FDA Why are they involved???

[zoiDman]

...

Your aversion to wanting vapers to join and support CASAA doesn't make sense.

I Don't Know What your Trip is wv2win.,

But for the Nine Hundredth and Ninety Nine Time, why do you keep saying that I Don't Want people to join CASAA?

If a Person wants to Join CASAA, Great. If they Don't, that's Great Also.

And if a Person Doesn't want to become a Supporting Member of the ECF after 4 years and 9,692 Posts, that's Not a Problem what so ever.

All of this is a Personal Choice.

 

[zoiDman]

Maybe I am Missing it?

But is Anyone Else getting the Impression that I Don't Want someone to Join CASAA?

Here is what I have Posted.

This is True.

You also can Not Tax something very well unless it is Regulated.

I know One how's head it Didn't.

I'm sure that CASAA would Appreciate Any level of Help.

Even it is just a Single Page of Bullet Listed Concepts that You think May or May Not be areas to Concentrate their Efforts on.

Maybe

Maybe if Everyone was a Supporting Member of the ECF than the ECF could give some Money to Causes that they think could Do the Most Good.

Hard to say what Could or Couldn't Be. If we could, Life would be Much Easier.

This is an Ongoing Battle which Lorillard has the Biggest part to Lose.

You might have Noticed that the FDA recently Approved Two New Cigarettes for Sale. Both are Non-Menthol. Both are going to be Made by Lorillard.

Some believe that this is the FDA's way of being Equitable with Lorillard. And that Menthol Restriction are coming.

This data is a little Dated, 2008, but it does have some Interesting Information.

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Adviso...uctsScientificAdvisoryCommittee/UCM207153.pdf

NOTE: As with ANY Trial/Study/Survey, consider the Source and attempt to Verify it's Validity Independently verses just taking it for Face Value.

 

[skyztheLynnit]

Maybe I am Missing it?

But is Anyone Else getting the Impression that I Don't Want someone to Join CASAA?

Here is what I have Posted.

I don't get that impression. .

Anyone who can read and comprehend should be able to see that you support them in your own way and on YOUR terms.

 

[wv2win]

I Don't Know What your Trip is wv2win.,

But for the Nine Hundredth and Ninety Nine Time, why do you keep saying that I Don't Want people to join CASAA?

.............

From your past comments on this topic in another thread where you stated it was better for people to support ECF instead. I think both are important with CASAA having a greater impact in the political fight to keep vaping from being severely restricted. We just disagree, which is fine and par for the course.

 

[zoiDman]

From your past comments on this topic in another thread where you stated it was better for people to support ECF instead. I think both are important with CASAA having a greater impact in the political fight to keep vaping from being severely restricted. We just disagree, which is fine and par for the course.

I Do think it is Important for people to Support the ECF. And if they can Support More than One Cause, more the Better.

But as you mentioned, some people are Tight On Funds. If a person can Only Afford to Support One Entity, I think it should be Up to the Individual to Choose which is Best for them.

Myself, I look at the Boat Load of Money I have Saved from Not Smoking. So it was Not Hard for me to Support Both the ECF AND CASAA.

And we ALL know what you are going to say. "Then why don't you have a Join CASAA in your Signature"?

Because I Don't Like people who Constantly Harp on others to Give Money to This Cause or That One. It starts to sound like a

Why don't you Post your Reply and I'll let you have the Last Word. Then we can get this Thread back on Topic.

 

[Ken_A]

I saw that, but their reasoning was amateurish and scientifically unsound. Completely anectdotal and full of assumption not based in fact IMHO.

did you expect anything else from the FDA? looks at their history for the last 20 years and show me where they used ACTUAL non-biased data for decision making.

Most what the FDA has done to date is anecdotal, full of assumption and not based on fact. I don't see them as changing anytime soon....

yeah.. that.

In any effort to ban menthol, they will have to rely on sound science because they'll have a major fight on their hands. The tobacco companies won't just roll over like they did on the other flavored cigs. Those were small parts of their revenue stream and fighting it out in federal court wasn't worth it.

Menthol cigs are different. They easily represent half of all cigarette sales and they are Lorillard's biggest.

That fight will be long and bitter and the court will have no choice but to rule based on the scientific merits of each side's argument.

Market research also shows that menthol is the overwhelming choice of African American smokers. When they get wind of a proposed ban on menthol, the PR hit is going to be big news.

hmmmm you are talking about a different FDA? We are discussing the FDA that arbitrarily dictates that something is safe because the manufacturer says so. The one that bans something because its morally wrong to like something that is good for you... Which one are you talking about? I may want to move to that country some day.

 

[Coastal Cowboy]

did you expect anything else from the FDA? looks at their history for the last 20 years and show me where they used ACTUAL non-biased data for decision making.

yeah.. that.


hmmmm you are talking about a different FDA? We are discussing the FDA that arbitrarily dictates that something is safe because the manufacturer says so. The one that bans something because its morally wrong to like something that is good for you... Which one are you talking about? I may want to move to that country some day.

I'm talking about the FDA that will be dragged before a US District Court judge and be forced to provide the scientific reasoning behind a decision to treat one group of tobacco product manufacturers differently than other tobacco product manufacturers. Companies that make and sell menthol cigarettes aren't going to take a ban lying down. They'll fight with everything they've got.

They'll file for an injunction forbidding FDA from enforcing the ban and they'll get it while the case is tried on the merits.

 

[zoiDman]

I'm talking about the FDA that will be dragged before a US District Court judge and be forced to provide the scientific reasoning behind a decision to treat one group of tobacco product manufacturers differently than other tobacco product manufacturers. Companies that make and sell menthol cigarettes aren't going to take a ban lying down. They'll fight with everything they've got.

They'll file for an injunction forbidding FDA from enforcing the ban and they'll get it while the case is tried on the merits.

The FDA knows Full Well that just about ANY Changes to Existing Cigarette Regulations is going to be Meet with Litigation by BT.

And that there is No Guarantee that they will be Found to have Overstepped the Powers of Regulation. Because they are Not going to Defend their Position on a Scientific Basis.

A more Plausible Defense would be a Subjective One. Such as menthol cigarettes Appeal More to Younger Smokers and make it Harder to Quit Smoking. And that one Segment of the Population is More Likely to Start Smoking if menthol cigarettes are Available.

I'm not exactly sure if the FDA's Statements about menthol cigarettes is Mere Saber Rattling or if it is a true Shot Across the Bow. But one thing is Clear. It does make the ANTZ of the World get all Warm and Fuzzy that the FDA is doing what They Think Should be Done. And that is the Systematic Reduction of Tobacco Products in the USA.