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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Angel Wings

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 11, 2010
379
389
I Be's A Texas Girl
@Bill Maybe someone, a non vendor, can make a youtube video for "Debate 2012 Omaba vs 2.5 million American former smokers." or something like that and ask him if he has our back. We all could put out testimonies at the bottom of the video the whole nation would see it and see what is going on. Keyword it so all vapers, smokers and non smokers/vapers would see the video and like and share it and whatnot. Tweet the video to msnbc and stuff.. just a thought.

YES!!!!!!! TELL ME WHERE AND WHEN TO SIGN UP !!!

BRAVO THINKING SLICKSTICK!!!!!!!

as i posted last night, so many vapers have no clue this is even happening. i know this from personal experiences talking with other vapers.

if the vapers here on ecf have no clue this is going on, i imagine the general population does not either. THIS needs to be in peoples faces so they know what is happening.

tell me where and when and i WILL BE THERE MY FRIEND
 

Slickstick

Unregistered Supplier
ECF Veteran
Point out that thousands of online new business are open, some with storefronts. How many more we need. How fast the business is growing to do the successful self regulation of ecigs, and all the immediate health benefits. I've been vaping almost 3 years and feel as good as I did a month after I quit smoking I dont care what any tests reveal. Until anyone or myself starts having complications things should remain as they are so the market can grow and have diversity and competition. Regulation would mean a few big companies with ineffective products. Thousands without jobs, we would all have to go back to smoking, and health care costs would rise again.
 

Herdo

Full Member
Sep 8, 2012
56
24
Arizona
i agree stubby...

i am not a democrat but i am sure fighting them so i can KEEP MY HEALTH. vaping has saved me. my dr continues to be impressed with my lungs since i began vaping. I have lupus and since i began vaping, i have been able to STOP taking alot of the meds i was taking and my lungs are great.

vaping is one thing. of course i will fight for my right to vape.
BUT when the dems.. well, read it for your selves. google democrats remove god and jerusalem from their platform.

IMHO THIS showed me if obama is re-elected, we are snowballing straight to hell.

if they will even consider taking god out of their platform what else will they do. i WILL not sit back quietly and let dems or anybody else strip me one by one of my freedoms or rights as a american. i will be screaming from the rooftops

You all decide for yourselves where your vote needs to be cast.

if you are proud to be a vaper vote obama's behind outa there. if you dont vote against obamA, then dont be complaining when you lose your right to vape.

I know romney is not the best choice bUT he IS the better choice. when i vote in november i will not be exactly thrilled to do it BUT IMHO romney IS the less of BOTH EVILS so i am left with no choice.

Voting outside of romney and obama only gives obama a better chance to win so i HAVE to vote for romney. I LOVE MY FREEDOM TOO MUCH NOT TO and i love vaping just as much because it has saved my life.

YOUR DARN RIGHT IT IS POLITICAL. OBAMA AND HIS CREW PUT IT THERE.

:2c:

The word God should have never been associated with any platform to begin with. I think people forget there is suppose to be a clear separation of church and state. America was founded on religious freedom, and founded to escape religious oppression. As much as I love vaping, I'd gladly give it up to not see Romney in office. Sorry.
 

Angel Wings

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 11, 2010
379
389
I Be's A Texas Girl
The word God should have never been associated with any platform to begin with. I think people forget there is suppose to be a clear separation of church and state. America was founded on religious freedom, and founded to escape religious oppression. As much as I love vaping, I'd gladly give it up to not see Romney in office. Sorry.

no reason to say your are "sorry" for your thoughts and freedom of speech. we all have it. for now anyway.

to each his own. for you, you love to vape but dislike romney. thats your feelings. you have that right. no apology required.

for me, i tried to quit smoking. took meds to help me quit and it made me sick. hospital bound sick. tried to quit cold turkey. depression, blood pressure issue etc. stressed my system to the hills and back which in turn sent me to the hospital as well. lupus and stress are a big no no .

i discovered vaping 2 years ago and never looked back. my lungs look better than they have in years and i am now off several meds i was having to take for my lungs.

so, for me, i am making the choice for my health, therefore i have no choice but to go with romney. do i like it? umm not really, but the other route is more than likely going to cost me vaping. without vaping, i will certainly turn back to cigs. i lived that life. didnt work for me. everytime i tried to quit smoking i ended up in the hospital/icu. so i have to vote for my health. even though it does not make the vote any easier.

i appreciate your comment. i whole heartedly respect it. i guess you and i are in different situations. what is more important to you is making sure romney does not win. what is important to me is voting, no matter how much i dislike the vote, for my life/health.

thanks for your comment. i respect and appreciate it.
 
Last edited:

Herdo

Full Member
Sep 8, 2012
56
24
Arizona
no reason to say your are "sorry" for your thoughts and freedom of speech. we all have it. for now anyway.

to each his own. for you, you love to vape but dislike romney. thats your feelings. you have that right. no apology required.

for me, i tried to quit smoking. took meds to help me quit and it made me sick. hospital bound sick. tried to quit cold turkey. depression, blood pressure issue etc. stressed my system to the hills and back which in turn sent me to the hospital as well. lupus and stress are a big no no .

i discovered vaping 2 years ago and never looked back. my lungs look better than they have in years and i am now off several meds i was having to take for my lungs.

so, for me, i am making the choice for my health, therefore i have no choice to but to go with romney. do i like it? umm not really, but the other route is more than likely going to cost me vaping. without vaping, i will certainly turn back to cigs. i lived that life. didnt work for me. everytime i tried to quit smoking i ended up in the hospital/icu. so i have to vote for my health. even though it does not make the vote any easier.

i appreciate your comment. i whole heartedly respect it. i guess you and i are in different situations. what is more important to you is making sure romney does not win. what is important to me is voting, no matter how much i dislike the vote, for my life/health.

thanks for your comment. i respect and appreciate it.

Thanks for the reply. I applaud your success, and I hope to one day look back and say I have not had a cigarette in 2 years. :p Hopefully like other have said we can get a support video, or at least some sort of statement sent to the right people. The "Sorry" was because I truly do feel bad about it. I love vaping. I have been vaping for a little under two weeks and I have no interest in smoking ever again. It's like you said, people have different priorities, and no candidate is ever going to be perfect.
 

Agorizer

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Aug 23, 2011
1,131
2,436
In the Market
My father always said, "The only problem with an election is....it's always a politician that wins."
Close--the GOV'T always wins. Voters are giving the Pols relevence. Thinking in this way, ya can see that the old saw "If you don't vote, you can't complain" is backwards. By voting, one is acquiescing (proper use?) and agreeing to the rules of the game. If you vote and then cry foul, it's like flipping over the Monopoly board.
 

TTK

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Sep 18, 2011
487
165
Johnson City, TN
The word God should have never been associated with any platform to begin with. I think people forget there is suppose to be a clear separation of church and state. America was founded on religious freedom, and founded to escape religious oppression. As much as I love vaping, I'd gladly give it up to not see Romney in office. Sorry.

You are entitled to your political preferences. No need to say sorry. But, I would say that the founding fathers knew more about the intent of the founding documents that any current citizen. Did they eliminate the word God from their documents?
 

someone3x7

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Aug 17, 2012
104
18
Spanaway, WA

I didn't feel like reading the whole letter thus tried searching for the pertinent parts. I could not find any. Do you have any other sources?

Thus far this is only reminding me that the Republican Party won't be dictated by fact-checkers.
 

yvilla

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Nov 18, 2008
2,063
575
Rochester, NY
You are entitled to your political preferences. No need to say sorry. But, I would say that the founding fathers knew more about the intent of the founding documents that any current citizen. Did they eliminate the word God from their documents?

The answer to that is YES!

The Constitution, written in 1786, does not contain the word "god" anywhere in it. Separation of Church and State

And of course the First Amendment, proposed in 1789, states as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 1 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The god motto didn't appear on the first coins until 1864 ("largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War" History of 'In God We Trust').

It didn't appear on paper money until 1957. History of 'In God We Trust'

Oh, and the word "god" didn't appear in the pledge of allegiance, first written in 1892, until 1954! Pledge of Allegiance and its "under God" phrase
 
Last edited:

Vocalek

CASAA Activist
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
I didn't feel like reading the whole letter thus tried searching for the pertinent parts. I could not find any. Do you have any other sources?

Thus far this is only reminding me that the Republican Party won't be dictated by fact-checkers.

I'm not following your last sentence. Waxman is a Democrat.

Anyhow, if you are familiar with all the lies and fraudulent research about dissolvable tobacco products, e-cigarettes, and other low-risk smoke-free alternatives to smoking, the first paragraph of Waxman's letter is a big clue:

Earlier this month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a study showing that in recent years the decline in the consumption of cigarettes has been largely offset by a huge increase in the consumption of cigars and pipe tobacco. And today, another report from CDC described an alarming new trend: young smokers are smoking candy- and fruit-flavored cigars at high rates.

Notice the big lie regarding "candy-and fruit-flavored". Where have we heard this before? Oh, that's right. Flavored e-liquids are a plot on the part of the tobacco companies (ignore the fact that tobacco companies until very recently were not involved in the sale or manufacture of e-cigarette components at all) to addict our children to smoking. We heard the same thing about dissolvable tobacco orbs.

If you have any doubt about this being Waxman's theory , see the middle of paragraph 2:

Tobacco companies have a long history of evading regulation to addict smokers, especially children, to their lethal products.

The third paragraph in its entirety continues with Waxman's misreading and misinterpretation (quite possibly on purpose) of tobacco company documents to hold forth as "proof" of his theory.

The internal company documents show that tobacco manufacturers are manipulating existing products and introducing new products to avoid Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation and higher federal tax rates. These actions are endangering youth and undermining the goals of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) and the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA), both of which Congress passed in 2009.

All you have to do is ignore the fact that Star Scientific invented and began marketing Ariva and Stonewall dissolvable orbs over 10 years ago because they figured out that there was no way to make a combusted tobacco product safe. Thus they began developing products that could be substituted for tobacco smoking and reduce the related disease and mortality risks. Of course, you'll also have to ignore the fact that 10 years ago, there was no FSPTCA or CHIPRA law.

But here is the clincher:

I urge you to act without delay to stop these abusive practices. The Tobacco Control Act, which Congress enacted in 2009, gives you authority to regulate tobacco products that are used as substitutes for cigarettes. Prompt action by FDA can stop tobacco companies from exploiting loopholes and continuing to addict youth.

This paragraph shows that Waxman doesn't know how to quit when he's ahead:

Data released by CDC earlier this month showed that 15.7% of high school boys are smoking cigars20 Today, CDC has released alarming new data that explains why this occurring. The new CDC data about tobacco use by young adults ages 18 to 24 reveals a high level of use of flavored cigars. Among these young adults, 15.9% smoke cigars.21 According to the new CDC data, nearly 60% of these young cigar smokers are smoking cigars with candy, fruit, and other flavors 22

If cigars are smoked as intended (without inhaling), they carry 50% of the health risk of smoking tobacco cigarettes.

Waxman seems to believe that flavors are some new idea that the tobacco companies recently implemented as part of a dark and dire plot to addict children. Actually, tobacco companies have added flavorings to all their products ever since the products were invented.

The FDA announced their intention to issue a deeming regulation that would bring ALL tobacco products under their purview. They specifically mentioned e-cigarettes. The Tobacco Act (FSPTCA) is difficult to read having been authored in a foreign language: legaleze. But if all sections of the Tobacco Act are applied to all products imagine how these provisions will affect the sale and marketing of e-cigarettes:

1. Any product that was not being sold as of February 2006 is considered a "new tobacco product" and must submit an application for approval. Until approval is given, the product needs to be taken off the market.
2. The regulations that have been written regarding what kind of information must be submitted with a new tobacco product application rival any of the requirements pharmaceutical companies must comply with to gain approval of a new drug. They will cost so much money that only a tobacco company could afford to comply.
3. Those of us who have switched to e-cigarettes can easily tell that our health has improved. No company is allowed to mention this unless they have complied with the requirements for being designated a modified risk product. The regulations governing these requirements involve toxicology studies, animal studies, randomized clinical trials, etc. etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread