Quite correct. We elect them to represent us and our views. In practice this usually means that we are dictated to like children.
Fda approval!
- Thread starter TropicalBob
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Quite correct. We elect them to represent us and our views. In practice this usually means that we are dictated to like children.
True. But we are a socialist country (whether we want to accept it or not) and it is communism that we must be worried about. If we weren't socialist we wouldn't have the following: social security, welfare, HUD, etc.
To my taxing point, if you are going to tax one group unfairly, you should tax them all.
The bottom line is is that none of the anti-smoking campaigns are going to back off until we start hitting them where it hurts. Most of the anti's I have spoken too, absolutely cringe when you tell them that their junk food and sodas are next. Their fight has nothing to do with health. It has to do with imposing their will upon others. Sometimes, we have to take the entire country in a wicked direction to get the quiet and lazy to sit and say "wait, this isn't fair!".... I mean look at smoking bans. No one had a problem with them when it was just California. But now that they are creeping across the US, there is an outcry. Some bans are even being amended because of their blatant disrespect for the free-market. (and states are seeing a devastating decline in their revenues).
It was threat of revolution that caused the vice taxes to be lifted... viva la revolution!
Last edited:
Although it's in it's very early stages ....the health 'war' against fat people has already started. Fat people are going to learn what it's like to be a target.... just like the smokers. ....It all reminds me of the dark ages and the way people got caught up in the irrationality and the craziness of Witch hunts.
Last edited:
And it is really sad that we even have to go there... but you reap what you sow.
Please point to any developed Western nation that does not have those programs or similar ones in place and then look up the word socialism. We aren't, and neither are most of the other countries that have some social programs.
In relation to the topic, the word you are looking for, the word that defines a government's wanting everyone to fit into a certain mold, is totalitarianism. It's at the opposite end of the political spectrum from socialism. Socialists (at least the social democrat variety) tend to score pretty high on the personal liberties scale, while today's US Conservatives are quite a bit lower.
Agreed. Hence us needing to spread this "vice" tax out over everyone. This is not good... singling out one group of people and taxing only them.
But back to the thread topic (I apologize for taking this off of the rails)... is that I don't think that FDA approval is exactly necessary. But I am working on that avenue... TropicalBob made a comment in a thread somewhere that I still can't get off of my mind and the more I research... the more I believe it...
None of the pharms had to seek FDA approval for their patches, gums, and NRT's, and they must be feeling kind of silly right now... (TB let me know if I didn't phrase this properly or I misunderstood) and the fact is, I think he is right. Look at the assault on NicoWater in 2001ish? They went away, but NicLite came back and took their place. Both were registered as homeopathic... I think the FDA knows that they have minor jurisdiction over this one and the first liquid manufacturer to HPCUS with the required documentation is going to win and this will all be over. We will be able to go into our health food stores and purchase our e-liquids... buy them over the Internet without worry of it being stopped... I know... It sounds heavenly!
Exactly. Only today it is not God that is fought for, but the Body. The Body must be healthy and live long, whether you like it or not.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...41-idea-avoiding-fda-approval-control-12.html
Last post by TB:
"I just have to break my silence and say how delighted I am to learn that the nicotine patch is a tobacco product, as is nicotine gum, nicotine lozenges and the prescription-only nicotine nasal spray. By using nicotine mixed with other chemicals, they become tobacco products -- because, doncha see, the nicotine comes from a tobacco plant! Voila! There was no need for all that clinical trial stuff they went through, or the expensive application and approval process.
Because they contain nicotine, they were all exempt from FDA regulation!
Boy, I bet Big Pharmaceutiful feels stupid now, since the FDA can't regulate tobacco products like the patch, gum, inhaler, nasal spray, lozenges. And if those don't need regulation, then the FDA certainly has no authority over a vial of chemicals that contains some of the exact same drug -- nicotine.
This is comforting news, indeed."
I'm sorry. I was being very facetious. Those Big Pharma products are indeed FDA approved as smoking cessation (NRT) products. It takes years to get that approval.
But I think Lacey is onto something and I passionately hope she sees this through. If we have to be approved as NRT, our devices might disappear until the necessary research is done.
I doubt we can claim to be merely a placebo device, as are fake cigs like EZ-Quit and others. Those don't need FDA involvement. But a placebo is exactly what I consider my e-cig to be for me. I get my main nicotine from snus and other sources -- anything except cigarette smoke inhalation. I get psychological satisfaction from the hand-to-mouth action and watching vapor exhaled while e-smoking.
The one point on homeopathic use is that our liquid must have nicotine. Other herbs won't do. They won't satisfy. If they were capable of that, they would be in widespread popular use by now. Somewhere along the way, I know I've tried them.
But if nicotine is really no worse than caffeine, as some doctors are willing to say, then the problem is a marketing one. Market devices and liquids as homeopathic solutions that don't treat a condition or disease (nicotine addiction is a recognized condition, so marketers must avoid saying e-smoking replaces nicotine for an addicted smoker; that's asking for trouble). Say that our personal vaporizers, using an herbal solution containing nicotine, are for relaxation and stimulation. Nothing more!
Lots of products, from energy drinks to sleep aids, get by with such claims, and without FDA regulation.
Keep working, Lacey. A statue might be erected of you one day.
But I think Lacey is onto something and I passionately hope she sees this through. If we have to be approved as NRT, our devices might disappear until the necessary research is done.
I doubt we can claim to be merely a placebo device, as are fake cigs like EZ-Quit and others. Those don't need FDA involvement. But a placebo is exactly what I consider my e-cig to be for me. I get my main nicotine from snus and other sources -- anything except cigarette smoke inhalation. I get psychological satisfaction from the hand-to-mouth action and watching vapor exhaled while e-smoking.
The one point on homeopathic use is that our liquid must have nicotine. Other herbs won't do. They won't satisfy. If they were capable of that, they would be in widespread popular use by now. Somewhere along the way, I know I've tried them.
But if nicotine is really no worse than caffeine, as some doctors are willing to say, then the problem is a marketing one. Market devices and liquids as homeopathic solutions that don't treat a condition or disease (nicotine addiction is a recognized condition, so marketers must avoid saying e-smoking replaces nicotine for an addicted smoker; that's asking for trouble). Say that our personal vaporizers, using an herbal solution containing nicotine, are for relaxation and stimulation. Nothing more!
Lots of products, from energy drinks to sleep aids, get by with such claims, and without FDA regulation.
Keep working, Lacey. A statue might be erected of you one day.
Anyone that posts under a name like that, linking a site that sets off trojan alerts, deserves to trip, fall and accidently fornicate themselves on an iron rod.
thats disgusting! unless of course it was done on accident. i didnt see the post. but here? comeon. thank you rat
Everyone needs to get a grip on reality A little research would calm everyone's nerves on this issue The United States Supreme Court has already ruled on the FDA's ability to regulate tobacco.
I know is is long but it is plain and simple.
The Supreme Court rules that the FDA has no authority to regulate tobacco - FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (U.S.2000)
No product is more closely intertwined with the history of the United States than tobacco. From early colonial days, tobacco was a major export. In some colonies, tobacco was legal tender and the colonies paid their own debts in tobacco, at governmentally recognized rates denominated in pounds and barrels and hogsheads. During the revolutionary period, tobacco was valued more highly than continental money - Wharton v. Morris 1 U.S. 125, 1 Dall. 125, 1 L.Ed. 65 (Mem) Pa. Apr Term 1785. During this long history, the federal government's regulation of the health effects of tobacco have only been before the United States Supreme Court in one previous case, Cipollone v Liggett Group, Inc. 505 U.S. 504 (US 1992), which dealt with whether Congressional regulation of tobacco advertising and promotion preempted state tort claims against cigarette manufacturers.
FDA v. Brown & Williamson arose from the FDA's assertion of authority over the production and sale of cigarettes. This was based on finding that nicotine was a drug and that cigarettes were thus a drug delivery system. The FDA proposed to regulate cigarettes as a hybrid involving both a drug and a medical device. The FDA proposed rules through notice and comment rulemaking and when these rules were finalized, Brown & Williamson moved to have them enjoined because they exceeded the FDA's statutory authority. The District Court found most of the rules valid, but held that some exceeded the FDA's authority. The 4th Circuit reversed, finding that the FDA had no authority to regulate tobacco. The United States Supreme Court accepted cert., and announced its ruling in this case.
The question before the court was simple: does the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act (FDCA), as amended, give the FDA the legal authority to regulate tobacco? The court reviewed using classic administrative law precedents, beginning with the two-step analysis from Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984). The first step of Chevron is to determine whether the plain language of the statute allows the agency's action. If that statute is silent on the matter at issue, then the second step is to determine if the agency's assertion of authority is permissible under the statute, considering the plain language of the statute, possible conflicting statutes, and relevant constitutional limitations.
Ironically, the majority opinion and the dissent agreed on the basic issue that tobacco is an extremely dangerous product that should be regulated: "This case involves one of the most troubling public health problems facing our Nation today: the thousands of premature deaths that occur each year because of tobacco use." The importance of tobacco regulation drove the majority to conclude that if Congress intended for the FDA to regulate tobacco, it should say so. In contrast, the dissent believed that tobacco regulation is so important that the FDA should have the right to regulate tobacco unless Congress forbids it that right. Jurisprudentially, the case is interesting because the judges reverse their usual roles. Scalia, who usually demands that the court look only to the words of the statute, signs on without separate comment to a majority opinion steeped in legislative history. Breyer, who usually cares more about what Congress thought about than what it wrote, dissents because the court ignores the plain meaning of the statute and delves into the morass of congressional intent.
Both the majority and the dissent concede that congress has been silent as regards the FDA's authority to regulate tobacco. The only mention of the FDA by congress in regard to tobacco was a statement that a particular labeling regulation did not affect the FDA's authority over tobacco, whatever it might be. At the same time, both the majority and dissent agree that the plain language of the FDCA seems to give the FDA the authority to regulate nicotine, and, through that, cigarettes. The problem with this plain reading is that for nearly 50 years the FDA denied that the FDCA gave it authority over tobacco. While agencies may change their minds as politics change, such a shift undermines their claim for deference because of their expertise in the subject. The majority focuses on history of tobacco regulation by Congress and finds that Congress has passed tobacco regulations six times since 1965. During this period Congresses accepted the FDA's assurance that it had not jurisdiction over tobacco and in none of these laws did it give any power to the FDA to regulate tobacco. Since tobacco regulation is such an important issue, this failure to give authority to the FDA in previous tobacco regulatory law convinces that majority that Congress could not have intended such an important task to fall the FDA through inadvertence.
The majority also looks at the logic of the FDCA and what it would mean to regulate tobacco under it. The FDCA gives the FDA the power to assure that drugs and medical devices in interstate commerce are safe and effective. The Act clearly deals with therapeutically valid drugs and devices and seems to leave no room for the sale of substances such as tobacco that have no therapeutic value. (Ignoring the very limited therapeutic role for nicotine itself.) The dissent disagrees, reading into the FDCA a cost benefit analysis based on allowing bad substances because not having them will be worse. Under this analysis, the FDA would not ban tobacco because of the potential risks of smuggling and other tobacco- related illegal activity. The dissent does not discuss that this particular theory has been completely rejected in American drug policy, with its focus on prohibition except for very strictly controlled medical use. Short of methadone clinics, there is no useful analogy for the dissent to draw on.
The core of the majority's reasoning is that Congress is aware of the need to regulate tobacco as evidenced in the other tobacco regulations it has passed and that tobacco regulation is very complex and not well-suited to the provisions of the FDCA. The majority opinion is a call to Congress to step in and pass a law clearly stating its views on further regulation of tobacco. The dissent would prefer to allow the FDA to proceed, thus forcing Congress to act if it disapproves of the FDA position. Given that this case is a close call, both of these views are supportable under traditional administrative law jurisprudence. The court's choice is a political one, and it implicitly recognizes this by pushing the decision back to Congress. Since the court found that the FDA had no authority over tobacco, all of the FDA regulations affecting tobacco are now voided. The FDA's retains it's authority to regulated nicotine, which does have some therapeutic uses beyond its use as an anti-smoking agent, but it cannot use this authority to regulate tobacco products. It is not clear what role the FDA has as regard to "smokeless" cigarettes, which are very clearly a nicotine delivery device and do not involve the a traditional use for tobacco. This opinion does not affect state level regulation of tobacco, to the extent that it does not conflict with other state laws, nor does it affect the FTC and other agencies that do have statutory authority over tobacco.
All of you who are going in circles over this - you can stop
I know is is long but it is plain and simple.
The Supreme Court rules that the FDA has no authority to regulate tobacco - FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (U.S.2000)
No product is more closely intertwined with the history of the United States than tobacco. From early colonial days, tobacco was a major export. In some colonies, tobacco was legal tender and the colonies paid their own debts in tobacco, at governmentally recognized rates denominated in pounds and barrels and hogsheads. During the revolutionary period, tobacco was valued more highly than continental money - Wharton v. Morris 1 U.S. 125, 1 Dall. 125, 1 L.Ed. 65 (Mem) Pa. Apr Term 1785. During this long history, the federal government's regulation of the health effects of tobacco have only been before the United States Supreme Court in one previous case, Cipollone v Liggett Group, Inc. 505 U.S. 504 (US 1992), which dealt with whether Congressional regulation of tobacco advertising and promotion preempted state tort claims against cigarette manufacturers.
FDA v. Brown & Williamson arose from the FDA's assertion of authority over the production and sale of cigarettes. This was based on finding that nicotine was a drug and that cigarettes were thus a drug delivery system. The FDA proposed to regulate cigarettes as a hybrid involving both a drug and a medical device. The FDA proposed rules through notice and comment rulemaking and when these rules were finalized, Brown & Williamson moved to have them enjoined because they exceeded the FDA's statutory authority. The District Court found most of the rules valid, but held that some exceeded the FDA's authority. The 4th Circuit reversed, finding that the FDA had no authority to regulate tobacco. The United States Supreme Court accepted cert., and announced its ruling in this case.
The question before the court was simple: does the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act (FDCA), as amended, give the FDA the legal authority to regulate tobacco? The court reviewed using classic administrative law precedents, beginning with the two-step analysis from Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984). The first step of Chevron is to determine whether the plain language of the statute allows the agency's action. If that statute is silent on the matter at issue, then the second step is to determine if the agency's assertion of authority is permissible under the statute, considering the plain language of the statute, possible conflicting statutes, and relevant constitutional limitations.
Ironically, the majority opinion and the dissent agreed on the basic issue that tobacco is an extremely dangerous product that should be regulated: "This case involves one of the most troubling public health problems facing our Nation today: the thousands of premature deaths that occur each year because of tobacco use." The importance of tobacco regulation drove the majority to conclude that if Congress intended for the FDA to regulate tobacco, it should say so. In contrast, the dissent believed that tobacco regulation is so important that the FDA should have the right to regulate tobacco unless Congress forbids it that right. Jurisprudentially, the case is interesting because the judges reverse their usual roles. Scalia, who usually demands that the court look only to the words of the statute, signs on without separate comment to a majority opinion steeped in legislative history. Breyer, who usually cares more about what Congress thought about than what it wrote, dissents because the court ignores the plain meaning of the statute and delves into the morass of congressional intent.
Both the majority and the dissent concede that congress has been silent as regards the FDA's authority to regulate tobacco. The only mention of the FDA by congress in regard to tobacco was a statement that a particular labeling regulation did not affect the FDA's authority over tobacco, whatever it might be. At the same time, both the majority and dissent agree that the plain language of the FDCA seems to give the FDA the authority to regulate nicotine, and, through that, cigarettes. The problem with this plain reading is that for nearly 50 years the FDA denied that the FDCA gave it authority over tobacco. While agencies may change their minds as politics change, such a shift undermines their claim for deference because of their expertise in the subject. The majority focuses on history of tobacco regulation by Congress and finds that Congress has passed tobacco regulations six times since 1965. During this period Congresses accepted the FDA's assurance that it had not jurisdiction over tobacco and in none of these laws did it give any power to the FDA to regulate tobacco. Since tobacco regulation is such an important issue, this failure to give authority to the FDA in previous tobacco regulatory law convinces that majority that Congress could not have intended such an important task to fall the FDA through inadvertence.
The majority also looks at the logic of the FDCA and what it would mean to regulate tobacco under it. The FDCA gives the FDA the power to assure that drugs and medical devices in interstate commerce are safe and effective. The Act clearly deals with therapeutically valid drugs and devices and seems to leave no room for the sale of substances such as tobacco that have no therapeutic value. (Ignoring the very limited therapeutic role for nicotine itself.) The dissent disagrees, reading into the FDCA a cost benefit analysis based on allowing bad substances because not having them will be worse. Under this analysis, the FDA would not ban tobacco because of the potential risks of smuggling and other tobacco- related illegal activity. The dissent does not discuss that this particular theory has been completely rejected in American drug policy, with its focus on prohibition except for very strictly controlled medical use. Short of methadone clinics, there is no useful analogy for the dissent to draw on.
The core of the majority's reasoning is that Congress is aware of the need to regulate tobacco as evidenced in the other tobacco regulations it has passed and that tobacco regulation is very complex and not well-suited to the provisions of the FDCA. The majority opinion is a call to Congress to step in and pass a law clearly stating its views on further regulation of tobacco. The dissent would prefer to allow the FDA to proceed, thus forcing Congress to act if it disapproves of the FDA position. Given that this case is a close call, both of these views are supportable under traditional administrative law jurisprudence. The court's choice is a political one, and it implicitly recognizes this by pushing the decision back to Congress. Since the court found that the FDA had no authority over tobacco, all of the FDA regulations affecting tobacco are now voided. The FDA's retains it's authority to regulated nicotine, which does have some therapeutic uses beyond its use as an anti-smoking agent, but it cannot use this authority to regulate tobacco products. It is not clear what role the FDA has as regard to "smokeless" cigarettes, which are very clearly a nicotine delivery device and do not involve the a traditional use for tobacco. This opinion does not affect state level regulation of tobacco, to the extent that it does not conflict with other state laws, nor does it affect the FTC and other agencies that do have statutory authority over tobacco.
All of you who are going in circles over this - you can stop
KK--Hardly going around in Circles here. I do not care about the plight of tobacco--as you state --or devices have nothing to do with tobacco and the FDA has jurisdiction to regulate them. The plight of Nicotine Water is much more on point in the instant case and that took years to settle--So we are not going around in circles here as the FDA has stated alreadt stated that these devices are illegal to sell---Sun
See timeline on the plight of Nicotine Water--
Nicotine Water
Am I just not paying attention or do you not hear about this on the news just on back page of the newspapers? I mean you hear of the tobacco bills but nothing on e-cigs and all I do is leasing to news talk radio on my way to and from work.
Lacey, I only take issue with you comment about social security, welfare, and HUD as being proofs we are a Socialist Country. And feel free to correct me if Im wrong, as I am not into politics.
To my understanding, we all pay into SS and DSS (not sure about the HUD thing). Yes they are government programs, but they are funded, in part, by tax paying Americans.
I just posted in another thread about this very issue. My limited knowledge of politics tells me that almost all of Obama's policies, and half of what he is doing now are in fact socialist in nature. He is single handedly taking over banks, mortgage companies and funding car companies. That means, the governement "owns" your bank, your mortgage, and the car you drive... THAT is socialist, and thats what we need to worry about. He (Obama) is putting caps on what executives can earn and the bonuses they generate. Thats socialist! Especially when the little guys will be told next what their yearly take home will be, that can only be next. Taking our 401k's and putting a "Windfall Tax" on it when you collect for retirement and giving it to illegal aliens, so that they can attempt to secure the American dream on your money...is Socialist.
Please tell me if I am wrong here.
My best,
-VP
Last edited:
VP -
I must admit, everyday I learn more, hear more, disagree with more... my opinion is in a foggy spot today. I still stand that our country is a socialist one based on the above, and that even though we as citizens pay into these types of things, which don't get me wrong, I am all for helping my neighbor, but it isn't like I can check a box that says I would prefer to put money into schools vs. welfare. So in a way, I am forced to pay for social programs that I might not necessarily agree with.
I am definitely concerned with the bailouts. However, we did bail them out so putting caps on their salaries is exactly what they asked for. When you ask for government intervention, one must accept some level of control.
This is definitely a very interesting time and your points are all very valid and I am right there with you on many of your points. (I am not even going to get into the illegal immigrants... anchor babies... op... there I go)
- Status
Similar threads
