FDA to regulate e-cigs as tobacco products
- Thread starter stl1969
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Some folks vape zero nicotine. Is nicotine mentioned in the commercials?
Last edited:
I'll accept some taxes, but they should not be as high as tobacco taxes. Nicotine directly, I believe from what I've read, does not kill people and cause disease, therefore there is no need to transfer money to society to deal with non-existent health aftermath. There should be no high sin tax associated with nicotine, unlike analogs and alcohol.
Completely ban is different from regulating e-cigs to the point that they are no longer an attractive cigarette substitute, and thereby effectively banning for my use.
http://gothamist.com/2013/01/22/e-cigs_e-cigarettes_njoy_vaping_vap.php
See this: “We’re moving to release for public comment a proposed rule to regulate additional categories of tobacco products,” said Jennifer Haliski, the spokeswoman for the FDA's Office for the Center of Tobacco Products. That proposed rule may impose restrictions on e-cigarettes that already exist—new warning labels, a ban on flavors, advertising limitations, additional taxes—and ones that may be specific to e-cigarettes, such as regulating nicotine intake or the ingredients that can be put into e-cigarettes."
Im still sticking with this - its more about the taxes.. Just my personal opinion, but you know every time someone buys and e-cig or e-juice they are stepping around tobacco taxes.. cant have that now can we..
What he said ^^^ It has nothing to do with health concerns, it's all about recouping lost tax revenue.
A ban on flavors? It really pisses me off that they always think that just because something it made to taste good, like the old Camel flavored cigs, that they're marketing to children. This is like saying adults don't like .... that tastes good. Time to buy straight nicotine and start mixing myself.
The only hope is that the big companyies up some money to fight the FDA in court could go to supreme court if enough of money and time. What has to be proven is E-CIGS are not tobacco products then it can't be control under the grounds of the be tobacco would not be able to be controled under tobacco use. Nicotine could be control in a different way. Nicotine is used any many other products.
This should go to court after FDA makes announcement.
Regulations are made by a few to control the masses. Because the few can't pass laws.
This should go to court after FDA makes announcement.
Regulations are made by a few to control the masses. Because the few can't pass laws.
That paragraph with commentary from FDA office is 'good news' compared to those who pedal idea of 'complete ban / making them illegal.' Heck, I'd go as far as great news. But to be abundantly clear, I don't think those potential regulations are great, and I believe (strongly) that some will be struck down, but could take awhile. It would be interesting if we vapers had discussion around each of those and perhaps even ranked them as to ones we'd most be willing to accept to least willing to accept. I'm sure some of us are in a camp that says, 'all of them are unacceptable.' Those people, IMO, are going to have a tough time dealing with the change coming forward. If I were to rank them from most acceptable to least acceptable, I'd go with:
- warning labels
- limited advertising
- regulating the ingredients
- additional taxes
- regulating the nicotine amount
- ban on flavors
And I'd want to draw a line after additional taxes. Obviously all of them would need to be specific before anyone, including me, decides where they stand with them. Like regulating nicotine could mean, anything over 24 mg is illegal. That's far more acceptable than - anything over 4 mg is illegal.
For me, ban on flavors is most unacceptable and one I could see occurring given the Tobacco Act, but one I think will get overturn at some point. No smoker I know got into it initially (at young age) because of all the candy flavors. If anything, it was just the opposite. For many/most vapers, the diversity of flavors is huge, but has I think very little to no impact on people at a certain age in their interest to try it. To those (younger) people, I think it would suddenly be deemed totally uncool to show up to peers with a pink bubblegum vape or lemonade vape.
I could care less about warning labels and regulating ingredients (outside of nicotine).
I've said it many times but here is what I think is in the FDA wish book:
1) No flavors except traditional tobacco or menthol
2) Limit on nicotine strength (probably low)
3) No liquid sale outside of approved type devices, ie. cartomizers
4) Face to Face purchases only (no online/no mail order).
5) Taxes/Fees
6) No advertising
These FDA wishes line up pretty well with Big Tobacco wish list as well - except perhaps nicotine levels/advertising - which means maybe one or the other of those 2 wont happen
Anyone familiar with the history and politics on this would likely agree that is what the FDA would like to do at this point.
The question is, will they be able to implement the regs? Bill Godshall seems to think there is a chance to thwart the whole thing if enough vapers mobilize on the issue.
Why? That's exactly what 'they' are counting on!!!
Yeah, I don't understand the idea of special taxes for ecigs. Why no special taxes for soda or ice cream?
What pisses me off most of all is to think of how many people will start smoking regular cigarettes again if the new regulations are too strict...
I get so affected by all this crap, that I have contemplated quitting completely several times... but damn, I love vaping...
If they dont go for an outright ban, the worst thing I can think of would be an over regulation of allowed flavours... i hate how we as adults have our choices limited due to what the FDA thinks KIDS may be drawn too... come on... complete BS
I get so affected by all this crap, that I have contemplated quitting completely several times... but damn, I love vaping...
If they dont go for an outright ban, the worst thing I can think of would be an over regulation of allowed flavours... i hate how we as adults have our choices limited due to what the FDA thinks KIDS may be drawn too... come on... complete BS
When I saw this thread I was actually going to post that direct quote from the FDA spokeswoman but I couldn't find it. Glad you did. And to say that thinking this way will give them ideas is just preposterous. If we aren't prepared for it...prepared to fight against it...then we will lose and they will win. And tbh, even if it isn't true (and they've said it themselves...and they Have tried so the idea of them trying again, or trying a different way is not far fetched nor is it a myth) what could it hurt to sign a petition? Or to write a letter. Because if/when this happens...there's no one to blame but those who didn't believe and didn't take action.
this one is in Alaska.reported as being the highest nic concentrate of any plant worldwide
and a very well kept secret,been in Alaska 40 years and just found out about it last summer from a native
It's good to see rational discussion based on actual language quoted from FDA sources.
Speculation on other matters is premature and can cause unwarranted angst in the community. A possible caveat would be development of plans for actual actions to take towards dealing with the powers that be should some of the offensive matters reach proposal and public discussion. At present, I don't see this coming from community leadership.
I don't doubt that some involved here have insight into matters regarding possible regulation that the average ECFer might not be privy to. However, using it to speculate and rabble-rouse does not serve the community well, whether or not it serves the personal or collective goals of special and perhaps alien interests within the community.
Speculation on other matters is premature and can cause unwarranted angst in the community. A possible caveat would be development of plans for actual actions to take towards dealing with the powers that be should some of the offensive matters reach proposal and public discussion. At present, I don't see this coming from community leadership.
I don't doubt that some involved here have insight into matters regarding possible regulation that the average ECFer might not be privy to. However, using it to speculate and rabble-rouse does not serve the community well, whether or not it serves the personal or collective goals of special and perhaps alien interests within the community.
Well, I am not sure who or what comments this is aimed at, but my comments are based on listening to what Bill Godshaw has stated.
Bill Godshaw has said the Deeming Regulation would "decimate the ecig. industry if not destroy it" or at best turn it into an "oligarchy" if not destroy it, ", and has indicated likely that FDA will TRY to ban internet sales, flavors, nicotine levels, all e-liquid.
He further stated: "We need to get the whole e-cig community to oppose the FDA deeming regulation". Sticking our collective heads in the sand is not a good strategy to protect this industry.
I doubt there are many people outside the FDA who have a better feel for what is going on than Bill Godshaw.
It will be interesting to see the text of the FDA's proposal. At present, there's little to do other than to perhaps sign a petition, unless someone has a plan they'd like to share and the leadership can be found to see it through.
Fair enough, Everyone should also go to the link on the top of ecf to sign the white house petition. But I think it is valuable to keep the topic alive and inform as many as possible about what is at stake. In fact, I believe more people will sign the petition if they realize what is at stake, and if they realize that their voices can be heard and play a role in stopping the FDA.
Another thing that Godshall mentioned was that the comments the FDA received in the recent open meeting (like 5-6000 comments) was very helpful to the cause. He indicates that FDA had this meeting and we "...... on their party". Reporting up the chain that 2/3 of the speakers and 5000 comments about the positive aspects of vaping presents a hurdle for FDA in implementing the Deeming Regulation.
He believes that if the FDA does announce the Deeming Regulation, then the vaping community may be able to generate 100,000 or more comments during the comment period, which would be another significant step in thwarting FDA's plans.
However, to get that kind of involvement, we need to education on the issue to those most directly affected - those on ecf for example.
People are taking action on this issue. I don't believe that discussing the ramifications of the FDA actions is premature or unwarranted angst.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
