Fda crackdown looms

[Bruceslog]

I intend to send this letter to President Obama, it is typed out and ready to submit.
Does anyone have anything to add real quick ?
Letter;


Greetings !
President Obama, I write today to plead for your help.
I have been addicted to cigarettes for many years. I am 51, started smoking when I was 17. I've quit a few times, but it doesn't last long. Lately I've been coughing a lot, and I feel congested. And still it is so very hard to stop smoking.
Recently I heard about Electronic "Cigarettes".
They are a device that vaporizes nicotine ( the addictive part of smoking ), for one to inhale, yet they don't have the Tar and tobacco of a cigarette, nor do they have the the smoke and odor.
They may save my life. Since I began using e-cigs 2 weeks ago, my lungs have begun clearing up, I cough Much less, and I have more energy.
The device is a battery, which is attached to a vaporizer, which is attached to a cartridge containing
water
nicotine
glycerine BP/USP/food grade
propylene glycol BP/USP/food grade, which is found in food colorings and other foods. It is also found in regular cigarettes.
Another ingredient is a flavor of your choice. ( I like Cola and Vanilla )
You can read all about e-cigarettes here
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum.html

There you will read stories of how people are now free from tobacco cigarettes. They can breathe and smell again.
That is what I want as well.

But I read today that the FDA is saying that e-cigs are illegal !!
And that they will be 'cracking down' on them.
Story link here
E-cigarette sparks attention as FDA crackdown looms - Santa Cruz Sentinel

Why ?
What is illegal about them ?
the Water ?
the nicotine ? ( I understand that nicotine is regulated, but not obviously illegal ).
The PG can't be illegal, it is in our foods and food colorings. And in regular cigarettes too !

Are the Big Tobacco companies calling in a favor from the FDA as they see thousands of us stop buying their cigarettes in favor of these new electronic cigarettes ?

Heck, e-cigs were mentioned in a segment of the TV show
"The Doctors" back around January 7th, 2009, who gave it a thumbs up !

Why is it that when I, and thousands like me, finally find something that is actually getting me OFF of cigarettes, the FDA says it's illegal ?!
I don't see anything illegal in the ingredients.
And I certainly see nothing wrong with being able to finally Quit Smoking !

When you read the e-cig forums, you can find a lot of talk about whether this new e-cig method of having ones nicotine BUT without the tobacco and tar and 2,000 other ingredients inside of a regular cigarette will be good for us in the long run.
Maybe, Maybe not. Most everything seems to cause cancer. Sugar, Coffee, Soda, tar and tobacco, to name but a few.

But I beg you to please stop the FDA from outright banning e-cigs, and to give e-cigs a fair chance for those of us that would rather take our chances on electronic cigarettes than to continue smoking the analog cigarettes anymore.
I want to keep breathing clearly.
Please.

[/ end of letter ]

 

[TribbleTrouble]

To whom it may concern:

When considering the electronic cigarette, please consider these facts:

1. The e-cig, as it's popularly known, was invented in China in 2004 and has been marketed since that time. In the past year, hundreds of thousands of smokers around the world have purchased and used e-cigs, to either quit an addictive cigarette habit or use an e-device in place of cigarettes.

2. Not one headline-making health event has been reported about e-smokers. With all the present users, if e-cigs presented any imminent danger, that danger should have surfaced by now. None has.

3. The device is simple and not prone to dangerous malfunction. It is far safer than even fire-safe cigarettes.

4. The liquid is a mix, often containing nicotine, along with propylene glycol to produce vapor and carry the nicotine content. Propylene glycol was tested more than half-century ago for inhalation by mice, primates and humans. No harmful effects were found in studies. Indeed, propylene glycol was a "germ-killing vapor" that protected those inhaling it from deadly diseases.

5. Nicotine, in the amounts used for e-smoking, has a physiological effect similar to that of consuming a moderate amount of caffeine. It is a stimulant/relaxant. It has both known benefits and hazards. The amount of nicotine consumed while e-smoking is far less than that consumed by smoking a tobacco cigarette, however. E-smoking is thus less unhealthy if direct comparisons are made to cigarettes.

6. The e-cig came to market without regulation on the assumption by manufacturers that it was a safe product not needing regulation. Nothing since 2004 has proven that assumption erroneous. Real-world use of e-cigs, in fact, supports the accuracy of that assumption. These are both safe and effective, as proven by the hundreds of thousands of present users.

Considering these facts and the almost certain fact that e-smoking is safer than tobacco use, the devices and liquids should remain available for those seeking an alternative to tobacco cigarettes, while further study on the need for regulation is undertaken.

Sincerely ....

Now, a form letter won't do much of anything, so anyone desiring to be heard on e-smoking needs to make relevant points in their own letter. No finger-pointing of conspiracy (that FDA Nazi pix will sure win 'em over!!!). Be rational, recognize their right and mission to oversee this country's drug market, and hope the present situation will be allowed as more studies are undertaken.

That's what I'd say.

Thank You, Bob. I have more of a sense that there is hope for the future when you talk like that. I'm not ignoring the facts of the matter, I just want to find ways to keep my device instead of just accepting that there is nothing that we can do. By the way, do you feel that there is any hope for us, or do you feel that we are screwed with no hope at all?

 

[green-lantern]

(that FDA Nazi pix will sure win 'em over!!!).

I wouldn't add my sig to the letter but you definitely have more faith in the integrity of our government than I.

 

[TribbleTrouble]

Stop flaming people. If you don't want to face reality that's your concern.
Now go get your Banner and stand outside The White House. I'm sure everybody's faith in Saint Obama will be justified.

Where in the hell did you get the idea that I was flaming anyone?!?! I am just sick of people talking down to other people on this thread. If you have an issue with me personally, you can always send me a PM, and we can work it out. The only flames I can see are originating from you.

 

[TropicalBob]

That poster's letter was quite passionate in a personal way, but get rid of this or your letter will be thrown aside in disgust:

Are the Big Tobacco companies calling in a favor from the FDA as they see thousands of us stop buying their cigarettes in favor of these new electronic cigarettes ?

A plea to let e-cigs remain on the market is not the place to accuse a federal agency of being on the take. BTW: The FDA doesn't regulate tobacco; there are no favors to call in.

Thanks, Tribble. I do think there is hope and an argument for continued use. I just don't think threats, etc., will get us anywhere. We need to stall. What I wrote is the argument for stalling while we learn more.

 

[Spikey]

Hey guys.. I don't mean to change the topic.. but for anyone who does video reviews... Dusty is going a documentary that will express a lot of the feelings we all have... so please if you do video reviews or can... go submit him something! Get the word out so we can share with the world and aquire greater numbers!

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/dustys-e-cig-documentary/

 

[Programmer]

To whom it may concern:
When considering the electronic cigarette, please consider these facts:
[snip]
Sincerely ....

Sorry Bob, while I agree 100% with all of your points in that letter, that's not what's going to get their attention. I get the feeling you watch just as many subcommittee hearings as I do.

They want a "face" for this all. Give them one, guys.

 

[vape4life]

From AHA Website:

In 1996 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asserted jurisdiction over tobacco products under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. These regulations were designed to regulate tobacco advertising and promotional campaigns as well as labeling and purchasing restrictions. The tobacco industry sued the federal government, arguing that the FDA lacked legal authority to regulate tobacco products. The United States Supreme Court ruled in June 2000 that Congress had not expressly given the FDA legal authority to regulate the tobacco industry, and that the Congress must specifically enact legislation to allow the FDA to regulate tobacco. As a result, all FDA tobacco regulations were dropped, including the federal minimum age requirement for tobacco products (18 years old), as well as federal rules requiring retailers to check photo identification.

If the FDA does not have legal authority to regulate tobacco, does it have authority to regulate tobacco extract? My guess would be no.

 

[ttt]

hi guys/gals
i'm new to the forum - just wanted to make a few comments:

1. If FDA starts regulating e-smoking it MUST have some data to base the regulation on... this means research data to either prove that is is relatively harmless OR that it is a health hazard/poison; in the latter case the staff SHOULD be banned for good.

2. if it is proven harmless, then a big US tobacco companie(s) will quickly jump on it and take the market niche and we will have a regulated product with known/approved ingredients, much more consistent quality and available at cigarette stands at every gas station and mall (unlike current situation with the "stuff" mixed in some basement with ingredients from who knows where, no reputable quality control and sold through internet).

3. if the mainstream tobacco industry takes it over it is a tremendous opportunity for them and consumers will have a much better product overall. the product SEEMS to be a great alternative to "real" smoking and it would be a shame if it stays unregulated, half-legal and sold only through MLM companies and amateur websites - it gives it a bad publicity...

 

[Lorddrek]

That is what my post title should have been. Sorry got it wrong and come off sounding like the opposition. I have put far worse things in my body so PG and VG don't scare me yet. No sane person can argue govt. interest in this when all other nicotine products are regulated or taxed in some form. This will not be any different. Let us enjoy the free ride while we can. I am glad the cardboard story turned out false but with Chinas media track record I'll take that with a grain of salt. Starving Hatians eat cookies made out of dirt and shortening or was that false too?

 

[The Widow]

I would think that would be because Big Tobacco has deep pockets.. and their death sticks are generating huge revenue in tax dollars for good ol' Uncle Sam.. That would be my best guess...

I have raised this point myself on a few occasions. Unless someone can convince Big Tobacco that they could make money on the E-Cig by producing their own versions, we might be fighting a lost fight.

 

[wv2win]

To whom it may concern:

When considering the electronic cigarette, please consider these facts:

1. The e-cig, as it's popularly known, was invented in China in 2004 and has been marketed since that time. In the past year, hundreds of thousands of smokers around the world have purchased and used e-cigs, to either quit an addictive cigarette habit or use an e-device in place of cigarettes.

2. Not one headline-making health event has been reported about e-smokers. With all the present users, if e-cigs presented any imminent danger, that danger should have surfaced by now. None has.

3. The device is simple and not prone to dangerous malfunction. It is far safer than even fire-safe cigarettes.

4. The liquid is a mix, often containing nicotine, along with propylene glycol to produce vapor and carry the nicotine content. Propylene glycol was tested more than half-century ago for inhalation by mice, primates and humans. No harmful effects were found in studies. Indeed, propylene glycol was a "germ-killing vapor" that protected those inhaling it from deadly diseases.

5. Nicotine, in the amounts used for e-smoking, has a physiological effect similar to that of consuming a moderate amount of caffeine. It is a stimulant/relaxant. It has both known benefits and hazards. The amount of nicotine consumed while e-smoking is far less than that consumed by smoking a tobacco cigarette, however. E-smoking is thus less unhealthy if direct comparisons are made to cigarettes.

6. The e-cig came to market without regulation on the assumption by manufacturers that it was a safe product not needing regulation. Nothing since 2004 has proven that assumption erroneous. Real-world use of e-cigs, in fact, supports the accuracy of that assumption. These are both safe and effective, as proven by the hundreds of thousands of present users.

Considering these facts and the almost certain fact that e-smoking is safer than tobacco use, the devices and liquids should remain available for those seeking an alternative to tobacco cigarettes, while further study on the need for regulation is undertaken.

Sincerely ....

Now, a form letter won't do much of anything, so anyone desiring to be heard on e-smoking needs to make relevant points in their own letter. No finger-pointing of conspiracy (that FDA Nazi pix will sure win 'em over!!!). Be rational, recognize their right and mission to oversee this country's drug market, and hope the present situation will be allowed as more studies are undertaken.

That's what I'd say.

Bob, good letter, to the point, succinct, states the case with common sense.

I made the point earlier that John Stossel with ABC 20/20 would be the right person to get interested in our product. His "Give Me a Break" segments I believe would come down squarely on the side of our electronic vaporizers. Bob, he would be looking for a spokesperson from the forum. I nominate you!!!

 

[v2x]

This is a smoking cessation assistant.

That is the type of claim that we need to stay away from as that has a medical connotation. Currently, any product marketed for smoking cessation is regulated by the FDA (i.e., Gum, The Patch, etc.)

This device has helped thousands quit smoking and reduced the risk of cancer, heart attack, and stroke in these individuals. I am one such person. I have quit tobacco because of this device.

Again, it is very important to stay away from health claims as it will fuel the FDA's fire. The use of nicotine can increase blood pressure that can possibly cause a heart attack or stroke in people with a history of heart disease. That is why products such as nicotine gum have warnings posted all over the packaging. You can read more about it here:

(add one more w) ww.medicinenet.com/nicotine_gum/article.htm

v2x

 

[wv2win]

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jole both smoke and they have all those kids. If we could get them to start vaping, we could get some positive press, I would think.

 

[NewcastleB]

@fatman
I may have misread Lorddrek's statement but he seemed to suggest that some people argue that ecigs are safe because they are made in China - I haven't heard anybody make that argument. I have heard people argue that ecigs are dangerous because they are made in China. And that is a faulty argument. Yes China has a mixed record when it comes to health and safety regulations. There have been some glaring examples of lax oversite lately, but the fact remains that if we were to ban every medication or food product that's made in China, we would be in a hell of a lot of trouble. The FDA doesn't require drug manufacturers to label their products as to where they are actually made. Take a look at the stuff in your medicine cabinet, most will say something like "Distributed from" some US city or assembled in some US city. Guess where the ingredients probably came from. And people pop those pills all day long. So just because a product is from China doesn't make it tainted. At the same time it doesn't make it OK either. Using ecigs country of origin as an argument against using them is really just a scare tactic.

@everybody talking about sending emails to politicians:
STOP. I've known a lot of politicians, and emails are absolutely worthless. They will get deleted and the person you're emailing will never know about. But if a staffer opens a well reasoned hand written letter, that letter will show up on his/her bosses desk.

Also, this is the time of year that political parties will be having their state and local conventions. I hadn't planned on going to mine, but now I've decided to head down to Columbia in April. I'll hang out with the smokers and try to win a few converts. We might also think about trying to get some pro electronic cigarette resolutions brought up as platform additions.

 

[stpeters]

Um, Mr Trouble, I was not referring to YOU. I was talking to the audience in general. Please do not see my comment as belittling or condescending, I was merely trying to inform. I'm sorry if it came out that way.

Anyways, it is not a valid point. See the related court ruling and citations. Tobacco, tobacco derivatives, and even pure nicotine itself is not a "controlled or illegal substance". Hence the devices used to deliver it are not "drug paraphernalia" and can not be legally compared to bongs are other such items - which are apparently tolerated but can be seized at any time as demonstrated by various law enforcement agencies throughout the country.

My opinion is that saying "But Ma! They let those other guys sell drug paraphernalia online, so we should be left alone!" is not a constructive way to approach this issue. Those 'other guys' are operating in a quasi-legal setting where they can legally be subject to search and seizure whenever the local sheriff or DA gets sufficiently bored.

Myself, that is not a world I wish to participate in. Luckily most current court rulings on the subject spell out that electronic cigarettes are in no way comparable to other "drug paraphernalia" since they are not intended to be used with a controlled and/or illegal substance.

Perhaps the FDA is not acting yet because they are awaiting the "tobacco bill" to pass, giving them de-facto and unequivocal control of said devices?

 

[wv2win]

That is the type of claim that we need to stay away from as that has a medical connotation. Currently, any product marketed for smoking cessation is regulated by the FDA (i.e., Gum, The Patch, etc.)




Again, it is very important to stay away from health claims as it will fuel the FDA's fire. The use of nicotine can increase blood pressure that can possibly cause a heart attack or stroke in people with a history of heart disease. That is why products such as nicotine gum have warnings posted all over the packaging. You can read more about it here:

(add one more w) ww.medicinenet.com/nicotine_gum/article.htm

v2x

Wait a second! For the most part, nicotine is part of the electronic vapoizer experience. Trying to run away from the use of nicotine is just plain hypocritical and would be viewed as such by any thinking outsider to this issue. Saying it isn't being used as an NRT to try and avoid the FDA regulation is also hypocritical. Every known ingredient in the liquid used in e-vapes is legal and consumed by millions of Americans in numerous products, including nicotine. If a level of control of the liquid with the appropriate warnings is needed, none of us should have a problem with that. But lets not try to obscure what we are doing or even, why, for that matter. It is what it is and trying to make it out to be something it isn't will not be productive.

 

[vape4life]

wv2win:

It isn't that you should deny the use of nicotine, but you should avoid labeling its use in the context of a 'treatment' or 'therapy' (like NRT). First of all its just not true... do vapers intend to quit vaping? Probably not. All approved NRT is intended to be weened off. But second of all, serious studies need to be used if this is going to labeled any sort of medical device or treatment for nicotine withdrawal.

It is a tobacco product that you use at your leisure. Not for health purposes! Don't make health claims, that is the point. That invites the FDA.

 

[TribbleTrouble]

Um, Mr Trouble, I was not referring to YOU. I was talking to the audience in general. Please do not see my comment as belittling or condescending, I was merely trying to inform. I'm sorry if it came out that way.

Anyways, it is not a valid point. See the related court ruling and citations. Tobacco, tobacco derivatives, and even pure nicotine itself is not a "controlled or illegal substance". Hence the devices used to deliver it are not "drug paraphernalia" and can not be legally compared to bongs are other such items - which are apparently tolerated but can be seized at any time as demonstrated by various law enforcement agencies throughout the country.

My opinion is that saying "But Ma! They let those other guys sell drug paraphernalia online, so we should be left alone!" is not a constructive way to approach this issue. Those 'other guys' are operating in a quasi-legal setting where they can legally be subject to search and seizure whenever the local sheriff or DA gets sufficiently bored.

Myself, that is not a world I wish to participate in. Luckily most current court rulings on the subject spell out that electronic cigarettes are in no way comparable to other "drug paraphernalia" since they are not intended to be used with a controlled and/or illegal substance.

Perhaps the FDA is not acting yet because they are awaiting the "tobacco bill" to pass, giving them de-facto and unequivocal control of said devices?

I accept your apology, and I hold no ill will toward you. I am sorry if I came across the wrong way as well. I never want to make enemies, only friends!

The way I see it, whether it's Quasi-Legal or Legal, the key word is Legal. "Water Pipes" are not illegal in any state in the union because of the way they are marketed by the people who make them and sell them. The only one's who have ever been hassled or shutdown are the one's that strayed from the proven marketing approach that all of the other's who are still in business are using. You may cringe at the subject matter, but the data speaks for itself. There are thousands of "Water Pipe" shops all across the US. There could also be thousands of "Personal Vaporizer" shops as well if the proven "Water Pipe" marketing approach is used. Just my "Un-Educated" opinion!

 

[fatman]

@fatman
I may have misread Lorddrek's statement but he seemed to suggest that some people argue that ecigs are safe because they are made in China - I haven't heard anybody make that argument. I have heard people argue that ecigs are dangerous because they are made in China. And that is a faulty argument. Yes China has a mixed record when it comes to health and safety regulations. There have been some glaring examples of lax oversite lately, but the fact remains that if we were to ban every medication or food product that's made in China, we would be in a hell of a lot of trouble. The FDA doesn't require drug manufacturers to label their products as to where they are actually made. Take a look at the stuff in your medicine cabinet, most will say something like "Distributed from" some US city or assembled in some US city. Guess where the ingredients probably came from. And people pop those pills all day long. So just because a product is from China doesn't make it tainted. At the same time it doesn't make it OK either. Using ecigs country of origin as an argument against using them is really just a scare tactic.

I did not read carefully. Sorry 'about that. I think we are in agreement on your point.