FDA FDA to BAN/RESTRICT Vaping UNLESS...

[patkin]

I have tweeted the 8 or 9 youtubes encouraging action via FTV so far and will continue tweeting new ones if they appear.

 

[2coils]

So many people have said this is good, this is bad, argued back and forth... The reason for the OP was simply to try and get more people involved. I never said or meant to imply that this was the best option, simply another option. The bottom line is to become involved HOWEVER you see fit, and get others involved.

While I wish that people spent more time and energy and reaching out to others and speaking more on this issue in general vs. fighting/arguing over whether or not to fill out this specific form, I am glad the people are voicing their opinions and concerns.

Apathy and inaction = surrender and defeat. Be involved, get others involved, and stand up for the beliefs, convictions, and values that you hold. Change is possible when people can work together for a common goal.

-Keep spreading the Word-

Absolutely! Well said. Most of us that frequent these parts of the forum are already active. I am sure we also tend to over analyze! We do though, because of how delicate a subject this is. The last thing we want to to is give the "opposition" any ammunition inadvertently. We also want our efforts focused on what WILL work. But yes! I definitely get your point. Thanks

 

[aikanae1]

At least it's not a petition ....

 

[Stosh]

You want a list of senators and congressmen to write to, fax, call. The sponsors of these bills would be ones to target, explain we also wish to keep our "premium personal vaporizers". They are moving ahead of the FDA regulations. (Amazing isn't it)

H.R.792 Traditional Cigar Manufacturing and Small Business Jobs Preservation Act of 2013
(155 Co-sponsors)

S.772 Traditional Cigar Manufacturing and Small Business Jobs Preservation Act of 2013
(15 Co-sponsors)

 

[Katya]

I haven't checked to see if CASAA has issued a statement yet.

Kristin just posted this comment in CASAA forum:

(snip)
If you choose to use other methods to submit your comments, that is absolutely your right. CASAA has no interest in stopping people from supporting other advocacy groups. It is not true that CASAA is "opposing" other groups or telling people what they can or cannot do. Lack of endorsement for a specific action of other organizations for our members is not the same as opposing the existance of another advocacy group or "condemning" that group. We do, however, want to remind CASAA members that you have paid for an expensive system that CASAA is working hard to create specifically crafted campaigns, including specific requests to Congress regarding the FDA rule.

A danger in other comment submission services is that they are not specifically targeted to the recipients, don't fully address the issues and may cause a significant number of people to mistakenly feel their "job is done" once they've sent in one form letter. Please make sure to encourage people to also keep up with and follow through with upcoming CASAA Calls to Action regarding the FDA and Congress or all of this work and investment of your hard-earned donations could be for naught. Just as CASAA acknowledges that other groups have the right to choose their own methods to advocate how they see fit, it should be reasonable to expect CASAA has the right to endorse or not endorse those methods to its own membership.

 

[amoret]

I contacted them with questions, and will not enter my information until I get a response.

Just wondering who you are, and why you as an individual or group are doing this? I've been working through CASAA and personal letter writing.

Also, will submitting information through you "use up" my one per person comment to the FDA?

Do you have a template of how you are submitting this to Senators & members of congress? Is the information merged into a particular letter or format or is it just submitted as entered on your page?

Thanks. I'm interested but definitely need to know more before participating.

 

[Kent C]

I contacted them with questions, and will not enter my information until I get a response.

Where did you get the idea of 'one per person comment'?

I'd like to hear your answer, but it's not true.

See: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-so-where-outcry-vendors-16.html#post13092198

post #156

 

[aikanae1]

I don't think many people who are able to make informed comments to FDA are fooled into thinking a website forum will be a replacement. Also comments to the FDA need to be tailored very differently than to Congress. Those are very different agendas.

But PBsuardo did help plan the website, supported it and then pulled his support based on "mixed signals" (per his comments on FB) from CASAA. Now those "mixed signals" may not be an official response, and it's getting awkward splitting hairs over terminology. The thing is, PBsuardo is a big voice in the community. That's fact.

The thing is that CASAA, like most orginizations, is comprised of a lot of sub-groups. There was an auction and vendors did what they do best by donating products. Free to Vape was concieved of by a group of reviewers who are trying to do what they do best, communicating and "cheerleading", drumming up enthusiasm. I don't care who said what when, I just know that no one can be allowed to feel alienated without good reason. I don't know how else to phrase that.

There was probably a miscommunication that could be easily cleared up (we're all on the same side, right?) with no change in policy required. No fault. Anything else feels murky; sorta like "a life on it's own".

Then I'd coordinate through VM for something more constructive (if that's the issue) since not everyone is willing to wait for orders. Personally, I think headlinning a full, hard-core membership drive is overdue since I'd like to see membership 10x's what it is. That's what that's worth.

 

[Kent C]

I don't think many people who are able to make informed comments to FDA are fooled into thinking a website forum will be a replacement. Also comments to the FDA need to be tailored very differently than to Congress. Those are very different agendas.

But PBsuardo did help plan the website, supported it and then pulled his support based on "mixed signals" (per his comments on FB) from CASAA. Now those "mixed signals" may not be an official response, and it's getting awkward splitting hairs over terminology. The thing is, PBsuardo is a big voice in the community. That's fact.

The thing is that CASAA, like most orginizations, is comprised of a lot of sub-groups. There was an auction and vendors did what they do best by donating products. Free to Vape was concieved of by a group of reviewers who are trying to do what they do best, communicating and "cheerleading", drumming up enthusiasm. I don't care who said what when, I just know that no one can be allowed to feel alienated without good reason. I don't know how else to phrase that.

There was probably a miscommunication that could be easily cleared up (we're all on the same side, right?) with no change in policy required. No fault. Anything else feels murky; sorta like "a life on it's own".

Then I'd coordinate through VM for something more constructive (if that's the issue) since not everyone is willing to wait for orders. Personally, I think headlinning a full, hard-core membership drive is overdue since I'd like to see membership 10x's what it is. That's what that's worth.

See my comment on general discussion, but whether by misreading or intentional, the idea of 'one comment' got out in relation to a CASAA posting which didn't say exactly that. But it will tend to reduce comments, as we've seen here. That's sad, imo. I like that this freetovape site is sending stuff off to Representatives - something many will not do - and frankly they may be more important that what is sent to the FDA, although people should do both.

I had my own questions, as posted, and they almost immediately fixed what I thought was a missing question. People should, in no way, be discouraged from using this site, again, imo.

 

[aikanae1]

See my comment on general discussion, but whether by misreading or intentional, the idea of 'one comment' got out in relation to a CASAA posting which didn't say exactly that. But it will tend to reduce comments, as we've seen here. That's sad, imo. I like that this freetovape site is sending stuff off to Representatives - something many will not do - and frankly they may be more important that what is sent to the FDA, although people should do both.

I had my own questions, as posted, and they almost immediately fixed what I thought was a missing question. People should, in no way, be discouraged from using this site, again, imo.

I agree. That "one comment per person" was really bad. I can understand the strategy of holding substantive comments to the very last, but that's not the same.

I do find all this suspision unwarrented.

 

[Kent C]

I agree. That "one comment per person" was really bad. I can understand the strategy of holding substantive comments to the very last, but that's not the same.

I do find all this suspision unwarrented.

I reported a few of the posts but there were too many that had it in and the replies.

Almost everyone in these forums knew (although there were a few that should have known), but not in general. And this site just brought them all to light. One really could accuse CASAA of trying to maintain a monopoly, but that isn't what happened. Julie has already commented that people should use it if they wish.

 

[kristin]

I like that this freetovape site is sending stuff off to Representatives - something many will not do - and frankly they may be more important that what is sent to the FDA, although people should do both.

It's always been part of CASAA's game plan to send "stuff" off to Representatives, too. I'm not sure why people keep mentioning that like CASAA isn't doing that? It's clearly listed in the overview. CASAA planned to have specific requests to take action sent to Congress, though, using CQ Roll Call - which is similar to the form style FTV is using, but a secure software program that actually goes to email.

What CASAA posting caused people to think there was only one comment allowed? As far as I recall, that rumor was going around long before CASAA issued an official statement on the rules?

 

[Kent C]

It's always been part of CASAA's game plan to send "stuff" off to Representatives, too. I'm not sure why people keep mentioning that like CASAA isn't doing that? It's clearly listed in the overview. CASAA planned to have specific requests to take action sent to Congress, though, using CQ Roll Call - which is similar to the form style FTV is using, but a secure software program that actually goes to email.

What CASAA posting caused people to think there was only one comment allowed? As far as I recall, that rumor was going around long before CASAA issued an official statement on the rules?

I didn't say CASAA isn't sending comments to Representatives, but did they send the extension comments to Congress? And the FDA estimates on application comments? If they did, I was unaware but I sent the one through CASAA. I also sent it to my Senators and a few others as well.

These guys made it pretty clear, imo.

As far as the 'one comment' thing goes, I tracked down what I think was the first post of that here and I corrected it by calling the FDA and asking. I posted that link in the general forum under the freetovape thread there. It was in a post that had two CASAA links but I'm pretty sure the poster just misinterpreted what was written.

 

[2coils]

You want a list of senators and congressmen to write to, fax, call. The sponsors of these bills would be ones to target, explain we also wish to keep our "premium personal vaporizers". They are moving ahead of the FDA regulations. (Amazing isn't it)

H.R.792 Traditional Cigar Manufacturing and Small Business Jobs Preservation Act of 2013
(155 Co-sponsors)

S.772 Traditional Cigar Manufacturing and Small Business Jobs Preservation Act of 2013
(15 Co-sponsors)

Last time I checked, cigars were combustable Talk about playing favorites huh?? I call to that. It could be said kids don't buy premium cigars. But I don't think they are buying e-cigs either, at least not at an alarming rate. That CDC study was well played by them! They completely ignored the FULL results of that study too!! I don't think kids could afford APV's. Why aren't we playing the same card.

As for little cigars, They are not purchased for the tobacco, they are purchased for the paper. I think that is as far as I am allowed to go on the subject without moderation.

 

[kristin]

I didn't say CASAA isn't sending comments to Representatives, but did they send the extension comments to Congress? And the FDA estimates on application comments? If they did, I was unaware but I sent the one through CASAA. I also sent it to my Senators and a few others as well.

These guys made it pretty clear, imo.

As far as the 'one comment' thing goes, I tracked down what I think was the first post of that here and I corrected it by calling the FDA and asking. I posted that link in the general forum under the freetovape thread there. It was in a post that had two CASAA links but I'm pretty sure the poster just misinterpreted what was written.

CASAA is doing multiple CTAs, one of which will likely cover the FDA estimates. But did the FTV form mention an extention request or FDA estimates?

I thought it was pretty clear on the CASAA Overview that CTAs about contacting Congress regarding the issues were forthcoming? As far as I know, Julie and Carl may be planning a CQ Roll Call asking for an extention from Congress, too. As we said, it's going to be a multi-step process.

This is not a battle that is going to be won based solely on comments to the proposed regulations. Accordingly, we are going to attack this on several different fronts. Before the draft regulations were published, we had envisioned a single Call to Action with several suggested actions. However, upon seeing the details, we decided the best strategy to effect positive change is to prepare a comprehensive Action Plan which consists of several Calls to Action issued at staggered dates to maximize effectiveness.


The Action Plan will include, among other things, Calls to Action with specific requests directed towards members of Congress. To support this massive undertaking, we have subscribed to CQ Roll Call, a program which will help connect our members easily and in a targeted fashion with their state and federal legislators on specifically crafted campaigns we design. This tool will be valuable as we move forward to the next stage of our battle, and it will also help us in our continuing efforts at state-level advocacy.

 

[2coils]

You want a list of senators and congressmen to write to, fax, call. The sponsors of these bills would be ones to target, explain we also wish to keep our "premium personal vaporizers". They are moving ahead of the FDA regulations. (Amazing isn't it)

H.R.792 Traditional Cigar Manufacturing and Small Business Jobs Preservation Act of 2013
(155 Co-sponsors)

S.772 Traditional Cigar Manufacturing and Small Business Jobs Preservation Act of 2013
(15 Co-sponsors)

Preserving jobs.... this is admitting that the proposed rule will kill jobs. Why would the same theory not apply to the e-cig industry?? Am I reading this the wrong way??

 

[Bobbilly]

Total hypocrites

 

[Kent C]

CASAA is doing multiple CTAs, one of which will likely cover the FDA estimates. But did the FTV form mention an extention request or FDA estimates?

I thought it was pretty clear on the CASAA Overview that CTAs about contacting Congress regarding the issues were forthcoming? As far as I know, Julie and Carl may be planning a CQ Roll Call asking for an extention from Congress, too. As we said, it's going to be a multi-step process.

I understand that "Calls to Action with specific requests directed towards members of Congress." would be a separate CTA. I'm pretty sure the 2nd CTA from CASAA didn't go to Congress, like the freetovape one will. The 2nd CTA (CASAA) went to OMB-OIRA but we had to send that ourselves. Which is fine really. Just that the idea that they (FTV) are sending it to the Reps as well as the FDA sounded like a good idea to me for those that might not make that extra effort.

I'd encourage everyone willing to use both avenues. I hope you would as well.

 

[Kent C]

Preserving jobs.... this is admitting that the proposed rule will kill jobs. Why would the same theory not apply to the e-cig industry?? Am I reading this the wrong way??

This was proposed by Bill G in a post at economic impact thread and I disagree. While I understand the idea - match what the cigar people are doing, it's a compromise and this is the type of thing I don't want from 'our (your) advocates'. I don't mind them sitting down with the FDA to relate our concerns about the whole industry but to try to carve out a niche like the rich cigar people have done, isn't a good idea, imo.

 

[2coils]

This was proposed by Bill G in a post at economic impact thread and I disagree. While I understand the idea - match what the cigar people are doing, it's a compromise and this is the type of thing I don't want from 'our (your) advocates'. I don't mind them sitting down with the FDA to relate our concerns about the whole industry but to try to carve out a niche like the rich cigar people have done, isn't a good idea, imo.

Thanks for the reply! I am not favorable to concessions either, at least in most scenarios. My point is really more about the fact, this legislation in regard to cigars, was written well before the proposed rule was public. So Congress has known well in advance to try and protect their cigars. This is both an admission of the effects of the proposed rule and a hypocrisy at the highest level. At the very LEAST, if the premium cigar category does wind up getting a pass, the premium ecig category should too. Especially when comparing harm. I am in agreement, one of the "other options" in the impact analysis would certainly be more favorable.

another thought: perhaps premium cigars getting an exemption could help our cause during future litigation.