Ecigs have been banned?

[daddytwigs]

Guess ill throw my hat into the ring. I came across this a few months ago when I was searching for eliquid safety, etc. if the FDA really was concerned about safety, then they would embrace programs like this.
AEMSA | American E-Liquid Manufacturing Standards Association
And now that BT, who seems to have unlimited lobbying power, has gotten into the game. Maybe, just maybe, FDA will see the light ($$)

 

[tomroblos]

On valets they said the ruling on that is not til April

 

[budynbuick]

Oh my...you might want to watch your language, lol
This isn't Yahoo

The kids might listening. Implied Profanity? Is that like 'defacto' profanity? BTW, welcome aboard wwwSunshineV8peCom

 

[zapped]

Guess ill throw my hat into the ring. I came across this a few months ago when I was searching for eliquid safety, etc. if the FDA really was concerned about safety, then they would embrace programs like this.
AEMSA | American E-Liquid Manufacturing Standards Association
And now that BT, who seems to have unlimited lobbying power, has gotten into the game. Maybe, just maybe, FDA will see the light ($$)

No thank you....While Im a huge advocate for CASAA, I cant get behind AEMSA for reasons too numerous to mention here.

 

[Stoneface]

As someone who has only used the Njoy sticks available, and not-so-patiently waiting for the first rig (to arrive today!!), I am already concerned about whatever hijinks the FDA plans for the future. I have read this entire thread and links (whew!). While everyone has put forth some great views, I will try to take solace in the fact that I have signed petitions and commented to preserve what I believe to be a change that will save my life. Whether the FDA manages to create an outright ban or strict regulations on liquids/devices, I believe either one will plainly suck. I won't tell anyone else what to do, but I have already voiced my opinion in every way possible. My state of New York has already tried to ban e-cigarettes completely. They succeeded in banning sales to minors (to which I agree). However, I don't think it will be too much longer before the state tries again. The FDA is not the only "foe" here - there are as many of them as there are of us.

I guess I am starting to sound like the "paranoid" the OP refers to. However, I don't think it is without good reason.

 

[andrios]

Very interesting stuff, hope it works out for the best!

 

[junkman]

I don't think their current efforts will go anywhere... I mean, how many head shops are out there to this day that continue to sell "Tobacco Water Pipes"

To attempt to regulate an electronic device that simply energizes a heating coil is pretty absurd. We just need to come up with other creative uses for the device, and bam, loophole created...

Tobacco Water Pipe... female dog, please...

Devices aren't the problem. Juice is. If there is no juice, who will buy the devices?

 

[zapped]

Devices aren't the problem. Juice is. If there is no juice, who will buy the devices?

Exactly.....were actually agreeing on something

I think were going to be lucky if all they do is tax juices.

They might set their testing requirements so high that all but the richest juice suppliers are unable to comply.

Guess who gets to eat that cost in the end?

I think that if any taxes come, they will start out moderate and gradually increase past the point of ridiculousness like cigarettes.

You know how much I paid for a pack of Marlboro Reds in international waters on a cruise a few years back? 2 dollars

The tax is higher than the cost of the product.

 

[CES]

it's actually simpler than it seems from this thread.

The FDA doesn't make laws, so doesn't have to power to directly "ban". However, the FDA does have the regulatory power to remove things from the market, making them unavailable for purchase, or to make things just as safe and (in)effective as the current NRTs. If the patch and gum worked for more than 8% of people, this conversation wouldn't be necessary.

In the case of e-cigs, legislation to include e-cigs in smoking bans already exists. In many cases, the words electronic cigarettes were EXPLICITLY included in such legislation. The decisions of the FDA on how to regulate e-cigs will be used to inform future legislation.

 

[washnwmn]

How it will go depends a great deal on who's behind any FDA ruling. If there are big drug companies, who make big bucks from quit-smoking drugs and other nicotine substitutes, or even the tobacco industry, lobbying for a ban, it could be trouble. Since prohibition of a substance has never really worked well, let us hope they only decide to impose restrictions and regulations.

 

[zapped]

it's actually simpler than it seems from this thread.

The FDA doesn't make laws, so doesn't have to power to directly "ban". However, the FDA does have the regulatory power to remove things from the market, making them unavailable for purchase, or to make things just as safe and (in)effective as the current NRTs. If the patch and gum worked for more than 8% of people, this conversation wouldn't be necessary.

In the case of e-cigs, legislation to include e-cigs in smoking bans already exists. In many cases, the words electronic cigarettes were EXPLICITLY included in such legislation. The decisions of the FDA on how to regulate e-cigs will be used to inform future legislation.

That hasnt stopped them in the past though. I'm sure you remember when they were illegally seizing shipments from China. If suppliers were lucky it got shipped back, in some cases they destroyed entire shipments and then sent vendors a bill. I got caught in that myself.

It was later challenged in court and the judge ruled they were overstepping their bounds. Didnt help the smaller vendors one bit though since it wasnt a class action suit and the damage had already been done.

The FDA ended up doing what they set out out to do that time and shut a lot of us down. If anyone thinks that FDA is looking out for our best interests and wont go straight for the jugular vein they need to wake up.

Why do you think that on the first page of their website under electronic cigarettes they are asking people to call an 800 number (paid for by our taxes) with complaints? People also need to ask themselves, how many of those alleged complaints are legit and how many are being registered by the anti-smoking camp? Also why is there no 800 number for success stories if they are so benign?

Their agenda is plain to anyone whos been following vaping for awhile and has taken the time to actually read instead of rattle off opinions based on their feelings.

That last part wasnt directed at you CES, just to some of the comments that have made in general in this thread.

 

[CES]

Exactly Zapped. It was a de facto regulatory ban, rather than a legislative ban. They made the products unavailable as "unregulated drug and drug delivery devices". And the FDA has every intent of regulation e-cigs under the deeming regulation, which will eliminate products that are not substantially equivalent to those around in 2007. Because the nicotine level that is currently approved as "safe and effective" is no higher than 4 mg/ml, then that's the highest level we're likely to be able to get.

Without the FDA considering consumer input, or taking into account the newest research, then openly available e-cigs will be as useless as NRTs are. And those that need higher levels of nicotine will be mixing it themselves without access to information on safe mixing, or getting it from completely blackmarket sources. Both of which will have no community oversight, and a higher potential for adverse events.

And people currently not vaping will have no access to an effective alternative to smoking.

Does anyone remember the earliest versions of a smokeless cig that was regulated out of existence by the FDA, maybe in the 1980's? I've heard of it, but don't remember the specifics. However, i wonder what would have happened if I'd had access to an alternative prior to 3 years ago.

ETA: a bit of history..... here's a link to the thread in 2009-2010 that followed the lawsuit requesting a temporary restraining order to prevent the FDA from seizing e-cig supplies. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...t-sheet-update-appeals-court-issues-stay.html

 

[Oliver]

CES, it was RJ Reynold's Premier cigarette - NOVA | "Safer" Cigarettes: A History

Interestingly -talk of history repeating itself - the premier was attacked by public health officials who wanted it regulated as a drug (by the FDA). The main difference is that the Premier was withdrawn by Reynolds because the product was disliked by smokers - presumably if it had shown commercial promise they'd have fought against this pressure.

Of course the e-cigarette is a different case principally because it is loved by smokers, and thankfully there are a few organizations who have stumped up the funds so far to fight the cause. Be in no doubt, however, that there are plenty of organizations and commercial interests that want e-cigs gone, and will happily accept de facto bans through regulation as a win in this fight.

 

[CES]

Thanks SJ

 

[zapped]

Just wanted to note for some of the newer vapers this issue is important enough for PBusardo to put a link up for it at tasteyourjuice.com.

Phils a great guy but he usually avoids politics like the plague in keeping with unbiased reviewer status.That its up on his site and so many veterans are talking about this should tell you something about how important this is to all of us.

 

[Wondertwin]

I trust the FDA to regulate e-cigs effectively about as much as I trust the SEC to keep Wall St. in line. Okay maybe a tiny bit more. I appreciate what the FDA has done right a whole lot more, but remain skeptical and ever watchful of some tobacco/pharma string pulling shens.

 

[zapped]

I was helping my wife study a few days ago for her Pharmacy Tech class and as near as I can tell the FDA was mostly on the up and up until 1983 with the introduction of the Orphan Drug Act.

It was intended to help drug companies and labs offset the cost of developing drugs for rare diseases by providing things like research assistance, grants and cost incentives. To qualify for assistance the disease had to affect less than 200k people.

Sounds like a worthy goal right? It was until they changed the stipulation to cover ANY drug for ANY disease that the pharmaceutical companies claimed they suffered a loss in producing.

Im firmly convinced that this when they first jumped into bed with Big Pharma as the potential for abuse in that act is enormous.

I'll bet you there are more than a few FDA employees who are confused just where the FDA's lips start and the bums of the pharmaceutical companies begin.

 

[MzGlow]

I've been reading this whole thread since yesterday(its really long and I was tired from work. Fell asleep) I've gone to the links posted here and the links within those links and beyond and I apologize but seriously if someone doesn't get the information provided they either don't want to or can't understand it.
I've smoked since I was 12, my mother smoked also and my brother smokes. I tried the patch, the gum, going cold turkey(Btw it may be dif for everyone but for me it was a nightmare. Throwing up, sweats, fever, ........, ect.) Even my doctor said she wouldn't recomment chantix when i asked her about it(wait isn't that fda approved?) I've been researching electronic cigarettes for a year now till I decided to take the plunge and buy a kit. Been smoke free since 1/7/2013 I know its not such a long time but I'm feeling so much better. My breathing has improved, I'm sleeping ok, almost all my headaches are gone l, my mood swings are more in control(I'm bipolar) no more shortness of breath, no more cotton mouth and no stinkyness. I've gone from 2.4%-1.6% nicotine and I'm slowly weaning myself from it until I'm at 0 but I like vaping so I don't plan to stop.
My brother is a 3(yes I said 3) pack a day person even thought its harming him he still does it. Not even the fact that coughing up blood with pieces of lungs in it won't make him stop and its scary as heck. He has also tried all those "tried and true" fda approved patches and gums, ect.
I'm planning to get him a kit and slowly get him off the cancer sticks. If the fda wins we all lose...

We have a saying here.. "puedes llevar la cabrá al río, pero no la puedes hacer beber"..
In other words you can show someone the way but you can't make them take it. And I apologize for saying this.. but you do not wish to find the way..Thank you

 

[DoctorJ]

I was helping my wife study a few days ago for her Pharmacy Tech class and as near as I can tell the FDA was mostly on the up and up until 1983 with the introduction of the Orphan Drug Act.

It was intended to help drug companies and labs offset the cost of developing drugs for rare diseases by providing things like research assistance, grants and cost incentives. To qualify for assistance the disease had to affect less than 200k people.

Sounds like a worthy goal right? It was until they changed the stipulation to cover ANY drug for ANY disease that the pharmaceutical companies claimed they suffered a loss in producing.

Im firmly convinced that this when they first jumped into bed with Big Pharma as the potential for abuse in that act is enormous.

I'll bet you there are more than a few FDA employees who are confused just where the FDA's lips start and the bums of the pharmaceutical companies begin.

As far as I can tell, BP companies don't need any "assistance." For example, my step daughter was prescribed a med that has no generic (Abilify). I'm sure you've seen all the commercials.

My wife is a pediatric nurse and tells me all the time about BP reps visiting her clinic (at least once a week) and catering meals for the staff along with bringing items such as pens, notepads, and other promotional materials.

Back to my point. I went to pick up my step daughter's script the other day and it was $120 for a 30 day supply(with insurance)!!!!
So I had to ask, what would the script have been had I not had insurance. She wrote the price down on the receipt, $755.64!!!!!!!!! $25.18 PER PILL?????

So about the "assistance" BP "needs"???? Uhhhhhh, hmmmmm, cut out the commercials and promotions, which I see as totally unecessary anyway and put that toward lowering the price of their products. That should cover the "assistance" they "need". How can they have "losses" with prices such as this???

 

[Caridwen]

OP now has the appropriate number of posts to post in the correct forums.

Moving

Edit: Actually, closing. The OP was given links to the info he was looking for.