Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
Chainsaws are pretty deadly yes. Like much equipment I leave to people who know how to operate it. LOL.
Anna
Anna
Just a quick google search, there are a lot more accidents with power tools than with Any type of vape mod.
Here are some statistics on the number of emergency room (ER) visits per year caused by individual types of tools (source: "The Most Dangerous Power Tools," Forbes.com, December 2009):
Here are some statistics on the number of emergency room (ER) visits per year caused by individual types of tools (source: "The Most Dangerous Power Tools," Forbes.com, December 2009):
- Power nailers or nail guns: 37,000 emergency room visits/year
- John Deere-type Riding Lawn Mowers: 37,000 hospital visits a year
- Chain Saws: 36,000 ER visits/year
- Stationary Table Saws: 29,000 ER visits/year
- Snowblowers: 5,7000 ER Visits per year; 19 deaths recorded since 1992
- Circular or Rotary Saws: 10,600 ER cases/year
- Power Drills: 5,800
- Backhoes: Average of 38 construction fatalities a year
- Air Compression devices: 2,400
- Wood Chippers: Average of 3 deaths a year
Work Tools Accident Statistics | LegalMatch Law Library
Doesn't mean anything if you don't also have the total numbers of power tools in circulation as well as vape accidents and vape devices in circulation so we can compare percentages.
It's no surprise the absolute number of accidents with power tools is far higher, nearly every household will have at least one.
I disagree, there are magnitudes less accidents with vape devices than with power tools, and being vaping is in the billions of dollars a year industry, there are a lot of devices out there.
https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/electronic_cigarettes.pdf
Ethically, I agree. But ethics and legality are two very different concepts.
The challenge is that once vaping grew from a boutique industry to a mass-market commodity, ethics became a causality. It became all about making money. I now see as much vape gear at the local gas station as used to be available in a dedicated B&M. You can bet the gas station isnt educating their customers, and they often have some of the riskiest gear (as in "cheap" quality).
I also agree that cartoon characters on juice bottles is not a very smart thing to do when the Feds are gunning for you. Should we have to even worry about it, ethically - no, but in the current climate putting Toucan Sam on a juice bottle is kind of like waving a flag to make the enemy see you better, ie not very smart.
We actually did do a pretty good job of policing ourselves when vaping was just a cottage industry. Back then most B&Ms actually cared, were knowledgeable, and would gladly teach you whatever you needed to know. Now, it is just a commodity, and all about the bucks. As the industry became more and more profit driven, many of the knowledgeable and ethical vendors got pushed out. As the technology advanced, we are putting more and more power (energy) into the hands of uneducated users, and some of them are hurting themselves, it was only a matter of time before it became regulated.
And thats without even looking at the political ramifications of BT, BP, BG, and other financial motivators.
Vaping is a lot like the Internet, BG wont allow anything to remain in a "wild wild west" state for very long.
There can't be anywhere near as much vape devices out there as power tools, there are whole other industries built around them apart from shops selling them. Add to that that vapers are mostly a subgroup of smokers (and still in the minority) then you get a rather small slice of the population.
Comparing absolute numbers is meaningless. There's far more casualties from flying in planes than from rockets blowing up, yet dying in a plane accident is about 1:10000000 while dying in a rocket is 1:100.
Really, only 3?
Tar, Feathers,RailWood Chipper, Politician. Some assembly required.
Upon examination of a wood chipped politician: 1:1 BS to hot air.
Must not have contained any politicians, it would have melted and been brown.
White and red snow
This is interesting. Gottlieb wants to make e-cigs over-the-counter drugs like nicotine patches.
FDA may consider over-the-counter regulation for e-cigarettes
FDA may consider over-the-counter regulation for e-cigarettes
The gist of that news article:This is interesting. Gottlieb wants to make e-cigs over-the-counter drugs like nicotine patches.
FDA may consider over-the-counter regulation for e-cigarettes
"If you're in favor of getting adults to quit smoking you can't turn a blind eye to the people who want to get access to nicotine," he said. (Gottlieb)
"At the very time I am trying to take nicotine out of combustible tobacco, I don't want to be sweeping the market of products that provide an alternative to smokers who want to get access to nicotine," Gottlieb said.
Driving the FDA's policies is the idea tobacco products exist on the so-called continuum of risk, where conventional cigarettes are the most harmful and other nicotine products are potentially less risky. Adopting the ideology has required the agency to balance persuading adult smokers to quit conventional cigarettes without enticing adolescents and teens.
Media reports have chronicled how kids are embracing e-cigarettes, especially the brand JUUL. Gottlieb said the FDA is aware of the problem with JUUL and other products, and the agency will take enforcement action against companies that are unlawfully marketing to kids.
Sounds reasonable on the surface.
Last edited:
Looks like the Big Pharma lobby is winning over the Big Tobacco lobby, at least for today.This is interesting. Gottlieb wants to make e-cigs over-the-counter drugs like nicotine patches.
FDA may consider over-the-counter regulation for e-cigarettes
This is interesting. Gottlieb wants to make e-cigs over-the-counter drugs like nicotine patches.
FDA may consider over-the-counter regulation for e-cigarettes
Is there some Strange Alignment of the Planets going on or Something?
Nothing happens for like 14 Months, then, in the Span of about 2 Weeks, All Hell Breaks Loose.
MEG TIRRELL: Let's talk about tobacco. So you have announced plans to try to limit the nicotine levels in combustible cigarettes to minimally addictive or nonaddictive levels. You've also said you're going to look at flavors like menthol. You got sued yesterday, though, by several public health groups saying you didn't move fast enough, the FDA didn't move fast enough and has delayed rules on e-cigarettes and cigars and that kids will be exposed to them for longer and potentially get addicted. How are you looking at that?
SCOTT GOTTLIEB: Well, I'm not going to address the specific litigation. But when we announced this plan earlier, late last year, the idea was to put nicotine at the center of our regulatory efforts and, to your point, go through a process to try to regulate nicotine levels in combustible cigarettes, combustible tobacco, to minimally and nonaddictive levels to try to transition smokers more quickly off of combustible tobacco onto reduced-risk products or to quit altogether. But, you know, we know that there are going to be adult smokers who still want to get access to satisfying levels of nicotine, and if we're going to render cigarettes minimally or nonaddictive, where are they going to get access to nicotine? Obviously the most advantageous route is to go to an OTC nicotine replacement product. But --
MEG TIRRELL: Over-the-counter?
SCOTT GOTTLIEB: Over-the-counter product like a patch or a gum. But we do see an opportunity from things like e-cigarettes and other electronic nicotine delivery systems potentially being a viable vehicle for adults who want to access nicotine. But those products need to be put through a series of appropriate regulatory gates. When I came into the agency, none of the foundational regulations that needed to be in place in order to properly regulate e-cigarettes were in place, and the only way for us to get those regulations in place was to implement the delay and the application deadlines, because all of these companies had applications due to the agency within a year. Well, we got those rules in place, and that's, in fact, what we're doing. At the very time that I am trying to take nicotine out of combustible tobacco, I don't want to be sweeping the market of products that could provide an alternative to smokers who want to get access to nicotine. One of the things we're doing right now is looking very actively at could we bring an e-cigarette through the over-the-counter pathway, which would give us many more tools to look at both safety and benefit, to study whether or not an e-cigarette actually does promote smoking cessation, and also gives us many more tools to study the toxicology associated with it and see what effects it might have on the lungs. We're going to be putting out two guidance documents sometime soon, probably this summer. One's going to address specifically how to study the toxicology associated with an e-cigarette, so the pulmonary tox associated with the use of an e-cigarette if you want to bring it through the new drug approval pathway and try to sell it as an over-the-counter product. We're also looking at what additional endpoints we might allow for products that want to get smoking cessation or maybe even smoking reduction claims as an over-the-counter nicotine replacement therapy. Because we do want to open up the marketplace towards more opportunities to get nicotine sold as a pharmaceutical product for smokers who want to either reduce their smoking or preferably quit altogether. I think all of these elements are important. People like certain parts of what we're doing, don't like certain parts of what we're doing. I think the people who sued us waited until we got out all the parts that they liked, and then one day later sued us on the parts they didn't like. But, you know, this is -- to me, this is a comprehensive package and I think if you're in favor of trying to get adult smokers to more rapidly quit smoking, you can't just turn a blind eye to the fact that there's still going to be adults who want to get access to nicotine, and there needs to be products available to safely do that. Now, all that said, I will just close by saying we are deeply concerned around the youth access. We see what's happening with Juul. We see what's happening with the other e-cigarette products where you see a lot of youth initiation on those products. That's why we're going to address things like favors. That's why you're going to see us take some enforcement actions very soon against some products that we think are being inappropriately marketed to kids. And we'll continue to push on that very hard because no child should be using any tobacco product.
MEG TIRRELL: Was the FDA dragging its feet before you got there on this issue?
SCOTT GOTTLIEB: I think you're dealing with -- with the Tobacco Center and Tobacco Control Act, you're dealing with a relatively new piece of legislation and a new center. And I think that they had to make decisions about which regulations they promulgated and couldn't do everything. And so it's true when I got to the agency, certain foundational regulations that I think we need to provide a firm regulatory context to evaluate these products weren't in place. It's not that they were dragging their feet. I think they had to make different decisions about what they did first. And there was some unfinished business. But that's not because anyone had dropped the ball. It's because it's a new center and it doesn't have, you know, 100 years of history like our drug center and all the regulations in place, you know, clearly codified.
CNBC EXCLUSIVE: CNBC’S MEG TIRRELL INTERVIEWS FDA COMMISSIONER SCOTT GOTTLIEB FROM CNBC’S HEALTHY RETURNS CONFERENCE TODAY
SCOTT GOTTLIEB: Well, I'm not going to address the specific litigation. But when we announced this plan earlier, late last year, the idea was to put nicotine at the center of our regulatory efforts and, to your point, go through a process to try to regulate nicotine levels in combustible cigarettes, combustible tobacco, to minimally and nonaddictive levels to try to transition smokers more quickly off of combustible tobacco onto reduced-risk products or to quit altogether. But, you know, we know that there are going to be adult smokers who still want to get access to satisfying levels of nicotine, and if we're going to render cigarettes minimally or nonaddictive, where are they going to get access to nicotine? Obviously the most advantageous route is to go to an OTC nicotine replacement product. But --
MEG TIRRELL: Over-the-counter?
SCOTT GOTTLIEB: Over-the-counter product like a patch or a gum. But we do see an opportunity from things like e-cigarettes and other electronic nicotine delivery systems potentially being a viable vehicle for adults who want to access nicotine. But those products need to be put through a series of appropriate regulatory gates. When I came into the agency, none of the foundational regulations that needed to be in place in order to properly regulate e-cigarettes were in place, and the only way for us to get those regulations in place was to implement the delay and the application deadlines, because all of these companies had applications due to the agency within a year. Well, we got those rules in place, and that's, in fact, what we're doing. At the very time that I am trying to take nicotine out of combustible tobacco, I don't want to be sweeping the market of products that could provide an alternative to smokers who want to get access to nicotine. One of the things we're doing right now is looking very actively at could we bring an e-cigarette through the over-the-counter pathway, which would give us many more tools to look at both safety and benefit, to study whether or not an e-cigarette actually does promote smoking cessation, and also gives us many more tools to study the toxicology associated with it and see what effects it might have on the lungs. We're going to be putting out two guidance documents sometime soon, probably this summer. One's going to address specifically how to study the toxicology associated with an e-cigarette, so the pulmonary tox associated with the use of an e-cigarette if you want to bring it through the new drug approval pathway and try to sell it as an over-the-counter product. We're also looking at what additional endpoints we might allow for products that want to get smoking cessation or maybe even smoking reduction claims as an over-the-counter nicotine replacement therapy. Because we do want to open up the marketplace towards more opportunities to get nicotine sold as a pharmaceutical product for smokers who want to either reduce their smoking or preferably quit altogether. I think all of these elements are important. People like certain parts of what we're doing, don't like certain parts of what we're doing. I think the people who sued us waited until we got out all the parts that they liked, and then one day later sued us on the parts they didn't like. But, you know, this is -- to me, this is a comprehensive package and I think if you're in favor of trying to get adult smokers to more rapidly quit smoking, you can't just turn a blind eye to the fact that there's still going to be adults who want to get access to nicotine, and there needs to be products available to safely do that. Now, all that said, I will just close by saying we are deeply concerned around the youth access. We see what's happening with Juul. We see what's happening with the other e-cigarette products where you see a lot of youth initiation on those products. That's why we're going to address things like favors. That's why you're going to see us take some enforcement actions very soon against some products that we think are being inappropriately marketed to kids. And we'll continue to push on that very hard because no child should be using any tobacco product.
MEG TIRRELL: Was the FDA dragging its feet before you got there on this issue?
SCOTT GOTTLIEB: I think you're dealing with -- with the Tobacco Center and Tobacco Control Act, you're dealing with a relatively new piece of legislation and a new center. And I think that they had to make decisions about which regulations they promulgated and couldn't do everything. And so it's true when I got to the agency, certain foundational regulations that I think we need to provide a firm regulatory context to evaluate these products weren't in place. It's not that they were dragging their feet. I think they had to make different decisions about what they did first. And there was some unfinished business. But that's not because anyone had dropped the ball. It's because it's a new center and it doesn't have, you know, 100 years of history like our drug center and all the regulations in place, you know, clearly codified.
CNBC EXCLUSIVE: CNBC’S MEG TIRRELL INTERVIEWS FDA COMMISSIONER SCOTT GOTTLIEB FROM CNBC’S HEALTHY RETURNS CONFERENCE TODAY
So basically, they are trying to find a way to hand all nicotine over to the drug industry while removing nicotine from the tobacco companies products, all the while striving to obfuscate the fact that nicotine will be handed to Big Pharma interests on a golden platter. That is how it looks to me...
Similar threads
- Locked
