Fda crackdown looms

[stpeters]

StPeters--This quote from the article sounds very familar:

"This is another classic oppression tactic of the FDA: Ban the herb, but promote the drug using the same chemicals"


Good find---Sun

Here is a hopeful thought, however remote:

The FDA may keep going overboard and complete 'tiff off so much of the population that they are slapped with a volley of lawsuits and get smacked around in high court. There is a couple of historical precedents for this. All those lawyers should be good for at least something in this society, eh?

Not saying it will happen, but there is a line. We shall see if they are foolish enough to cross it...

Come on FDA, let's see what you got. Bring it I say!

 

[rlorange]

Can't agree more, this is a civil law firms wet dream. Imagine the case that could be made against the FDA to be preventing citizens from using a next-to-harmless and superior alternative to smoking. Clearly the existing hypocrisy with existing NTR's is a bonus.

If they lets us smoke real ciggies know to kill then they are tolerating nicotine addiction. End of story.

Any nicotine delivery method which is safer that cigarettes cannot be banned based on this position without gross hypocrisy. End of story.

By banning electronic cigarettes the government is not only being legally inconsistent and hypocritical they are liable for the health of smokers who cannot give up their Nicotine addiction. AND WHY SHOULD THEY? We as a society tolerate nicotine addiction e cigarettes are simply a safer method to take this drug which the government has no right to ban. END OF STORY.

Civil lawyers would jump on this case as it is watertight and 100% winnable.

With all the tax revenue they OWE US SMOKERS to fund a comprehensive study which I have no doubt will prove:

A, e-smoking is virtually harmless except for the very well know effects of Nicotine on the body, GOOD and bad... never let anyone try to tell you nicotine has no good effects the science PROVES this.

B. e-smoking is THE most effective NRT therapy FAR eclipsing any other regulated offering.

C. e-smoking vapors are virtually harmless to others. If they are concerned about them then they need to ban theatrical smoke generators and every other place that PG is used.

I could go on and on but this is all making me angry so I await the next chapter in this... it hasn't even started yet

 

[Programmer]

Thank god I live near an Indian reservation. Where did you hear $70 a lb? That is outrageous! I hope that's a typo.

It's going from $1 to just under $25 per pound for RYO tobacco, not $70 or $20. Yes, it's outrageous. Indian reservations are not immune to this federal excise tax as I understand it, so those prices will be going up as well. Don't quote me on that last point though.

The important thing to note is this huge increase is only for cigarette tobacco, not pipe or cigar tobacco. (Those are going up slightly as well, but nowhere near that level.) What many RYO tobacco companies are in the process of doing is cutting their tobaccos courser and will be selling them as pipe tobaccos. (Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.) It's the exact same stuff just cut differently, which obviously makes no difference to someone who just wants it for nicotine extraction. In some cases they aren't even changing the cut, for example shag tobaccos. They already exist in the pipe world too so all that needs to be changed is the package.

So we'll have inexpensive sources of bulk tobacco even after April 1st. Not sure for how long, but a while anyway.

 

[Fedor]

This is gonna happen sooner than we think. They are already claiming that it is illegal. As was said earlier, the tobacco companies has far better lawyers and connections. E-Cigs don't stand a chance against them.

I say grab hold of your chinese supplier and don't let go. I am confident that personal (EMS) packages will still get through easily despite a ban.

 

[TropicalBob]

Imagine the case that could be made against the FDA to be preventing citizens from using a next-to-harmless and superior alternative to smoking.

Counselor, excuse me, but you cannot make such statements without scientific support. Where is your evidence to prove your statement is true? Surely the companies that produce your products conducted studies to be certain they would have no liability for health consequences before marketing a drug intended for inhalation by humans. Surely, they did. Well, sir, where are those studies? Let's see them now. You cannot simply CLAIM your drug to be "next to harmless". That's not allowed. You must prove it, so the public can be protected from unscrupulous sellers of Snake Oil. Yes, it's happened before. So, counselor .. submit that proof as Exhibit A. The court needs to see it .. NOW.

End of story.

 

[VapeAllDay]

FYI:



Rita Chappelle, 301-796-4672, rita.chappelle@fda.hhs.gov



Serena Chen, schen@alac.org

I plead with some of you people on this forum, to please NOT write this lady, ESPECIALLY if you are wanting to say something nasty or challenge their motives. FDA people can be a little wacky, I used to work near the headquarters in Rockville, Maryland and they are some very weird people. I am afraid that most attempts to convince them that they are wrong will be taken as a threat or challenge, which will in turn make them fast track their desire to officially ban e-cigs and actually take action.

I'm not saying we should sit back and do nothing, but I think this is a delicate issue and one screwup by a well intending member could be devastating.

I can't imagine living without my "Personal Vaporizers", life would be so depressing.

 

[devonschmoker]

We should just start calling major cigarette companies asking where we can buy their brand of ecigarettes.

That would be an excellent idea. If BT started making them they would have the funding and lobbyists to defend it. It would however demonize it to a certain extent. And who knows what they would put in it. They may only want to buy it up to hold and not produce. BT could be our best friend or our worst nightmare of an enemy.
Our other friend/enemy could be anti-tobacco. That could produce excellent PR and opens up an excellent option to take it to the media. Imagine the story headline… FDA moving to swiftly ban a potentially life saving device, the electronic cigarette. Says whoever from whatever against tobacco. Personally, I think that we should start making friends with the antis. Go into their offices and give them a proper introduction to PVDs and set them loose on their own research to save our devices. We just have to make sure not to wonder into the dens of the “Quit all nicotine or die” type of antis. We need to find out which organizations are NRT/ alternative therapy friendly and go to them.

The manufactures of our devices are really the ones that let us down and let this happen by not doing the necessary research and paperwork. We should be pressing hard on them right now too. They have the most to lose in this situation and should persuade quite easily. This is a very major market and it would cost them a lot if they lost this market. At this moment they are who we should be focusing on the most. They need to be made very aware of how important it is that they start work on doing the research and paperwork for the US. If the FDA allows it other countries will start to warm up to the idea. (Like Australia)

Well these are my ideas so far. Please help “good” ones along and shred the "bad" ones. And please feel free to repost them on RTV. I didn’t because I could never figure out where to put them over there. -Devon

 

[TribbleTrouble]

That would be an excellent idea. If BT started making them they would have the funding and lobbyists to defend it. It would however demonize it to a certain extent. And who knows what they would put in it. They may only want to buy it up to hold and not produce. BT could be our best friend or our worst nightmare of an enemy.
Our other friend/enemy could be anti-tobacco. That could produce excellent PR and opens up an excellent option to take it to the media. Imagine the story headline… FDA moving to swiftly ban a potentially life saving device, the electronic cigarette. Says whoever from whatever against tobacco. Personally, I think that we should start making friends with the antis. Go into their offices and give them a proper introduction to PVDs and set them loose on their own research to save our devices. We just have to make sure not to wonder into the dens of the “Quit all nicotine or die” type of antis. We need to find out which organizations are NRT/ alternative therapy friendly and go to them.

The manufactures of our devices are really the ones that let us down and let this happen by not doing the necessary research and paperwork. We should be pressing hard on them right now too. They have the most to lose in this situation and should persuade quite easily. This is a very major market and it would cost them a lot if they lost this market. At this moment they are who we should be focusing on the most. They need to be made very aware of how important it is that they start work on doing the research and paperwork for the US. If the FDA allows it other countries will start to warm up to the idea. (Like Australia)

Well these are my ideas so far. Please help “good” ones along and shred the "bad" ones. And please feel free to repost them on RTV. I didn’t because I could never figure out where to put them over there. -Devon

I just don't see why BT wouldn't be down with making their own PV's for sale. They can make much more cash per pound of tobacco by making e-liquid with it.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Can't agree more, this is a civil law firms wet dream. Imagine the case that could be made against the FDA to be preventing citizens from using a next-to-harmless and superior alternative to smoking. Clearly the existing hypocrisy with existing NTR's is a bonus.

If they lets us smoke real ciggies know to kill then they are tolerating nicotine addiction. End of story.
Civil lawyers would jump on this case as it is watertight and 100% winnable.

Rlorange--And who is going to pay the attorney Fees? Who are they going to collect damages from? The FDA? The Goverment? The remedy that would be sought would be to enjoin any mandate of the FDA--not monetary damages. You are talking about a case that would sound in equitable relief, rather then monetary relief. Only the manufactures and Suppliers would have standing for monetary damages. Consumers have no standing to advance a suit seeking monetary relief--so who is going to pay the legal fees? To the contrary, a civil litigation firm would run from this case--Ever read a case were the goverment actually paid damages? They are far and few between--Sun

 

[Wildsky]

The Seedman, Grow your own tobacco

Grow your own.

 

[K.P.]

I plead with some of you people on this forum, to please NOT write this lady, ESPECIALLY if you are wanting to say something nasty or challenge their motives.

Quoted for truth.

If you want to write them, be nice, polite, friendly and positive.

"I tried to give up smoking [number of times]. I tried [patch/gum/inhaler/hypnotism]. It always felt like a struggle, I hated it, and I failed every time. I had resigned myself to being a life-long smoker and all the unpleasantness that entails.

Then I heard about e-cigs and decided to give them a chance. And [now I only smoke 2 a day/I totally quit without any effort/haven't smoked in 4 months/whatever]. It worked for me where the traditional methods failed.

The reason these things are selling so well is because there are many people like me. Please don't take them away."

Or whatever version of the above in your own words. Flies, honey, vinegar, etc.

 

[TropicalBob]

Good advice. A few hotheads hammering the FDA or its spokeswoman will brand e-smoking as a "nut fringe element of malcontents who understand nothing about public policy or government."

That's not what we want.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

I plead with some of you people on this forum, to please NOT write this lady, ESPECIALLY if you are wanting to say something nasty or challenge their motives.

Good advise here people. She is a spokesperson--not a decision maker--but as the old saying goes--"Don't shoot the Messenger. All the Messenger can do is get ...... off and shoot back."

...A few hotheads hammering the FDA or its spokeswoman will brand e-smoking as a "nut fringe element of malcontents who understand nothing about public policy or government."
That's not what we want.

And you are so right TB--a few hot heads ranting will only send the Messenger spinning back to the real decision makers realing way about the angry mail she is getting. Her job is to inform and make statements for the record. The statements she has already made were "for the record"--as it is her job to know when to speak and when to say "No, comment"--This article clearly put her right where she wanted to be--on the record, otherwise she would have made no comment at all. ---Sun

 

[Lithium1330]

Well these are my ideas so far. Please help “good” ones along and shred the "bad" ones. And please feel free to repost them on RTV. I didn’t because I could never figure out where to put them over there. -Devon

Post them where ever you want, we can move the posts later.

Ok, here is the deal, everybody is getting really paranoic on this thread, before we start to think that in the US never again a PV will be possible to buy, lets see to the past.

We think this devices are completly new, well the design may be new, but the concept isn't, remember RJR have a patent for a device very similar to this ones, and further more, there is a Personal Vaporizer manufactured in the US, suitable for herbs and liquid, the seller of this devices is selling essencial oils and herbal blends for the device, the device works with a lithium polymer battery and has a digital temp control, the device DOSN'T look like a cigarette, it is big, not so sharp, very expensive but IT IS NOT BANNED, the concept of the device is almost identical to the concept of an e-cigarette and I think the manufacturer will be VERY interested on rebamp the device to work ONLY with "essencial oils" making it sharper, slimmer and cheaper, this device is on the market since 2006 without ANY legal problems, please take a look at the Personal Vaporizer:

VM3 Unit

 

[talbrecht]

"If you had a serial killer who liked to stab people, would you give him a rubber knife?'' asked Chen. "This just boggles the mind.''

Beats the heck out of giving them a real knife!!!

 

[smokingclam]

I kind of agree with you on that Lithium. I don't think we are in for a total ban. Regulation?....definitely. I'm sure the FDA and Government have already done their tests on this stuff and knows where it stands already. They are already way ahead of us I'm sure.

 

[jennydotz]

The VM3--That's a crazy thing, I had no idea. Hmmmm

 

[Brian]

I kind of agree with you on that Lithium. I don't think we are in for a total ban. Regulation?....definitely. I'm sure the FDA and Government have already done their tests on this stuff and knows where it stands already. They are already way ahead of us I'm sure.

I agree with you on that one... I almost guarentee they have already been trying to find ANYTHING they can... hypothetically, if they did actually find something wrong, it would have been all over the press and the FDA would have gotton out their torches and pitchforks already.....the only ammunition they have so far is some sales pitch from a mall kiosk salesman and public ignorance and prejudice....
my point is.. if there really was something wrong with the product, I am sure we would have heard something by now....

 

[verhoeven]

Hopefully this isn't a duplicate post of mine. Didn't see my first one.

Could we get Mancow form the free speech radio network to evaluate
a free starter kit. Maybe a short letter on what the FDA is trying to do.

Also maybe we could email Mancow about why we like our e-cigarettes.

Think I'll send an email now to mancow.com

Jim

 

[markab]

my point is.. if there really was something wrong with the product, I am sure we would have heard something by now....

Hi Brian,
As optimistic as I am about e-cigs there has been no long term studies on its safety. With TCs (traditional cigarettes) I suspect there wasn't anyone who got lung cancer after smoking them for only a few years. We need e-cig manufacturers to act now and get more health studies started. It's a little late, but better late than never.

Mark