Its a good thing the FDA isn't in charge of people's appendix. Ie( Don't know what it's good for or if it causes any harm to humans, so the FDA orders it ripped out of every human being.)
Lopsided analogy? It really isn't. The WORST the FDA can say about ECigarettes, is that "they just don't know." (There are scads of chemicals, toxins that fall into the same category, the FDA doesn't know if certain things cause harm,neither does anyone else. Neither has the FDA in the past been predatory towards the unknown.) Rather, they do the obvious, nothing until they do know. By worst, I mean it in a good sense. The truth is they do know, that Ecigarettes, based upon testimony, and some empirical things, and just good old common sense, is far better health wise then stinky smoking. ( I could provide my own little story, how ecigs helped, how ecigs allowed me better exercising- etc.. all, but I wont la la la.)
The FDA must be beholden to some charter, whereby certain obvious protocol must be followed. Their authority cannot be so broad in scope that they can just scoop at what they don't like and regulate it. Sure its a long shot, but does anyone know?
Lastly, the FDA going after something that at best case "they just don't know" if it causes harm, provides a reasonable amount of suspicion, all of which seems plausible, as too whose agenda this really belongs too. (The truth is, we probably never will find out, not in a provable practical way, although the road signs are starring and singing at us.) Bless the FDA as an independent agency all you want , but it does seem to "stinky" -pun intended, of foul play, and interference from those who benefit. And there is no allegation herein either, at least not yet, just things us Eicgers should be able to count on (For everyone's information Any act under the RICO ACT which consists of theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, or obstruction of justice is a crime.) And I do stress the words "ANY ACT." The specific crime is Racketeering. The non blessing is 20 years in jail per offense.
The Law always has pointed in both ways, the stick some day will be big enough so "top hats" can't slide by either. Let that day be NOW.
Lopsided analogy? It really isn't. The WORST the FDA can say about ECigarettes, is that "they just don't know." (There are scads of chemicals, toxins that fall into the same category, the FDA doesn't know if certain things cause harm,neither does anyone else. Neither has the FDA in the past been predatory towards the unknown.) Rather, they do the obvious, nothing until they do know. By worst, I mean it in a good sense. The truth is they do know, that Ecigarettes, based upon testimony, and some empirical things, and just good old common sense, is far better health wise then stinky smoking. ( I could provide my own little story, how ecigs helped, how ecigs allowed me better exercising- etc.. all, but I wont la la la.)
The FDA must be beholden to some charter, whereby certain obvious protocol must be followed. Their authority cannot be so broad in scope that they can just scoop at what they don't like and regulate it. Sure its a long shot, but does anyone know?
Lastly, the FDA going after something that at best case "they just don't know" if it causes harm, provides a reasonable amount of suspicion, all of which seems plausible, as too whose agenda this really belongs too. (The truth is, we probably never will find out, not in a provable practical way, although the road signs are starring and singing at us.) Bless the FDA as an independent agency all you want , but it does seem to "stinky" -pun intended, of foul play, and interference from those who benefit. And there is no allegation herein either, at least not yet, just things us Eicgers should be able to count on (For everyone's information Any act under the RICO ACT which consists of theft, embezzlement, fraud, dealing in obscene matter, or obstruction of justice is a crime.) And I do stress the words "ANY ACT." The specific crime is Racketeering. The non blessing is 20 years in jail per offense.
The Law always has pointed in both ways, the stick some day will be big enough so "top hats" can't slide by either. Let that day be NOW.
Last edited:
Just trying to play by their stated rules of 'evidence based science' and trying to make a point about the net negative 'benefit to public health on the population level'. If I can't point to anything (has the ECF study been finished and made public?), then I will put it in the personal story part of my comment. But I just feel it would be more powerful if I was able to say 'XXX number of vapers would return to smoking' instead of just telling them that I would.
