FDA FDA to BAN/RESTRICT Vaping UNLESS...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US
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.

re: bold... that was Bill's point and again, I'm not in favor of that. I understand the 'equality' issue but maybe only certain mods will be allowed - like the Provari but not the Vamo. The point (a weak point, imo) that is being made for premium cigars is that the cost ($10 and up) isn't 'attractive' to kids, (ie poor kids), but it is hypocrisy, and getting them exempted is not a 'sure thing' - see the health issues that they cite regarding cigars while discussing 'options 1 & 2' in the deeming doc - basically the same as any cigar, so from a 'public health' viewpoint - that they are using to deem ecigs, they are giving premium cigars a pass under one option, even though they don't conform to their 'public health' standard.

And I would tend to use this argument to keep ALL ecigs rather than try to compromise for just a certain set of expensive ones. IOW, 'you (the FDA) claim that you're upholding 'public health' but the cigar exception has all the problems with tobacco combustion whereas ecigarettes don't have those problems - in fact, they avoid those problems that are known problems.'
 
Last edited:

Katya

ECF Guru
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 23, 2010
34,804
120,147
SoCal
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've read many, many posts stating that only one comment was allowed, Kristin. I have no idea where it originated, but I was also convinced that it was indeed the case until some of us went snooping on the FDA website--and Kent finally called them and was told that there was no limit on how many comments an individual could submit.

[Now I see that some of those posts are finally edited to correct that misinformation. I'm not going to post any links because I don't want to put anyone on the spot, but it was a widespread belief that started sometime in the second half of April.]
 

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US

Katya

ECF Guru
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 23, 2010
34,804
120,147
SoCal
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?

Amoret, if you've been working through CASAA, you have already submitted two comments to the FDA. ;)

Seriously--you can comment all you want. There are no restrictions whatsoever. Promise!
 

Katya

ECF Guru
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 23, 2010
34,804
120,147
SoCal
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.

I agree.

Even if they don't read all of them carefully, someone will have to log in those comments somewhere--hopefully in a big "pro-e-cigarette" file.

Top scientists warn WHO not to stub out e-cigarettes | Reuters

"We want to make sufficient noise now before things get too set in stone."
 

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US
I've read many, many posts stating that only one comment was allowed, Kristin. I have no idea where it originated, but I was also convinced that it was indeed the case until some of us went snooping on the FDA website--and Kent finally called them and was told that there was no limit on how many comments an individual could submit.

[Now I see that some of those posts are finally edited to correct that misinformation. I'm not going to post any links because I don't want to put anyone on the spot, but it was a widespread belief that started sometime in the second half of April.]

I didn't want to put anyone on the spot either, but it was getting out of hand and I asked through 'report' to have them edited. I actually had a post on it earlier where I said it appeared to be a misunderstanding - quoting the sentence that could have implied it but didn't state it exactly.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-so-where-outcry-vendors-17.html#post13094146
 

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US
I agree.

Even if they don't read all of them carefully, someone will have to log in those comments somewhere--hopefully in a big "pro-e-cigarette" file.

Top scientists warn WHO not to stub out e-cigarettes | Reuters

That's a great link to add to any comment. (saving it out now)... I forgot about that one. I linked the one from NIH (to "speak their language" :) :

Achieving appropriate regulations for electronic cigarettes

and the 'ultimate list' of studies:

The Ultimate List of E-Cig Studies: Are E-Cigs Actually Safe? *Updated 2/16/14 » onVaping
 

mooreted

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Sep 10, 2011
2,979
1,177
California
Done with the following comment:

I started smoking when I was a teen-ager. Back in the 70's smoking was cool and social. By the time I reached my 20's I was hooked. I was smoking 20 to 30 cigarettes every day.

While attending college I decided to try to quit smoking as I knew it was unhealthy. I was having breathing issues and coughing quite a bit as well. I first tried the nicotine patch. The first set of patches would not stick to my skin and kept falling off. I got a better brand and tried again. Even when the patches would stay on, they did not provide enough nicotine to allay the cravings. I felt I was in a constant state of nicotine withdrawal. I decided that the patch just wasn't going to do the job. I then tried nicotine gum. The gum did work better than the patch. However, the gum did not provide enough nicotine and started causing me stomach problems. I finally had to give up and go back to smoking.

Three years ago I bought a cheap electronic cigarette at a cigarette store. That first day I ended up only smoking a few cigarettes. By the end of the week I was only smoking a cigarette occasionally. I then began studying more about electronic cigarettes and found out about personal vaporizers which are better made and provide a better, more controlled vaping experience. By the end of the month I had quit smoking completely.

I now vape exclusively. Cigarettes taste and smell terrible. I have no desire to return to smoking. I have gone back to the gym. I get exercise every day. I am no longer out of breath. I almost never cough. I hardly ever get sick. I have more energy. Overall, I feel healthy again.

I have a mild problem with depression and nicotine helps keep it under control. I don't like the idea of using anti-depressants. For me vaping helps keep me happy and healthy.

Please consider those of us who are adults with the ability to make informed decisions about our own health. Vaping reduces the harm ordinarily associated with nicotine consumption. Pharmaceutical NRT therapies don't work. I feel I have the right to make that choice.
 

aikanae1

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Feb 2, 2013
8,423
26,259
az
I guess I don't understand why CASAA sounds like they are defensive when I haven't heard one word of critisizm. If anything, the opposite.

The only advantage I see with the FTV site is that it address a single issue for a single purpose and that makes it easy to understand and navigate, i.e. marketing. It makes a great internet "poster" and imo, that's how a cause can attract 100k signing on. The site is easy to remember, lots of buttons and ability to link, there isn't a thousand pages, it's K.I.S.S. I don't think FTV has any intentions of doing more than just one thing. CASAA is more like the umbrella.
 

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US
I guess I don't understand why CASAA sounds like they are defensive when I haven't heard one word of critisizm. If anything, the opposite.

The only advantage I see with the FTV site is that it address a single issue for a single purpose and that makes it easy to understand and navigate, i.e. marketing. It makes a great internet "poster" and imo, that's how a cause can attract 100k signing on. The site is easy to remember, lots of buttons and ability to link, there isn't a thousand pages, it's K.I.S.S. I don't think FTV has any intentions of doing more than just one thing. CASAA is more like the umbrella.

Thank you! I think people should use both as well as doing their own, and I'm just reporting what I've seen/read, not criticizing.
 

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
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.

I think you're still missing the point that the 2nd CTA didn't go to Congress because we haven't done the Congress CTAs yet. We didn't have the CQ Roll Call set up at that point.

Even though the FTV emails go to Congress, they do not address any of the things that CASAA did in its first and second CTAs or what CASAA will address in future CTAs (other than personal testimony.) People could add those points in the FTV comments section, as you did, but how many will know to, since they were not directed to do that by FTV? How many people using the FTV form, do you think, will include comments regarding extending the comment period or the OMB-OIRA points or the over 99 questions posed by the FDA in it's propoesed rules or the economic impact analysis? It's handy that they are "killing two birds with one stone," but what, exactly, is being sent to the FDA and Congress other than a bunch of personal stories and experiences?

I'm not trying to say people shouldn't fill out the FTV form or use it, but I don't understand what it is offering to people that is above and beyond what CASAA is doing? All I can see is that it offers an easy way to send a watered down personal comment that will likely be lacking a lot of key points the FDA wants and specific action requests to Congress. Sure, there may be a few informed vapers like you utilizing the form effectively, but most will just check the boxes, tell their personal story and say things like "the FDA can't do this" or "F-you FDA."

The FDA doesn't want the personal stories and congressmen may appreciate the personal stories, but won't be getting specific requests. It just doesn't make sense that this will accomplish anything other than causing a lot of people to submit their personal story through FTV and believe that is their best (and only) course of action. You are looking at this as how YOU are using it, not how the vast majority of vapers will use it - and then do nothing else. If people use it the way you intend and then also do the CASAA CTAs, I have absolutely no problem with it. But I sincerely doubt that is what is happening. There have been over 11,000 submissions through FTV and if you look carefully, many of them are duplicates (same names repeated on the thank you page) and none of them are getting any guidance on what the FDA is looking for in comments nor what to (realistically) ask for from their congressmen.

I don't have any criticism for the IDEA that FTV had- it's a great idea on paper and it's awesome to get people involved. But the implimentation of it just falls way short for me. I fear that, in the end, it will end up being as effective as that petition to the White House from a couple of months ago. It's honestly not much more than a petition.
 

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
I was first to post the 155 here last month, after fitzie posted a reference to the Senate bill:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...economic-impact-analysis-29.html#post13184752
So you haven't yet realized that I follow you around and repost what you post?
:)

Yes, your post was the post that made me take notice that there where 155 co-sponsors.
And we don't even have a bill, let alone even one co-sponsor.

There is a ton of hypocrisy going on with this, and nobody cares but us.
 

DC2

Tootie Puffer
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 21, 2009
24,161
40,974
San Diego
I guess I don't understand why CASAA sounds like they are defensive when I haven't heard one word of critisizm.
I'm not so sure they are being defensive so much as explaining their side of this "controversy" so as to clarify.
This thing kind of blew up on it's own, and I assume they just want to be clear.

Nobody is at fault here, unless it is those who spread information, and embellished it while doing so.
This is the internet, and on top of that an internet forum, so this is often to be expected.

I seems clear to me now that CASAA does not necessarily like this idea, but doesn't stand opposed to it necessarily.
At least that's the way I'm reading it at this point.
:)

EDIT: Yeah, I posted this before reading Kristin's post above.
EDIT: So, yeah.
 
Last edited:

kristin

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Aug 16, 2009
10,448
21,120
CASAA - Wisconsin
casaa.org
I guess I don't understand why CASAA sounds like they are defensive when I haven't heard one word of critisizm. If anything, the opposite.

Maybe not so much here, but we've been getting criticized elsewhere for not promoting FTV's form letter.

CASAA has no issue with FTV other than we don't want our members filling out their form and not following through with CASAA's CTAs and that it may cause a lot of other vapers to not bother with the more thorough comments using CASAA guidelines/advice. CASAA leadership has not been going around criticizing the FTV system, but we've been forced into explaining why we aren't endorsing and promoting it. Some people have taken our refusal to do so as an attack on FTV and have been harsh in their criticism of CASAA not doing it. Ironically, the people criticizing CASAA for supposedly trying to stop others from doing what they want seem forget that means CASAA also has the right to do what we want and we don't want to advise our members to take shortcuts. They say CASAA shouldn't tell people what to do and then proceed to tell CASAA what to do (ie. promote FTV). Not exactly fair, IMO.
 

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US
Maybe not so much here, but we've been getting criticized elsewhere for not promoting FTV's form letter.

CASAA has no issue with FTV other than we don't want our members filling out their form and not following through with CASAA's CTAs and that it may cause a lot of other vapers to not bother with the more thorough comments using CASAA guidelines/advice. CASAA leadership has not been going around criticizing the FTV system, but we've been forced into explaining why we aren't endorsing and promoting it. Some people have taken our refusal to do so as an attack on FTV and have been harsh in their criticism of CASAA not doing it. Ironically, the people criticizing CASAA for supposedly trying to stop others from doing what they want seem forget that means CASAA also has the right to do what we want and we don't want to advise our members to take shortcuts. They say CASAA shouldn't tell people what to do and then proceed to tell CASAA what to do (ie. promote FTV). Not exactly fair, IMO.

I don't think you should formally promote it. Also I missed the 'form letter' part. I wrote out what I wanted in comments. There may have been a suggestion, but I missed it :) I used some of CASAA's suggestion/form in the 2nd CTA, but embellished.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread