FDA to regulate e-cig as tobacco

[Secti0n31]

It's not that we want you to shut up, or quit whining, it's that negativity breeds more negativity. Whether you realize it or not, the negative attitudes are inadvertently hurting the cause. So if that's your intent, to breed negativity. you guys have succeeded because I sure feel more negative than I did yesterday morning.

Voicing your concerns is fine, but your concerns have been addressed by a dozen intelligent people, and some of the naysayers sond like a broken record, repeating the same argument over and over, even though it's been addressed! Sorry man I don't mean to put you down but there's very little, if not NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT!

 

[kristin]

It is one of the basic principles of economics. If you want more of something, you subsidize it, if you want less, you tax it. When you tax something, people buy less, the market share is reduced, and marginal sellers are the ones forced out.

Not only that, but BT was apprehensive to get into the ecig game, with the FDA threatening to ban ecigs as drug delivery devices. Once they are a tobacco product, BT is free to jump into the game without worry, and you can bet that they will. That will further marginalize smaller vendors.

It is ridiculous to say that I ever implied that the people at CASAA are just going to roll over and let the FDA do whatever they want without a fight. The fact is if the FDA gives themselves the power to regulate a product that was never previously regulated, it is going to effect the market for that industry. This has been the case with every product that any government has ever regulated, especially anything that is age restricted and hit with a "sin tax".

Have the guts to admit what this is, a partial victory for the FDA, not a total defeat for them. Don't underestimate the power of an agency that can force changes on an industry as rich and powerful as big tobacco, especially in an era where tobacco and nicotine are completely demonized by the public and milked like a cash cow by government.

Personally, I'm kind of looking forward to the vaping supplies that might be rolled out by BT. Not that I trust BT, but who knows, an ejuice that tastes just like a Marlbor0 Menthol, and clearomizers that don't leak wouldn't be a bad thing, maybe they'll be the ones to make that happen now that their is a new tobacco product for their R&D departments to play with.

Even without regulation and taxation, consolidation of the ecig industry was bound to happen anyway, this might only speed it up a little.

See, JL, many of your comments seem to indicate that you don't really know the whole story here and are making a lot of misinformed assumptions based on popular misconceptions disseminated by the anti-tobacco groups.

First, let me say that you are correct that this will result in regulation of e-cigs that did not exist before. Honestly, no one was really arguing that anyhow. We always knew regulation was going to occur in some form or another - in fact, many of us have been trying to get the e-cig companies to organize and start self-regulating and setting their own standards, so they could have an orgnanized, united front with the FDA. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened and now it will fall on the shoulders of vapers to get involved and fight for reasonable regulations.

As far as taxation, we always knew that would happen one way or another, as well. It will either be standard sales taxes or states like Tennessee (who have already been squawking about how e-cigs will be competing with their local tobacco industry) will impose tobacco tax rates. There have been a plethora of discussions on the inevitability of taxation and what the rates could and should be. So, this is not a new concept to only come up since the FDA gave in and classified these as tobacco. We've gone round and round trying to get people to understand that not all tobacco products are taxed the same, so there is no reason to believe that e-cigarettes will automatically be taxed at the same rate as cigarettes. Not only that, it will be a battle in every state, as they all have different tax rates. So, again - this is not a "new" development that has never been discussed. So, we simply caution people from jumping to the conclusion that "the FDA will tax these the same as cigarettes and the cost of e-cigarettes will be the same as tobacco cigarettes." #1 the FDA doesn't set tobacco tax rates and #2 tobacco products are currently taxed at wildly different rates across the country, so there is no way to conclude at what rate e-cigs will be taxed. Additionally, consumer/advocacy groups will make every effort to be there to argue every single proposed e-cig tax.

As far as this being a "partial win" for the FDA, that is a very strange take on things from the vantage point of someone who has been following this case. The FDA has had the power to regulate tobacco since the FSPTCA was passed and it has ALWAYS regulated non-tobacco nicotine and smoking cessation treatment products. There was never a question about the FDA having power to regulate e-cigs in the U.S. (other countries have different classifications for nicotine and were able to get e-cigs classified as something other than a tobacco or a drug as it is in the U.S.) So, it wasn't a "win" in any way on Monday for the FDA to be able to regulate e-cigs, because they always had that ability. That "win" occurred a long time ago in a completely different battle. This fight was HOW they would be allowed to regulate e-cigs as a drug or as tobacco. They wanted to regulate as a drug, we wanted to be a tobacco. The courts ruled in our favor, the FDA finally admitted defeat on Monday and that is 100% a win for e-cigs. So, your insistance of "partial win" for the FDA makes no sense in this context.

Your comments about the FDA's power over the tobacco industry also seems to indicate that you really don't know the true history nor the power players in this game. Philip Morris helped write the FSPTCA and Big Pharma is probably the biggest enemy of e-cigs, not Big Tobacco. The FDA is controlled more by those two groups and pressure by states to keep getting tobacco tax revenue than anything else. No one REALLY wants people to quit smoking. The FDA did not bring down Big Tobacco with the FSPTCA, Big Tobacco (at least PM) pretty much got what it wanted with the least impact to it's bottome line.

I respectively suggest you do some more research into the tobacco control history and I guarantee you will see things in quite a different light. Check out "Velvet Glove, Iron Fist" and tobaccoharmreduction.org. The truth about BT, BP, the FDA and the anti-tobacco groups (ALA, AHA, ACS, ASH, CFTFK) and their mechinations and collusions truly boggle the mind. IMO, had BT entered the e-cig market sooner, (and we know they have been poking around for some time already) the FDA probably would given in much sooner - some BT companies have that much lobbying power.

Anyhow, before you come to any more conclusions and form more strong opinions, I strongly suggest you (and anyone else wondering why they are getting so many opposing comments) read more of the history about the whole e-cig game and the history of tobacco control from a non-anti source, as mentioned above. It opened my eyes (and I know it will open your's) to the truth. The public has been deceived about this for way too long. We owe it to ourselves to dig deeper and know the WHOLE story. In a way, it is very empowering and would help a lot of people with their feeling of helplessness and dispair over e-cigs being "tobacco" and "controlled" by the FDA.

 

[CGProg]

Mixed feelings about this thread. Happy the FDA isn't going to regulate pvs as drug delivery devices. Have questions, concerns, and ideas. I'll be the first to rant/vent about the FDA's actions but the behavior on this thread (the way the yays and nays are treating each other) saddens me.

Thanks ecf, casaa, and everyone that helped to this point. If it wasn't for E-cigs, I wouldn't be here now.

 

[Thulium]

This may have been brought up already, so apologies if it has, but I'm really confused over a few points...

First it is important to understand that the FDA has only said that they WILL offer regulations for e-cigarttes as tobacco products, but they have not actually done this yet so this is ALL speculation until they do...

1. Despite calling it an "e-Cig," all the device really is is a tool. A delivery system, of sorts. In other words, it's a freakin' spoon with a battery strapped to its .... It does not natively have anything even remotely related to tobacco or nicotine in it. Fundamentally, it's no different than a water- or corn-cob-pipe. How can they regulate this? It quite literally makes no sense beyond initial assumptions based on appearance, not facts. (Guess we'll have to regulate BICs now, since they're just tobacco atomizers...)

You are right. The hardware could be sold separately and used without nicotine, but the Family Smoking Prevention & Tobacco Control Act that President Obama signed into law in 2009 gives FDA authority over a very broad definition of "tobacco products" that includes accessories. I suspect that means that standalone e-cig hardware will be regulated just like tobacco pipes or other accesories, but if the FDA cannot find a justification for the regulations, they may just be left unregulated.

2. e-Liquid doesn't have to have nicotine in it. In fact, more and more people seem to be moving towards buying big bottles of nic and PG/VG to mix with base flavors. So, why can't Juice shops continue to operate as they are now, and sell all the ingredients, individually as well as combined (typical e-Liquid, bottled or in carts/cartos) that simply has 0-nic? Nobody could regulate such a shop if nothing with nicotince in it was being sold, right? Which brings us to #3...

That is true but what you are talking about is a form of "Do It Yourself" (DIY) vaping and again, unless the FDA can manufacture a scientific justification they will have a hard time placing or enforcing restrictions...and really, compared to the sheer number of people who are looking to buy their tobacco products ready to use at a gas station or convenience store, DIY will probably remain a small niche of the tobacco market that is probably not worth the FDA's effort.

3. Nicotine. For those that want to sell it, either by the bottle for mixing or included in e-Liquid bottles, they'd simply have to have a tobacco license, right? And only sell to adults? Until I quit recently, I was smoking cigars (Backwoods: Black & Sweet). Practically lived on 'em. And y'know where I bought them? Every month I'd go to someplace like cigarsinternational (or any of the hundreds of other places online) and grab an entire month's supply, have it shipped to my house, and be done with it. So it's been done, it's still being done, and those guys will continue to sell tobacco products online. I don't see why online Vapor stores can't simply do the same, either unregulated and selling no-nic products and associated hardware, or getting a license and selling both nic/no-nic products and associated hardware.

It is possible that the FDA will require retailers to get a license to sell tobacco products including nicotine, but again this is all speculation until the FDA actually publishes regulations for e-cigarettes and the process to develop these regulations will probably take at least 1-2 years so we will have the opportunity to fight the unreasonable ones.

The whole thing just seems to be an almost non-issue that already has everything in-place for easily governing it if the powers that be would stop making assumptions and just look at things for what they actually are. Seriously, I'm utterly baffled at all this. The only thing I would have expected is to see the big tobacco companies wanting to either destroy vaping, or take it over if they believed it could be the "new thing" that makes their current product obsolete. But instead it's just government lackies who are apparently overzealous and just trying to justify their jobs.

Well, that's how it looks, anyway.

This was an issue because the FDA has the authority to block the importation or completely ban drugs or pharmaceutical devices if they have not had clinical studies to show that they are "safe and effective for their intended use" (as a treatment for nicotine addiction)--since e-cigarettes are intended to be used recreationally and may not treat or mitigate any addiction, they might not be able to be proven "safe and effective for their intended use." The FDA's attempts to regulate e-cigarettes as a drug, device, or combination product would have resulted in a de facto ban for at least a few years.

When Congress gave the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products with the FSPTCA, Big Tobacco made sure that FDA was not allowed to ban tobacco products outright or require their nicotine content to be reduced to zero. That's why the FDA's concession is such good news. Although the FDA can and probably will attempt to make life difficult for vapers and suppliers, they can't ban it completely and any new regulations have to be backed by science.

 

[StormFinch]

Bottom line folks, if you're worried about how the FDA is going to regulate e-cigarettes JOIN CASAA and put all this excess energy to work!

Not only is CASAA playing watchdog over the FDA, but they're also fighting the individual states to keep THEM from banning e-cigarettes outright. For example, the Illinois ban bill was defeated by vapers just like you and me, organized and trained by CASAA. If the call hadn't gone out, the American Lung Association (who helped author the bill) would have won, and made sure that e-cig businesses like Vapor4Life (which is locate there) could have no longer done business in Illinois. E-cigarettes would have been illegal to sell or distribute in the state. That bill had already slipped through the Illinois Senate and all it had to do was pass the House. CASAA prevented that.

Kristin, VocalEK, Thullium, YVilla, I don't think this has been said nearly enough. Thank you, for stepping forward when others would not. I know how hard it's been to get people to stand up for themselves and present a united front. You're time and hard work on the behalf of vapers everywhere is truly appreciated.

 

[CthulhuSaves]

...the American Lung Association (who helped author the bill) <SNIP> E-cigarettes would have been illegal to sell or distribute in the state.

Oh, my God. The ALA sided with tobacco?! Because that's really what that boils down to. An alternative to smoking appears, and unlike everything that's come before, this one actually seems to be working darned near 100%, so the ALA, knowing full well that many vapers would return to smoking actual tobacco if deprived of e-Cigs, tried to ban them anyway?

Well, folks, looks like they're finally selling those tasty snow cones down in the pits.

CASAA, here I come...

 

[DC2]

Just putting my fears out there from somebody who has been beaten down (thanks to the ex-wife) and ya'll just stomped on me like all the rest. Let's hope this won't throw off others from wanting to join this community.

I've reviewed your posts in this thread and I haven't seen anybody stomping on you for your thoughts or opinions.

Your trouble started with you claiming what Bill Godshall had to say was pure speculation.
When you were corrected you got your nose out of joint.

EDIT: Please note, I don't say this to be a jerk.
EDIT: Just wanted to say I think some of the posts you felt were directed at you were not.

 

[Caddyman]

ALA needs that job security.

 

[Thulium]

Oh, my God. The ALA sided with tobacco?! Because that's really what that boils down to. An alternative to smoking appears, and unlike everything that's come before, this one actually seems to be working darned near 100%, so the ALA, knowing full well that many vapers would return to smoking actual tobacco if deprived of e-Cigs, tried to ban them anyway?

Well, folks, looks like they're finally selling those tasty snow cones down in the pits.

CASAA, here I come...

GlaxoSmithKline is the manufacturer of several pharmaceutical treatments for smoking cessation as well as drugs like Advair that treat the symptoms of chronic illnesses like COPD that may be caused or worsened by continued smoking. Take a peek at who GSK donated to last year and never again wonder why the ALA would want to ban smoke-free alternatives that aren't FDA approved pharmaceuticals: http://us.gsk.com/docs-pdf/responsibility/gsk-grants-1q-2q-3q-4q2010.pdf

ETA: Pfizer http://www.pfizer.com/files/responsibility/grants_contributions/pfizer_us_grants_cc_q3_2010.pdf

 

[yvilla]

Even those who have apparently done a lot of work for us have thrown their credentials in my face and said "look here, STOP thinking negative at all, THINGS WILL BE HAPPY AND RIGHT WITH THE WORLD NOW ACCEPT IT LIKE A GOOD SHEEP!!" Yeah, let me get right on that band wagon. So anyway, I'm not saying we haven't done great things. I'm not saying the FDA backing down is a bad thing at all. Just putting my fears out there from somebody who has been beaten down (thanks to the ex-wife) and ya'll just stomped on me like all the rest. Let's hope this won't throw off others from wanting to join this community.

GIMike, I'm going to quote myself, from the FIRST page of this thread. Does this look like a "shut up, things will be happy and right with the world" kind of post? No, that's NOT what many of us have been saying. The problem is, many, throughout this thread and others, have been ONLY posting tales of doom, and ignoring the history of our over two-year struggle against drug product classification (ie, a total ban), and the very real fact that Monday's announcement WAS a tremendous victory, albeit just leading us to all the next battles to come.

The key words are the "Agency intends to propose a regulation ... ."

As Bill G. has been posting repeatedly, first the FDA has to propose its new regulations over e-cigs, then there is a public comment period, and only after the whole administrative process is undertaken do the regulations become officially in effect. This can take up to two years, during which time we must all be vigilant and active in the battle to ensure that any actually officialized regulations are reasonable and science-based. And we must start to prepare, now, whatever evidence will be needed in that battle, starting with a very careful reading of the full announcement I linked to above, and then paying equally close attention to other "guidance" documents the FDA issues as it proceeds.

Yes, we have a lot of other battles to wage, but this concession to the court ruling in favor of Njoy is still a HUGE win for now!

And a PS: this does NOT mean automatic PACT Act inclusion. That would ONLY happen with an amendment of the PACT ACT itself. Nor does it mean an automatic flavor ban, as that specifically only applies to cigarettes. ALL future regulation of e-cigs remains to be proposed, warred over (and that can include further litigation, even, if the proposals are unnecessarily harsh or rigid), and then ultimately enacted.

 

[Vocalek]

Oh, my God. The ALA sided with tobacco?! Because that's really what that boils down to. An alternative to smoking appears, and unlike everything that's come before, this one actually seems to be working darned near 100%, so the ALA, knowing full well that many vapers would return to smoking actual tobacco if deprived of e-Cigs, tried to ban them anyway?

Well, folks, looks like they're finally selling those tasty snow cones down in the pits.

CASAA, here I come...

We have been fighting their lies for over two years. They are in cahoots with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Association, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. Read this: http://www.ttac.org/tcn/tfp/2010/may-2010/pdfs/Policy_Guidance_E-Cigarettes.pdf

Many of us have written to the leadership of these organizations and all we get back is that "The FDA found carcinogens and antifreeze in them," even when our letter to them challenged that disinformation.

Last May I blogged about it: The Truth About Nicotine: Lung Association Recommends Smoking

 

[GIMike]

Ok, I haven't seen anybody mention this here yet. E-Cigs are now considered tobacco products. All the places we were enjoying freedom being able to vape there where we couldn't smoke because it was "Tobacco Free", are now being taken away from us again right? I know my job has signs on all the doors saying "We are a tobacco free campus!" Whereas they were letting us use them inside (as long as we stealth vaped, they didn't say anything), but now we'll all be going back to basically being smokers again. E-cigs may not be banned, but aren't we being classified as smokers all over again in the sense that we're using tobacco products that we can only use in places where smokers are allowed to smoke?

 

[Stubby]

Oh, my God. The ALA sided with tobacco?! Because that's really what that boils down to. An alternative to smoking appears, and unlike everything that's come before, this one actually seems to be working darned near 100%, so the ALA, knowing full well that many vapers would return to smoking actual tobacco if deprived of e-Cigs, tried to ban them anyway?

Well, folks, looks like they're finally selling those tasty snow cones down in the pits.

CASAA, here I come...

No, the ALA did not side with BT unless it was just coincidental. The ALA has sided with BP who contribute millions to TC groups. BP is the real loser in this. The biggest threat by far to NRT products are low TSNA smokeless tobacco and e-cigs. Who's going to buy overpriced nicotine gum and the like when you can get snus, dissolvables, and e-cigs, that are much more effective at getting folks off cigarettes and less expensive.

Just as a side note in this. I'm curious as to what will happen with e-cig advertising. Where I live I often see late night TV commercials for e-cigs. It's also big on the radio. It's illegal to advertise any tobacco products on TV or radio and has been for quite some time. Now that e-cigs are officially classified as a tobacco product I have to assume that's going to be the end of on air advertisements.

 

[kristin]

Ok, I haven't seen anybody mention this here yet. E-Cigs are now considered tobacco products. All the places we were enjoying freedom being able to vape there where we couldn't smoke because it was "Tobacco Free", are now being taken away from us again right? I know my job has signs on all the doors saying "We are a tobacco free campus!" Whereas they were letting us use them inside (as long as we stealth vaped, they didn't say anything), but now we'll all be going back to basically being smokers again. E-cigs may not be banned, but aren't we being classified as smokers all over again in the sense that we're using tobacco products that we can only use in places where smokers are allowed to smoke?

There is a problem with "tobacco free" policies which include all smokeless tobacco - that is something else CASAA and other harm reduction advocates are fighting. However, if it is just a "smoke-free" policy, that does NOT automatically include e-cigarettes just because they are tobacco. While the laws ban smoking indoors, most do not ban smokeless tobacco and the argument can and is being made that e-cigarettes are a SMOKELESS tobacco and should be treated as such.

 

[Vocalek]

Ok, I haven't seen anybody mention this here yet. E-Cigs are now considered tobacco products. All the places we were enjoying freedom being able to vape there where we couldn't smoke because it was "Tobacco Free", are now being taken away from us again right? I know my job has signs on all the doors saying "We are a tobacco free campus!" Whereas they were letting us use them inside (as long as we stealth vaped, they didn't say anything), but now we'll all be going back to basically being smokers again. E-cigs may not be banned, but aren't we being classified as smokers all over again in the sense that we're using tobacco products that we can only use in places where smokers are allowed to smoke?

That depends on two things:

a) How the anti-smoking law or regulation is worded.
b) How the wording is interpreted by the people running the show.

In Virginia, a smoking ban went into effect in December of 2009. The Virginia Department of Health was asked whether e-cigarettes are included, and (with an evil grin) posted an announcement that e-cigarettes were prohibited because they emitted smoke and are lighted.

The Virginia Attorney General was asked to rule on the question and stated that where law is concerned, if not otherwise defined, words have to be taken at their common meaning.

Smoke is defined as “the gaseous products of burning carbonaceous materials made visible by the presence of small particles of carbon.”

Second, an e-cigarette is battery powered and is not “lighted” as that term is commonly understood. No flame is involved in its operation.

http://www.vaag.com/OPINIONS/2010opns/10-029-Peace.pdf

 

[DC2]

Ok, I haven't seen anybody mention this here yet. E-Cigs are now considered tobacco products. All the places we were enjoying freedom being able to vape there where we couldn't smoke because it was "Tobacco Free", are now being taken away from us again right?

It depends on how each individual ban is written, what products it includes, and how it defines such products.

 

[DC2]

Just as a side note in this. I'm curious as to what will happen with e-cig advertising. Where I live I often see late night TV commercials for e-cigs. It's also big on the radio. It's illegal to advertise any tobacco products on TV or radio and has been for quite some time. Now that e-cigs are officially classified as a tobacco product I have to assume that's going to be the end of on air advertisements.

That's an interesting question I don't recall ever having seen being discussed anywhere here.
I guess it depends on how "whatever it is that bans advertising" defines those things that it covers.

 

[yvilla]

Ok, I haven't seen anybody mention this here yet. E-Cigs are now considered tobacco products. All the places we were enjoying freedom being able to vape there where we couldn't smoke because it was "Tobacco Free", are now being taken away from us again right? I know my job has signs on all the doors saying "We are a tobacco free campus!" Whereas they were letting us use them inside (as long as we stealth vaped, they didn't say anything), but now we'll all be going back to basically being smokers again. E-cigs may not be banned, but aren't we being classified as smokers all over again in the sense that we're using tobacco products that we can only use in places where smokers are allowed to smoke?

No, No, No, No!

Nicotine containing e-cig liquid may be derived from tobacco, but that is of course not the same as "being" or "containing" tobacco. E-cigs emit no smoke!

Yes, there will continue to be pitched battles against public use bans, but those also started long ago, and had nothing to do with any formal or legal classification of e-cigs as "tobacco products". The Illinois struggle, mentioned above, is a prime example. We won that one. New Jersey did manage to get e-cig use included in an amended public "smoking ban", but that was the first one, and happened even before we were organized to fight such unreasonable legislative acts.

These attempted e-cig public use bans are the result of the campaigning efforts of the pharmaceutical industry front groups mentioned by Vocalek above - the ALA, ACS, Tobacco Free kids, etc, the "quit or die" anti-smoker campaigners, who have been relentlessly proposing and supporting both sales and use bans all around the country - for at least two years now.

The truth is that public smoking bans were and are designed to eliminate others' exposure to SMOKE, and have NO applicability to the vapor from our e-cigs. That is, when viewed as having a rational and science-based reason for their existence. So, we must continue to fight the attempts at bans by the rabid antis, just as we have been doing all along.

 

[GIMike]

Ok cool. That's good to hear. Cause I know some people/places are going to try to use this whole thing against us when it comes to us not being able to vape. I know this was big enough news I heard that it was going to be on the morning radio show I listen to (after I got to work and couldn't hear it). I just hope they don't misconstrue this to the general public about what it really means. All I need is a cop coming up to me while I'm at the local park with my kids saying I can't "smoke" there because these are now considered tobacco products Great life lesson for my little ones, "and this is how daddy gets a ticket" I know the FDA doesn't write laws. Don't get me wrong. I just hope people don't hear that this is what the FDA is doing and assume it falls under the same laws as regular cigs.

 

[kristin]

Some people WILL make that assumption, but it wouldn't be the first time they tried to ban indoor use like cigarettes. We've heard it all, from "they still contain nicotine and that is addictive/causes cancer" to "but it still looks like smoking" to "it sets a bad example to kids" to justify adding them to indoor bans. So, being classified as a tobacco didn't matter when they've tried to ban indoor use in the past.

We'll just keep fighting them with reason and science, like we always have!