FDA issues notice of intent to propose "deeming" regulation by April of 2013 for e-cigarettes and other tobacco products

[kristin]

Newbie here and I was just thinking that with all this FDA stuff and legislation looming large on the horizon would it be an idea to re-brand this forum to something along the lines of vaping and move away from e-cigatette in order to distance us further away from tobacco and smoking.

Just a thought.

1) E-cigarettes will be regulated by the FDA as a "tobacco product," so there is no way to distance ourselves from that. "Tobacco product" is legally defined as a product that is made or derived from tobacco. The nicotine in probably 99.99% of e-cigarette solution currently sold is derived from tobacco.

2) Smokers are initially looking for something that looks, tastes and feels like their cigarettes. They don't want a "personal vaporizer" or whatever else people want to call it.

3) The name "e-cigarette" is too well known to change at this point. That horse left the barn a long time ago.

4) As long as it produces visible vapor and can contain nicotine, it doesn't matter what we call it.

 

[Jman8]

Here you go FDA, let us serve it to you on a nice big silver platter.

Regulate away to your heart's content.

 

[Grrrr]

Thanks for the explanation there Kristin.

Even at this late stage of the game is it not worth changing it though, when people start throwing stones at the vaping community I can see them saying things like even they consider them cigarettes, I'm not suggesting we try to change an already established name (e-cigarette) but more that we as a community no longer consider it "smoking" or them as "cigarettes" regardless of what others may say they are.
I guess the word "cigarette" has so many negative connotations associated with it I'm loathe to use it, and it's a shame we will be forever connected to that term.

I know I'm a newbie and I hope I haven't annoyed or irritated anyone with this, apologies if I have.

 

[DC2]

I know I'm a newbie and I hope I haven't annoyed or irritated anyone with this, apologies if I have.

A thoughtful person respects and appreciates all input.

 

[kristin]

Here you go FDA, let us serve it to you on a nice big silver platter.

Regulate away to your heart's content.

Changing what we call them isn't going to change the FDA's attitude towards e-cigarettes. It's what they ARE that is the objection, not what they are called. The ANTZ refer to them as "ENDDS" (Electronic Nicotine Delivery Devices) but that doesn't stop them from saying they should be banned until the FDA approves them as safe and effective.

 

[kristin]

Thanks for the explanation there Kristin.

Even at this late stage of the game is it not worth changing it though, when people start throwing stones at the vaping community I can see them saying things like even they consider them cigarettes, I'm not suggesting we try to change an already established name (e-cigarette) but more that we as a community no longer consider it "smoking" or them as "cigarettes" regardless of what others may say they are.
I guess the word "cigarette" has so many negative connotations associated with it I'm loathe to use it, and it's a shame we will be forever connected to that term.

I know I'm a newbie and I hope I haven't annoyed or irritated anyone with this, apologies if I have.

I absolutely agree we shouldn't call it "smoking."

I'm not sure why you think anyone is annoyed or angry. Definitely no reason to apologize for anything! My response was sort of short but it's just to get to the point. You honestly aren't the first person to say we shouldn't call them e-cigarettes and I'm sure you won't be the last.

I feel we shouldn't get so hung up on semantics, though. The word "gun" is a loaded term, but people don't have the same reaction to "squirt gun." People know they are two very different things. It's a matter of taking ownership of the term and making people understand that "cigarette" and "electronic cigarette" are also two very different things.

 

[Petrodus]

Kristen is Right !!

For the benefit of new members ...
The subject of calling e-cigarettes something else
is NOT a new topic. It comes up a number times every year.
Goes No Where !!
The reality is the world knows them as electronic cigarettes.

For those that want to jump in to this topic ... yet again
One of several threads can be found on the Campaigning forum Click Here

 

[billy2boots]

Anyone know the petitions signage count? I'm on a mobile and can't see. Not just that I'm lazy

9,268 currently. Still a ways to go, and I'd like to see that minimum requirement blown out of the water, but we're doing pretty good.

Thx yea I would think so with how many people have quite smoking thx 2 personal vaporizers . I refrained from using the term e-cig

 

[zippersnapper]

Kristin:
If the FDA acts in a manner that will take our vaping away, how much time in your best guesstimate, would elapse before sales are cut off/outlawed completely?

In other words, based on the FDA's ruling, what is the next step? Is there a next step?

Many of us have already begun stockpiling and am anxious to know a possible "cutoff" point..

 

[FloridaNoob]

I have to completely agree with Kristin and DC2 on nothing is gonna make a difference by changing the name. Really we don't need to if you think about them like a car. You have electric cars and combustion engine cars. So you could think of the electric cars as the E-car, and the combustion engine cars as cars. They are both meant to do the same thing, but the E-car is meant to do it in a emission safe way. Thus causing less harm to the environment. E-cigerettes are the same thing. They are meant to satisfy the smoking desire thru vapping but in a less harmful way to the user and those around them.

 

[Petrodus]

The reason why discussions about what we should call them
end up going no where ...

A Rose by any other name is still a Rose.

 

[Jman8]

I say stick to name of eCigs and keeping them combined with 'just like smoking, but better' if it makes you happy.

But also be okay then for them to be heavily regulated by those who already have a very visible target on (heavily regulated) products that are smoking and nicotine related. If not okay with that, then go after the desire to regulate smoking / nicotine, rather than only being focussed on eCigs.

Especially if not having much desire to differentiate the latter from smoking and cigarettes.

If you believe cigarettes ought to be heavily regulated (for whatever reasons) and this product is an electronic version of that, then what's not to get when it comes to another person's (or organization's) desire to heavily regulate eCigs?

 

[kristin]

The justification used for banning public use and heavy "sin" taxes on traditional cigarettes is harm and cost to society. They give tax breaks to other alternatives that are considered beneficial - such as the example given earlier about alternative fuel cars - rather than the same punitive actions they give the harmful version. The reason is to give people incentive to use the less harmful version. There's no reason the same argument couldn't be made for e-cigarettes.

 

[Grrrr]

I wasn't suggesting that we try to change the term e-cig wholesale it was more of a forum based change in order to distance ourselves from the wholly negative term "cigarette" I realize the world at large will, for the foreseeable future at least, continue to call and regard them as e-cigarettes.
I get the whole electric car/internal combustion car analogy however cars can be beautiful, thrilling, works of art, some are housed in galleries and there are many museums dedicated to cars, cars enrich and make our lives easier. Cigarettes have zero redeeming qualities that I can think of, there is nothing positive to say about cigarettes. There aren't too many things you can say that about, terminal diseases is one that springs to mind.
But like I said it was just an idea, I was also under no illusion that I would be the first to have said idea.

I suppose we shall just have to wait and see how and where the cards fall and assess options at that point.

It would be a nice outcome if the example given above were implemented as regards the alternative fuel/e-cig tax break scenario, though I fear the big pharma/big tobacco lobbyists care little about health benefits and more about filling their own coffers, time will tell.

I hope this doesn't come across as confrontational or argumentative, I was just curious.

 

[Tail11]

What irritates me about the FDA is the fact that they approve all sorts of products that are potentially dangerous. I was watching TV last night and saw a commercial for Abilify. My rudimentary means of clocking the commercial revealed it took 38 seconds for the commercial to list all potential side effects. And this was deemed safe by the FDA?

Reveals who the FDA is really working for eh?

 

[Fiamma]

One has to wonder about the drugs that have been recalled because they did more harm to people than good. Were those all fast tracked? Did the FDA really do due diligence on these drugs before approving them?

The FDA has long worked to the benefit of the companies it is supposed to be watching. That revolving door between the FDA and the CDC and big pharma is well known. I'm not sure if that is also true of tobacco, but I do know that the funding for FDA and CDC largely come from tobacco and pharma. They don't work for us, folks. They work for them.

 

[Petrodus]

The FDA
There is the truth according to the FDA
and then
There is the "Real Truth"

 

[zippersnapper]

So, does the buck stop with this person right here:

May Nelson
Regulatory Counsel
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
HFS-32, Center for Tobacco Products, 9200 Corporate Boulevard,
Rockville, MD 20850
Phone:877 287-1373
Fax:240 276-3904
Email: may.nelson@fda.hhs.gov

Should we e-mail and ring his phone off the hook?

 

[Insignificance]

What irritates me about the FDA is the fact that they approve all sorts of products that are potentially dangerous. I was watching TV last night and saw a commercial for Abilify. My rudimentary means of clocking the commercial revealed it took 38 seconds for the commercial to list all potential side effects. And this was deemed safe by the FDA?

Reveals who the FDA is really working for eh?

Actually, the drug companies have to jump through a lot of hoops before a drug makes it onto the shelves. I'm not holding the FDA up as saints but the instances of those side effects that these companies have to run through on their commercial (mandated by the FDA) are very rare.
That said, your point is taken as what I fear is the FDA digging up one instance of an idiot chain vaping to the point of getting nicotine poisoning and using that as a cudgel against the industry.

 

[Insignificance]

One has to wonder about the drugs that have been recalled because they did more harm to people than good. Were those all fast tracked? Did the FDA really do due diligence on these drugs before approving them?

The FDA has long worked to the benefit of the companies it is supposed to be watching. That revolving door between the FDA and the CDC and big pharma is well known. I'm not sure if that is also true of tobacco, but I do know that the funding for FDA and CDC largely come from tobacco and pharma. They don't work for us, folks. They work for them.

I don't know about big pharma, but it's a stretch to say that the FDA and big tobacco are in cahoots.....let alone funding a government agency. More likely that the legislators are getting paid off.
Keep in mind that it was the FDA that wanted graphic pictures on all tobacco products and wanted the tobacco companies to pay for it....doesn't sound like a cabal to me.