FDA to Regulate E-Cigarettes Just Like Tobacco

[brewsterfrank]

ok this is an old article but i have just run across it. FDA to Regulate E-Cigarettes Just Like Tobacco if the fda plans on regulating e-juice like tobacco we will have to start paying way higher prices for our juice. but what about all the other plants that contain nicotine. would it not be possible to extract nicotine from the eggplant or the many other types of nightshade plants and be able to keep from having to classify it as a tobacco type product?

 

[ec!gg]

Jeez... good point. Let's hope they do not go through with decision like this.

 

[Demarko]

A) We WANT them to be regulated as tobacco.
B) The FDA doesn't levy taxes.
C) They'd still call it a tobacco product - hell, they're calling nic-free liquid "tobacco products". Or PVs without any carts.

 

[crashinbrn]

A) We WANT them to be regulated as tobacco.
B) The FDA doesn't levy taxes.
C) They'd still call it a tobacco product - hell, they're calling nic-free liquid "tobacco products". Or PVs without any carts.

yes it is up to the states to tax e-juice/nicotine......however right now we(vapers) are too few to really make an impact from taxation.
so they probably won't bother for a while.

 

[JustJulie]

A) We WANT them to be regulated as tobacco.
B) The FDA doesn't levy taxes.
C) They'd still call it a tobacco product - hell, they're calling nic-free liquid "tobacco products". Or PVs without any carts.

I know it sounds kind of weird to those relatively new to these issues, but Demarko is exactly right . . . we wanted a tobacco classification because the alternative was classification as a drug, which would have undoubtedly led to e-cigs being pulled from the market until prohibitively expensive testing could be performed proving that they are a safe and effective smoking cessation product/NRT. And even if the money were found to do the testing, the approval process would take years and years.

I think the message that we should be sharing isn't that e-cigs aren't tobacco products . . . rather, we should be talking about how not all tobacco products carry the same risks, and, in fact, some tobacco products are likely somewhere in the nature of 98% to 99% safer than smoking, like e-cigarettes and snus.

 

[Vocalek]

Julie is 100% right. Here is an excerpt from an article published in December's issue of the Journal of Public Health:

The ENDS tested so far have demonstrated poor quality control;toxic contaminants, albeit at low levels; misrepresentation of the nicotine delivered; and insufficient evidence of overall public health benefit. Ongoing, rigorous safety testing is needed, including determining real-world use patterns and further laboratory testing across device constructions to determine actual systemic nicotine delivery and exposure to harmful constituents. We recognize a manufacturer’s desire to market their product and advocates who say ENDS are logically safer than cigarettes. However, to allow their unregulated sale on presumption is not protecting public health. ENDS should be removed from the market and permitted back only if andwhen it has been demonstrated that they are safe, that their benefits outweigh their harms to overall public health, and that a comprehensive regulatory structure has been established under an appropriate FDA division.

Cobb NK, Byron MJ, Abrams DB, Shields PG. Novel Nicotine Delivery Systems and Public Health: The Rise of the ‘‘E-Cigarette’’ American Journal of Public Health | December 2010, Vol 100, No. 12

Acknowledgments: The study was funded in part by a grant from the National Cancer Institute
(5R01CA114377; Laboratory-Based Evaluation of Tobacco Harm Reduction) and the American Legacy Foundation.


NOTE: "ENDS" stands for "Electronic Nicotine Delivery System". The editor of Tobacco Control came up with this moniker to try to make the products sound like a drug-delivery device.

The American Legacy Foundation hates all tobacco products and does its best to convince the public that all are equally harmful. American Legacy Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Personally, I don't think that a 501(c)(3) corporation should be spending its money on propaganda aimed at outlawing products that could help smokers to save their health and their lives. JMPO.

 

[Kurt]

ok this is an old article but i have just run across it. FDA to Regulate E-Cigarettes Just Like Tobacco if the fda plans on regulating e-juice like tobacco we will have to start paying way higher prices for our juice. but what about all the other plants that contain nicotine. would it not be possible to extract nicotine from the eggplant or the many other types of nightshade plants and be able to keep from having to classify it as a tobacco type product?

To address the nicotine in other plants question: in theory, yes, but the amounts are generally extremely low. Tomatoes and egg plant are among the highest in the "other plant camp", but we are still talking about ng. Would take enormous amounts of these to get significant nic.

 

[Eagle1]

NO - WE DO NOT - I repeat: DO NOT - want regulation as tobacco. There is NO LONGER any threat of the FED regulating as a drug - the courts stopped that one in its tracks, the Appeals Court upheld, and the FDA did not appeal to the Supreme Court. It was not the FDA that initiated the lawsuit, anyway - the pharmaceutical companies when to the FDA and whined, hoping to stop any competition to their patches, gum, etc. and the FDA big-wigs dutifully did their bidding.

Saying you want something just because you don't want the known alternative is suicidal. What you SHOULD want to do is participate in the FDA's rulemaking process - to keep them from doing what the pharmaceutical companies will want done. The big pharma companies will have their lawyers provide their skewed vision for regulation - the vapers will either participate and give their information, including that nicotine is not an essential part of the experience, or they'll be even worse off than if the pharma companies had prevailed, through the FDA, in court.

Keep an eye on the FDA website - they have to give notice of each and every rulemaking, so everyone that would or could be impacted can provide whatever information they want.

I'm a long-time reformer and know politics and the political process exceptionally well (learned from the inside, and at the top).

 

[Demarko]

NO - WE DO NOT - I repeat: DO NOT - want regulation as tobacco. There is NO LONGER any threat of the FED regulating as a drug - the courts stopped that one in its tracks, the Appeals Court upheld, and the FDA did not appeal to the Supreme Court. It was not the FDA that initiated the lawsuit, anyway - the pharmaceutical companies when to the FDA and whined, hoping to stop any competition to their patches, gum, etc. and the FDA big-wigs dutifully did their bidding.

Saying you want something just because you don't want the known alternative is suicidal. What you SHOULD want to do is participate in the FDA's rulemaking process - to keep them from doing what the pharmaceutical companies will want done. The big pharma companies will have their lawyers provide their skewed vision for regulation - the vapers will either participate and give their information, including that nicotine is not an essential part of the experience, or they'll be even worse off than if the pharma companies had prevailed, through the FDA, in court.

Keep an eye on the FDA website - they have to give notice of each and every rulemaking, so everyone that would or could be impacted can provide whatever information they want.

I'm a long-time reformer and know politics and the political process exceptionally well (learned from the inside, and at the top).

No, it's what we wanted because it's what we wanted. Granted, you are fairly new and may not have been following it the entire time. There has to be SOME form of regulation, at some point - every product has some, in this country. Because until there is some form of regulation at the federal level, we'll constantly be putting out fires in smaller municpalities, at least until people just give up and they become banned everywhere. That's certainly not what we want!

 

[crashinbrn]

as far the rule making process, my hope is we can help create a sub-category of tobacco products, that is reduced risk or reduced harm.
e-cigs, dissolve-ables, snus and the like clearly belong in a different category from traditional tobacco products.

 

[laurel099]

Eagle1 - Would love to see you come to the CASAA meets and get some more info on what is happening with legislation, etc. It would be fantastic to have more folks involved especially those that know their way around politics and legislation issues. This has been an ongoing for quite some time now. I personally am hoping for a reduced harm category for items such as ecigs and snus which are much less harmful than traditional cigarettes and cigars.

 

[Thulium]

as far the rule making process, my hope is we can help create a sub-category of tobacco products, that is reduced risk or reduced harm.
e-cigs, dissolve-ables, snus and the like clearly belong in a different category from traditional tobacco products.

I agree that we should hope and do what we can to ensure that regulations for smoke-free alternatives are reasonable and science-based... But quite frankly, it is pretty likely that the truly safest and most effective alternatives won't be approved by the FDA in the foreseeable future.

 

[Vocalek]

Congress recognized the importance of offering smokers less hazardous alternatives and therefore set aside a special section in the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act to guide the FDA to identify and approve modified risk tobacco products.

FSPTCA – Section 911

What is a Modified Risk tobacco product? 911 (b)(2)(A)(i)

• Presents lower risk of disease
• Contains reduced level of or exposure to a substance
• Does not contain or is free of a substance

When should Modified Risk products be fast-tracked? 911 (g)(2)(A)

• If evidence not available or requires long-term studies
• Evidence that is available demonstrates that a measurable and substantial reduction in morbidity or mortality among individual tobacco users is reasonably likely

Text of H.R. 1256 [111th]: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act Read The Bill: H.R. 1256 [111th] - GovTrack.us

There are forces at work ("Tobacco Control", "nicotine addiction experts", Big Pharma, etc.) that want to do an end run around these provisions. They want to demand that products go through what amounts to the same approval process as a new drug or medical device. What that means is no modified risk tobacco products for decades (if ever). By then, tobacco control hopes to have forced everyone off all use of nicotine by denying tobacco users the right to a place to live, the right to work, the right to raise their own children, and worst of all, the right to live.

We need to fight back.

 

[Vocalek]

Oh, and if any product ever makes it through that approval process, the World Health Organization thinks that it would be great idea to keep the fact a secret from the public.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...recommendations-regulaton-ends-smokeless.html

 

[Uncle Willie]

One things for sure .. the FDA as well as the tobacco companies monitor this site .. in fact, they may be clandestine members ..

We'll have some sort of classification / regulation / ban within some period of time .. who knows how long .. ?? No one ..

As I read on another thread .. we are likely in the Golden Age of the e-cig right now ..

As our tech gets more and more exposure .. I.E. Nut Throwing Fliers .. attention will increase .. no way around it .. the tech Cat is Out of the Bag ..

Public bodies must justify their existence .. it's very difficult to test a pharma and much of that data is accepted directly from the inventor / manufacturer .. thus we see the after effects in many cases because the public is the Guinea pig .. with the e-cig tech, it's easy to test ..

 

[Vocalek]

One things for sure .. the FDA as well as the tobacco companies monitor this site .. in fact, they may be clandestine members ..

Well, if that's the case, FDA and other Tobacco Control "health officials" world-wide: NOW HEAR THIS!

You have done your best to outlaw to safer alternatives to smoking. You work to keep the fact that there ARE safer alternatives a big fat secret so that smokers can't make informed decisions.

Joshua Sharfstein, Margaret Hamberg, and accomplices: Your 2009 Press Release was so skillfully crafted that smokers who were considering switching to an e-cigarette reacted like this: "Man, those things will give you cancer! They got antifreeze in them! I'm sticking to my regular brand."

Congratulations. I hope you're proud of yourself.

If the CDC has been giving us accurate information about annual US deaths caused by smoking, then you folks are personally responsible for 800,000 of those deaths at this point (2 years * 400,000 deaths). The more smokers you convince to keep smoking, the more blood will accumulate on your hands.

Tobacco Companies: Keep up the good work. I see you working to develop lower-risk products. I see you running advertisements suggesting that your smoking customers switch to these products. Bravo!

The Government Agencies, Health Organizations, Pharmaceutical Companies, Medical Community, and Tobacco Companies could be working hand in hand to provide effective ways to get smokers to stop inhaling crap.

Instead, the former groups have declared war on the latter group. ECF: The losers in this war are you, me, and everyone you know who smokes or used to smoke.

*End of Rant*

 

[Uncle Willie]

Nice ..

 

[birdbrains]

What is the best course of action for people that would like to be involved? CASAA?

 

[DC2]

What is the best course of action for people that would like to be involved? CASAA?

Yes, definitely.

 

[Uncle Willie]

What is the best course of action for people that would like to be involved? CASAA?

I believe one of the most effective ways is thru contact .. like these folks have done .. grass roots campaigns like this do get the attention of the politicians ..

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...569-wrote-arkansas-ag-about-e-cigarettes.html

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...y-ban-scheduled-committee-hearing-4-20-a.html