FDA Does Intended Use violate the First Amendment?
- Thread starter curiousJan
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I hear what you're saying, but also find most of these posts to be on topic.
I feel at times like I'm getting an education on a subject that maybe I should learn more about.
And it is a perspective that I come more and more to value and appreciate.
In fact, the posts here inspired me to buy Atlas Shrugged for my wife.
Because, yeah, I'm not about to read it until I retire.
But my wife eats books for breakfast, and can provide good feedback.
She usually beats me at Jeopardy too, which irks me to no end.
Unfortunately, she got a bit bogged down in Atlas Shrugged.
And her pace has slowed to a veritable crawl.
But yeah, following the ball can become tedious when I'm not moving at a leisurely pace.
So those are the times I just quickly scan, or even skip past the post and move on.
As someone who may have a touch of OCD it is hard for me to skip a post entirely.
But I've also learned that, at times, that may be necessary for retention of my sanity.
Last edited:
I hear what you're saying, but also find most of these posts to be on topic.
I feel at times like I'm getting an education on a subject that maybe I should learn more about.
And it is a perspective that I come more and more to value and appreciate.
In fact, the posts here inspired me to buy Atlas Shrugged for my wife.
Because, yeah, I'm not about to read it until I retire.
But my wife eats books for breakfast, and can provide good feedback.
She also usually beats me at Jeopardy too, which irks me to no end.
Unfortunately, she got a bit bogged down in Atlas Shrugged.
And her pace has slowed to a veritable crawl.
But yeah, following the ball can become tedious when I'm not moving at a leisurely pace.
So those are the times I just quickly scan, or even skip past the post and move on.
As someone who may have a touch of OCD it is hard for me to skip a post entirely.
But I've also learned that, at times, that may be necessary for retention of my sanity.
Atlas Shrugged was a GREAT read... but I was already a Rand fan, from reading The Fountainhead in high school. But I "eat" books for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snacks.
And that really is the way to win at Jeopardy. The only one I've read that really bogged me down, though I enjoyed it tremendously, was War & Peace. It was more readable than Dr Zhivago, which I could never get started enough to get interested. Those 19th cent. Russians take verbose to a whole new stratosphere. (and if James Joyce had ever learned proper notation for quotes, Ulysses would have been a MUCH easier read!!!)
Andria
Yes indeed, I'm fully aware of that fact.And that really is the way to win at Jeopardy.
I can crush her on a lot of categories, from science to animals to sports, and things in between.
But she has me beat all day long on history, geography, and the arts.
In other words, she has me beat on categories that no one cares about!!
And those categories seem to be the most popular in Jeopardy.
But yeah, we LOVE Jeopardy.
And when I beat her, I get an overwhelming sense of satisfaction.
Last edited:
Yes indeed, I'm fully aware of that fact.
I can crush her on a lot of categories, from science to sports, and things in between.
But she has me beat all day long on history, geography, and the arts.
We LOVE Jeopardy.
And when I beat her, I get an overwhelming sense of satisfaction.
When my son was living at home, he could crush me on sports, politics, Wall St, and opera (he's a trained choral singer, so he KNOWS opera!)... it was 50/50 on other categories, especially classical music in general -- but I could always crush him on European history and authors.
My husband doesn't even bother, unless it's a category about American currency; he's a coin/currency collector, so he KNOWS that category, just all kinds of tidbits. Andria
OK, accepting that my post was tangential, there is a serious point in my posting that particular study that pertains (albeit tangetially) to what I'm currently engaged in (definitely another thread )
On the first amendment issue, do note that Senior Counsel to the FDA Eric Lindblom addressed this last year: "Effectively Regulating E-Cigarettes and Their Advertising—and the Firs" by Eric N. Lindblom
Basically, if you're selling an illegal product, you don't have first amendment rights. Well, you do, of course, but not as regards your product.
Essentially, FDA gains fiat control over the market. In light of this, the FDA guidance is probably best viewed as an indication as to how to navigate the post deeming world.
) On the first amendment issue, do note that Senior Counsel to the FDA Eric Lindblom addressed this last year: "Effectively Regulating E-Cigarettes and Their Advertising—and the Firs" by Eric N. Lindblom
Basically, if you're selling an illegal product, you don't have first amendment rights. Well, you do, of course, but not as regards your product.
Essentially, FDA gains fiat control over the market. In light of this, the FDA guidance is probably best viewed as an indication as to how to navigate the post deeming world.
OK, accepting that my post was tangential, there is a serious point in my posting that particular study that pertains (albeit tangetially) to what I'm currently engaged in (definitely another thread
On the first amendment issue, do note that Senior Counsel to the FDA Eric Lindblom addressed this last year: "Effectively Regulating E-Cigarettes and Their Advertising—and the Firs" by Eric N. Lindblom
Basically, if you're selling an illegal product, you don't have first amendment rights. Well, you do, of course, but not as regards your product.
Essentially, FDA gains fiat control over the market. In light of this, the FDA guidance is probably best viewed as an indication as to how to navigate the post deeming world.
It's interesting to me how much the linked article uses the words, "nicotine-containing e-cigarettes." Given how this is written, one might think all vaping products that are without nicotine would either not be illegal and/or may not be regulated by the FDA. I kinda doubt the latter, but do think FDA knows it walks a tenuous line if it restricts commercial speech on non-nicotine products as FSPTCA would either be in question (partially or entirely) or more likely seen as way overreaching to restrict that type of language.
In essence, what would the act/law be trying to prevent if it goes after non-nicotine products?
FYI: The full bio of Eric Lindblom extract:
"Eric N. Lindblom, JD, is a Senior Scholar at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, serving through a special detail from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products. Mr. Lindblom is working on a range of projects relating to the authorities and activities of the FDA Center for Tobacco Products and the regulatory process, including collaborative efforts with experts and researchers from Georgetown Law School and the University, other academic institutions, and the tobacco control and public health communities, both domestic and worldwide."
Full Bio Source
"Eric N. Lindblom, JD, is a Senior Scholar at the O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, serving through a special detail from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Center for Tobacco Products. Mr. Lindblom is working on a range of projects relating to the authorities and activities of the FDA Center for Tobacco Products and the regulatory process, including collaborative efforts with experts and researchers from Georgetown Law School and the University, other academic institutions, and the tobacco control and public health communities, both domestic and worldwide."
Full Bio Source
OK, accepting that my post was tangential, there is a serious point in my posting that particular study that pertains (albeit tangetially) to what I'm currently engaged in (definitely another thread
On the first amendment issue, do note that Senior Counsel to the FDA Eric Lindblom addressed this last year: "Effectively Regulating E-Cigarettes and Their Advertising—and the Firs" by Eric N. Lindblom
Basically, if you're selling an illegal product, you don't have first amendment rights. Well, you do, of course, but not as regards your product.
Essentially, FDA gains fiat control over the market. In light of this, the FDA guidance is probably best viewed as an indication as to how to navigate the post deeming world.
I had not seen this before now. Speculation presented as fact:
"Unless effectively regulated, e-cigarette use will be more harmful than necessary and their advertising will work to: (a) increase initiation among both youth and non-tobacco-using adults; (b) prompt former smokers to relapse back into addicted nicotine use; (c) encourage smokers to use e-cigarettes where they cannot smoke; and (d) prompt smokers to switch to e-cigarettes instead of quitting all tobacco and nicotine use." (emphasis added)
Gosh, that sounds awful. Why not just do away with e-cigarettes entirely?
(b) is conflating smoking with nicotine use (if a former smoker "relapses", then they're SMOKING, not simply using nicotine);
They say (c) as if that's a bad thing, which it bloody well is NOT, considering that vast scope of all the places one CANNOT smoke -- ANTZ's doing.
And (d)... is pretty much the WHOLE DAMN POINT for a lot of vapers! -- to be ABLE to stop smoking, because doing it cold turkey just ain't happenin'! But apparently they never noticed that last part. Which goes to show you what total idiots they are!
Andria
Wish I could make my very public wager with this author/FDA, that post-deeming products will be inherently (and unnecessarily) more harmful than pre-deeming products. I'd win the bet, collect all monies for PMTA's and give it back to vendors to create lots of new, innovative, less harmful (than post-deeming) products.
Yeah, that's how advertising works. Welcome to marketing 101.
...in all of 2% of cases, and in all of those cases, will allow them a far easier out than they got via combustibles, plus be able to avoid ineffective NRT's.
Hallelujah!
Because we are sure they'd quit by us telling them they need to. Which is why we approve NRT products. And if this doesn't make sense to you, it's because you are too smart for your own good. We seek to change that.
So basically, Mr. Lindblom is working hand in glove with the all of the ANTZ.
Gee, wonder what conclusions he will come up with there.
What I really wonder, is what vaper among us can not be outraged by all this.
Mr. Limpbomb [sic] will never know the nature or extent of our outrage because he is collaborating exclusively with "experts and researchers from Georgetown Law School and the University, other academic institutions, and the tobacco control and public health communities, both domestic and worldwide." Given that we are merely the consumers of, you know, the actual products he wants to virtually eradicate, what possible contribution could we make to his policy decisions? And I don't see anybody who makes or sells these products on his list either.
This is a community service announcement.
New CTA from CASAA--German steamers need our help!
CASAA: Help German Vapers oppose the TPD! Sign the petition to German Parliament.
Yeah, it's in German, but translation and a helpful guide are provided.
Carry on!
New CTA from CASAA--German steamers need our help!
CASAA: Help German Vapers oppose the TPD! Sign the petition to German Parliament.
Yeah, it's in German, but translation and a helpful guide are provided.
Carry on!
No idea whether you're serious here or not, but assuming you are....
That's actually NOT how advertising works.
Advertising simply acts (in the main) to gain market share for the advertiser, not in "creating a market". Market creation is a MUCH more complex and organic affair.
Blaming advertising for youth vaping is a totally evidence-free position which ignores the vast research on peer influence and so forth that is almost certainly 100% the reason for the rise (and, indeed, recent decline) of youth vaping.
Was being serious. Disagree with your last paragraph, but not going to quibble with you about it. Agree that peer influence is bigger factor.
Perhaps I was being a little hyperbolic - perhaps advertising plays a small role in some cases. But the reality is that teen awareness of vaping was 100% a few years back (can't remember when it was measured), yet penetration amongst teens increased steadily over the last few years. Is this due to advertising? Clue: they're not using Blucigs, by far the biggest advertiser.
No, vaping is popular amongst some teens because it's become endorsed over time by... other teens. That's the locus of the "market creation".
Joe Camel - did this campaign increase the number of teens smoking overall, or did it gain market share of the teen market?
No, vaping is popular amongst some teens because it's become endorsed over time by... other teens. That's the locus of the "market creation".
Joe Camel - did this campaign increase the number of teens smoking overall, or did it gain market share of the teen market?
That was the claim of the San Francisco lawyer that sued RJR - who later settled out of court, still claiming that their target was 25-49 year old Marlboro smokers... basically.
Public Education brainwashing has harmed more teens than Joe Camel ever could.
IMO, if it is advertising that is for mixed ages, thus not really targeted at kids, then I don't think we disagree. But what if the advertising were actually targeted at kids? As in, wherever kids are encouraged to be/play or whatever they are encouraged to read/watch, this is where advertising for vaping would be found? Would you then say advertising plays no role?
A bit challenging to continue without getting reply to the above questions, but I would note that for kids that are not young adults, the above questions are what I'm getting at. For young adults and older, I think advertising would play role, but for 23 and under (and say over 10), peer pressure would play far bigger role, partially to mostly cause adults are going to be sending so many mixed messages, young adults have to rely on each other (and those who do choose to experiment) to get something closer to 'what is it actually like to use this.'
But part of the point on this tangent is (or was) 'non-tobacco-using adults.' For them, in current reality, as I think we all know, it is highly unlikely they choose to start using because of advertising. Especially, when advertising is met with restrictions or influenced by propaganda of the anti variety. But if nicotine use were instead promoted and the benefits that many of us realize from vaping were promoted, I think it possible that more never smokers would be interested and that advertisements, if done well, would be a factor. Currently, I think most never smoking adults think of nicotine use as 'highly addictive' and/or 'cancer causing' with almost no benefits, thus pointless to take on as new activity/habit.
But getting back to current reality (pre-FDA deeming), if eCigs were advertised say every Super Bowl, and in way that shows it to be great recreational choice, according to pro-vaping perspective, I think it would for sure be more than current/former smokers that have interest in the activity, even with all the anti-propaganda that's around. As we inch closer to FDA deeming, I think the opposite is likely to occur (ads are heavily restricted) and so I think they will have increasingly negligible impact on all future non-users. Especially if there is advertising of the 'still blowing smoke' variety to ensure that the uninitiated stay that way. Except, here in the information age, with word of mouth and social networking, plus with fact that antis continue to overplay their hand, I think it won't matter how restrictive advertising is. People are going to vape and some of those will be people that never smoked, nor have any intention of smoking at any point. For the next 10 to 50 years, I presume the overwhelming majority will be those who have smoked or who do have desire to smoke, but see vaping as better alternative.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
