FDA run amuck?

[Nena]

I find the FDA to be one of the scariest organizations in the US government...their power is so far reaching it's insane.

I agree that the tobacco folks could jump on the PV bandwagon and keep a good profit going...and I would dearly love to see a good PV manufactured in the USA.

I'm sure at some point, PV's will be regulated and taxed just like tobacco....we all know the states and the fed are going to have to recover lost tobacco revenues from somewhere, and more than likely it will come in part from PV's. What they always seem to ignore in their arguments is the cost of health care from tobacco-related illnesses and the effect that has on health insurance, medicare, and medicade...my father-in-law is a perfect example. He has emphysema from 40+ years of smoking and has had FOUR CAT scans ($4000 each) and one PET scan ($6000) in the last year from complications related to his disease. He hasn't paid a penny....what his insurance didn't cover, medicare picked up. One person...$22,000 in one year due to tobacco-related illness.

PV's may not be chemical free, but considering tobacco has over 4000 chemicals in it, the long term health risks of using a PV vs. smoking has got to be considerably less. You would think our state and federal government would be APPLAUDING the potential for fewer people having catastrophic illnesses from tobacco use...but seems they are doing just the opposite by trying to ban the one device that has helped so many people. So on the one hand, they scream "QUIT SMOKING" and on the other they say "we're going to ban PV's." Makes no sense to me but then again, I gave up on "logical government" a long, long time ago.

Maybe someone should send President Obama a real nice PV set...if we could get him hooked, we would have a better chance. I keep hearing he still struggles with cigarettes.

 

[Hillshire_Farms]

I work for a State House candidate here in Florida, helping with his campaign. I asked him over breakfast today that when he's elected that if they try to ban these here in FL that he stand up to them. He said he would, and trust me he will!

If you didn't get it in writing (and sometimes if you did) you can forget anything a politician says.

 

[wphsmike]

If you didn't get it in writing (and sometimes if you did) you can forget anything a politician says.

This is one of my good friends, and someone I've known for a few years. He isn't a lawyer, but has a background in business and finance. He's a smoker and himself has floated the idea of picking up a PV.

PS: I'd like to be an elected official someday. Not all politicians are two-faced, though there are quite a few.

 

[FredK]

One of the first things e-cig users and activists should do is dissociate e-cigs from analogs as much as possible. Although they look and 'act' the same, they couldn't be more different, as we know. The only thing in common is the delivery of nicotine. Are nicotine patches, gum and the like taxed to the extremes like analogs?

The first thing on that agenda is to stop calling them e-cigarettes. If we start referring to them only as personal vaporizers, we dissociate from the negative connotations of analogs. And we should try not to use white PV’s, again for the same reason.

When my wife goes to vape, she still says smoke and refers to her PV as a cigarette. I remind her it’s not smoking cigarettes.

 

[Jonmo1]

One of the first things e-cig users and activists should do is dissociate e-cigs from analogs as much as possible. Although they look and 'act' the same, they couldn't be more different, as we know. The only thing in common is the delivery of nicotine. Are nicotine patches, gum and the like taxed to the extremes like analogs?

The first thing on that agenda is to stop calling them e-cigarettes. If we start referring to them only as personal vaporizers, we dissociate from the negative connotations of analogs. And we should try not to use white PV’s, again for the same reason.

When my wife goes to vape, she still says smoke and refers to her PV as a cigarette. I remind her it’s not smoking cigarettes.

I don't know, there are 2 sides to that argument...

If we keep our PV's closely alligned with cigarettes, it could be to our advantage.

If this Ecig is just a different kind of cigarette, and since you (The FDA) have approved tobacco cigarettes (which you know kill 400000 americans per year), how can you disapprove of my Ecig which has a Zero Death toll?

 

[Kent C]

Tobacco companies make about 47 cents profit on a pack of cigarettes. The cost from the manufacture is $2.22 (in 2007) - the rest of the actual cost for a consumer is taxes.

 

[zbasspro]

Drozd didn't want to quote that, but thank you for the information. I hope I indicated clearly enough in the 1st post that it wasn't you I was doubting. Things are bad when the people you think are trying to help you are actually lying to you, or hopefully misinformed.

 

[Drozd]

Drozd didn't want to quote that, but thank you for the information. I hope I indicated clearly enough in the 1st post that it wasn't you I was doubting. Things are bad when the people you think are trying to help you are actually lying to you, or hopefully misinformed.

oh I didn't take it as doubt but a serious request for sources to read for yourself....

and it's a sobering read really..at first I thought it was all the FDA....and then I started really looking at the money lines...

 

[FredK]

I don't know, there are 2 sides to that argument...

If we keep our PV's closely alligned with cigarettes, it could be to our advantage.

If this Ecig is just a different kind of cigarette, and since you (The FDA) have approved tobacco cigarettes (which you know kill 400000 americans per year), how can you disapprove of my Ecig which has a Zero Death toll?

I think the biggest danger is in misconceptions people have that drive new laws. The average person has no idea how ecigs work. People see these as "cigarettes," thus that means they are bad. And maybe worst because they contain "chemicals."

If cigarettes were just introduced to the world today, there is no way they would ever make it to market. Aligning ecigs with real cigs could cause problems because of this fact. Pharm and tobacco companies know they will cut into their business, and they will exploit the misconceptions people have, thus driving their agenda.

 

[oldmanatc]

The best they could really do is ban the importation of PV's and juices and restrict the sale of nicotine. Companies in the states would be able to make them still. The ingredients in e-juice are so widely used not only in foods but pharmaceuticals and personal hygiene products as well it would be impossible to ban them. Trying to regulate e-juice would actually be a nightmare. The electronics in PV's are pretty basic and not too difficult for even a novice to build. They can't get rid of the basic food flavoring we use.

 

[oldmanatc]

Remember as well, the FDA doesn't control everything that you injest. Pretty much every product GNC sells goes without FDA approval.

 

[paulc35]

The pharmaceutical industry stands to lose a lot from e-cigarettes as well. Their NRT products have, at best, a 10% success rate, with about half that still smoke free after one year. If e-cigs become mainstream, then gums, patches, lozenges, and nicotine inhalers will be all but obsolete.

The alphabet soup of anti-smoking groups also stand to lose a lot, as the majority of their funding comes from the pharm industry.

You know if the big tobacco companies would just get on board they could control the industry as the do cigarettes and the state governments could put their tax on it and everyone would be happy, but oh know that would be to easy. They are to afraid I guess of losing cigarette sells,but there are always going to be smokers as long as its legal. The E cig is just another (the Best nicotine replacement) device on the planet.