FDA FDA deeming regulation proposals
- Thread starter rolygate
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Jman8:And I would've expected you to call that out as well, but I was mistaken.
I don't expect everyone to follow this but I expect you will. I 'called you out' on that because it was at odds with your earlier remarks I cited - the "good news", and the "90% confident it'll be about the same or better. And 99.9% confident that the ecig industry will not be decimated." IOW, if it's so good, why fight back?
From our, less than objective perspective, anything that isn't saying "eCigs are awesome" will be spun by (some of) us as "FDA is anti-vaping." I'm not sure of any way around that with the existence of Tobacco Act and expressed desire for regulating eCigs.
While I don't doubt that this would be the case with 'some of us'.... but here, in these news forums, I see much more about the scientific cases being made against what we can see are outright lies by the ANTZ. There's a 'bias' because we're users and want to continue to be, but the bias on the other side, if you discount the 'it's BP or BT' comments, and it's about control and that is where the ANTZ and the FDA have something in common. There may be a money factor in terms of grants and merely keeping a bureaucratic job - what would happen to them in a true free market? Like what would happen to the welfare bureaucracy if we 'cured poverty'?
I respect your opinion. I see the repetition as satisfying (or attempting to satisfy) legal types going forward and/or covering the bases on their intent and their desire for what comments, of (high) value, will entail.
I think we, of the vaping community (consumers) can speak to this. Obviously it depends on what is criteria for 'long-term' effects, but I think we have enough non-smoking current vapers in our fold that can speak to this particular talking point, and it be effective, to some degree. Cause, I don't think science, today, will be able to reasonably address that point. And so rest of us, can speak to that, in similar ways to which we've addressed similar points, i.e. that lack of scientific knowledge on a point isn't grounds for eradicating the product.
Regarding 'toxic chemicals in at least some eCigarettes' we can, collectively speak to that (citing research), and I think we can, rather easily, win.
Me too. And I agree with the immediate above. We're on the same page there.
I don't expect everyone to follow this but I expect you will. I 'called you out' on that because it was at odds with your earlier remarks I cited - the "good news", and the "90% confident it'll be about the same or better. And 99.9% confident that the ecig industry will not be decimated." IOW, if it's so good, why fight back?
From our, less than objective perspective, anything that isn't saying "eCigs are awesome" will be spun by (some of) us as "FDA is anti-vaping." I'm not sure of any way around that with the existence of Tobacco Act and expressed desire for regulating eCigs.
While I don't doubt that this would be the case with 'some of us'.... but here, in these news forums, I see much more about the scientific cases being made against what we can see are outright lies by the ANTZ. There's a 'bias' because we're users and want to continue to be, but the bias on the other side, if you discount the 'it's BP or BT' comments, and it's about control and that is where the ANTZ and the FDA have something in common. There may be a money factor in terms of grants and merely keeping a bureaucratic job - what would happen to them in a true free market? Like what would happen to the welfare bureaucracy if we 'cured poverty'?
I respect your opinion. I see the repetition as satisfying (or attempting to satisfy) legal types going forward and/or covering the bases on their intent and their desire for what comments, of (high) value, will entail.
I think we, of the vaping community (consumers) can speak to this. Obviously it depends on what is criteria for 'long-term' effects, but I think we have enough non-smoking current vapers in our fold that can speak to this particular talking point, and it be effective, to some degree. Cause, I don't think science, today, will be able to reasonably address that point. And so rest of us, can speak to that, in similar ways to which we've addressed similar points, i.e. that lack of scientific knowledge on a point isn't grounds for eradicating the product.
Regarding 'toxic chemicals in at least some eCigarettes' we can, collectively speak to that (citing research), and I think we can, rather easily, win.
Me too. And I agree with the immediate above. We're on the same page there.
You might want to check this out if you haven't yet...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaWLRIjc2AU
Mitch Zeller addressed this during the question and answer period.
It's up to individual interpretation whether he really answered it, and what his answer was.
Anybody else find it a little odd that the director for the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products is a lawyer -- and not a doctor..?
Mitchell Zeller, J.D., Director, Center for Tobacco Products Bio
Mitchell Zeller, J.D., Director, Center for Tobacco Products Bio
Wow I've been enlightened, why oh why did I not see it? Yes you are ABSOLUTLY right and the FDA is going to Help me live safely.
Man that's a weight off my shoulders whew!!! I can finally just sit back and not worry about writing or emailing or attending any and all actions required by CASAA etc, Ty so much for sharing I feel much better.
IMHO everyone needs to heed these words and just sit at home and Vape On! All is ok, now that the FDA is on our side and is putting all monetary motivation aside and only thinking about our poor health, so,please all don't panic as there is no reason to.
Ty Ty Ty I'm so very relieved it's uncanny. Ty FDA.
They want evidence?
Might be useful for comment submission...
14 Electronic Cigarette Studies That Shame the Critics
Lack of research is one of the biggest myths we hear from e-cigarette critics. Many people assume that e-cigs have not been studied in detail because the research is not heavily published by the main stream media. However, there have already been many clinical trials and research projects conducted that found promising results for e-cigarettes. Here is a look at some of the most important studies we have seen to date.
14 Electronic Cigarette Studies That Shame the Critics - ChurnMag
Might be useful for comment submission...
14 Electronic Cigarette Studies That Shame the Critics
Lack of research is one of the biggest myths we hear from e-cigarette critics. Many people assume that e-cigs have not been studied in detail because the research is not heavily published by the main stream media. However, there have already been many clinical trials and research projects conducted that found promising results for e-cigarettes. Here is a look at some of the most important studies we have seen to date.
14 Electronic Cigarette Studies That Shame the Critics - ChurnMag
I am putting this up here instead of the general population of this forum, but I believe this is where the public comments can be left regarding the "deeming regulations". Let someone from CASAA take a gander before doing anything with this!
http://www.regulations.gov/#!home
Sent from my bird in a moist little package
http://www.regulations.gov/#!home
Sent from my bird in a moist little package
Some people do NOT wish to become criminals, IF liquid nic gets banned, regardless of where it comes from or IF devices somehow get banned i sure hope I have a nice neighbor, and I wouldn't risk Vapeing anywhere I could be seen. Ergo the FDA will create many many criminals.
Did you see the FDA repeated the "anti-freeze" thing again?
The FDA was actually responding although comments are getting a bit crude at times.
Just to be clear, and not concerned with bet at all in this moment, what would it take for you to see this differently? Is it simply a matter of time, and 'we shall see?'
My practical feeling on this is they have no way, plausible, to prevent free roaming nicotine. And if they do, then 'war on drugs' ought to be over within a year after that happens.
Because I think they realize this, then regulation is the option to go for, and hope for compliance. Either way, it's going to be treated as mandatory to comply to the regulation, but your scenario opens the black market wide and I see it prospering as much as current unauthorized market. It's not like vendors are currently authorized to be selling, and while it could prove to be more difficult to obtain down the road, I don't see it as impossible by any stretch of the imagination. And this is under a worst case scenario that isn't hinted at in current proposal. So, this worst case scenario is plausibly 3 to 5 years away, and not 2.5, because current proposal isn't in that direction. So new rules, new comment period, new policy of enforcement.
Current proposed rules seek some form of regulation and current comment period is open to everyone, but likely only to be responded to from vendors, ANTZ, manufacturers and vaping enthusiasts. And thus far, vaping enthusiasts seem to be in panic mode, thus plausibly going the route of disorganized response that leaves high value input to the remaining 3 parties.
I honestly cannot make the bet with you in good faith because I truly think you are way off base with your assessment, and because I see you as friend. If that seems like a cop out, I'm happy to talk via PM with you about this.
To be clear, my bet didn't have to do with black market scenario. It has to do with current FDA proposal and what will be legal no more than 3 years from now, and what will be the overall state of the eCig industry in terms of sales revenue. I believe you've somewhat conceded with idea that BT could still be in business and thus eCig industry could be thriving. I realize for you that wouldn't be a concession, but for me, it is cause I see that happening plus some degree of other companies in the mix who are legally selling many of the same products we enjoy today.
But I acknowledge that there will be 'bumps in the road' over the next 3 years and not everyone that's in business today will be around 3 years from now. But I see that partially, to mostly, because of poor attitude/lack of vision within the business. Not entirely due to that, but partly for sure. I don't think you are alone in viewing current proposal as 'handicap' and if that idea is allowed to fester, it'll be far more of an undoing than most of what ANTZ or FDA could possibly dream up.
IMO, vaping community needs leadership right about now that has attitude of, 'we got this covered' and/or 'we can do this.' I'm in that camp cause science is on our side, FDA proposal indicates (to me) that we have political momentum on our side, and because business is booming. For it to be decimated, the genie would have to be put back in the bottle and self determined (or self defeated) to think it would never ever be wise to come out of the bottle again. I just frankly find that unfathomable and see black market, which won't be all that 'dark' overcoming that situation relatively fast, in scheme of things.
I am putting this up here instead of the general population of this forum, but I believe this is where the public comments can be left regarding the "deeming regulations". Let someone from CASAA take a gander before doing anything with this!
Regulations.gov
Sent from my bird in a moist little package
This is what CASAA has to say-
We expect to provide further analysis on Monday, April 28th, 2014. In the next week or two, we will issue a Call to Action detailing how the proposed regulations affect consumers along with suggested actions so that consumers can respond most effectively. Please remember that a comment to the FDA regulations made on Day 1 is given no more weight than a comment made on Day 75. We urge the vaping community and others interested in opposing regulation that discourages tobacco harm reduction to await further analysis before acting. There is no benefit in acting or opining precipitously.
I do understand what you are purporting, but what I feel you're missing in what I'm saying is that it is because we continue to fight and continue to have science back up our side that I am so confident. As some others have said, FDA has provided us with a starting point that while it calls for us to 'fight' it is not about us being so defensive.
Let's say 10,000 individual vapers respond to the FDA proposal, and all cite evidence on something the proposal says, "there currently is no evidence on this point." Well, I'm thinking, and being entirely reasonable, to say that would influence the resulting regulation.
While I kinda sorta feel alone in what I'm saying in this thread, I'm fairly certain I'm not. I believe vapers will step to the plate, hit the ball out of the park and win on certain items. Regulation is gonna happen. We knew this 3 years ago. But it thus far (in last 24 hours) seems like it is going to be a lot less heavy handed than we anticipated. And I see our motivation to fight, plus our growing organized ability to fight as being positives that we have going for us. Which is why I'm as confident as I said before. I don't feel lulled into inaction, and instead feel more motivated than I did before the report when all so called vaping experts were conveying message of, 'we're doomed, I tell you. Doomed!' IMO, ANTZ are the ones that are doomed, and have responded as such to the proposal. Does ANTZ have science on their side? Are they growing with political might like vaping community is? I say no. They had their moment in the sun with fight against BT, but that battle is mostly over. And 10 years from now, it may be non-existent if vaping grows to what some are predicting.
Short answer is it would be decimated. But as I've said before, as long as 'everyone' is on board with 'banning use by kids' then this battle will go on indefinitely. It is the inroad to endless regulations and drama / spin from both sides of the battle. I could elaborate on this point, easily, but I'd just note that I see the 'fight for our rights' going on for rest of my lifetime and likely for another 50 years at least. I'd be pleasantly surprised if I were to somehow learn that it was 'all over' within the next 1000 years.
Jman,
I tend to go along with what Bill G said recently regarding a change in the current regime. If that happened I'd be more optimistic and yet I'm still going to compose something and hope others do as well with good info.
I tend to go along with what Bill G said recently regarding a change in the current regime. If that happened I'd be more optimistic and yet I'm still going to compose something and hope others do as well with good info.
I like the sarcasm.
Even while you missed the mark on what I said, it's still a good show.
I may adopt some of this in response to the fear mongering which cites nothing from FDA proposal but suggests, yet again, that we're doomed.
The FDA has already been presented with alot of evidence in regards to ecigs by the likes of folks like Bill Godshall. Yet, even now they deny that the evidence even exists. 
They are not truly looking for evidence against their agenda, only the evidence that backs their agenda.
They are not truly looking for evidence against their agenda, only the evidence that backs their agenda.
Well, many vapers are a little upset over all this, to put it mildly.. and arguably rightfully so...
As for those posting there on Facebook, there are only 20K active ECF'ers, 9K registered at CASAA (with overlap), etc. -- which leaves a lot of other vapers out there who have probably not heard CASAA's suggestion to chill out a little for a while...
But even then, if somebody feels strongly enough to post something at the FDA's Facebook, well, then perhaps Facebook's design is working the way it should..
My
is for those who aren't afraid to speak their mind through various avenues & to put a little heat on an entity if they don't agree with something (and if you look at some of the FDA's other posts, the e-cig issue is far from the only thing attracting some criticism)...- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
