I haven't received anything as of yet, but I have written before about other issues and it takes forever to get a response. I'm sure my name is on some "Great, it's her again" list.
FDA seizing new shipments
- Thread starter Brewlady
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Elaine, since you people have been aware of these allocations (and I'm not up to studying this entire section but did a quick read), is this basically funding for the new tobacco arm of the FDA? Not that it's a new TAX per se, but a fee to do business that the FDA will use for their oversight. I'm also assuming that this fee is somehow allocated to all manufacturers selling the various classes of product. Hopefully on some appropriate scale.
Of course, however it works out, I'm sure the consumer bears the cost of these fees. I wonder how much more in fees will be collected when the FDA's expanded role in food is rolled out and we're rolled over by the increase in food prices?
Of course, however it works out, I'm sure the consumer bears the cost of these fees. I wonder how much more in fees will be collected when the FDA's expanded role in food is rolled out and we're rolled over by the increase in food prices?
Have you contacted Bill Godshall about your seized shipment(s) yet?
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...08-fda-seizing-new-shipments.html#post2464379
Yes, exactly. When that bill passed into law I read it about 100 times, and I have been shocked that to this day very few people have picked up on just how corrupt it is.
1. Newly founded oversight of tobacco products is to be funded by the tobacco industry itself via "user fees" which are also to increase exponentially for the first few years --ref sec 919(a) & 919(b)
2. The groups that divy up the "user fees", according to their respective market shares are: cigarettes, cigars, snuff, chewing tobacco, pipe tobacco, r-y-o tobacco. --ref sec 919 2(B)(i)
There are, of course, other groups laid out in the word of law, but they do not pay. If electronic cigarettes were to fall into one of those categories we would not pay the user fees
We would only be taking away from the profits of companies that are paying the fda
Seeing how crooked and corrupt that is yet?
Others have posted the replies they recieved here, so I would venture to guess it would be ok.
Of course those fees will be passed on to consumers. When the food prices go up considerably, those on fixed incomes (Social Security) are not going to be content with getting yet another year of zero cost-of-living adjustments. Then the bean counters will start yelling that they can't afford to give retirees more money because it will break the bank. If the dern government just left well enough alone, the prices of various products would not be skyrocketing.
I sent mine by snail mail and have not heard back anyting yet. I would love to hear what you learned from Sen. Kohl.
Well, here it is. Im not real impressed with it.
-------------------------------------------
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Keuler:
Thank you for contacting me about electronic cigarettes.
Smoking is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. About 400,000 smokers die each year as a result of tobacco-related diseases, and it's estimated that as many as 50,000 non-smokers die annually from illnesses caused by exposure to secondary smoke. Smoking is a dangerous addiction and I believe that Americans, particularly young people, deserve to be fully aware of the risks of using tobacco products.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced on June 22, 2009 that electronic cigarettes, or "e-cigarettes," contain the same carcinogens and toxins that are also found in anti-freeze. These products have not been submitted to the FDA for analysis or approval, and the FDA has only performed limited testing on different brands to analyze what levels of nicotine and other chemicals are present in e-cigarettes. The FDA is concerned about the safety of these products, especially how they are being marketed to young adults.
The "Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act" was signed into law by President Obama on June 22, 2009. This law gives the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the legal authority to regulate tobacco products. This includes some restriction of tobacco advertisements, stronger warning labels, and the authority to remove certain ingredients from tobacco products that are deemed hazardous.
I believe that this newly enacted law will go a long way toward protecting the public - and better educating our children - about the consequences of tobacco use, and I was pleased to see it signed into law.
Again, thank you for contacting me about this issue. I appreciate having the benefit of your views and hope you will contact me again in the future if I may be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Herb Kohl
United States Senator
Geez, how sad! Don't any of these elected officials have any original thought on this matter? All of them quote the same BS about the FDA etc.
That sounds almost word for word like other responses from other politicians that I have seen posted here.
I not only suspect, but would be willing to bet a lot of money, that these are form letters provided by the alphabet soup.
You've got it DC2. Each received that form letter with a contribution to their re-election campaign.
I think it's time for all of the suppliers to get together to bring a class action lawsuit against the fda. The precedent has been set with njoy, so most of our work is already done. We're not (most suppliers) marketing e-cigs as a smoking cessation product or any other therapeutic use. since the court has ruled that they can be regulated under the tobacco act .So the fda really needs to back off.
Time for an atorney to chime in here.
Time for an atorney to chime in here.
Yvilla already mentioned this, reverend. IIRC her thought (and someone correct me here if I'm wrong) was that if the suppliers got it together they could intervene on the Judge Leon case, which hasn't been finalized yet. Considering the fact that he's on our side, one lawyer with the fees split amongst all participating suppliers might be all it takes to get the FDA off their backs.
Dear Sen. Kohl:
Thank you for your kind offer to be of assistance. Would you please launch a Senate Investigation into acts of misfreasance on the part of FDA officials. Ask Margaret Hamberg and Joshua Sharfstein why the FDA misrepresented the science regarding the FDA's limited testing of electronic cigarettes in 2009.
The FDA succeeded in convincing the public that e-cigarettes are likely to cause cancer and/or poison users by employing pejorative words such as "carcinogens" and "antifreeze" in their press conference. They also failed to tell the whole truth. In a court of law, that is considered perjury. Hamberg and Sharfstein may not have been under oath when they lied, but causing harm to public health is not a lawful act on the part of an employee of a Federal health agency.
Ask Hamberg and Sharfstein how the quantity of "carcinogens" in a days supply of e-cigarette liquid (about 1 ml) compares to the same carcinogens in an FDA-approved nicotine patch. The correct answer is that both contain about 8 nanograms of Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs).
Ask them how the 8 nanograms of TSNAs in a day's supply of e-cigarette liquid compares to the quantity of TSNAs in a pack of cigarettes. The correct answer is that a pack of Marlboros contains 126,000 nanograms. By my calculations that makes one day's worth of smoke over 15,000 times more carcinogenic than e-cigarette vapor.
Ask them whether 1% of the tobacco humectant diethylene glycol, incorrectly referenced as "antifreeze" in the FDA's press release, presents any danger whatsoever at that quantity. The correct answer is "no."
Ask how many e-cigarette cartridges that contain 0.01 ml of diethylene glycol would be required to fatally poison a 150 pound adult. The fatal dosage of diethylene glycol is 1 ml. per kg. of body weight. Thus, the correct answer is 6,600 cartridges, consumed in a single day.
Thousands of smokers who had been considering switching to an electronic cigarette continued to smoke, because the FDA's disinformation led them to falsely believe that smoking is less harmful than using an e-cigarette. Several foreign countries banned e-cigarettes, citing the FDA's "health concerns" as the reason. One has to wonder how many smokers who did not switch have developed irreversable lung damage or cancer during the 18 months that the FDA's disinformation has remained unchallenged.
Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University has reviewed the available scientific evidence on the safety and effectiveness of e-cigarettes. You can access a copy of his article that was published in the December 2010 issue of the Journal of Public Health Polilcy at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-institutes/population-development/files/article.jphp.pdf
Dr. Siegel's finding was that "a preponderance of the available evidence shows them to be much safer than tobacco cigarettes and comparable in toxicity to conventional nicotine replacement products."
Several surveys of e-cigarette consumers reveal that between 63% and over 80% are using e-cigarettes as a complete replacement for smoking. Furthermore, more than 90% of users report that their health has improved. This is understandable when you stop to consider that e-cigarette users no longer inhale tar, carbon monoxide, particulates, and thousands of chemicals created by the process of combustion. Nothing is burned in an e-cigarette.
Again I thank you for your offer to be of further assistance. I look forward to your spearheading the investigation into the behavior of FDA officials in this matter.
Thank you for your kind offer to be of assistance. Would you please launch a Senate Investigation into acts of misfreasance on the part of FDA officials. Ask Margaret Hamberg and Joshua Sharfstein why the FDA misrepresented the science regarding the FDA's limited testing of electronic cigarettes in 2009.
The FDA succeeded in convincing the public that e-cigarettes are likely to cause cancer and/or poison users by employing pejorative words such as "carcinogens" and "antifreeze" in their press conference. They also failed to tell the whole truth. In a court of law, that is considered perjury. Hamberg and Sharfstein may not have been under oath when they lied, but causing harm to public health is not a lawful act on the part of an employee of a Federal health agency.
Ask Hamberg and Sharfstein how the quantity of "carcinogens" in a days supply of e-cigarette liquid (about 1 ml) compares to the same carcinogens in an FDA-approved nicotine patch. The correct answer is that both contain about 8 nanograms of Tobacco-Specific Nitrosamines (TSNAs).
Ask them how the 8 nanograms of TSNAs in a day's supply of e-cigarette liquid compares to the quantity of TSNAs in a pack of cigarettes. The correct answer is that a pack of Marlboros contains 126,000 nanograms. By my calculations that makes one day's worth of smoke over 15,000 times more carcinogenic than e-cigarette vapor.
Ask them whether 1% of the tobacco humectant diethylene glycol, incorrectly referenced as "antifreeze" in the FDA's press release, presents any danger whatsoever at that quantity. The correct answer is "no."
Ask how many e-cigarette cartridges that contain 0.01 ml of diethylene glycol would be required to fatally poison a 150 pound adult. The fatal dosage of diethylene glycol is 1 ml. per kg. of body weight. Thus, the correct answer is 6,600 cartridges, consumed in a single day.
Thousands of smokers who had been considering switching to an electronic cigarette continued to smoke, because the FDA's disinformation led them to falsely believe that smoking is less harmful than using an e-cigarette. Several foreign countries banned e-cigarettes, citing the FDA's "health concerns" as the reason. One has to wonder how many smokers who did not switch have developed irreversable lung damage or cancer during the 18 months that the FDA's disinformation has remained unchallenged.
Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University has reviewed the available scientific evidence on the safety and effectiveness of e-cigarettes. You can access a copy of his article that was published in the December 2010 issue of the Journal of Public Health Polilcy at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/centers-institutes/population-development/files/article.jphp.pdf
Dr. Siegel's finding was that "a preponderance of the available evidence shows them to be much safer than tobacco cigarettes and comparable in toxicity to conventional nicotine replacement products."
Several surveys of e-cigarette consumers reveal that between 63% and over 80% are using e-cigarettes as a complete replacement for smoking. Furthermore, more than 90% of users report that their health has improved. This is understandable when you stop to consider that e-cigarette users no longer inhale tar, carbon monoxide, particulates, and thousands of chemicals created by the process of combustion. Nothing is burned in an e-cigarette.
Again I thank you for your offer to be of further assistance. I look forward to your spearheading the investigation into the behavior of FDA officials in this matter.
I truly sympathise with you, that you have such a horse's ... looking out for your best interests.
DAMN!
This crap just isn't funny any more. It's gone way past funny.
+1,000 Vocal. Truly a work of art to correct so many past misrepresentations into as concise a response as this. Not to mention calling him on his offer of assistance.
Last edited:
Thanks Vocal, I dont know how you do it I have sent the reply and it will be very interesting to see what I receive next. I will keep you all posted.
I have sent the reply and it will be very interesting to see what I receive next. I will keep you all posted.
I truly sympathise with you, that you have such a horse's ... looking out for your best interests.
DAMN!
This crap just isn't funny any more. It's gone way past funny.
Horse's ... or Elephant, Im not sure which is worse haha. But seriously, it's disgusting to see how things work and how much deception there is all around us.
- Status
Similar threads
