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

[Vocalek]

Aint that the truth, they would rather have us smoking tobacco and six feet under, than see us vape. This just infuriates me. I read this stuff daily to keep up on it, and I'm doing what i can to help. But honestly i think i should take a break from ecf every few days, this .... is just stressing me out lol. And even with what I'm doing to try and help, it sucks to think they may not listen at all. Why are they not trying to shut down tobacco instead! That is the real killer!

That's the way I see it, too.

They are adamantly opposed to e-cigarettes because allowing smokers to switch to ecigs upset their master plan to keep kids from starting to smoke by killing off their parents, grandparents, aunts, and uncles who smoke. They plan to accomplish this by:

• Keeping the information about lower risk products a big secret from smokers
• Lying about the hazards of smoke-free alternatives
• Lowering nicotine levels as much as they can in tobacco cigarettes, making them even more hazardous because smokers smoke harder and faster to get the nicotine they need.making
• Once all the smokers are dead, their problem is solved.

And people think the tobacco companies are evil! Hah! At least they are working on reducing toxins in their products and currently produce products (of the smoke-free variety) that carry a tiny smidgen of the hazard level of smoking. They are prohibited by law, however, from letting consumers know that some of their products are less hazardous than smoking.

 

[Maxwell_Edison]

If we can buy non-nicotine ejuice from online vendors when the dust settles, I'll use that with nico gum or something to keep from smoking, I wont be happy about it, but I don't think they can ban pg/vg flavored juice too can they?

 

[Littlewing]

Good idea ...
However, Hollywood celebs risk future film roles if they oppose
the views of the government, agencies, and the Mainstream Media
not to speak of opposing the views of BP.

I would love to see Jesse Ventura tackle this issue on Jesse Ventura Conspiracy Files..

 

[kristin]

I would love to see Jesse Ventura tackle this issue on Jesse Ventura Conspiracy Files..

Oh, please, no! That's all we need is for the public to file our complaints away as conspiracy nuts. lol

 

[budynbuick]

If we can buy non-nicotine ejuice from online vendors when the dust settles, I'll use that with nico gum or something to keep from smoking, I wont be happy about it, but I don't think they can ban pg/vg flavored juice too can they?

Maxwell Edison majoring in medicine....... Cool web site. Love it. I will spend some time vaping there. I thought I had visited every Beatle site. Thanks, much appreciated

 

[Petrodus]

I suggest the FDA chose April as a month to post their deeming regulations
with Pay-Back in mind for losing their case to ban e-cigarettes.
Give the illusion they may listen...then stick out their tongue and say
"April Fools" !!

 

[zoiDman]

Aint that the truth, they would rather have us smoking tobacco and six feet under, than see us vape. This just infuriates me. ...

I just Don’t see it that way.

I don’t think the FDA could care less if you vape. As long as the FDA’s Overlords, Big Business, are the ones Profiting from your Vaping.

If we lived in a Simplest, Magic Land where Good took president over Bad and agencies like the FDA held the Public’s Health Paramount over all else, then we Wouldn’t be even having this discussion.

But we Don’t.

We live in a World where the Big Business calls the Shots because they pay for our Elected Officials Campaigns. And a Smart Elected Official Doesn’t Bite the Hand that Feeds Him.

Nobody (the FDA, BT, BP, Government) wants to take Vaping away from people. They just want to make sure that the Money you spend on Vaping goes to the Right People. That and they want to Tax it.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Nobody (the FDA, BT, BP, Government) wants to take Vaping away from people. They just want to make sure that the Money you spend on Vaping goes to the Right People. That and they want to Tax it.

Have to disagree with this, if 25-50% of smokers quit and move to e-cigs there might be some governments a lot closer to bankruptcy as the tobacco settlement moneys they are now depending on would be cut in half.

 

[zoiDman]

Have to disagree with this, if 25-50% of smokers quit and move to e-cigs there might be some governments a lot closer to bankruptcy as the tobacco settlement moneys they are now depending on would be cut in half.

But what if that 25-50% of Smokers who switched to e-Cigarettes had to use e-Liquids that were Taxed at the Same Rate as the Tobacco they used to Burn?

Sounds like a Break Even to me.

 

[kristin]

The ANTZ smoking rate shell game:

- In 1990, the number of smokers was 45.8 million (25.5%). The Surgeon General announced the goal of reducing the smoking rate to 15% by 2000.
Cigarette Smoking Among Adults -- United States, 1990

- By 2000, the number of smokers was 46.5 million (an increase of 700,000 smokers) but the "prevalence" or "rate" (percentage of adults smoking) was "reduced" to 23.3%. The ANTZ claimed their efforts were working - because the smoking rate was reduced from 25.5% to 23.3% -but they needed billions more in funding because the goal of a 15% was still not reached. So a goal of a 12% smoking rate was set for 2010.
Cigarette Smoking Among Adults --- United States, 2000

- By 2010, the number of smokers was "down" from 46.5 million (23.3%) a decade earlier to 45.3 million, a smoking rate of 19.3%. The ANTZ could now say their "quit or die" policy and spending billions on getting tax increases, youth education, flavor bans and smoking bans was working, because the 1990 smoking rate of 25.5% was "significantly reduced" to 19.3%. Now they need billions more to reach that seemingly-attainable goal of 12% by 2020.
Vital Signs: Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults Aged ?18 Years --- United States, 2005--2010
CDC - Fact Sheet - Adult Cigarette Smoking in the United States - Smoking & Tobacco Use

Of course, they didn't mention that 25.5% in 1990 and 19.3% in 2010 was virtually the same in the number of smokers - 45.5 million in 1990 and 45.3 million in 2010. That's a reduction of only 200,000 in 20 years. Furthermore, the CDC reported 419,000 deaths attributed to smoking in 1990. In 2010, the number of "smoking-related" deaths was reported as 443,000 (unchanged in reports since 2004,) a 5.4% increase from 1990's smoking-related deaths.
Mortality Trends for Selected Smoking-Related Cancers and Breast Cancer -- United States, 1950-1990
Vital Signs: Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults Aged ?18 Years --- United States, 2005--2010

There is absolutely no way that the CDC, FDA and ANTZ do not know these facts and are not knowingly deceiving the public about their "proven and effective" policies and medical treatments for smoking; to continue fleecing and ostracizing smoking taxpayers by convincing the public that what they are doing works. In reality, population growth probably contributed more to the reduction in smokers in the past 20 years than anti-smoking efforts. Most of the real drops in smoking rates, due to people actually quitting, happened before most of the draconian policies started in the late 1980's and early 90's.

The introduction of a product that actually DOES reduce the smoking rates must horrify them, as it renders their existence pointless. Simply taxing e-cigarettes at cigarette rates (which would be hard to justify, as e-cigarettes are not a proven "cost to society" that requires vapers to "pay back" the costs of their bad habit) would not be nearly as lucrative as the anti-tobacco/anti-smoking industry has been for them.

 

[zoiDman]

When it comes to Taxation, or should I say the Desire/Need to Tax, I don’t see Anything that is “Out of Bounds” for the Powers that can tax.

A person can make any Argument for why something Should or Shouldn’t be Taxed. But the Hard, Cold Reality is when the National Dept is $16,444,839,946,771 (or roughly $52,000 for EVERY United States Citizen), if they Can Tax it, they are going to.

BTW – Check out How Much the Dept has Increased just since I posted this.

U.S. National Debt Clock

It is Mind Boggling.

 

[zoiDman]

BTW2 - Here is a more Comprehensive overview of the Dept.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

It hurts the eyes because of the Run Away Numbers. Hard to think that they represent Dollars and not Grains of Sand on a Beach.

 

[kristin]

That is certainly true, zoiDman. They can TRY. However we, as smokers, allowed ourselves to be backed into a corner. No one could dispute the "costs of smoking on society" without looking like a loon. The public is simply too well indoctrinated by the ANTZ lies.

But we have a valid and indisputable argument against taxing e-cigarettes and low-risk smoke-free tobacco products any differently than other GRAS products. Look at the backlash the proposed taxes on fast food and soda are getting. Sin taxes have been proposed and passed almost entirely based on 3-4 factors: 1) The product or service is deemed harmful to users (cigarettes, alcohol, gambling, porn & strip clubs and now fast/junk food); and 2) The product or service can harm non-users (SHS, drunk driving/abuse, bankruptcy of spouse, alienation of affection); and 3) the promise that the taxes will be spent to reduce or eliminate the problems associated with the product or service (of which many are become disillusioned due to the revelation on how tobacco taxes are not being spent on reducing smoking); and finally 4) those being taxed can afford it, such as luxury items purchased almost exclusively by wealthy citizens.

None of those apply to e-cigarettes. So, at least we have a really, really good case arguing against them when they are proposed.

 

[Petrodus]

National Debt Clock

The trick in Washington is how to pass legislation
which gives the "Illusion" to the public we're moving
in the right direction...without really doing anything about it.

Some believe we can spend our way out of the problem
and debt isn't really a major concern... Just the New Norm.

Regardless how ya look at it...There are consequences
Eventually, EVERYONE is going to have to take a big bite !!
Lets not not deal with it now and play Kick the Can
and hope the problem will just go away on its own ... later.

 

[Twitteliedoe]

Reading some of the posts myself I'm pleased that simple people like myself, who have to work hard to make a living, providing, and have no time to keep up with all the politics, can rely on people like you all.
Thanks for fighting, for what is right and looking out for us all.

 

[Maxwell_Edison]

Is this possible? Say "vaping" became a non-nictoine activity. Without the nic, is the PV still a smoking device under the current FDA rules? Couldn't we just conitnue technology of mods and tanks for non-nic PG/VG flavored juices? (there are ways to get nicotine, which the can legally come down on, but for now - can we call a PV and an ecig two separate things entirely? Especially want CASAA members to respond.

 

[zoiDman]

...

None of those apply to e-cigarettes. So, at least we have a really, really good case arguing against them when they are proposed.

Like I said, there are Very Good Arguments for not Taxing e-Liquids.

But when there is a 16 Trillion ( that's TRILLION with a "T") hole that Somehow needs to be filled, most of these Arguments are going to fall on Deaf Ears.

 

[zoiDman]

Is this possible? Say "vaping" became a non-nictoine activity. ...

If there is No Nicotine... There are No Issues.

PG, VG and Food Flavorings are Not going to be effected by what the FDA Plans to do. Because PG, VG and Food Flavorings are used in many other Markets.

That is why my Disaster Plan is to do the Ramp Down to 0mg.

When I switch to vaping, it was my plan anyway. Perhaps all this talk of FDA Regulations has just reminded me of it.

 

[kristin]

Is this possible? Say "vaping" became a non-nictoine activity. Without the nic, is the PV still a smoking device under the current FDA rules? Couldn't we just conitnue technology of mods and tanks for non-nic PG/VG flavored juices? (there are ways to get nicotine, which the can legally come down on, but for now - can we call a PV and an ecig two separate things entirely? Especially want CASAA members to respond.

The term "tobacco product" means any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product. This includes, among other products, cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, smokeless tobacco and now e-cigarettes. So a solution of PG, VG, water and food flavoring would not qualify as a "tobacco product." However, such a product would get on the FDA's radar if it made therapeutic claims (ie. smoking cessation) and the ambiguous "including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product" could be used by the FDA to include devices for which the customary use is for the consumption of nicotine solutions. We'll know more how the FDA intends to treat the actual devices when they announce its proposed regulations sometime around April. I honestly cannot guess how they plan to regulated devices (ie. battery device and atomizer separate from the pre-filled cartridges) or if they have even considered them.
What products are considered to be tobacco products as defined by the tobacco control act?

 

[kristin]

Like I said, there are Very Good Arguments for not Taxing e-Liquids.

But when there is a 16 Trillion ( that's TRILLION with a "T") hole that Somehow needs to be filled, most of these Arguments are going to fall on Deaf Ears.

In that case, we won't be the only consumers facing higher sales taxes and really can't expect to be the only ones excluded when the all those taxes are proposed.