Does this or does this not ALL come down to whether or not one trusts the FDA?
IMO, it comes down to trust in yourself. But as that is philosophical point that I'm always up for exploring, I just assume leave that discussion for another time.
In vein you are asserting, I don't think it is trust as much as respect, and really respect for a process that is outside the control of any one person/group.
I think a decent (not great) analogy would be with the law in general. Like, I've been pulled over for a traffic violation and found officer to be disrespectful to my position on the matter. Law is the law, and excuses don't matter to LEO. Yet, LEO's constantly give out warnings or let people go, so that shows it can be bent, overcome, based entirely on human judgment, or even mood. In one case where I got a traffic violation, I had to go to court (or pay huge fine, lose points, yadda yadda yadda). I did not trust the system simply because the ticket, even to this moment, seemed unjustified. I understand why I got it, but it was, IMO, based on 'mood of the moment.' Warning would've had same effect. Yet, I respected the process, which included a few calls to attorney types and one of those just so happened to personally know the judge that would try my case. Then, I was in room right before you go to court, and essentially being told of plea deal that is best I could hope for. I'm like, okay, whatever. By time I got to judge, he gave me even better deal than the plea one, and while not equal to warning the LEO could've given me, it was on par with that. I attribute this to my respect for the system, even while I continue to lack trust in how 'business as usual' appears, both in my very limited experience and more so in what is often reported as gross injustices being carried out.
I respect what FDA is doing with the proposed regulations, even while I don't implicitly trust what FDA does from day to day. I think they have a very poor track record in what is their stated mission. Yet, if not them regulating, it'll be some other federal department. I see no possible way, within shared reality, for a federal department to not regulate eCigs. Thus, regulation, of some sort is inevitable. Again, I fully believe everyone reading this already knew that.
And none of us were saying before 4/24/14 that FDA is going to be totally kind to eCig vendors/consumers and it's going to be peachy king with those proposed regulations come out. No, instead we had Tobacco Act as tool of reference, plus rhetoric galore from ANTZ and media to see ways in which this could all go down. Many 'experts' I believe anticipated the worst and some expressed what that'll look like. I believe that list of 'worst items to expect' included:
- online sales will be addressed/attacked
- flavors will be subject to outright ban with limitation for menthol and tobacco flavors only
- all vaping gear will be immediately proposed for ban from the market, heavily enforced, and not allowed back on unless it is approved (read as never)
- secondhand vapor will be cited as public hazard on par with secondhand smoke and suggested that it be regulated as such
- plus other things, but those were the biggest items.
IMO, all of that is still on the table from ANTZ perspective and possibly from political/FDA perspective. I think it will be on the table indefinitely, or as long as unquestionable ban for minors is overriding logic at work. Being realistic, I think these items could one day come about.
But this proposed piece of regulations didn't go there, and is not as heavy handed as some were suggesting.
So, it seems to me because FDA didn't propose a regulation that amounts to explicitly stating, "eCigs are awesome, they are here to stay, and the market is wide open for everyone, no questions asked," that there are some who see it as heavy handed as it is right now. Saying that it will be end of vaping in 3 years or less. Or at best, as in most we can possibly hope for, is that eCig industry will continue, but it will only be run by BT and maybe 3 or 4 other big eCig vendors.
They have proposed regulations that give them the exact tools we feared they would use.
And many of us that feared they would use them are no less afraid today.
They have scattered in their long document a couple of possible concessions.
Some would say that is reason for hope, others would say it is a way to keep us calm and quiet while they proceed.
Bottom line is I don't trust them as far as I can throw them.
They've given me absolutely no reason to do so in the last five years.
And I would say respect them, which you will in whatever response you send. CASAA will advocate for this, and you already know you will be sending a respectful correspondence to an organization that you do not trust.
But you can (learn to) trust the process. I see reasons for optimism, and fairly strong indications that 3 to 5 years from now vaping will be thriving. For sure it'll continue to thrive in next 3 years. After 5 years, not so sure, but too many factors, most of which aren't known, to consider that I just assume cross that bridge when it comes.
For me trusting the process means trusting in higher self, trusting that vaping community has some momentum, for sure has short term on our side and trust that manufacturers are thus far greeting this with a 'yes we can' type attitude.
If all that doesn't work, take comfort in idea that Glantz didn't like this proposal. Can't you find some solace in that?
