Ecigs have been banned?

[Eatenback2life]

This is a joke! How can the government/FDA waste their time chasing vaping, when smoking is legal and still killing 450,000 people a year!! This is all about money the government isn't making on taxes from us vaping!!!

Is there any facts around vaping health issues? Is there any facts around health issues from tobacco? This is a farce on the American people with all roads leading down a money trail (or lack thereof) for the government. Tobacco is big money....so is sickness....... just take a look at Big Pharma....

 

[Leatherneck]

Keeping the populace sick, poor, subject to an imposed culture, educated by influence, needy..........hmm. what does THAT sound like?

Yah, well, that's a whole 'nother discussion that probably will lead to...vigorous debate.

 

[Leatherneck]

Is there any facts around vaping health issues?

1st...I love your avatar. Marvel Zombies was awesome.

2nd...Since when does the government need, or even consult, facts before making a decision?

 

[Jman8]

A Ban to be specific

I don't think the intent is there to ban them, nor eCigs.
To regulate them? Yes.
Part of that regulation is, as I understand it, to ensure tobacco isn't sold to minors, advertised to minors, and/or near minors.

Concern for minors is central to the issue of regulation. From when I was a kid, it seems like BT has taken a rather huge hit on this end. While at same time, we still live in a world where people under 18 are some of those who are 'new smokers.'

 

[daddytwigs]

The FDA took my baby away
They took her away
Away from me

The dingo ate my baby

 

[Hulamoon]

Then why don't they hit combustible tobacco harder? This is all about greasy palms, make no mistake. They don't care about "the people" whether under or over 18.

I don't think the intent is there to ban them, nor eCigs.
To regulate them? Yes.
Part of that regulation is, as I understand it, to ensure tobacco isn't sold to minors, advertised to minors, and/or near minors.

Concern for minors is central to the issue of regulation. From when I was a kid, it seems like BT has taken a rather huge hit on this end. While at same time, we still live in a world where people under 18 are some of those who are 'new smokers.'

 

[Hello World]

Oh, don't get me wrong. I agree. People can, and should, be responsible for their own safety. The government shouldn't be telling us how to keep ourselves safe. It shouldn't have to.

But then again, there is a staggering lack of personal responsibility going around these days.

Greetz, Leather ...

Noted!

However vendors should be subjected to these regulations. Some flavors etch plastic bottles, and the full verdict on the effects of nicotine on some plastics is not in yet, esp. e-juice that had been stored for longer periods of time.

They waited at least a century too long studying the effects of asbestos before any action was taken. I wouldn't want to be surprised with a new disease that might be labelled "Plastic Lung Cancer" in 2033.

You have a right to vape, but you should also have the right to be served with safe products.

And this is where the FDA and others of their ilk are dragging their heels, even showing their true colors. Instead of catering to consumer demand and enacting safety regulations, it appears they are more interested in restricting e-cigs. And these interests are driven by both the regulations in place that handicap them as well as the money of BP/BT. It's a marriage made in hell.

You see, the FDA is really not any service organization for the public, but a traffic cop. They don't help the public to find avenues to bring a popular product to the market, but expect someone to blow millions of dollars on R & D and then be subjected to their brand of Kangeroo court criteria, effectively keeping monopolies like BP/BT at their table. This may be a for better or worse corporate model, but it does not assist the public.

Considering at least 100,000 people e-cig in the USA, the Gov't should have years ago on their own volition started studying the health effects out of their own revenues if they actually cared for public safety, and then either publish those results and/or set standards so this practice does not continue on any unregulated basis. Instead they wait on BT/BP to do something. Of the three parties involved, the Gov't/FDA is by leaps and bounds the very dumbest and irresponsible. The FDA doesn't want to deal with us (ie. serve the public), they're much more at home with the boys that have the big money, while legislators stare holes into space.

We live in a bureaucracy mistaken for a democracy.

 

[DC2]

Posting again on behalf of Kristin
-------------------------------

Can I just ask what is the difference between a stated intent to ban and a de facto ban, when the end result is essentially the same? You even mention excessive regulations that prohibit businesses from growing - which is a de facto ban. Did you read my post and follow the links for which you asked? It mentions nothing about banning flavors or nicotine strengths - it's about banning products not around before 2007 and excessive regulations and fees that all but the large cigarette-style companies couldn't afford. If they ban products marketed after 2007, that would be a ban on a huge segment of the market. And those are just one or two examples of what the FDA said they'd do - not the worst. They can do just about anything they want other than the elimination of nicotine. Look at what the EU is proposing - like regulations requiring no more than 4 mg of nicotine. That would kill the market there, because smokers would stop buying them. Who needs a ban when you can just regulate? That way it looks like you are "just protecting the public," but not banning a safer product. The deeming regulations they pass, therefore, are very important and one reason why CASAA and other advocates get "fanatical " about asking vapers to step up and comment/testify. If we don't convey the urgency, the calls have often gone largely unheeded in the past. Now is the time to tell the FDA what we want regulated BEFORE they act. Getting them to change regulations after the fact would be extremely difficult.

Granted, we would fight flavor and higher nicotine bans, but it's the regulations that would result in most if not all e-cig companies not being allowed to sell or make e-cigarettes useless that is our greatest concern. There may be uninformed people posting who believe that the FDA is going to issue an outright ban, but I suspect they just misunderstand the situation. The FDA doesn't have to ban them outright as they can just regulate them out of existence. That is exactly what they were attempting to do in 2009 by deeming them unapproved drug devices, so it's not exactly a stretch.

 

[tA71ana]

I don't think the intent is there to ban them, nor eCigs.
To regulate them? Yes.
Part of that regulation is, as I understand it, to ensure tobacco isn't sold to minors, advertised to minors, and/or near minors.

Concern for minors is central to the issue of regulation. From when I was a kid, it seems like BT has taken a rather huge hit on this end. While at same time, we still live in a world where people under 18 are some of those who are 'new smokers.'

Ultimately they don't care about minors - that is an excuse, an ad-hominem argument-it always has been, for anything that someone wants to ban.
"But - its for the kids!"
The reality is that kids will and always have been able to get ahold of liquor, cigarettes, dirty magazines, you name it.
I'm not saying it is right - it isn't....but this is reality.
I used to steal cigarettes out of my mother's pack. Cigarettes were illegal for minors back then, too and it didn't stop me from obtaining them, whether from her pack or from somewhere else.
Banning/severely limiting this stuff for adults is not going to help kids - it will help the business of criminal enterprise that wishes to get into the business.
What helps kids is parental responsibility in being involved with their kids and talking to them about why they should or shouldn't do something. Instead they choose to abdicate this responsibility to the State to do it for them.
That is ridiculous.

 

[Jman8]

Combustible tobacco has been hit hard. Can vape pretty much where I want to. I question often if I could smoke in my own residence. Pretty much every home owner I know disallows smoking in their home. And every home owner I currently visit, allows vaping.

We the people are making these decisions, and then using boogeyman to be the fall guy for decisions that don't go the way that some of us feel equates to fundamental freedom.

 

[Leatherneck]

You have a right to vape, but you should also have the right to be served with safe products.

Whole-heartedly agree! But, as you noted, I don't think the FDA does a good job of making sure our products are safe. Instead, they serve the best interest of those who control the purse strings.

If it were a fair and logical system, e-cigarettes would only be banned after a wholesale, no holds barred ban on all tobacco products, and frankly countless others.

It is exactly because the government just isn't good at that sort of thing the people need to be responsible for their own safety and held responsible for their actions as they affect others.

But that road leads to all sorts of other beliefs that might get me lynched in certain parts of the country....

 

[Leatherneck]

Posting again on behalf of Kristin
-------------------------------

If I'm treading on some unseen toes just swat me across the nose with a newspaper and I'll get the hint but...

Is Kristin not allowed to post here?

 

[Leatherneck]

Combustible tobacco has been hit hard. Can vape pretty much where I want to.

I can't.

I work for the State of Oregon. The Governor has placed a complete and utter ban on state property for the use of smoking, chew, snuff...and e-cigarettes. Not for the health of those around the user, but in a blatant, and admitted, attempt to "encourage" (government speak for "force") people off all sources of nicotene. There is no distinction made for e-cigarettes, instead lumped directly in with cigarettes, snuff, pipes, etc.

See the link below:

http://www.oregon.gov/gov/docs/executive_orders/eo_12-13.pdf

 

[DC2]

If I'm treading on some unseen toes just swat me across the nose with a newspaper and I'll get the hint but...

Is Kristin not allowed to post here?

She sells some custom made boxes for jewelry, medications, and electronic cigarettes.
She had to therefore register as a vendor, and vendors can't post in the New Members forum.

 

[DC2]

We the people are making these decisions, and then using boogeyman to be the fall guy for decisions that don't go the way that some of us feel equates to fundamental freedom.

The thing I don't understand is that you have posted comments to the FDA as well.
So you are just arguing against the use of the word "ban" and I guess, additionally, to show restraint in the comments?

 

[Leatherneck]

She sells some custom made boxes for jewelry, medications, and electronic cigarettes.
She had to therefore register as a vendor, and vendors can't post in the New Members forum.

Ah. Gotcha.

 

[Jman8]

Can I just ask what is the difference between a stated intent to ban and a de facto ban, when the end result is essentially the same?

I would say there is a de facto ban on cigarettes in place and an actual ban (at least in my state) on use / sale of MJ. Depends a bit on who you talk to what the difference is, but de facto bans tend not to be deemed illegal by local law enforcement.

Did you read my post and follow the links for which you asked?

Yes, some I was already familiar with.
First link is not about banning / prohibiting eCigs.

Second link might be info I requested, and am up for discussing that as desired. It is a very long read, and I haven't read it all. As the word "ban" is premise of this thread, I did a search on that term, and came upon something I was already aware of, which says, "For instance, one provision of the Act specifically prohibits FDA from "banning all cigarettes, all smokeless tobacco products, all little cigars, all cigars other than little cigars, all pipe tobacco, or all roll-your-own tobacco products."

Third link, again, is not about banning, but about intent to do everything humanly possible to regulate the eCig industry.

If we don't convey the urgency, the calls have often gone largely unheeded in the past. Now is the time to tell the FDA what we want regulated BEFORE they act.

We agree here.

There may be uninformed people posting who believe that the FDA is going to issue an outright ban, but I suspect they just misunderstand the situation.

We agree here. I'm addressing that misunderstanding with this thread.

The FDA doesn't have to ban them outright as they can just regulate them out of existence.

We may disagree here. Can you name me something that has been regulated out of existence?

 

[Jman8]

I can't.

I work for the State of Oregon. The Governor has placed a complete and utter ban on state property for the use of smoking, chew, snuff...and e-cigarettes. Not for the health of those around the user, but in a blatant, and admitted, attempt to "encourage" (government speak for "force") people off all sources of nicotene. There is no distinction made for e-cigarettes, instead lumped directly in with cigarettes, snuff, pipes, etc.

See the link below:

http://www.oregon.gov/gov/docs/executive_orders/eo_12-13.pdf

Did a quick reading of the order and I'd be highly tempted to vape in Oregon, on places where it is forbidden and/or challenge the intent of the law as it applies to vaping. Seems like it would be rather easy given how the order is worded.

 

[Jimi D.]

Jman8 is going to be a super member before the night is over ! Woot !!

 

[tA71ana]

Did a quick reading of the order and I'd be highly tempted to vape in Oregon, on places where it is forbidden and/or challenge the intent of the law as it applies to vaping. Seems like it would be rather easy given how the order is worded.

Yes ...I see the loophole..they are talking about tobacco products there....And throwing in ecigs just for grins not realizing that ecigs do not utilize tobacco, lol