'By 2014, the CDC reported that in just three years, vaping in middle and high schools had increased by nearly 800%. A national survey by the FDA and National Institutes of Health asked young people who vaped why they did it. More than 80% marked the answer: “It comes in flavors I like.”'
Like how do you know that these kids are vaping, and how did it come to be that these kids were given surveys? I mean mentally I replaced the words that refer to vaping with the thought of kids carrying around bottles of booze, which they shouldn't legally have either. 'Hey you with the bottle of Fireball, can you answer this survey?' (joking, sort of).
Maybe it meant they gave this survey to kids who got busted vaping, but I'd be curious what other choices were offered, and under what conditions.
As for the increase in number of youths vaping, how does the CDC know the number is going up? Maybe they meant the number of kids who are getting busted for vaping has gone up by 800%. It sure would be scary to think that teachers and government officials are not busting kids who they see vaping and just observing, same as it would be if they were ignoring kids wandering around with bottles of booze. Likewise scary if these differentials came from retail store owners selling vapes reporting an increase in sales to minors.
If it is about bust count, that doesn't mean that those kids who got busted continue to vape. If it's about neutral observation while doing nothing, and just letting them, then where is the adult accountability to act?
The problem is the narrative (jokingly) reads like the CDC information is always fact, and the observers just let them run around hitting their pods, swigging their bottles of Jagermeister. I swear, those kids! I count 8x more of them now then I did last time I counted. Meanwhile the FDA, being scientific, hands out survey cards to youngsters, which of course the kids gladly checked the 'Yes, I vape box' and that option of because of the candy flavors. Kidding again, but only sort of.
"Scientists expect more than 1.5 million years of human life to be lost." 
We're screwed, folks.
I'm tired.
We're screwed, folks.
I'm tired.
Economists expect more than 300billion dollars of tax and excise revenue lost world wide."Scientists expect more than 1.5 million years of human life to be lost."
We're screwed, folks.
I'm tired.
What I found to be so great about that L.A. Times article is that depending on your bias, it could be read either way.
Way #1 - The FDA had a chance to stave off this epidemic of teen vaping but Obama era officials killed and now it's too late. The save the kids matter is more important than saving vape shops. All those entities who opposed the CDC and FDA data proving kids vape due to flavors, they are the bad players.
Way #2 - Had the flavor ban gone through, the impact on vaping businesses would have been financially catastrophic, and harmed adults who vape to quit smoking. The CDC and FDA needed better research, and the rule should not be polluted with half baked research, nor with bread crumbs pushing for narrative #1 even though over turned. All of those entities who were pushing for ban flavors based on incomplete research are the bad actors.
My bias of course, as someone who vapes, questions the CDC and FDA data, and is pro business for the most part, I view the article in the later way, but I can't help but think the author may have been biased, and was hoping it would be read in the way of we could have saved the kids years ago from evil fruity vapes, had it not been for Obama.
Way #1 - The FDA had a chance to stave off this epidemic of teen vaping but Obama era officials killed and now it's too late. The save the kids matter is more important than saving vape shops. All those entities who opposed the CDC and FDA data proving kids vape due to flavors, they are the bad players.
Way #2 - Had the flavor ban gone through, the impact on vaping businesses would have been financially catastrophic, and harmed adults who vape to quit smoking. The CDC and FDA needed better research, and the rule should not be polluted with half baked research, nor with bread crumbs pushing for narrative #1 even though over turned. All of those entities who were pushing for ban flavors based on incomplete research are the bad actors.
My bias of course, as someone who vapes, questions the CDC and FDA data, and is pro business for the most part, I view the article in the later way, but I can't help but think the author may have been biased, and was hoping it would be read in the way of we could have saved the kids years ago from evil fruity vapes, had it not been for Obama.
Last edited:
I watched the hearing on Cspan with a lady from the CDC and she was ask if they were testing for THC in patients and her answer was no.
Seems the first thing that should have been done when so many admit to using it
How do they explain teen smoking rates dropping to 5%?"Scientists expect more than 1.5 million years of human life to be lost."
We're screwed, folks.
I'm tired.
Where did they come up with that B.S. estimate for people switching to smoking? Particularly when low-nic cigs and such are on the horizon!
I'm tired too.
IMO, the low-nic cigs thing is not good at all. I believe that smokers are going to have to smoke more, and it's just a way to get the general population and current smokers to think that cigarettes are even safer now, while keeping the tobacco cash cow fed.
The plan was to transition smokers to e cigarettes and other harm reduction products to get their nicotine. If those alternatives are taken off the market reducing nicotine in cigarettes is counterproductive because as you point out, folks will simply smoke more cigarettes.
Not so bad from BT's perspective.
It likely won't work if they vilify all things at once. HUGE black market.
Furthermore, as soon as smokers figure out that the new just approved nicotine-spray can be sprayed on a cigarette (IDK the ingredients nor if it would work or be harmful...so disclaimer) then we'll be right back to square one, plus then BP gets a win selling nic-spray.
Don't get me started on what they'll do with nic-juice and low-nic cigs.
Well, when they eliminate e-cigs from the market, a fair number of people who vaped in the past, whether former smokers or never-smokers, will switch to smoking.
Well, then, OK, who's anticipating e-cigs will be eliminated? BT has promised a "smoke free future" and furthermore introduced several devices including an e-cig.Well, when they eliminate e-cigs from the market, a fair number of people who vaped in the past, whether former smokers or never-smokers, will switch to smoking.
Well, when they eliminate e-cigs from the market, a fair number of people who vaped in the past, whether former smokers or never-smokers, will switch to smoking.
Besides, the B.S. premise was e-cigs lead to smoking....
BT hasn't promised squat. BT (primarily Altria) has made feel-good noises. BT will sell cigarettes for as long as people are willing to buy them.
Pull Juul off the market and watch what happens.
"The model estimated-1,550,000 years of life lost (95% CI: -2,200,000 to -980,000) assuming an approximately 75% relative harm reduction and -1,600,000 years of life lost (95% CI: -2,290,000 to -1,030,000) assuming an approximately 50% relative harm reduction.""Scientists expect more than 1.5 million years of human life to be lost."
We're screwed, folks.
I'm tired.
??
"Scientists expect more than 1.5 million years of human life to be lost."
We're screwed, folks.
I'm tired.
Yes, well you're right, the zaniness (is that a word?) of this metric is what happens when people spend too much time working behind walls, and re-reading their own words.
The primary problem with their model is not an unrealistic level of harm reduction, but that it assumes far more people would initiate cigarette smoking (presumably as a result of having vaped) than would quite cigarette smoking via vaping! This makes it almost irrelevant what the level of harm reduction is; the model will produce life-years lost no matter whether the degree of harm reduction is 0% or 100%.
The only way this model could reflect reality in the future is if they were anticipating e-cigs being pulled from the market. In that case, you will get plenty of people who initiate smoking and few who quit smoking via vaping.
Similar threads
- Locked
