FDA to regulate e-cig as tobacco

[Bill Godshall]

jlarsen wrote:

Sure, they can tax anything they want, whenever they want. But, have you ever heard of a state taxing an ecig prior to this ruling?

Minnesota imposed a 70% of wholesale price tax on e-cigarettes last year (when they amended their OTP tax law to include e-cigarettes). The problem was then none of us knew that the bill (whose purpose stated it was to ban the sale of e-cigarettes to minors, something we support) included that provision until after the governor signed it into law.

jlarsen wrote

Have you ever heard of any tobacco product in any state that is currently not taxed?

Of course, Pennsylvania currently doesn't tax large cigars or smokeless tobacco products, and Florida doesn't tax cigars.

jlarsen wrote:

Now that ecigs are tobacco products, they will be taxed.

If everyone believes all of the inaccurate, misleading and nonsensical statements posted by jlarsen, and if everyone ignores action alerts urging folks to contact legislators, then other states are very likely to tax e-cigarettes.

Several months ago, we successfully convinced a Colorado legsilator to eliminate an e-cigarette tax proposal from his bill that would also ban the sale of e-cigarettes to minors. He listened to a few of us, removed the tax provision from his bill, and the Colorado governor recently signed the bill into law (banning e-cig sales to minors).

 

[GIMike]

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!

I've been lucky and haven't heard a thing just yet. But yep, if I do, I'll be glad to inform them about how it's different than regular cigs.

jlarsen wrote:
Several months ago, we successfully convinced a Colorado legsilator to eliminate an e-cigarette tax proposal from his bill that would also ban the sale of e-cigarettes to minors. He listened to a few of us, removed the tax provision from his bill, and the Colorado governor recently signed the bill into law (banning e-cig sales to minors).

Glad to hear that we were able to keep tax off and kept the prohibition to minors. No sales to minors from the old analogs is something we should definately keep up with for our newfangled devices.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Before posting opinions about what may or may not occur due to Monday's announcement by the FDA (which contained lots of self serving spin that has duped lots of naive folks), I suggest that all interested individuals take a few days to carefully read, reread, and the read again the FSPTCA, which is the law that delineates how the FDA can regulate tobacco products.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...=111_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ031.111.pdf

Also, please note that Judge Leon's ruling (which FDA conceded to on Monday) only impacts the way the FDA can regulate e-cigarettes and other nicotine containing products.

Judge Leon's ruling and the FDA's announcement on Monday will have NO impact on other federal tobacco laws (e.g. tax laws, FCLAA, PACT, Synar Amendment, etc.) and will have NO impact on any state or local tobacco or smoking laws. Anyone who disagrees would be wise to enroll in law school, college, or perhaps high school.



I

 

[trying]

Before posting opinions about what may or may not occur due to Monday's announcement by the FDA (which contained lots of self serving spin that has duped lots of naive folks), I suggest that all interested individuals take a few days to carefully read, reread, and the read again the FSPTCA, which is the law that delineates how the FDA can regulate tobacco products.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...=111_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ031.111.pdf

Also, please note that Judge Leon's ruling (which FDA conceded to on Monday) only impacts the way the FDA can regulate e-cigarettes and other nicotine containing products.

Judge Leon's ruling and the FDA's announcement on Monday will have NO impact on other federal tobacco laws (e.g. tax laws, FCLAA, PACT, Synar Amendment, etc.) and will have NO impact on any state or local tobacco or smoking laws. Anyone who disagrees would be wise to enroll in law school, college, or perhaps high school.



I

All nicotine products ?
For example, could we see a tobacco gum ?

 

[Vocalek]

All nicotine products ?
For example, could we see a tobacco gum ?

Don't forget the date specified. Any product that did not already exist before February 15, 2007 must go through an approval process. Since there was no tobacco gum before that date (that I ever heard of) it would be considered a new nicotine product.

 

[Thulium]

All nicotine products ?
For example, could we see a tobacco gum ?

It might be possible, but would probably violate the restrictions on combining tobacco with other products regulated under the Food, Drug & Cosmpetic Act.

Judge Leon and the Appeals court both ruled that the Supreme Court's decision in Brown & Williamson (and re-affirmed by the definition of tobacco in the FSPTCA) meant that the FDA cannot regulate tobacco products and accesories that "are made or derived from tobacco" unless their intended use or marketing suggests therapeutic effects. That means that FDA can still regulate e-cigarettes that make health claims as drugs or combination devices, but if the FDA intends to regulate e-cigarettes that do not make health claims it can only be as a tobacco product.

Nothing actually changed this week. Simply stated, the FDA finally agreed to follow the Tobacco Act as instructed by the DC Circuit and Court of Appeals. Even if the FDA had chosen to petition the Supreme Court to reconsider the case it probably would not have made any difference since it was the Supreme Court who ruled in Brown & Williamson in the first place. If the FDA wants to further delay this process, they have the option to simply wait to promulgate regulations as long as necessary so that sort of delay tactic wouldn't be as helpful to the agency as going ahead and beginning the process of regulating e-cigarettes under the FSPTCA like they should have started 2 years ago instead of trying to ban them under the FDCA.

 

[jj2]

So we have success on this issue---yet another way to intake the legal substance nicotine. Still so many issues to confront and I consider one being how insurance companies, work places, or whatever stop using the presence of nicotine in testing to see if a person smokes. Shouldn't this be confronted?

 

[pigelty]

Bring on the Black market shady back-alley paypal transactions with some guy named VapeMeister from sheboygan!

LOL. Sure we all thought of the "black market" at some point.

THen again, with a black market comes increased risk of what could be in e-juice/cartridges.

That's why I steer clear of independent vendor-types as you never quite know what they are putting in the juice. I would rather purchase from more popular manufactorers such as NJOY, Smoking Everywhere, or Greensmoke.

But let's hope it never gets to the point of black market.

I think we have approached a step in the right direction, but more battles are ahead. I also think it's just a tad bit ridiculous that e-cigs/pv's are such a battlefield. Afterall, the real thing is still legal.

 

[trying]

Don't forget the date specified. Any product that did not already exist before February 15, 2007 must go through an approval process. Since there was no tobacco gum before that date (that I ever heard of) it would be considered a new nicotine product.

Clumsy wording on my part
I ment could someone produce a version of the current Nicorette nicotine gum and classify it as a tobacco product ? Using the sales history of nicotine gum to qualify as a grandfathered tobacco product.

 

[Secti0n31]

LOL. Sure we all thought of the "black market" at some point.

THen again, with a black market comes increased risk of what could be in e-juice/cartridges.

That's why I steer clear of independent vendor-types as you never quite know what they are putting in the juice. I would rather purchase from more popular manufactorers such as NJOY, Smoking Everywhere, or Greensmoke.

But let's hope it never gets to the point of black market.

I think we have approached a step in the right direction, but more battles are ahead. I also think it's just a tad bit ridiculous that e-cigs/pv's are such a battlefield. Afterall, the real thing is still legal.

My two main juice suppliers are small family companies. Bruce at CoV is a one man rock band, Tastyvapor is also a one man show. I honestly think that we need to support these smaller operations because frankly, they're LESS likely to add any "random ingredients to their juice. Thats probably why the FDA's official testing of NJoy only products was a little sketchy. I'd be willing to bet that if they start a comprehensive testing process and were given juices from say, TopVapor JC or FSUSA, there'd be less "byproduct." But who knows? I don't have a GCMS in my basement so I can't say for sure which juices have more than just PG VG Nic and flavoring. Maybe the FDA can actually sort this out for us in the long run.

 

[kristin]

I steer clear of independent vendor-types as you never quite know what they are putting in the juice. I would rather purchase from more popular manufactorers such as NJOY, Smoking Everywhere, or Greensmoke.

All 3 of which use imported liquids, whereas Nhaler and eLiquidPlanet (both "independent vendor-types") get their premium line of liquids (Nhaler's "Octane" and ELP's "Essence") from a certified lab in the U.S. And Johnson Creek, a small company in Wisconsin, also makes liquid here in the U.S. and many "independent vendor-types" carry their liquid, as well. Not to mention great companies like CigNot, who get their supplies from the same place as the larger companies (plus a premium liquid made in the UK and Basic made in the U.S.) and take much better care of their customers!

 

[Thulium]

Clumsy wording on my part
I ment could someone produce a version of the current Nicorette nicotine gum and classify it as a tobacco product ? Using the sales history of nicotine gum to qualify as a grandfathered tobacco product.

The bigger question is why would you want it? Is chewing your preferred way of enjoying tobacco? If Nicorette were the same price as e-cigarettes, Snus, lozenges, sticks, or strips, would you still prefer gum?

I only ask because it seems like the people who would actually WANT a tobacco gum might be satisfied with the available pharmaceutical options. Getting approval for tobacco gum *might* be possible, but really that is exactly the sort of thing many prohibitionists at the FDA think they need to to ban and I personally don't see how it would be worth the effort...at least not at this point. Maybe in the future after the FDA has been smacked down by the truth about tobacco harm reduction, tobacco gum might be an idea worth looking into...but for now it seems unwise to me to get that close to something that could perceived as a "candy" like product. Big Pharma can get away with selling nicotine candy because the public is still under the false impression that pharmaceutical companies make money by keeping people healthy and tobacco companies make money by keeping people sick.

 

[trying]

The bigger question is why would you want it? Is chewing your preferred way of enjoying tobacco? If Nicorette were the same price as e-cigarettes, Snus, lozenges, sticks, or strips, would you still prefer gum?

I only ask because it seems like the people who would actually WANT a tobacco gum might be satisfied with the available pharmaceutical options. Getting approval for tobacco gum *might* be possible, but really that is exactly the sort of thing many prohibitionists at the FDA think they need to to ban and I personally don't see how it would be worth the effort...at least not at this point. Maybe in the future after the FDA has been smacked down by the truth about tobacco harm reduction, tobacco gum might be an idea worth looking into...but for now it seems unwise to me to get that close to something that could perceived as a "candy" like product. Big Pharma can get away with selling nicotine candy because the public is still under the false impression that pharmaceutical companies make money by keeping people healthy and tobacco companies make money by keeping people sick.

Just citing it as an example of what could be done. No plans to try it

 

[kristin]

At least tobacco gum would be a good option for those who need the MAOI's missing in nicotine gum as a good partner with e-cigs? No different than the tobacco lozenge vs. nicotine lozenge? The more options to keep people off smoking the better, IMO!

The bigger question is why would you want it? Is chewing your preferred way of enjoying tobacco? If Nicorette were the same price as e-cigarettes, Snus, lozenges, sticks, or strips, would you still prefer gum?

 

[cookiebun]

LOL. Sure we all thought of the "black market" at some point.

THen again, with a black market comes increased risk of what could be in e-juice/cartridges.

That's why I steer clear of independent vendor-types as you never quite know what they are putting in the juice. I would rather purchase from more popular manufactorers such as NJOY, Smoking Everywhere, or Greensmoke.

But let's hope it never gets to the point of black market.

I think we have approached a step in the right direction, but more battles are ahead. I also think it's just a tad bit ridiculous that e-cigs/pv's are such a battlefield. Afterall, the real thing is still legal.

My two main juice suppliers are small family companies. Bruce at CoV is a one man rock band, Tastyvapor is also a one man show. I honestly think that we need to support these smaller operations because frankly, they're LESS likely to add any "random ingredients to their juice. Thats probably why the FDA's official testing of NJoy only products was a little sketchy. I'd be willing to bet that if they start a comprehensive testing process and were given juices from say, TopVapor JC or FSUSA, there'd be less "byproduct." But who knows? I don't have a GCMS in my basement so I can't say for sure which juices have more than just PG VG Nic and flavoring. Maybe the FDA can actually sort this out for us in the long run.

I agree with Section. I've had nothing but EXCELLENT quality and service from
"independent vendor-types"
My main juice suppliers are Velvet Vapors and Vaperite. I'm becoming a fan of The Vapor Room as well. I'd hate to see vendors like these disappear.

 

[Thulium]

At least tobacco gum would be a good option for those who need the MAOI's missing in nicotine gum as a good partner with e-cigs? No different than the tobacco lozenge vs. nicotine lozenge? The more options to keep people off smoking the better, IMO!

I agree that more smoke-free alternatives is always better than less, but my point is that its too early to convince people that tobacco companies should be allowed to sell gum or candy like the pharmaceutical companies can.

 

[kristin]

I agree that more smoke-free alternatives is always better than less, but my point is that its too early to convince people that tobacco companies should be allowed to sell gum or candy like the pharmaceutical companies can.

Umm...you lost me, Thad. Orbs? Stonewalls?

I'm looking forward to their more widespread release. They haven't been in my market and if they have the MAOIs missing from Nicorette Minis, they would be a good substitute for snus, which is unappealing for me to use and are probably better for tooth and gum appearance?

 

[Thulium]

Umm...you lost me, Thad. Orbs? Stonewalls?

Orbs, Stonewalls, and Arivas are lozenges with, IMO, no resemblance to candy. I don't know of any candy that is brown, sold in difficult to open childproof containers, or tobacco flavored. The pharmaceutical companies are selling fruit and mint flavored gum and lozenges in convenient flip-top cases.

To be clear, I'm not saying that ANY of that is actually marketed to children or really looking like candy, but the products the pharmaceutical companies are shilling looks a lot more like candy and we really don't need to go there right now. My point is that if you REALLY want nicotine gum, stick with Big Pharma for now at least. If the day ever comes that the general public correctly understand how much safer smoke-free alternatives are than smoking, THEN perhaps we could look at tobacco gum...but to quote Dana Carvey's impression of G.H.W. Bush, "Wouldn't be prudent at this juncture!
"

 

[D103]

I just wanted to say that there is definitely a "learning curve" to vaping as I believe most would agree...but so too is there a "learning curve" to understanding this whole process in which we are all involved. It is complex, at times convoluted, often not pretty, and as I said over one year ago, this ride is definitely going to be bumpy. That said, I recognize that we are all at different places in the process "learning curve" and sometimes sentiments collide, so to speak - it's to be expected.

But I know this, to people like GIMike and others who have posted about their fears and apprehensions about our future, I recognize those fears and have many myself - but I also recognize that those fears mean you are passionate about e-cigs and that is great - not only for yourself, because it means you will likely continue to choose healthier alternatives, but good for our cause because we need you, we need your passion. I would encourage you to use that passion/energy, as Kristin so ably articulated, to learn all you can about what has transpired up to date, who the players are, and where we are headed now.

And I will say this unequivocally, you can trust the CASAA board members; these are excellent people of character and grit who have fought tirelessly on our behalf and achieved, frankly, astonishing results - as well as most of the posters on this forum, most of whom have given their time and energy either writing and/or e-mailing lawmakers across the country, commenting on blogs, signing petitions or even appearing on television and in front of legislative bodies; others who have reached out to newcomers with helpful advice, caring words of encouragement and undaunting humor.

All of this has contributed to our success thus far and we are all aware of the battles ahead and we all hear and acknowledge your fears and apprehensions. I encourage you to join us in the on-going battle for what has become so very important to each of us. I also apologize GIMike in that I did not catch you when you first joined the forum but still, Welcome and use your passion to your and our advantage.....we need all the help we can get!

 

[TennDave]

Apparently doing so would mean the FDA could regulate it as a drug. Tobacco is something the FDA can't regulate as a drug,
despite their attempts to do so.

Wait a minute now...wouldn't this mean that they would have to ban everything that produces nicotine (even if eaten- that is still injestion...same as vaping in my opinion- we're not smoking it)? Tomatoes, bell peppers, potatoes, egg plant?...the list goes on....