Fda

[LeAnn]

I am wondering why the FDA doesn't approve the E-Cig? Why haven't they tested it and make it easier for people that like to vape enjoy them! I wonder if it has to do with the goverment making soooo much money taxing the analog cigarettes. I know their is millions of people who vape now instead of smoke, so I would like to join a coaliton to make e-cigs approved by the FDA. I have heard alot about banning e-cigs and I don't want that to happen. These are the only things that keep me away from analog cigarettes.

 

[tigerlily]

I find the FDA controversy rather interesting. Supposedly, they are there to make sure the public is safe from things that could cause health issues. You would think they would jump on the chance to help smokers break the habit. The fact that they have done just the opposite proves that their interests lie elsewhere. I suspect government taxes on cigarettes and the tobacco industry has a lot to do with it. But many have suggested it is the smoking cessation companies that make worthless patches, gums, etc. that are the main culprits in discouraging the use of electronic cigarettes.

 

[Polioud]

Long and detailed responses can be made for why this happens. However all boils down to a simple fact: MONEY. Nothing more nothing less; it's is always the economical factor that drives things one way or the other

 

[Springbird]

so I would like to join a coaliton to make e-cigs approved by the FDA

Check out these folks.
CASAA

 

[Automaton]

They have tested it (although poorly). And, they found no risks at all. And, they managed to spin that into e-cigs being "dangerous."

The claim it has anti-freeze in it. Actually, it has 3 ingrediants in some anti-freezes. One is water. One is PG, which is used to make anti-freeze less toxic, ironically (it's also in inhaled medications, food, and hospital ventilation systems). And the last is that they found diethylene glycol in one of the samples, which is toxic in much higher quantities, but harmless in the quantities they found. And here's an interesting fact - there's more diethylene glycol in every nicotine patch and gum (which they approved) than in that one sample! Funny, isn't it?

And I should also note that none of the other studies on e-cigs, including the one conducted by New Zealand Health, found diethylene glycol in ANY of their samples. There's suspicion that the FDA may have contaminated the sample.

You're right, it is all about money. The FDA loses money and support when the number of people paying cig taxes, and buying their drugs for their chronic smoke-related disease, or their ineffective quit-smoking products, goes down. They're protecting their money. It's not about your health - it's about their fortune.

 

[LeAnn]

Well I have gone to the CASA site and I will gladly do my part in keeping them from banning e-cigs. It is all about money and who's losing out like the tobacco companies. If they do ban e-cigs I think that they should first ban analog cigarettes, they are way more harmful. And also the nicotine gum and patches, the patches made my skin so sore I couldn't stand it and the gum tastes awful. I will stand behind e-cigs forever!

 

[Willriker]

I am wondering why the FDA doesn't approve the E-Cig? Why haven't they tested it and make it easier for people that like to vape enjoy them! I wonder if it has to do with the goverment making soooo much money taxing the analog cigarettes. I know their is millions of people who vape now instead of smoke, so I would like to join a coaliton to make e-cigs approved by the FDA. I have heard alot about banning e-cigs and I don't want that to happen. These are the only things that keep me away from analog cigarettes.

I think that you are operating under the mistaken assumption that the FDA tests products. They dont.

MOST times they take data provided by the manufacturer, and just review that. Its so messed up. Two of the main reasons the FDA hasnt aproved this is that they will require the manufacturer to foot the bill for testing and they want the manufacturers to prove that they are not harmful.

In this case both requirements are pretty silly. Even proving that something isnt harmful is hard, and expencive. Just note that the requirement is not to prove that they are less harmful than analogs. The requirement is to prove that they are not harmful. I mean... look at hamburgers. Lets say the FDA wanted you to prove that a hamberger was not harmful. You can imagine the wide variety of things you would need to test for. Hehe, ironically i dont even think a hamburger would pass that sort of criterion. But, somehow all those new drugs they are making do...

 

[LeAnn]

Well I don't know a whole lot about the FDA but I will testify in any court that I feel 99.9% better vaping e-cigs than I did smoking analogs and it took 40 years to do it! Thanks everybody, I just love this forum cause here in Illinois you don't see a whole lot of people vaping e-cigs yet and I love having all of you for the great info!