FDA reiterates intent to propose "deeming" regulation for e-cigs and other unregulated tobacco products

[Jman8]

1. Banning/discouraging ecigs is like telling people on the Titanic to stay off the lifeboats because they have not been long-term tested.


2. Banning ecigs is like banning seat belts. People have been injured by seat belts. Worse, the false feeling of safety from seat belts might make people drive more recklessly than otherwise.

That was a European editorial, but if the FDA was the Car and Drug Administration, would they issue public statements like this?:

"Seat belts are not a safe alternative to being ejected from the car and impaled on a tree limb or being shmeared over a 30-yard stretch of pavement."

3. The harm of a lifetime of vaping equals, at worst, 3 additional months of smoking.

I like the gusto in these punchy examples. Yet, all 3 do address my claim (main argument) in the battle we are up against. Let's put it this way:

1 - Would you prevent a child from using a lifeboat on the Titantic - because the lifeboats had only been tested for adults?
2 - Would you ban children from wearing the seatbelt that are intended for adults? And thus, no seatbelt is to be worn.
3 - The harm of a lifetime of vaping equals, at worst, 3 (additional) months of smoking. Does this apply to non-smokers and children? If no, I'm up for hearing what a lifetime of vaping is equal to for those individuals.

But if my argument doesn't work for you, then just realize that this is where zealots will be coming from when addressing all punchy examples we might make to justify our need to do something that, by our own admission, is inherently harmful when used by the 'wrong people.' Except, their argument won't be (necessarily) going in the the direction I take these things and instead will kinda sorta be helping all vapers who strongly believe non-smokers and children ought to never vape.

Perhaps, if vapers truly need this drug product to survive, it would best to get doctors involved, providing prescriptions to the drug to ensure both short and long term comfort and survival.

 

[Ruppy]

OK ive seen some comparisons and ponts made that are not based upon fact and/or history.

First the current gun debate (which we wont get into) Is of no comparison as it will be decided by elected officials. They will do what they have to in order to get reelected. The FDA is not elected nor do they care what any of you , or I, think about them. The will regulate however the see fit. They do not fear us as we do not elect them. The only thing that motivates the FDA is money and the ecig industry cannot compete in that game.

Ecigarette regulation is far different than tobacco regulation. Back when tobacco was initially regulated it had already grown so large that BT had billions to comply, fight, and/or just not care. The ecig industry does not have that luxury. Excessive compliance requirements could easily end the industry.

Many talk about workarounds online. That will end just like online tobacco sales did. Sure you can get them. However when your state subpoenas your cc records and sends you a tax bill for several thousand bucks, youll be sorry.

I am fine with reasonable regulation
I am fine with reasonable taxation

People can call for all the reasonable discussion they like.

I ask who thinks the FDA is going to be reasonable? I personally do not. Who thinks any level of government is going to tax reasonable? I personally do not.

 

[Berylanna]

The only way to stop the FDA is for the elected officials who gave them the power that the FDA is clearly planning to MIS-use is to get elected officials to be willing to TAKE AWAY the power over non-combustibles.

I think the elected officials are too scared to do that because the public is too uninformed, and therefore likely to be easily swayed into a backlash if they do anything that can be turned into an ad for being pro-tobacco.

In the E.U. the antis are able to paint this as a war between Big Tobacco and The Children, and any time a politicians fails to bow to Big Pharma, they are "caving" to Big Tobacco.

We cannot allow this here. That means we somehow have to establish ourselves as a "victim group" that wants to protect children from second-hand smoke, and from losing grandparents, and from an environment full of cigarette butts. (I HATE the idea of being in a victim group but it seems to be the only way to get on the "For The Children" side.)

 

[Berylanna]

I like the gusto in these punchy examples. Yet, all 3 do address my claim (main argument) in the battle we are up against. Let's put it this way:

1 - Would you prevent a child from using a lifeboat on the Titantic - because the lifeboats had only been tested for adults?
2 - Would you ban children from wearing the seatbelt that are intended for adults? And thus, no seatbelt is to be worn.
3 - The harm of a lifetime of vaping equals, at worst, 3 (additional) months of smoking. Does this apply to non-smokers and children? If no, I'm up for hearing what a lifetime of vaping is equal to for those individuals.

But if my argument doesn't work for you, then just realize that this is where zealots will be coming from when addressing all punchy examples we might make to justify our need to do something that, by our own admission, is inherently harmful when used by the 'wrong people.' Except, their argument won't be (necessarily) going in the the direction I take these things and instead will kinda sorta be helping all vapers who strongly believe non-smokers and children ought to never vape.

Perhaps, if vapers truly need this drug product to survive, it would best to get doctors involved, providing prescriptions to the drug to ensure both short and long term comfort and survival.

I do not want to put out these punchy arguments to WIN the debate, it's to START the debate among non-vapers, rather than letting ANTZ and the FDA be the main source of awareness.

And keep in mind, that nobody is claiming they ARE "inherently harmful", only that that is WORST CASE, i.e. we have already proven that vaping is safer than 4 month of smoking. And this is different-enough from what we are evolved to handle that my intuition says it is more harmful than not smoking. Whether or not it is more harmful than eating a lot of sugar has not yet been studied.

I would never in a million years let my child vape before they are old-enough to smoke. Parents 100 years from now may have more information. And I did let them drink wine watered-down heavily with water, and I did drink coffee and up to 2 glasses of wine a week while pregnant. The difference: these substances have been used in this way for many many thousands of years of human history, and are part of our evolutionary past. Not so with inhaling PG, VG, and food flavorings. (When my doctor said I could have 2 drinks a week, not on the same day, I asked what is the difference between that and giving a newborn a drink. He said "The difference is whose liver is processing the alcohol.") So I am not part of the "every substance that someone disapproves of is harmful" school of thought.

 

[Jman8]

I ask who thinks the FDA is going to be reasonable? I personally do not. Who thinks any level of government is going to tax reasonable? I personally do not.

Would there be any reason to petition against FDA regulations? Or to think we can present our case to the FDA and they might listen?

Obama was (maybe still is) a smoker when he entered office and proceeded to sign the Tobacco Act. If such an official is not on our side of the equation, then who might be?

 

[Berylanna]

Would there be any reason to petition against FDA regulations? Or to think we can present our case to the FDA and they might listen?

Obama was (maybe still is) a smoker when he entered office and proceeded to sign the Tobacco Act. If such an official is not on our side of the equation, then who might be?

My Mom. My kids and their husbands. My neighbors, friends, nieces and nephews. All of whom vote. Obama is almost certainly on nicotine gum, long-term, beyond what is recommended by the FDA. And probably with the blessings of the doctors at Bethesda. And he has been busy with little things like the economy, Al Quaida, the South China Sea, gun control, etc. Look how he's gotten gray fast like all the other presidents.

We need to STOP the ability of ANTZ to make our senators and congresscritters fear ANTZ. The biggest difference between smokers who oppose a smoking ban and can be safely ignored vs. the legion of our families and friends that I want to mobilize is that the non-smoking relatives of smokers are probably NOT against the laws that make it less comfortable to smoke, but my loved ones would gladly support things that get me to QUIT smoking.

So, we need for our congresscritters to know that ANTZ and the FDA are not only fighting a few vapers, they are fighting everybody who loves us. Big difference in numbers -- IFF we can get their (the general public's) attention.

 

[Petrodus]

The Congress-critters don't care about e-smokers
and, of course, the aren't going to appose FDA regulations.
They got their plate full right now with important issues
like vacations and playing "Kick-the-Can"

 

[dave8944]

The only way to stop the FDA is for the elected officials who gave them the power that the FDA is clearly planning to MIS-use is to get elected officials to be willing to TAKE AWAY the power over non-combustibles.

I think the elected officials are too scared to do that because the public is too uninformed, and therefore likely to be easily swayed into a backlash if they do anything that can be turned into an ad for being pro-tobacco.

In the E.U. the antis are able to paint this as a war between Big Tobacco and The Children, and any time a politicians fails to bow to Big Pharma, they are "caving" to Big Tobacco.

We cannot allow this here. That means we somehow have to establish ourselves as a "victim group" that wants to protect children from second-hand smoke, and from losing grandparents, and from an environment full of cigarette butts. (I HATE the idea of being in a victim group but it seems to be the only way to get on the "For The Children" side.)

Yeah, I agree. The only people with any rights are "vicitms" it seems these days. While I'd rather see an argument based on strengths, the only ones that hold any water these days are those based on how you are weak and need 'help'. I think that's true for just about every social issue now, including women's rights, gay rights, etc.

 

[DC2]

Personal responsibility is now just about completely passe.
Which is the exact opposite of where it should be.

 

[Koman]

The Congress-critters don't care about e-smokers
and, of course, the aren't going to appose FDA regulations.
They got their plate full right now with important issues
like vacations and playing "Kick-the-Can"

They don't care about anything but their pockets!

 

[oplholik]

I don't believe I've seen anything about trying to get the FDA on conflict of interest since they take BP's money. Is this not possible?

 

[Berylanna]

I don't believe I've seen anything about trying to get the FDA on conflict of interest since they take BP's money. Is this not possible?

I think one of the tobacco companies that is going into ecigs has a lawsuit going over two of the members of the "innovative products" part of the FDA for conflict of interest. That is different from the overall FDA but the FDA lost a motion to stop the lawsuit.

Since the FDA gets its funding from whoever is regulates, I think the big danger here is they see a chance for empire-building for ecigs. Create Big Ecigs, and let Big E support a whole new department. In exchange, they get their competitors outlawed.

Listening to the FDA comment day where so many of our peoples spoke, it is clear that it seems weird to the FDA that anybody thinks it is remotely unfair for ecigs to not have to go through everything BP goes through. ALL of the non-vapers I talk to just agree with that position by knee-jerk. I pointed out that Starbucks is not regulated like that and they get a shocked look and say "oh, that's right. I never thought of that."

They have successfully promoted the idea that everything regulated is normal and everything not regulated is dangerous.

We should be pushing the idea that at worst, non-approved ecigs should be treated like herbal supplements that cannot make health claims. Go ahead and keep the health claim people in a regulated category.

 

[Petrodus]

There are 2 segments ...
1. Mainstream e-smokers with their analog devices
2. The "hobbyist"

Yeah, I know ... I know !!!
However, regardless of our arguments ...
The future "mainstream" e-smoking will be
regulated analog style PVs sold in stores
and few here will be thrilled.

I suggest Blu and Njoy will be on their feet after April
and the FDA will ban bottled e-liquids.

 

[Berylanna]

Petrodus, I wish there was a "Hate" button because I HATE it that you're probably right. I'm praying you're wrong, however, and I do think having allies is better than not.

Koman, remember, the "bought and paid for" thing in the First World countries is NOT about money, it's about POWER. To have power, you need votes. To have votes, you need 2 things: 1. LOTS of money and 2. Be careful which voters you offend.

I know vapers will NOT be in either bunch, but if you add our friends, relatives, doctors, and any of the press we can get onboard, we might be able to have THEM fit #2.

 

[Petrodus]

Vaping AND "Rock-N-Roll" ... Will NEVER Die !!

 

[Jman8]

I suggest Blu and Njoy will be on their feet after April
and the FDA will ban bottled e-liquids.

My response to this is, at least some of the time, so what?

Still going to be able to get it as a consumer. Still going to fight this politically. Still going to vape eLiquid with nicotine.

The companies with little overhead (or none) will still distribute and find way around the ban. If this were the only (drug) problem America had to be concerned with, I'd be much more nervous. As it is not the only, and is likely way way down on the totem pole, I say let them try a ban and let's watch it utterly fail while they continue to lose on the political fight.

I realize the 'so what' attitude might not go over well with all concerned, and does have obvious holes that can be poked at it. But if cutting to the chase and dealing squarely with that hypothetical reality, then I say let's get real on what a ban would actually look like.

Regardless of our arguments...
eLiquid will be made available
and vapers going to keep on vaping

 

[Berylanna]

My response to this is, at least some of the time, so what?

Still going to be able to get it as a consumer. Still going to fight this politically. Still going to vape eLiquid with nicotine.

The companies with little overhead (or none) will still distribute and find way around the ban. If this were the only (drug) problem America had to be concerned with, I'd be much more nervous. As it is not the only, and is likely way way down on the totem pole, I say let them try a ban and let's watch it utterly fail while they continue to lose on the political fight.

I realize the 'so what' attitude might not go over well with all concerned, and does have obvious holes that can be poked at it. But if cutting to the chase and dealing squarely with that hypothetical reality, then I say let's get real on what a ban would actually look like.

Regardless of our arguments...
eLiquid will be made available
and vapers going to keep on vaping

Well, I need a CERTAIN vendor, with fairly high overhead, who might or might not want to do black market. If not, I'm back to combustibles. So I want to add ideas to the campaign, such as, smokers' relatives do not typically campaign in FAVOR of what the smokers would like, but I think vapers' relatives and doctors WOULD. So that is a way to combat the "oh, these addicts just want their stuff we can ignore them, they're unpopular" reaction that can cause us to be easy to ignore.

I care a LOT whether our campaign tries to win for-real vs. token attempts to fight.

 

[j10nke]

Next thing we know there will be a show on discovery channel called juicers that follows outlaw e juice makers illegally making Ejuice

 

[2coils]

I care a LOT whether our campaign tries to win for-real vs. token attempts to fight.

Only if every vaper had your attitude!! Well said!

 

[Insignificance]

There are 2 segments ...
1. Mainstream e-smokers with their analog devices
2. The "hobbyist"

Yeah, I know ... I know !!!
However, regardless of our arguments ...
The future "mainstream" e-smoking will be
regulated analog style PVs sold in stores
and few here will be thrilled.

I suggest Blu and Njoy will be on their feet after April
and the FDA will ban bottled e-liquids.

Thrilled...absolutely not. But if that's the worst the FDA does then that's something I could live with given that they could do worse such as a limit nicotine levels to that found in nicotine gum and lozenges. Ironically they are probably of the mindset that the analog-style PVs would "promote" analog use because they look so similar yet they would ban the mods that require bottled e-liquids.