Because tobacco makes you sharp and other drugs make you dull. Sharp people are harder to control than dull people. Next question?
No more questions, your honor.
FDA FDA deeming regulation proposals
- Thread starter rolygate
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
No more questions, your honor.
excellent question indeed
Hm... maybe there is no money to be made from illegal-drug addicts?
While those who consume legal substances can be milked for a lot of money until they conveniently die off, saving pension fund payments.
After all, you cannot raise ridiculously high "sin taxes" if the activity is not considered a horrible sin...
Oh yes, that demonizing has method.
And it is so convenient to have something to harp on in the media, instead of tackling real problems.
Give "the rabble" a scapegoat to hate, give "the rabble" a phantom to fear, instead of having them wonder what on earth the gov't is doing to alleviate real problems, with all the money they take from the people in taxes and fees.
The witchhunts of the Middle Ages come to mind.
I have been reading everything I can about the FDA deeming regulations and have been composing a response in my head (even though I am from Canada and I am not sure I can even submit a comment).
I am not sure if this has been considered yet, but my question is, would it be possible to request a third option? One where PV's (non cig-a-likes) are exempt?
Under option 2, premium cigars would be exempt because, according to the FDA "it has been suggested that different kinds of cigars may have the potential for varying effects on public health, based on possible differences in their effects on dual use, youth initiation and frequency of use by youth and young adults." Replace the word cigar with personal vaporizer and the justification makes sense too. Cig-a-likes would not be covered under option 3. Why does the mere suggestion that premium cigars may be used differently than other cigars allow for exemption, while PV's don't?
Anyways, just thought I would throw that out and see what people think.
I am not sure if this has been considered yet, but my question is, would it be possible to request a third option? One where PV's (non cig-a-likes) are exempt?
Under option 2, premium cigars would be exempt because, according to the FDA "it has been suggested that different kinds of cigars may have the potential for varying effects on public health, based on possible differences in their effects on dual use, youth initiation and frequency of use by youth and young adults." Replace the word cigar with personal vaporizer and the justification makes sense too. Cig-a-likes would not be covered under option 3. Why does the mere suggestion that premium cigars may be used differently than other cigars allow for exemption, while PV's don't?
Anyways, just thought I would throw that out and see what people think.
I was transformed from a proud tax paying, middle class citizen to a poor hoarder hiding from the government begging for just a little freedom.
Good stuff from vapingreek/Dimitris this past Wednesday...
On this episode of Smoke Free Radio we are joined by attorney Azim Chowdhury who has developed expertise in tobacco product regulation and has experience representing tobacco manufacturers and suppliers, including electronic cigarette companies, in FDA regulatory matters. Callers included the former Winston Man David Goerlitz, Cisco from AvidVaper, Kevin Skipper from VISTA and others.
https://soundcloud.com/#vp-live/smoke-free-radio-episode-2
On this episode of Smoke Free Radio we are joined by attorney Azim Chowdhury who has developed expertise in tobacco product regulation and has experience representing tobacco manufacturers and suppliers, including electronic cigarette companies, in FDA regulatory matters. Callers included the former Winston Man David Goerlitz, Cisco from AvidVaper, Kevin Skipper from VISTA and others.
https://soundcloud.com/#vp-live/smoke-free-radio-episode-2
This is how fascist governments create criminals out of ordinary citizens. Prohibit everything they like to do, and make mandatory everything they don't.
I think it's a really good video..
Obviously there's an agenda to it (which we all have), considering a good chunk of it relates to the dietary supplement industry's battle with the FDA & Big Pharma (and I'm assuming it was created/funded by at least the friends of the supplement industry -- which certainly doesn't discredit what's said in the video, and is probably 1000x more truthful & insightful than, say, FDA's Facebook puff-piece posts)..
But I think one can easily make the case that it parallels the vaping industry & our battle.. Only we're not only up against the FDA & BP, but also BT & state/local governments, as well...
After watching that, and doing some research & some thinking over the past week or so, I'm pretty convinced at this point that the FDA is not about health, but about money (bold mine)...
"The FDA's federal budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2012 totaled $4.36 billion, while the proposed 2014 budget is $4.7 billion. About $2 billion of this budget is generated by user fees. Pharmaceutical firms pay the majority of these fees, which are used to expedite drug reviews."
Food and Drug Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now keeping that in mind.. I think rolygate (ECF Forum Manager) made 2 excellent must-read posts the day the proposal came out, both which hit the nail on the head..
They're a bit negative, depressing & bleak.. and even though we need to keep fighting harder than ever in all kinds of ways, I believe he speaks the eye-opening truth & reality of all this...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...555865-proposed-fda-rules-3.html#post12944437
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...555865-proposed-fda-rules-5.html#post12945163
Yes I read Rolygates posts..Sometime the truth hurts...I also think he was spot on.
He missed bringing up the black market and other things that would greatly impact the dynamic both in current situation and going forward.
If you are reading this, and are sure you wouldn't go to a black market to get whatever it is that is 'regulated out of existence' then perhaps you speak truth, for yourself. There will be plenty of others who do. I see zero chance of it being regulated out of existence.
It is possible, nay encouraged, to shame smokers. I can find umpteen posts on ECF that disparage smoking/smokers, so don't need to go a looking in 'enemy camp' for that sort of spin. That plays well right here in vaping culture. Hate on smoking/smokers and you're golden. Try and debate with anyone about faux science on 'harms of smoking' and it almost always ends with one side, the hate on smoking side, picking up their ball and going home as they simply cannot hear another side to that debate. Mind is made up. Smoking kills. Again, not just found in enemy camp, but allowed to permeate entire world culture.
Unless you are an ex-smoker that hates on smoking, you are shunned. Go read Winston Man's diary/blog on this if this isn't clear. There are many examples of this around. It is the scapegoat, it is immensely popular, and it is, in may ways, legalized to shame smokers by any means necessary.
That we live in a world society that doesn't fight on this front (via science, politics, philosophy, and economics) is why we also live in a world that has managed to manipulate the masses into accepting a smoking economy.
And is also why we currently live in a world that has an increasingly popular underground market for smokes. Still legal. But has an underground market.
Regulate out of existence?
Thanks for humoring me.
Last edited:
Funny thing, it's the FDA and the ANTZ who taught us how to run black market ecigs. The FDA for their illegal attempted ban. The ANTZ for not jumping to embrace ecigs.
If these had been embraced and jumped on by big business from the start to figure out a better way few would know how to mod, rebuild or DIY liquid.
If these had been embraced and jumped on by big business from the start to figure out a better way few would know how to mod, rebuild or DIY liquid.
I think the FDA's proposals will be preemptive to the vaping communities ability to fight it. That's why the language is written the way it is. Because they state that e-liquid is a tobacco product. If we could fight that, we would. When anyone with the ability to see through BS knows better. What can we do though? Fight the FDA? Yeah well good luck reasoning with the FDA. Especially when they are being paid off. The black market may be the only way to keep vaping going.
I also do not hate on smokers. I was one myself that could not quit that habit until I started vaping. I tell every smoker I come into contact that. I think those of us that understand these new proposed regulations has the opinion that we will be taxed out of any kind of legal existence. That without the black market, become the easiest way to quit smoking that has ever been taken away by a greedy bunch of bureaucrats.
Well we sure won't just dry up and go away. If they think that then they are a stupid bunch of dog farts!
Now that most all points of these new FDA proposed regulations have been at least touched on in this and other threads, might as well go after the one nobody mentioned:
Its about the acrostic "FDA deeming regulation proposals" and in particular the usage of the acrostic "deem" or "deeming."
Personally, I think anyone who uses the word "deem" or "deeming" should be arrested, except Tom Brokaw. Then Brokaw could plusssssssssssss it to us.----- But what the righhhhttt, its not going to make any difference anyhow.
BTW, one hugely underestimated point, IMO. It's how the FDA has captured or is capturing the public. If vendors and manufacturers cannot advertise the virtues of ecigs over stinkies (which is total rubbish and means the truth has very little or a muted voice to mainstream media outlets), BT and the cigalikes already are winning. It also means, IMO, that they possibly can win. They didn't just win round one here, they knocked this one out of the park. It's because the voices like you and me, we don't have access to winning the public through the media. Worse, cigalike vendors- the big ones are sitting in the grandstands cheering it on. These guys are playing hardball, and it doesn't look like it is going to get any easier.
Bye for now, and best wishes.
Its about the acrostic "FDA deeming regulation proposals" and in particular the usage of the acrostic "deem" or "deeming."
Personally, I think anyone who uses the word "deem" or "deeming" should be arrested, except Tom Brokaw. Then Brokaw could plusssssssssssss it to us.----- But what the righhhhttt, its not going to make any difference anyhow.
BTW, one hugely underestimated point, IMO. It's how the FDA has captured or is capturing the public. If vendors and manufacturers cannot advertise the virtues of ecigs over stinkies (which is total rubbish and means the truth has very little or a muted voice to mainstream media outlets), BT and the cigalikes already are winning. It also means, IMO, that they possibly can win. They didn't just win round one here, they knocked this one out of the park. It's because the voices like you and me, we don't have access to winning the public through the media. Worse, cigalike vendors- the big ones are sitting in the grandstands cheering it on. These guys are playing hardball, and it doesn't look like it is going to get any easier.
Bye for now, and best wishes.
Last edited:
The word and phrase does conger up a regal setting, "The king deems that...."....
Advertising has little impact either way, word of mouth in the "Smoking Area" is much more informative. I"m in New Jersey, and have been regulated to the outside smokers area for years, proselytizing to a captive audience...
If advertising is restricted, the ECF New Members forum would hopefully become more active!
I hear what you are saying here. I am actually feeling the FDA can be reasoned with. Not that it is easy from consumer's perspective, nor all that accessible. I do think court of law, or congress people, are perhaps our best way to reason with FDA, but not even the only way. I reckon many ECF vapers will submit some sort of comments, during comment period, in an attempt to reason, but why would some of us if we already feel FDA is bought for or determined? For those convinced they are bought off, I'd say save your comment and seek a higher authority (Congress or judicial).
I think the fight has to be bigger than "how do you FDA really define a tobacco product?" That is key question we all want to be clear on. But as they are playing a 'big boy game' to help American public get to point of understanding of all tobacco products and how strictly distributors will be regulated, then both FDA and public (really everyone else) needs to know what is at stake. FDA and ANTZ can't be in charge of that narrative, and in my view, simply won't be.
To me, our options for fighting it, include right now:
- writing a comment during this comment period. This method has a bunch of subpoints about what one could say, but that's another topic for another post.
- insisting on added time for writing a comment. It really seems only fair as FDA got a lot more time to come out with their proposal. Plus it could have many political implications if a delay is granted.
- on portion of our collective/organized strategy, being very vocal and/or transparent about what we (vaping community) are up to in this fight. Granted some in mainstream media may simply put us on ignore and stick only to ANTZ narrative, but I don't think entire media will, and our fight isn't just for vapers. It has built in conflict, which I'd think any journalist would want to write on. And it is easily issue of little guy / small business vs. big government / over-reaching regulations.
- protests now, before proposals go into effect
- going directly to Congress people with our fight, and what FDA has put us up against. Comment period looks fair on surface, but not if FDA is already saying that for some vaping businesses to stay in the game, it'll cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. There are easily members in Congress that would be sympathetic to that information and thus see proposal as perhaps something to act on immediately, or to plan on delaying a vote on it indefinitely because it could be rather easily spun as a partisan issue. Thus rules don't go in effect until Congress debates the issue openly, and then votes on rules that make sense. Some of what FDA is proposing will make sense to political types, thus pass rather easily, but some of it, likely won't. And if all of Congress is on record with "screw the little guy," then they'd realize that could cost them seat, especially if they are part of political movement/party that espouses caring about small businesses.
- being very clear, very transparent, and perhaps very detailed about how this industry will go underground and how that very well could affect youth usage. IMO, black market is inevitable if regulations are heavy handed. There is no maybe here. Media and Congress need to know about this point when considering what vapers are up against, but what America will be involved with if FDA / BP is allowed to control narrative (i.e. only kids are people that desire flavors like cotton candy). Bringing up black market is, to me, not a threat, it is a reasonable consideration for the fight. Ignore it at your own peril is all I can say to opposition that thinks it okay to cross that bridge when "we" come to it.
- fighting, in court, after the fact when proposals are in effect. This could lead to a bunch of turmoil before courts even hear the cases, but once a case is in court fighting on some sort of cease and desist assertion, then it can likely help a whole bunch of other businesses.
- fighting states now on laws that make FDA proposal look like minor concerns. Some states are acting blatantly right now to tie vaping to smoking and beat FDA to punch. If that can be defeated, and tide turns at state level, then FDA or big government may rethink what makes sense going forward, lest they wish to battle with states on this.
- wait til Obama admin is gone or at very least until after mid-term elections to see how political landscape may favor vaping community
- wait for science to catch up to anecdotal evidence that vapers already know, and let truth defeat mass deception. If nothing on this list, including inevitable black market, works for you, then perhaps this one will. Thing is, I see science as entirely open to manipulation, as can be seen on "harm from smoking" debate. I anticipate vaping to go similar route. There are many things in popular/current science where vocal minority is deemed, more or less, heretics that are to be ignored. That ain't the science I grew up with, but it is popular science and so reality is, that at any time, scientific consensus could work against vaping community. If BP grant money is their bread and butter, then yes, science can / will be manipulated to show vaping is hazardous, and must be heavily regulated.
- confidence. Could've lead with this one. Me, I'm very confident vaping is here to stay, that variety in products will be around for a long time to come. Act confident on whatever side of the fight you are on and I think it helps your side of the fight going forward. For me, it isn't so much an act. I've put out public wager on how this will play out, so am not just going thru motions of what I think. Vaping is here to stay. Get used to that FDA, federal government, ANTZ. Your resisting actions only make it more appealing to youth. Try a more reasonable approach and work with vaping community (where 90% or more don't want use by minors) and perhaps you'll get more of what you say you want. Resist this, and you just done created a viable black market, that will kick your booty. Sorry, but dem the breaks.
Taxation is viable concern going forward. All the rest, are items I currently think opposition is overplaying it's pathetic hand. They go for that stuff, they will lose, to the black market. Kids will vape. Let's be perfectly clear on this point. The granddaddy of all the other points. Kids are going to vape, and the more that it is forbidden, the more appealing it'll be to kids, and the more they will realize government is deceiving them on this issue.
IMO, FDA proposal is written in a way to not overplay the hand and to think, based on public momentum going forward, to think they'll easily be able to regulate more. That may be true, but also could easily backfire (against ANTZ) and thus FDA has left a pretty big door wide open. At any time, if they wish to slam that door and go heavy handed, they run risk of huge black market that will control the narrative. I think they know this, but are kinda sorta hoping legal means and taxation will make vaping less appealing. I am confident they'll (eventually) lose on the legal stuff and taxation, if handled inappropriately, will guarantee that black market corners the market.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
