FDA regs worst case scenario?

[DC2]

I am also a fan of DC2. I am never bored when I read his posts!

I am a fan of you as well.


Whenever I see new vapors get involved with passion, it improves our chances.
Passion is our best weapon, and if we can spread that passion to friends, family, and loved ones...

We might be able to overcome the lies and propaganda.
I think we can do it, I really do.

EDIT: Sorry, I hope that wasn't too douchey
EDIT: It was sincere, but it still felt a little douchey

 

[EddardinWinter]

I am a fan of you as well.


Whenever I see new vapors get involved with passion, it improves our chances.
Passion is our best weapon, and if we can spread that passion to friends, family, and loved ones...

We might be able to overcome the lies and propaganda.
I think we can do it, I really do.

EDIT: Sorry, I hope that wasn't too douchey
EDIT: It was sincere, but it still felt a little douchey

It was pretty douchey. But Lions are quite susceptible to flattery.....and rah-rah speeches.

 

[Abe_Katz]

I hope we dont see your work place on Kitchen Nightmares anytime soon!!

As much as I am a fan of Gordon Ramsey, I'm afraid my kitchen would not be the problem if my place ever was on that show. I am a bit of a clean freak.

I submit the following, Mr Katz



To the best of my knowledge, all commercially sold e-liquids derive their nicotine from tobacco leaves. Yes, it is theoretically possible to extract it from other plants, but it is not economically viable at this time. So long as the nicotine juice is extracted from a tobacco product, it is vulnerable to classification as a tobacco product. Bill Goodshall (sp?) spoke about this topic about six weeks ago at the CASAA meeting.

While you argue sensibly according to the rule of law, our government does not function that way anymore. Just because it should work the way you describe does not mean it will be done that way by any means. The FDA has tried to shut down the industry by fiat before, it will do so again. The FDA is not about to let things like "the rule of law" and "individual rights" stop its crusade to protect the children.

Call me Abe please. "Mr. Katz" is my father. I may be old, but I'm not as old as he is...well yet anyway.

Oh I'm well aware that rule of law, and common sense have very little to do with legislation or regulation. That said I think that what we are dealing with here is not the FDA as a whole, rather their pay masters (read Big Pharma) who stand to lose billions of dollars because harm reduction works where abstinence won't.

I've actually read the relevant legislation and much of it seems like it was written in a totally fact free way by an ANTZ activist. However, while I highly doubt that regulators or legislators care about such things as "rule of law", "individual rights" or for that matter "protecting the children" (I've yet to see candy and sugary drinks banned or threatened with a ban yet). Their concern is to seem to be protecting public health and pocketing as many kickbacks as possible. The general public does care about those three things.

We have the science behind us. We need to win the PR war.

That said, as the laws are written, if due to regluation and taxation genetically modified daisies became a viable nicotine base raw material--the FDA wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

You don't have to tell me, having grown up in the restaurant business.
God only knows why that waste is so pungent.

Honestly I have no idea. But my particular problem is either the grease, the hood, or a side effect of not smoking for a week.

 

[EddardinWinter]

That said, as the laws are written, if due to regluation and taxation genetically modified daisies became a viable nicotine base raw material--the FDA wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

I agree wholeheartedly, Abe. The problem is we cannot do that now...

I do believe that time and momentum are on our side, and if we can stop (or even delay) the FDA this time, the scales tip to the side of the vapers.

 

[Abe_Katz]

Well from what I've read from several THR blogs (Anti-THR Lie of the Day | because cultivating the truth requires both seeding and weeding) in particular PV use and vaping has quintupled from 2009-2011 (dates may be wrong I'm doing this from memory). If from 2011-2013 it quintuples again we should have several billion dollar industry to contend with.

And legislators might see more gain in taxing than regulating out of existence. Particularly the tobacco growing states. I remember back in the 1990s when I was in Kentucky that a news paper article was comparing the cash yield per acre of farm land with tobacco bringing in around 1100 Dollars per acre but corn and soybeans around 3 dollars.

I could be very wrong here but I would assume farmers who have more money would spend it. Thereby increasing income and sales tax bases and not even counting taxes on tobacco itself.

Ultimately though I think the problem is one of clashing world views. Our side is of the view that if one must use nicotine then they should do so in a manner that is less harmful to others and themselves. Their side is of the opinion of quit, or die. I honestly think that some of the ANTZ would prefer that we die. It is almost as if they cannot stand the fact that someone, somewhere might actually use nicotine and enjoy it.

 

[EddardinWinter]

.......
Ultimately though I think the problem is one of clashing world views. Our side is of the view that if one must use nicotine then they should do so in a manner that is less harmful to others and themselves. Their side is of the opinion of quit, or die. I honestly think that some of the ANTZ would prefer that we die. It is almost as if they cannot stand the fact that someone, somewhere might actually use nicotine and enjoy it.

It is almost like that. It is like that. It is that. That is a fact, Jack...err, I mean Abe...

 

[Abe_Katz]

It is almost like that. It is like that. It is that. That is a fact, Jack...err, I mean Abe...

I'm in complete agreement. However, I'm hesitant to ascribe motives to them, as a group. I'm sure that there are some of them who are well meaning but misguided people. I'm also sure that there are some of them are just crypto-fascists who want a nanny state to save people from themselves.

After all whenever I hear "think of the children" I interpret that to mean "anyone who disagrees with me is a toddler/child/imbecile." And it is that mentality, which is unfortunately so prevalent in our society these days, which is causing this country to go to the dogs.

 

[2coils]

CASAA is always in need of people with such passion.
If you feel you have the time to spare, please contact them to see how you can help.

I've been following your posts as well, and you're the kind of person that this community needs.
Doing what you can is all we can ask of anybody.

Much appreciated. I became a CASAA member the begining of the month. I didn't use my ECF name in any way when updating my profile information. On the membership map I did notice that others seem to have. I guess it would be easier to identify in some way who others in our community are. Anyway, I send them a few bucks a month and have donated for the much needed research. I DID miss Sundays meeting but plan on attending others. I will do everything I can do protect the rights of us vapers!!

 

[kristin]

Yes I disagree with that. Under the FSPTCA, and other laws the definitions are such that a tobacco product must be either a smokable or smokeless form of leaves (or other plant parts) of the Nicotiana genus of Solanaceae family of plants. Other plants of that family also contain nicotine (though in lower quantities than those of the Nicotiana genus) and could conceivably be used to extract nicotine base for e-liquids. Nicotine is in your tomato juice after all, and no it is not a contaminate.

Seriously if this was merely a matter of making a regulation and then "Poof" e-liquids are a tobacco product, it would have been done already. Big Pharma hates vaping because its cutting into their patches, gums, pills and pills for diseases related to smoking revenue. And the FDA is basically financed by Big Pharma paying them fees for approving drugs.

The FDA has already tried to use a deeming regulation to declare that PVs are "drug delivery systems". However, nicotine is not scheduled--neither is caffeine--under the Controlled Substances Act and therefore legally speaking is not a drug. So they have tried the "poof" method on devices and failed already.

What I think is going to happen is they are going to issue some very common sense regulations, order more testing and leave it be. Big Tobacco is already getting in on this gold mine and many Tobacco State legislators don't want the FDA ticking their bribers contributers friends off. At most we may be limited to the flavors we have now and the juices we have now until the FDA and the ANTZ can work up the legislative muscle to amend the laws to where nicotine is a controlled substance or nicotine in any amount is legally equivalent to tobacco. (Both of which is not going to happen, for various reasons.)

As such anything more than the FDA requiring licensing for distribution, labeling on e-liquid packaging, child proof bottles for e-liquid, inspections of e-liquid manufacturing sites and so on is what they will start with.

As to Taxation--thats not the FDA's province.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act provides the FDA with the authority to regulate cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. The law also permits FDA to issue regulations deeming other “tobacco products,” such as novel products like e-cigarettes or certain dissolvable tobacco products; cigars; pipe tobacco; hookah, etc., to be subject to Chapter IX of the Food Drug & Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).

So, you are correct that the law doesn't currently apply to e-cigarettes but THAT is what is happening in April. "Poof" - e-cigarettes will fall under FSPTCA with whatever definition and regulations the FDA sees fit.

The FDA does not intend to regulate e-cigarettes as existing tobacco products but as novel products, which currently have no definition. So, looking at old definitions of "tobacco product" (and definitions intended for advertising rather than FDA regulation) is missing the entire point that FSPTCA has completely changed the game. The Act is exactly what gives the FDA the "poof, you're a tobacco product" power. The fact that they haven't done so yet is irrelevant because that is exactly what they are doing come April. The reason the "poof, you're a drug device" didn't work was because the judge opined in Sottera vs. FDA that the FDA couldn't deem the products drug treatments without advertisements claiming the product treated a disease (nicotine addiction/smoking), but the judge also told the FDA that FSPTCA would give the FDA power to regulate the products as tobacco products (especially since e-cigarette companies are basically advertising their products as tobacco products - something to "smoke" to get nicotine instead of cigarettes.)

One of the whole points about us fighting "deeming regulations" is that it does not account for the uniqueness of e-cigarettes & novel ST as compared to other tobacco products - such as the fact that, unlike chew or snus, the products are advancing and changing quickly - and is exactly why the FDA shouldn't just lump them in with the existing regulations. The fact that any product not on the market prior to February 2007 would be considered a "new" tobacco product and required to obtain FDA approval for sale is a HUGE issue for most e-cigarette companies. The fact that the products only contain nicotine and no actual leaf matter is not an argument that will get us anywhere. The FDA banned nicotine lollipops, water and lip balm - all of which contained no actual leaves. If it contains nicotine and is intended for human consumption the FDA will step in to regulate it in one way or another and if anyone thinks that any court will side with an e-cigarette company that the FDA has no business at all regulating a product "generally accepted as highly addictive" and intended for human consumption then they are delusional. Our argument is that these products should be regulated with their much lower health risks in mind, not treated as some kind of public health hazard and that the path to reduced harm recognition be made less difficult.

 

[Abe_Katz]

Kristin, thank you for your intelligent and thoughtful reply. It has cleared up several issues for me.