Hi all,
Thought I would share the email i just sent out to the major news networks, my state reps. and my local newspaper
Hello there,
I would like to inform the American Public about what I believe is yet another attempt by the FDA to regulate our lives. There are two proposal currently in the works that could in all likely hood end the sale of electronic cigarettes. I implore you to inform people of these regulations and the scare tactics that the FDA is using.
Regulations.gov
Regulations.gov
The first regulation could ban the internet sale of these devices. Their reasoning is that minors will be able to purchase these devices. Correct me if I am mistaken but internet sales require a credit card for payment, I know of no bank that would issue a credit card to a minor,
I believe that this has more to do with tax revenue than with "protecting the children" as there is no state or federal "sin" tax on these devices.
I have been using an electronic cigarette (PV) since March of this year and have completely stopped using analog cigarettes since May 8th. If these items were to be banned I, along with thousands of others would more than likely go back to smoking analog cigarettes.
There are those adults who choose to smoke, which is their right as adults ... to choose what or what not to consume into their bodies. Nicotine is being studied for its medicinal usefulness in multiple regards - Alzheimer's, ADD, Krohn's disease - and has been long recognized as a choice self-medication for those with cognitive-focal issues.
There is one retail establishment in my area that carries electronic cigarettes and accessories, however their prices are much higher than what I can spend for the same items online. Also many electronic cigarettes vendors do not have "walk in" retail locations and as such banning interenet sales of their products would in essence put them out of business.
Remove Internet sales of liquid nicotine for use in PVs and hand a large number of people merely trying to be kinder to their bodies a death sentence ... straight back into the fire, literally. It also will be a death sentence to many small, but flourishing, businesses -- our current economy really doesn't need that now does it?
I agree that there should be baseline standards (e.g. manufacturing, ensuring no-sale to minors) but to place the level of restrictions implied within this text (i.e. applying PACT to tobacco products other than cigarettes and smokeless tobacco) would be to seriously harm many, many legal adult consumers because the electronic cigarette industry is too young to have a strong brick-and-mortar presence anywhere other than large metropolitan areas. The FDA instead of doing the research needed has instead opted to support a nicotine vacine, which has shown little success and cost millions of dollars to research.
Antismoking Vaccine Fails in Late Trial - NYTimes.com
As to the second purposed regulation:
Under the provisions of Section 910, manufacturers/importers (of all tobacco products that weren't on the market prior to February 15, 2007) would need to submit an application to the FDA claiming that the product is "substantially equivalent" to another product that was already on the market prior to 2/15/2007, and the FDA would have sole discretion of determining whether the product is or isn't substantially equivalent to the other e-cigarette product.
Also, Section 911 would prohibit all e-cigarette manufacturers and importers from truthfully claiming that e-cigarettes are less hazardous than cigarettes, as such a claim would render the product as a "modified risk tobacco product". Section 911 requires any company desiring to make a MRTP claim to apply to the FDA to do so, and the FDA must approve the application.
Many other provisions in Chapter IX would basically require every e-cigarette manufacturer and importer to hire a team of lawyers just to comply with the currently pending provisions (as well as comply with regulations approved in the future).
A rant from the FDA and others that continues to be played over and over again and comes from a series of 18 samples of e-liquid. A trace in one vial was found of the chemical diethylene glycol. Elaine Keller best summed this in a comment ,"The FDA press release about their study raised concerns by employing two propaganda techniques: Lying by Omission and Stereotyping. The FDA failed to provide the quantitative analysis, showing that the amount of TSNAs they found is no larger than the amount in an FDA-approved nicotine patch, and failed to mention that the amount of Diethylene Glycol found in 1 of 18 cartridges tested (0.01 ml) is too minuscule to present any danger whatsoever of poisoning the user. They compounded this by failing to mention that they found nothing at all harmful in the vapor." Yet they used powerful words like diethylene glycol, found in anti-freeze. As for TSNAs in e-cigarettes vs. tobacco smoke the this was noted to be present albeit generally smaller than cigarettes. In fact one 16 mg bottle of e-liquid had 1200 times less TSNAs than 20 cigarettes. How about just saying it is extremely less or dramatically less than tobacco. Generally less is actually a falsehood and suggests they could be higher than some cigarettes.
There is also an ommission by the FDA of published reports of studies done on electronic cigarettes that show very positive evidence for safety and future in e-cigarette harm reduction.
Thank you in advance for your time,
Debbie Guardino
Chicopee MA 01020
http://www.casaa.org/files/CASAA_Legislative_Packet_Regarding_Indoor_Bans_Web.pdf
E-cigarettes: Threat or therapy? - Health & wellness - The Boston Globe
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/s...-some-unlikely-critics.html?_r=1&ref=findings
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/smoke/public-opinion-survey-wave-2.pdf
Thought I would share the email i just sent out to the major news networks, my state reps. and my local newspaper
Hello there,
I would like to inform the American Public about what I believe is yet another attempt by the FDA to regulate our lives. There are two proposal currently in the works that could in all likely hood end the sale of electronic cigarettes. I implore you to inform people of these regulations and the scare tactics that the FDA is using.
Regulations.gov
Regulations.gov
The first regulation could ban the internet sale of these devices. Their reasoning is that minors will be able to purchase these devices. Correct me if I am mistaken but internet sales require a credit card for payment, I know of no bank that would issue a credit card to a minor,
I believe that this has more to do with tax revenue than with "protecting the children" as there is no state or federal "sin" tax on these devices.
I have been using an electronic cigarette (PV) since March of this year and have completely stopped using analog cigarettes since May 8th. If these items were to be banned I, along with thousands of others would more than likely go back to smoking analog cigarettes.
There are those adults who choose to smoke, which is their right as adults ... to choose what or what not to consume into their bodies. Nicotine is being studied for its medicinal usefulness in multiple regards - Alzheimer's, ADD, Krohn's disease - and has been long recognized as a choice self-medication for those with cognitive-focal issues.
There is one retail establishment in my area that carries electronic cigarettes and accessories, however their prices are much higher than what I can spend for the same items online. Also many electronic cigarettes vendors do not have "walk in" retail locations and as such banning interenet sales of their products would in essence put them out of business.
Remove Internet sales of liquid nicotine for use in PVs and hand a large number of people merely trying to be kinder to their bodies a death sentence ... straight back into the fire, literally. It also will be a death sentence to many small, but flourishing, businesses -- our current economy really doesn't need that now does it?
I agree that there should be baseline standards (e.g. manufacturing, ensuring no-sale to minors) but to place the level of restrictions implied within this text (i.e. applying PACT to tobacco products other than cigarettes and smokeless tobacco) would be to seriously harm many, many legal adult consumers because the electronic cigarette industry is too young to have a strong brick-and-mortar presence anywhere other than large metropolitan areas. The FDA instead of doing the research needed has instead opted to support a nicotine vacine, which has shown little success and cost millions of dollars to research.
Antismoking Vaccine Fails in Late Trial - NYTimes.com
As to the second purposed regulation:
Under the provisions of Section 910, manufacturers/importers (of all tobacco products that weren't on the market prior to February 15, 2007) would need to submit an application to the FDA claiming that the product is "substantially equivalent" to another product that was already on the market prior to 2/15/2007, and the FDA would have sole discretion of determining whether the product is or isn't substantially equivalent to the other e-cigarette product.
Also, Section 911 would prohibit all e-cigarette manufacturers and importers from truthfully claiming that e-cigarettes are less hazardous than cigarettes, as such a claim would render the product as a "modified risk tobacco product". Section 911 requires any company desiring to make a MRTP claim to apply to the FDA to do so, and the FDA must approve the application.
Many other provisions in Chapter IX would basically require every e-cigarette manufacturer and importer to hire a team of lawyers just to comply with the currently pending provisions (as well as comply with regulations approved in the future).
A rant from the FDA and others that continues to be played over and over again and comes from a series of 18 samples of e-liquid. A trace in one vial was found of the chemical diethylene glycol. Elaine Keller best summed this in a comment ,"The FDA press release about their study raised concerns by employing two propaganda techniques: Lying by Omission and Stereotyping. The FDA failed to provide the quantitative analysis, showing that the amount of TSNAs they found is no larger than the amount in an FDA-approved nicotine patch, and failed to mention that the amount of Diethylene Glycol found in 1 of 18 cartridges tested (0.01 ml) is too minuscule to present any danger whatsoever of poisoning the user. They compounded this by failing to mention that they found nothing at all harmful in the vapor." Yet they used powerful words like diethylene glycol, found in anti-freeze. As for TSNAs in e-cigarettes vs. tobacco smoke the this was noted to be present albeit generally smaller than cigarettes. In fact one 16 mg bottle of e-liquid had 1200 times less TSNAs than 20 cigarettes. How about just saying it is extremely less or dramatically less than tobacco. Generally less is actually a falsehood and suggests they could be higher than some cigarettes.
There is also an ommission by the FDA of published reports of studies done on electronic cigarettes that show very positive evidence for safety and future in e-cigarette harm reduction.
Thank you in advance for your time,
Debbie Guardino
Chicopee MA 01020
http://www.casaa.org/files/CASAA_Legislative_Packet_Regarding_Indoor_Bans_Web.pdf
E-cigarettes: Threat or therapy? - Health & wellness - The Boston Globe
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/s...-some-unlikely-critics.html?_r=1&ref=findings
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/smoke/public-opinion-survey-wave-2.pdf
Last edited:
