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

[boog]

extract the nic from taxed tobacco. then the taxes would be paid.

 

[Joshuasculptor]

The only solution I see is E-cigs forum needs to move to the darknet and start the the ecig Black market revolution. ECBM 2013 get your TOR Browsers ready! juice from the dark side. LOL just 1/2 joking.

 

[Agorizer]

The only solution I see is E-cigs forum needs to move to the darknet and start the the ECIg Black market revolution. ECBM 2013 get your TOR Browsers ready! Juice from the dark side. LOL just 1/2 joking.

That dark juice really clogs up my cartos......

 

[Black Strat]

I sent a letter to my Senator urging him to help prevent the FDA from making it more difficult to use e-cigarettes.

Here is his ignorant replay:

January 24, 2013


Dear Robert:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) regulations on electronic cigarette devices. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

As you may know, President Barack Obama signed H.R. 1256, The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, into public law in June 2009. This measure grants the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products in order to reduce and prevent youth tobacco use.

While I generally oppose increased federal regulatory burdens on products in the free market, I voted for this legislation for several reasons. The extreme expense that tobacco usage inflicts upon Americans, through heavier tax burdens and other societal and economic costs, justifies the regulation that H.R 1256 stipulates on tobacco. I will examine any future tobacco-related bills on a case by case basis and will keep your thoughts in mind when doing so.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to contact me in the future on this or other matters of interest to you. For more information about the issues before the U.S. Senate as well as news releases, photos, and other items of interest, please visit my Senate website, U.S. Senator Mike Crapo's Homepage.

Sincerely,
US SenatorSenator Mike Crapo
Mike Crapo
United States Senator

 

[DC2]

Here is his ignorant replay:

Form letter.

I still write letters because the number of letters they receive is important, even if they don't read the.

But if I have something to say that I want to be heard, I make a phone call.
I like to bypass any BS and go straight for the throat.

 

[Lisa Belle]

Stonewalling or stupidity? LOL or both

 

[Lisa Belle]

Here's a letter our wonderful leader President of CASAA.ORG and friend Elaine Keller wrote in regards to CLA Canadian Lung Association. Let's re-contact Senators like Crappo and use some of these excerpts. Perfect for his earlier negation of what was being presented him by a constituent.

Don’t Be Fooled by Canadian Lung Association
by Elaine Keller
By Elaine Keller, with input from CASAA Board

[Note: Carl will resume his series about useful truths next week. We have a few lies we want to cover first.]

Good health advice is any instruction or set of instructions that, when followed, results in health improvement or the avoidance of illness or injury. Bad health advice, when followed, results in illness or injury that would have been avoided by not following the advice. The public expects organizations that position themselves as leaders in fighting disease need to provide good health advice that is based on accurate information.

"Don't be fooled by e-cigarettes,” states a press release from the Canadian Lung Association (CLA). “These electronic devices could be potentially harmful to lung health” and that smokers should "avoid" them. Is it good health advice to discourage smokers from using an effective method for quitting? Clearly not, since there is overwhelming scientific evidence that smoking is harmful, not just to lung health, but in many ways. They are trying to discourage quitting by any smoker who is not willing and able to do it their way.

If they truly were concerned about lung health, they would have pointed out that there is no doubt that vaping is better for lung health than smoking. Then they would have discussed any actual concrete concerns about vaping and lung health. Instead, they just presented several irrelevant details intended to distract the reader from the truth. It might have been defensible advocacy for the lung association to say something like, "If you have quit smoking using e-cigarettes, that is some progress, but now you need to quit the e-cigarettes."

But that is not what they did. For example, two paragraphs of the CLA press release are devoted to conjecture that the products might appeal to children. There is no evidence of this, but more important, how does this support what they are supposedly claiming, that there is a health risk? They clearly did not believe they could support their claim about health risk. And for good reason, when you consider the available evidence about e-cigarette effects on lung health.

First, consider what consumers who switched from smoking to an e-cigarette say about their lung health. For example, a University of Geneva researcher wrote, “Respondents reported more positive than negative effects with e-cigarettes: many reported positive effects on the respiratory system (breathing better, coughing less), which were probably associated with stopping smoking.”

Second, what do other sources say? In 2009, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) invited consumers to use the agency’s Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) to report problems experienced with using e-cigarettes. Results were reported in a letter to the editor of Nicotine and Tobacco Research. There had been 1 AE reported in 2008. There were 10 AE reports in 2009, 16 in 2010, 11 in 2011, and 9 in the first quarter of 2012. The types of problems reported are very similar to those reported with pharmaceutical products such as nicotine gum or lozenges, for example, headache, sore throat, abdominal pain, coughing, etc. The author commented, “Of note, there is not necessarily a causal relationship between AEs reported and e-cigarette use, as some AEs could be related to pre-existing conditions or due to other causes not reported.”

The author also mentioned that the number of people reporting ever using e-cigarette more than quadrupled between 2009 and 2010. If there were any serious health risks posed by e-cigarettes, we would expect the number of AE reports to quadruple as well, but the number of reports dropped in 2011.

Third, the clinical trials that have been completed and that are in progress would be stopped if serious adverse events, such as lung health impairment, occurred. To date, no clinical trial of e-cigarettes has been stopped due to adverse events.

Under the heading, “E-cigarettes are not proven safe,” pediatrician Dr. Theo Moraes, a medical spokesperson for the CLA is quoted, “People who use e-cigarettes inhale unknown, unregulated and potentially harmful substances into their lungs." Is this statement accurate? No, it’s a lie. It is a lie simply because we have a quite a good accounting of what is in e-cigarette vapor. Additionally, its implication is a lie. As Dr. Phillips pointed out in an earlier post, before the first study of e-cigarette chemistry was ever done, we were 99% sure that cigarette smoke was many times more hazardous than vapor. People who smoke inhale thousands of chemicals from combustion, many of which are quite hard on the lungs (to say nothing of other parts of the body). Those chemicals are basically absent from vapor.

The substances in e-cigarette liquid are well known, and all ingredients are government-approved for human use (though not specifically in the form of e-cigarettes, of course). They include USP grade propylene glycol and/or vegetable glycerin, water, approved food flavorings, and (optionally) pharmaceutical-grade nicotine. Numerous toxicology studies have been conducted on the liquids and on the vapor, and none have found quantities of any chemical that are believed to be substantially hazardous.

The infamous FDA initial lab test is mentioned in the CLA press release, without pointing out that the “detectable levels of carcinogens” match the levels in FDA-approved nicotine patches. The “carcinogens”, tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), are present at similar trace levels in any product that contains nicotine because nicotine is extracted from tobacco. The “toxic chemicals” turned out to be a non-harmful quantity of one chemical in one sample. Also not mentioned is the fact that the only two brands tested were the two companies that were in the process of suing the FDA, which is a red flag for bias.

Bottom line: Dr. Moraes is either deliberately misleading the public or is woefully uninformed about the contents and nature of e-cigarettes. He certainly does not understand the purpose of the products. “There are many nicotine replacement therapies approved by Health Canada to help someone quit smoking; the e-cigarette is not one of them," he stated.

The nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs) approved by Health Canada are not aimed at helping people to quit smoking. They are aimed at treating "nicotine addiction". They provide a reduced quantity of nicotine on a temporary basis, which is then further reduced and ultimately discontinued. E-cigarettes are not intended to treat nicotine addiction. They are used as a replacement for smoking.

Which works better? The vast majority of smokers who try to quit by cold turkey or using recommended medical interventions resume smoking. The published research probably overstates of often these "approved" therapies work, and even it agrees that they are nearly useless. As one example: “Approximately 75% to 80% of smokers who attempt to quit relapse before achieving 6 months of abstinence. Of the remainder, relapses may occur years after a smoker initially quits.” Consider what passes for "success" for NRT, such as a study comparing 6-month abstinence rates of those using NRTs versus those not using NRTs. In the first phase of the study, rates were 9.4% in the NRT group versus 3.5%. In the second phase, the rates were 6.9% in the NRT group compared with 4.3% in the non-NRT group. The authors stated, “NRT use was associated with improved chances of long‐term abstinence when controlling for nicotine dependence.” Both of these studies, as well as numerous others and simple common knowledge, also tell us that there are some smokers who are much less inclined to become abstinent from nicotine.

The critical difference between the "approved" approaches and typical e-cigarette use is that e-cigarettes do not involve becoming abstinent from nicotine. Once e-cigarette users have replaced all of their smoked cigarettes with e-cigarette use, they have stopped smoking. Because they are not required to become abstinent from nicotine, those who are more dependent or who simply are less inclined to give up the beneficial effects of nicotine, can continue to experience those benefits without destroying their health by smoking. We do not know what portion of all smokers who seriously try to switch to e-cigarettes succeed at it, but we do have good evidence that the rate is pretty good -- certainly better than quit rates using "approved" methods -- and that lots of people who would not have quit smoking using those other methods have quit using e-cigarette.s

To summarize the evidence, e-cigarettes: (i) have not been shown to harm users, based on either actual outcomes or what we can predict from the chemistry; (ii) appear to be much more effective at smoking cessation than "approved" methods, even for those who would consider quitting nicotine entirely, and (iii) are clearly more effective for those who want to quit smoking but do not want to quit nicotine.

In the final analysis, the CLA, like the American Lung Association, is a liar. The CLA says “don’t be fooled,” but the evidence says that the CLA is the one trying to fool the public. If the CLA were truly concerned about lung health, it would be doing everything possible to help smokers stop smoking as quickly as possible. If they genuinely believed that e-cigarettes left some tiny fraction of the lung risk for those who quit smoking, then try to address that. Instead, the CLA is actively discouraging smoking cessation by misinforming Canadian citizens about the speculative risks of using e-cigarettes and overstated claims about everyone can easily just quit nicotine entirely.

If you smoke, or care about someone who does, don’t be fooled by the CLA or ALA. (And definitely make sure that you and people you know avoid supporting them financially.)

 

[ChrisGaynor]

I feel the FDA will continue to make ignorant decisions and recommendations regarding e-cigs. It's a shame that the voice of the people has been lost as our senators such as the one you mentioned continue to disappoint us.

 

[Fiamma]

The voice of the people has been lost for many many years. It got swallowed up by the greed and corruption of the people we elect and keep re electing to the Congress. They have no concerns for us, they are too busy making laws to gain them more traction with the hands that feed them.

Some of that is our fault. Americans in increasing numbers are too lazy to research the candidates voting records, their positions on things that affect us, or get out to vote in elections. Those that do vote keep sending these people back for another session at the trough despite the evidence that they are not listening to the electorate but to big business and political action committees for money to keep them flush and able to run again. Not to mention the perks, junkets, great healthcare and pensions.

The system culminates in a president who then appoints people to his cabinet who either share his point of view, or to those whom he owes his election to the lofty office. Those people bring in their syncophants and are then off to the races to 'do good'.

If we want different results, we need to roll up our sleeves, pay attention, and work against the entrenched system.

 

[Lisa Belle]

Very true Flamma sad but totally true!

 

[Koman]

Very true Flamma sad but totally true!

Yep, agreed!

 

[Petrodus]

For the benefit of those who wonder why writing letters
to our elected officials to oppose the FDA seems to be a waste of time ....

The answer is simple ...
They like the Federal Agencies because Federal Agencies
give our elected officials Plausible deniability.

The explanation is not in a sound-bye ... but its an easy read.
_______________

The corner stone of our Constitution is the separation of powers. Our founding fathers were devoted to the notion that power, to avoid tyranny, the Executive, Legislative and Judicial has to be in separate power centers. James Madison said "If any 2 of those 3 powers were ever combined in a single person that would be the very definition of tyranny".

Three quarters of all laws made by the Federal Government are not made by our elected representatives, as the Constitution requires, but are in-acted by UN-elected people who run the independent regulatory commission.

The commissioner of the FDA can create law by creating regulation, can enforce the law against those that the FDA claims violated it, and can judge the violation.

So... The FDA is All Powerful with in it's sphere.

Plausible deniability
Avoid responsibility and accountability for actions.

Congress is constantly confronted with controversial issues. If they take a position on either side of these issues they will alienate a significant part of the electorate and thus risk re-election and their objective is to be constantly re-elected to be permanent members of congress, they love their job.

When they delegate this power away, they avoid making the tough choices and they can take credit for overall beneficial picture. For example: If I'm a member of congress I will vote in favor of clean water or clean air and will appropriate massive sums but on the dirty business of shutting down a factory and putting people out of work... well, EPA will implement it and EPA will be responsible for that... If a constituent writes complaining about losing their job.... The representative will simply say "I'm upset about that" and shove the blame off on EPA. There is no legal consequence.

There is No Power in this whole process because its been delegated away. The governing power of the United States is in the hands of these UN-elected people and they are making the laws and this is a permanent government.
_______________

When writing letters to Congressmen/women
keep Plausible deniability in mind.

 

[2coils]

I am sure that our founding fathers would not endorse this. It is truly a shame that our representatives are not representing us. They represent themselves. How many directly or indirectly get huge campaign contributions from Menbers of BT or Pharma companies. We are fighting the e-cig war on MANY fronts. Its disgusting how our free country is evolving. Dont get me wrong... I am proud to be an AMERICAN, I am not proud of our reps and the BS politics.

 

[Petrodus]

I am sure that our founding fathers would not endorse this. It is truly a shame that our representatives are not representing us. They represent themselves. How many directly or indirectly get huge campaign contributions from Menbers of BT or Pharma companies. We are fighting the e-cig war on MANY fronts. Its disgusting how our free country is evolving. Don't get me wrong... I am proud to be an AMERICAN, I am not proud of our reps and the BS politics.

Love your Country ... Hate your government

Our founding fathers would roll over in their graves
if they new Americans were living under the thumb of Federal Agencies

 

[2coils]

I still say we need some good publicity in regard to what our industry is TRULY up against. Does anyone think a thread of articles (proof) of how corupt our lawmakers and the FDA has been in regard to e-cigs....So we take all of the info that we compile and send it to all of the local news stations. Is there any way we can get a story? There indeed is a story to be told from the industry side. I am tired of reading anti e-cig articles that reference the same 1 study done by the FDA. Even that showed bias as the two companies named were in the middle of a lawsuit. Any thoughts?

 

[Petrodus]

This is an E-cigarette Internet Discussion Group ...
Much of what you suggest has already been done or attempted
and met with a blind eye by the government, FDA, and the Media
especially the State Run Media.

I would suggest joining the CASAA organization and get involved there.
CASAA home page: LINK
CASAA forum here on the ECF: LINK

 

[2coils]

Yes this is an internet discussion group where the topic of regulation is going to effect all of us. We are already reading these articles i am referring to. Was just throwing it out there. Thank you for the good advice though I am already a supporting CASAA member.

 

[Petrodus]

Yes this is an internet discussion group where the topic of regulation is going to effect all of us. We are already reading these articles i am referring to. Was just throwing it out there. Thank you for the good advice though I am already a supporting CASAA member.

Cool !!
We're all smoking buddies here
and we're all frustrated not having public support
as well as ticked-off because the FDA couldn't care less
due to its obvious nature to protect BP's profits.

I truly wish I knew of a plan that would work
to achieve our goal of saving our smoking buddies lives around the world.

Hey, buddy ... can I bum a smoke ... Sure, here ya go !!

You can always depend on a smoking buddy.
Its really frustrating to know so many many couldn't care less.

 

[DC2]

I still say we need some good publicity in regard to what our industry is TRULY up against. Does anyone think a thread of articles (proof) of how corupt our lawmakers and the FDA has been in regard to e-cigs....So we take all of the info that we compile and send it to all of the local news stations. Is there any way we can get a story? There indeed is a story to be told from the industry side. I am tired of reading anti e-cig articles that reference the same 1 study done by the FDA. Even that showed bias as the two companies named were in the middle of a lawsuit. Any thoughts?

Here are some articles that have appeared in major publications...
A Tool to Quit Smoking Has Some Unlikely Critics
How Health Regulators Are Killing American Smokers
Now the FDA Is Trying to Kill Smokers
E-cigarettes: no smoke without ire

Apparently nobody really cares?

 

[2coils]

Here are some articles that have appeared in major publications...
A Tool to Quit Smoking Has Some Unlikely Critics
How Health Regulators Are Killing American Smokers
Now the FDA Is Trying to Kill Smokers
E-cigarettes: no smoke without ire

Apparently nobody really cares?

I would think as April approaches, these type of stories would gain momentum through media outlets?