FDA may soon propose regulation that could ban many/most e-cigarette products, eliminate many/most companies
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- innokin nicquid revolution revolver
- Status
I will begin by saying that this is not thought through all the way......... I do not know how effective it would be and whether or not it is even worth trying. Actually, it may even have a negative impact. This is just an idea.... Do not try this at home......That being said, here goes.....
Many have sent letters, emails and various forms of communication to their rep/senator in DC. They are usually letters speaking of the unfair scrutiny concerning e-cigs and how they should vote to change the course of the FDA on this issue etc. Many times various instances are brought up to highlight the unfair treatment and to express the general displeasure.
And.... 9 times out of 10, the response is a form letter yada.... yada...
What if we wrote and told them this was our life they were dealing with when it came down to e-cigs. We could continue to say that we value our lives greatly and that we have each found at last 30 people that will vote them out of office unless they vote down any proposed legislation that will restrict/heavily tax e-cigs. if someone got 20-30,000 of these they may think twice.
Again, this is NOT thought through properly. It is just an idea and it may very well be a bad one. Do not try this at home!!
DO NOT ACT ON THIS POST!!!!!
I am merely bringing it up for discussion here.
Many have sent letters, emails and various forms of communication to their rep/senator in DC. They are usually letters speaking of the unfair scrutiny concerning e-cigs and how they should vote to change the course of the FDA on this issue etc. Many times various instances are brought up to highlight the unfair treatment and to express the general displeasure.
And.... 9 times out of 10, the response is a form letter yada.... yada...
What if we wrote and told them this was our life they were dealing with when it came down to e-cigs. We could continue to say that we value our lives greatly and that we have each found at last 30 people that will vote them out of office unless they vote down any proposed legislation that will restrict/heavily tax e-cigs. if someone got 20-30,000 of these they may think twice.
Again, this is NOT thought through properly. It is just an idea and it may very well be a bad one. Do not try this at home!!
DO NOT ACT ON THIS POST!!!!!
I am merely bringing it up for discussion here.
Perhaps a face-to-face meeting with our Senators and Representatives could do some good. Certainly more difficult than sending a letter/email/phone call, but perhaps more effective for that very reason.
A small group (say, 2 or 3 people) bearing information from CASAA and relating our own experiences with vaping could go a looooong way toward bringing our struggle forward in their minds.
Put a real, human face to vapers, in other words.
Just my two cents, anyway.
For reference, I did find this helpful page for setting up appointments...
Tips for Face-to-Face Meetings with Members of the U.S. Congress
A small group (say, 2 or 3 people) bearing information from CASAA and relating our own experiences with vaping could go a looooong way toward bringing our struggle forward in their minds.
Put a real, human face to vapers, in other words.
Just my two cents, anyway.
For reference, I did find this helpful page for setting up appointments...
Tips for Face-to-Face Meetings with Members of the U.S. Congress
I'm somewhat confused here.
Although I have signed the petition posted on the other forum, I have a few questions on what this ban means exactly.
IF this passes does it mean I will no longer be able to puchase an electronic cigarette/cartomizers/ejuice---anywhere? Online and in stores/kiosk stands?
Does it mean if this passes, when I'm standing outside puffing on a vapor stick amongst fellow tobacco smokers, if the police spot me I will wind up with a ticket and having the device taken from me?
Although I have signed the petition posted on the other forum, I have a few questions on what this ban means exactly.
IF this passes does it mean I will no longer be able to puchase an electronic cigarette/cartomizers/ejuice---anywhere? Online and in stores/kiosk stands?
Does it mean if this passes, when I'm standing outside puffing on a vapor stick amongst fellow tobacco smokers, if the police spot me I will wind up with a ticket and having the device taken from me?
and one more thing...
WHY,
OH WHY...
Did I hear the FDA decided to regulate ecigs as tobacco products just about 6 months (April 2011), now suddenl it's back to the same old stuff again?
I have never seen anything this controversal and political. Seriously, they are treating it like it's herion or something.
And what message does this convey to the American public-inlcuding minors????
"the FDA is going to take away a choice from adults, which contain significantly less chemicals and are an alternative to smoking tobacco and force ex-smokers to go back to tobacco cigarettes?"
My doctor can tell ya my lung function and overall health has improved due to my choice to replace tobacco cigarettes with PV's.
So then, stop flooding my head with useless commercials of graphic images of smoking-related illness. Stop urging me to stop using tobacco if you're going to "take away" my alternative, which is highly likely to be reducing my risks of these illness.
Why make it so difficult for me to obtain and use a PV and make buying tobacco such an easy task?
From what I have seen in NY (Long Island), sellers check every form of ID if you dare to purchase a PV. But when someone buys tobacco cigarettes, it's an easy task.
FDA-waste your time trying to ban tobacco cigarettes, since you're spending so much time attempting to convince the public that PV's are highly dangerous.
And ya know what, FDA?
Even if they are, then ban tobacco cigs too!
Afterall, it's a bad look to keep tobacco cigs (easily obtainable, easy to purchase with no threats of having them "taken away") opposed to taking away a device that contains LESS chemicals.
WHY,
OH WHY...
Did I hear the FDA decided to regulate ecigs as tobacco products just about 6 months (April 2011), now suddenl it's back to the same old stuff again?
I have never seen anything this controversal and political. Seriously, they are treating it like it's herion or something.
And what message does this convey to the American public-inlcuding minors????
"the FDA is going to take away a choice from adults, which contain significantly less chemicals and are an alternative to smoking tobacco and force ex-smokers to go back to tobacco cigarettes?"
My doctor can tell ya my lung function and overall health has improved due to my choice to replace tobacco cigarettes with PV's.
So then, stop flooding my head with useless commercials of graphic images of smoking-related illness. Stop urging me to stop using tobacco if you're going to "take away" my alternative, which is highly likely to be reducing my risks of these illness.
Why make it so difficult for me to obtain and use a PV and make buying tobacco such an easy task?
From what I have seen in NY (Long Island), sellers check every form of ID if you dare to purchase a PV. But when someone buys tobacco cigarettes, it's an easy task.
FDA-waste your time trying to ban tobacco cigarettes, since you're spending so much time attempting to convince the public that PV's are highly dangerous.
And ya know what, FDA?
Even if they are, then ban tobacco cigs too!
Afterall, it's a bad look to keep tobacco cigs (easily obtainable, easy to purchase with no threats of having them "taken away") opposed to taking away a device that contains LESS chemicals.
Welcome to the thread, Pigelty.
The night is not as black as all that. Read back through the whole thread when you have time, or search posts by Bill Godshall. (One of the more politically savvy harm reduction guys, if you haven't come across him yet.)
The regulation we're looking at is NOT the end of everything if it goes through. But it's a significant step towards that end.
IF we stop it, though, it's a move that could help a LOT in the coming years. I liked the "hub" analogy. This set of regs would provide the foundation, or "center" for much of what comes after. If we keep ecigs out of the hub, we're probably going to stay safer, longer. It's not the end of the world if we do lose this one, but much better if we win!
When if comes to "could I still vape if there's a ban?" just do some looking around the forum. A lot of folks are ready to do just that. And it will be fairly do-able, at least for quite a while.
But...vaping saved a lot of out lives, you know? What a ban would do is pretty well prevent a lot of people who might/would otherwise switch to vaping from doing so. They'll keep smoking, everyday, and many will sicken and die as a result. It's not really just about us. We can probably find ways to keep vapin.
But others won't switch. And their blood will be on the hands of those of them that closed the door on vaping, and on those of us that let them.
Best,
Ande
The night is not as black as all that. Read back through the whole thread when you have time, or search posts by Bill Godshall. (One of the more politically savvy harm reduction guys, if you haven't come across him yet.)
The regulation we're looking at is NOT the end of everything if it goes through. But it's a significant step towards that end.
IF we stop it, though, it's a move that could help a LOT in the coming years. I liked the "hub" analogy. This set of regs would provide the foundation, or "center" for much of what comes after. If we keep ecigs out of the hub, we're probably going to stay safer, longer. It's not the end of the world if we do lose this one, but much better if we win!
When if comes to "could I still vape if there's a ban?" just do some looking around the forum. A lot of folks are ready to do just that. And it will be fairly do-able, at least for quite a while.
But...vaping saved a lot of out lives, you know? What a ban would do is pretty well prevent a lot of people who might/would otherwise switch to vaping from doing so. They'll keep smoking, everyday, and many will sicken and die as a result. It's not really just about us. We can probably find ways to keep vapin.
But others won't switch. And their blood will be on the hands of those of them that closed the door on vaping, and on those of us that let them.
Best,
Ande
Just a random thought that came up in a chat last night, FWIW. (Paraphrased from what a friend was saying last night when we were discussing the LavaTube.)
"Do you think the FDA will ever realize that they won't be able to stop us from using electronic cigarettes; but rather force us to send more of our money overseas to get them, resulting in more lost revenue?"
"Do you think the FDA will ever realize that they won't be able to stop us from using electronic cigarettes; but rather force us to send more of our money overseas to get them, resulting in more lost revenue?"
It would never occur to them because they are completely narcissistic, egotistical and self-righteous.
Unfortunately, and sadly, that is the truth. 
I still believe we will prevail in the end though.
I still believe we will prevail in the end though.
Thanks, Ande.
I will look through Bill Godshall's posts.
On a brighter side of things, I had some of my family and friends sign the petition (in other post). Getting the word out there as much as I can. Numbers DO COUNT.
I will look through Bill Godshall's posts.
On a brighter side of things, I had some of my family and friends sign the petition (in other post). Getting the word out there as much as I can. Numbers DO COUNT.
i hope this doesnt happen, been vaping for 11mths now and not too many store fronts up by us, i will continue to send letters and fight for what is right, ecigs are a better alternative to smoking and needs more store fronts, the industry is booming on the internet, but need more store fronts out there as well.
You know how you don't know what you think until you say it...
"Politicians and Innovators mix as well as oil and water."
"Politicians and Innovators mix as well as oil and water."
It just got a whole lot easier to get a hold of your congress person.. I Figured some of you might take advantage of this.
It Just Got Incredibly Easy to Tell Congress That SOPA Sucks
Phil
It Just Got Incredibly Easy to Tell Congress That SOPA Sucks
Phil
Random thought of the day: Isn't the burden of proof on the accusing party in the court system?
If so, why is it being put on us to prove e-cigs are safe, rather than the FDA actually doing the work to prove they aren't?
If so, why is it being put on us to prove e-cigs are safe, rather than the FDA actually doing the work to prove they aren't?
It may take several years before there can be valid scientific evidence of whether or not pv's can cause harm, and if so, what type of harm.
Think about it.
A great majority of ecig users where former tobacco smokers, and some of them being heavy smokers.
If in years to come, the ecig user develops and illness (pointing to smoking-related reasons) it may be a result of damage from tobacco smoke.
There would have to be studies done over a period of several years on people who only use the ecig, whom are not exposed to tobacco, using other drugs and have certain gentetics and family history. After all, there are people who get lung cancer that never are exposed to first/second hand smoke, who happen to have a genetic trait of respitorty cancers in the family.
As of now, FDA can state ecigs contain "less chemicals, no tar and no ash".
The public can make their own judgement and smokers can choose to use ecigs as an alternative simply to inhale less chemicals while stimulating the action/feeling of smoking.
So make ecigs legal. Don't sell them to minors. Allow ecigs users to "vape" in certain sections in public places and away from minors.
Think about it.
A great majority of ecig users where former tobacco smokers, and some of them being heavy smokers.
If in years to come, the ecig user develops and illness (pointing to smoking-related reasons) it may be a result of damage from tobacco smoke.
There would have to be studies done over a period of several years on people who only use the ecig, whom are not exposed to tobacco, using other drugs and have certain gentetics and family history. After all, there are people who get lung cancer that never are exposed to first/second hand smoke, who happen to have a genetic trait of respitorty cancers in the family.
As of now, FDA can state ecigs contain "less chemicals, no tar and no ash".
The public can make their own judgement and smokers can choose to use ecigs as an alternative simply to inhale less chemicals while stimulating the action/feeling of smoking.
So make ecigs legal. Don't sell them to minors. Allow ecigs users to "vape" in certain sections in public places and away from minors.
Hey Bill, I got another question: what's the likelihood that these regulations will come through before the next president gets elected? if we can stall long for a new president to get elected I think we'll be fine, but if they get them passed before january 2013 we're screwed. Any stall tactics we could use that you know of?
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
pigelty wrote
While it would be nice to have several million dollars to spend on future e-cigarette research, none of those expensive and time consuming studies (cited by pigelty) are necessary to demonstrate that e-cigarettes are far less hazardous than cigarettes. The problem is that FDA (and its contracted IOM committee) and all other e-cigarette prohibitionist have repeated that (and similar) lies (i.e. that millions of dollars of more research is needed) so many times that increasingly more e-cigarette consumers (including Cool Breeze and pigelty) appear to believe it, and are now repeating it here on ECF.
Murray Laugesen's first scientific evidence on e-cigarettes in 2007/2008 conclusively documented that e-cigarettes are exponentially less hazardous than smoking cigarettes, and dozens of subsequent studies and laboratory reports (including two done by FDA) have confirmed (without any scientific doubt) that e-cigarettes are exponentially less hazardous than cigarettes.
sqirl1 wrote
The only people who might be able to answer the first question are FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, DHHS Secratery Kathleen Sabelious and perhaps some White House staff, and it appears that they've already delayed proposing the new regulation since October. My goal (which should be shared by everyone on this forum) is to convince those folks to change their mind and scrap the regulation instead of proposing it (which requires publishing in the Federal Register).
Ever since April 25 (when the FDA stated its intent to propose/approve a regulation to apply Chapter IX to e-cigs and other unregulated tobacco products), I've been working to prevent the FDA from proposing this type of regulation.
While it would be nice to have several million dollars to spend on future e-cigarette research, none of those expensive and time consuming studies (cited by pigelty) are necessary to demonstrate that e-cigarettes are far less hazardous than cigarettes. The problem is that FDA (and its contracted IOM committee) and all other e-cigarette prohibitionist have repeated that (and similar) lies (i.e. that millions of dollars of more research is needed) so many times that increasingly more e-cigarette consumers (including Cool Breeze and pigelty) appear to believe it, and are now repeating it here on ECF.
Murray Laugesen's first scientific evidence on e-cigarettes in 2007/2008 conclusively documented that e-cigarettes are exponentially less hazardous than smoking cigarettes, and dozens of subsequent studies and laboratory reports (including two done by FDA) have confirmed (without any scientific doubt) that e-cigarettes are exponentially less hazardous than cigarettes.
sqirl1 wrote
The only people who might be able to answer the first question are FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, DHHS Secratery Kathleen Sabelious and perhaps some White House staff, and it appears that they've already delayed proposing the new regulation since October. My goal (which should be shared by everyone on this forum) is to convince those folks to change their mind and scrap the regulation instead of proposing it (which requires publishing in the Federal Register).
Ever since April 25 (when the FDA stated its intent to propose/approve a regulation to apply Chapter IX to e-cigs and other unregulated tobacco products), I've been working to prevent the FDA from proposing this type of regulation.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
