FDA may soon propose regulation that could ban many/most e-cigarette products, eliminate many/most companies

[kristin]

Kristen,
Didn't the AG of Virginia say that ecigs do not come under the definition of smoking? Could his stand be used as a precedent for other states and battles we are to have?

Yes he did and there was a similar event in Wisconsin. But that is different than specifically excluding them. The laws simply do not include e-cig use in the definition of "smoking," so e-cig use isn't legally prohibited. But state and local governments and health boards are slowly starting to change their definition of smoking to include e-cigarette use. But I believe that having an act that specifically excludes e-cigarettes from the statute is better because it should be more difficult to reverse that.

Additionally, IMO, it sends a message loud and clear to the public and to local governments that e-cigarette use is not smoking. Otherwise, it leaves too much to interpretation, such as health boards and municipalities giving out the wrong information based on opinion rather than law. For example, one city's health board in Wisconsin did tell people inquiring that the smoking ban included e-cigarette use, even though the ordinance was not amended to include e-cigarettes in the existing ban. An actual act that says e-cigarette use is allowed would help avoid lawsuits and activism needed to stop unlawful bans such as that.

I've been talking to Bill Godshall about it and he feels it's useless to pass the law as written, because it doesn't require local government to follow suit - they can always ban e-cig use even if the state doesn't. He is right, but I don't feel it would be completely useless. In Wisconsin, there were very few local governments with their own smoking ban before the statewide ban took effect last year. So I feel most would continue to follow the statewide law and allow e-cigarettes to be used - especially since most businesses who know e-cig use isn't currently banned have welcomed e-cigarette users to bring smokers back into the establishment.

To me, it's 100x better to specifically exclude them rather than rely on "they aren't included as written." A perfect example of that is in another municipality (I can't recall where it was just now) where they wrote for an opinion on whether e-cigs were covered. They were told "no," but it didn't stop there. The AG basically gave them specific advice that they should get the law amended to include e-cig use in the "smoking" definition. I cannot believe that a preemptive strike explicitly including them would be a bad idea.

 

[Mr. Buttflakes]

I'm a little confused here and please correct me if I'm wrong...What it boils down to is Big tobacco and Pharm want us to go back to analogs and take our money..or steal the e-cig biz for themselves and jack the prices...This really makes me an angry buttflake! So this 30 Ml of my DIY liquid that cost me mabe $2 to make will cost me $105.00 buying from whoever due to the tax? Will they ban Nicotine liquid from us that DIY then or jack that price up even more?

I think my favorite Nicotine supplier will be getting a huge order from me very soon, and I'll need to buy a mini freezer ><

When can we expect to hear more about this I cant seem to find any specific dates?

 

[Ande]

It's hard work here, but everybody who's coming to this thread partway through should probably go back and read it all from the beginning.

The fight is NOT over. They may propose this regulation soon, according to the information I've read here.

So we need to educate others, mobilize, do what we can to make our opinions heard and be ready to do it more in the future.

But it ain't over.

Another thing- stocking up is fine. Stock what you want. I have a lot of weird stuff in my house, too. Get what you want.

But it's not the point. The question isn't "How can I keep vaping, no matter what?"

The question is, how can we keep these SOBs from killing folks.

Doesn't matter what I have in my freezer. 40 million Americans, 1000 million smokers worldwide can't vape what's in my freezer.

We have to keep harm reduction alternatives available for everybody, not just ourselves.

Or else a lot of people die a lot sooner than they need to.

Ande

 

[Traver]

The question is, how can we keep these SOBs from killing folks.

Doesn't matter what I have in my freezer. 40 million Americans, 1000 million smokers worldwide can't vape what's in my freezer.

We have to keep harm reduction alternatives available for everybody, not just ourselves.

Or else a lot of people die a lot sooner than they need to.

Ande

I mix my own juice and don't use nicotine anymore. So what the FDA does isn't going to have any great effect on me. For me the local and state bans are more of a threat.

Regardless of how it effects me there is still the fact that our government is willing to let hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of people die from smoking. I can understand that people may have doubts about the long term effects of vaping. This is where the anti government people and I see things in a different way. Our government with so much at stake should be doing the clinical trials to settle the safety issue. It has the money and the power to do it.

 

[Brewlady]

It's hard work here, but everybody who's coming to this thread partway through should probably go back and read it all from the beginning.

The fight is NOT over. They may propose this regulation soon, according to the information I've read here.

So we need to educate others, mobilize, do what we can to make our opinions heard and be ready to do it more in the future.

But it ain't over.

Another thing- stocking up is fine. Stock what you want. I have a lot of weird stuff in my house, too. Get what you want.

But it's not the point. The question isn't "How can I keep vaping, no matter what?"

The question is, how can we keep these SOBs from killing folks.

Doesn't matter what I have in my freezer. 40 million Americans, 1000 million smokers worldwide can't vape what's in my freezer.

We have to keep harm reduction alternatives available for everybody, not just ourselves.

Or else a lot of people die a lot sooner than they need to.

Ande

Exactly. Physicians are forming their opinions based on the FDA's statement that they found carcinogens, but these physicians don't bother to further investigate that the levels that were found were so low as to be relatively harmless. When I read the comments Dr. Zorba Paster made here about electronic cigarettes, I was furious.

Dr. Zorba Paster: Addicted to nicotine gum? At worst, it's still better than smoking

This article has been posted for 12 days, and there are only 14 comments. That just isn't an adequate response from the vaping community. Every single ECF member should be following the comments needed section. It only takes a few minutes to leave a comment.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/comments-needed/103237-comments-needed-board.html#post1548277

 

[Mr. Buttflakes]

I agree more vapers need to voice their concerns, including myself so I'm gonna do whatever I can. I love vaping and highly doubt it would get banned here in the states, instead just become as expensive if not more so than smoking due to cost of pv's,batts,switches and whatnot aside from the juice's alone. Really feel for the places it has been banned.

 

[sachavaca]

I went to the posted link but don't see where to leave any comments

 

[sachavaca]

found it....

 

[Creniker]

Everyone should leave a comment. Let him see how hard the e-cig community can hit, when you speak badly about that which you do not know.

 

[Trucapri]

I have read this thread from the beginning, although admittedly not "every" word and I've seen no mention of the insurance industry. My company's medical plan implemented a smoker's fee effective tomorrow of $10.00 per week. How do they know who smokes? Well, over the past few years they've requested, even paid, employees to take an annual wellness survey that, like many insurance forms, asked those questions. Now, with this new premium addition, many employees switched or at least inquired about electronic cigarettes. An amendment was made to the policy to include all tobacco product usage and that includes e-cigs are a tobacco product. Those that switched are a bit peeved but have not reverted back. Those that inquired are still smoking away. The only way to not pay this fee is to sign up for a smoking cessation program the insurance company conducts that includes a minimum of 4 sessions with a coach and the 12-step patches. Some signed up with no intention of quitting. These same people that would have switched to vaporing had they been given proper recognition.

Is there any campaign to educate insurance companies, or are they too tied in with BP and government? BTW, my doctor does not want me to give up nicotine for health reasons although would love to see me stop smoking. She's never offered an opinon on how to go about it though. I'm looking forward to my next appointment and being able to tell her it's a done deal! Will the medical industry become more assured and vocal now that several in the public eye have openly endorsed the benefits?

 

[sarsi]

I totally agree with this. Also, it is great for those of you who have the money to stock up, but there are many people who simply do not. Many people are on limited monthly incomes & do not have the option to "stock up". We ALL need to stand together for the greater good of ALL people & fight for everyone's right to continue vaping. There are also thousands/millions of people who are not even aware of the vaping alternative yet, more people are learning about this on a daily basis...So we need to all do our part so that anyone & everyone who chooses to save their own life by quitting smoking and turning to vaping instead can continue to do so freely. It should be our own choice, our own right, so help do something about it! Dont just stock up, lay back and be content. Lets ALL stand together for something that has helped improve our lives in such a positive way!!

It's hard work here, but everybody who's coming to this thread partway through should probably go back and read it all from the beginning.

The fight is NOT over. They may propose this regulation soon, according to the information I've read here.

So we need to educate others, mobilize, do what we can to make our opinions heard and be ready to do it more in the future.

But it ain't over.

Another thing- stocking up is fine. Stock what you want. I have a lot of weird stuff in my house, too. Get what you want.

But it's not the point. The question isn't "How can I keep vaping, no matter what?"

The question is, how can we keep these SOBs from killing folks.

Doesn't matter what I have in my freezer. 40 million Americans, 1000 million smokers worldwide can't vape what's in my freezer.

We have to keep harm reduction alternatives available for everybody, not just ourselves.

Or else a lot of people die a lot sooner than they need to.

Ande

 

[Ande]

Here's another thought-

If you stock up with enough vape supplies for the rest of your life, you're good right?

Until they raid your house, that is. (I know, it's not that kind of ban we're worried about. Yet. But...give'em an inch, they're gonna take a mile.)

And until they move on to the next ban. First they attacked the smokers. Gonna be unhealthy eaters next. Or maybe folks who don't exercise enough. Or drinkers. Or...the sky's the limit, and the villians in this particular movie aren't going away on their own.

If you stock up and figure you're ready for whatever comes, you're wrong. They will keep coming.

If you have the money to stock up with a year's supplies, you have the money to contribute to some advocacy. Which will work to save not just YOUR own ..., but also those of others who are still smoking.

Best,
Ande

 

[Lisa Belle]

The Bad News and the Good News. Healthier X-smokers can march and run fast if need be LOL. Sickly breathless overweight and undernourished citizens can't! This is the largest population over 50 that ever existed at one time on our planet. It would be a gold mine for the EVILE EMPIRE (the healthcare industry), to have so many smoking related ills to treat and profit from. This could be a dent and a big hurt to the profiteering off of other people's ill health. Do we manufacture anything anymore here in our country? Do we have a gross national product (tobacco....since 1700's) one of the agricultural industries products this country has forever exported to the world. "We want you to be sick!...........", we are ready for you to need respiratory healthcare, we want you to have diabetes........." That's what is really being said underneath all the complicated legalese and jargon. We should ban together and fight intelligently, because any mainstream approaches are poisoned by greed. I will vote as I always have, but really not expect that a wicked and corrupted world dominated by money and profit could care less about individual health care concerns. THAT'S ALL FOLKS!

No such thing as that's all folks. The more shares I read and appreciate so much Ande and Thulium and everyone... more information the better, especially CAASA members and the tireless Bill Godshall!

 

[FAAmecanic]

I have read this thread from the beginning, although admittedly not "every" word and I've seen no mention of the insurance industry. My company's medical plan implemented a smoker's fee effective tomorrow of $10.00 per week. How do they know who smokes? Well, over the past few years they've requested, even paid, employees to take an annual wellness survey that, like many insurance forms, asked those questions..

Same with my company.... what ticks me off is there are people who I know that are "social" smokers that say NO they are tobacco free. Again...how can they prove otherwise, without drug testing for nicotine. Then all I would have to do is produce a pack of nicorete or thier own silly patches and say "you approved this"

Meanwhile vaping continues to get a bad rap.... just stupid...

 

[FAAmecanic]

And until they move on to the next ban. First they attacked the smokers. Gonna be unhealthy eaters next. Or maybe folks who don't exercise enough. Or drinkers. Or...the sky's the limit, and the villians in this particular movie aren't going away on their own.

Bottom line is it isnt about safety or unknown long term effects... we KNOW the long term effects of tobacco use... but its still legal.

Its all about TAXATION. IF they cant tax it, they ban it.... period.

 

[Thulium]

I will vote as I always have, but really not expect that a wicked and corrupted world dominated by money and profit could care less about individual health care concerns. THAT'S ALL FOLKS!

That's the problem, sadly. It would be the very definition of insanity to continue voting "as you always have" and expect government to do anything but grow more wicked and corrupt and systematically encouraging proven dangerous and ineffective cessation methods to increase sales of treatments for diseases that may be caused by smoking FDA regulated "reduced ignition propensity" cigarettes (available in the most popular flavors sold by Altria, Johnson & Johnson, or GSK).

I don't want to push any particular candidate, but I think that regardless of your political affiliation, the time has come to consider changing the way you vote, and change fundamentally the way you deal with government: Too many people limit their civic duty to casting a vote for their chosen party and trusting that lobbyists and special interests with helpful sounding names like "Tobacco Free Kids" and the "American [insert scary disease or important body part] Association" that just HAPPEN to derive the majority of their funding for fighting the "war on addiction and smoking-related disease" from companies who sell DRUGS to treat the wounded....or at least they'll sell you drugs to treat the symptoms of COPD that are caused or worsened by 8.6 million smokers who are still unable or unwilling to quit smoking.

If nothing else, e-cigs avoid this: Cigarette, oxygen tank blamed for death of 70-year-old Southeast Portland woman | OregonLive.com
If you ask me, that ALONE is enough to justify having cheap e-cigs or other smoke-free alternatives available anywhere cigarettes are sold.

 

[Lisa Belle]

Thank You Thulium. I am changing my lifelong affiliation with "the Jack ... party" Pink Elephants aren't much better. Tell me who supports this type of free marketplace and free choice besides CAASA. I have very little money as an artist, but I have the hope of better healthier survival as a vaper, so when I can I will continue to support CAASA and I have attended a few online meetings and will do more!!! Signing and writing to everything we can. Still, organized knowledge is better than widespread ignorance!

 

[wfx]

I am changing my lifelong affiliation with "the Jack ... party" Pink Elephants aren't much better.

yeah, seriously. as a lifelong (D) I've often wondered why those (I) and (R) don't get it. now i know better. the affiliation is irrelevant. their priority is campaign contributions.

 

[FreakyStylie]

If nothing else, e-cigs avoid this: Cigarette, oxygen tank blamed for death of 70-year-old Southeast Portland woman | OregonLive.com
If you ask me, that ALONE is enough to justify having cheap e-cigs or other smoke-free alternatives available anywhere cigarettes are sold.

Thanks for that! I hadn't seen that story. I'm trying to build a supply of stories to talk to our fire prevention officer about, and that is a perfect example.

 

[Thulium]

Thank You Thulium. I am changing my lifelong affiliation with "the Jack ... party" Pink Elephants aren't much better. Tell me who supports this type of free marketplace and free choice besides CAASA. I have very little money as an artist, but I have the hope of better healthier survival as a vaper, so when I can I will continue to support CAASA and I have attended a few online meetings and will do more!!! Signing and writing to everything we can. Still, organized knowledge is better than widespread ignorance!

I personally suspect that a candidate such as one who appeals to the Libertarian and Independents among many registered Democrats dissatisfied with the incumbent (and Republicans) winning the GOP nomination rather than spoiling the election for him as a third party candidate could be tremendously beneficial to the cause of harm reduction and reasonable drug regulation rather than prohibition. I don't know if the candidate who most closely fits that definition supports ecigs or THR, but IMO it would seem to fit his/her agenda.

But then again, the politicians who recently voted to allow people that the President says might be terrorists to be deprived of any right to due process and subject to "enhanced interrogation" tell us that a non-interventionist foreign policy is "crazy". ....Not starting wars we have nothing but inflatable currency to pay for is "crazy", but waterboarding suspicious-looking people without a warrant or trial to get them to testify against allegedly extremist friends is "Patriotic"???