Fda

[UntamedRose]

Why are other nicotine substitutes such as the patch and gum considered safe "enough" for public use? but not vaping?

Yet based on the studies done by the FDA themselves the patch and gum have a Whole lot more chemicals in them then the "worst" out of 20 eliquid/cartridge tested and a very...very long list of negative side effects.
The worst the FDA study showed for e liquid was diethylene glycol was detected in one sample, at less then 1ppm.
(people probably inhale similar amounts walking through a parking lot, and you know mechanics do...not sourced or anything IMO)

Biggest issue I'm seeing with vaping is concern over lack of regulations on both the products and e-liquid.
So...set standards..control who can purchase(18 n over)...problem solved.
But I'm not seeing the FDA working towards doing that. (UK's public health is though)



Just how "new" is vaping? and why are normal cig's called "analogs"?

 

[scheherezade]

Why are other nicotine substitutes such as the patch and gum considered safe "enough" for public use? but not Vaping?



Just how "new" is Vaping? and why are normal cig's called "analogs"?

Money


analogs as compared to electronic as in analog watch compared to digital. They've been around for about 3 years in this country.

 

[DC2]

I hope I have this right, but the issue is that the patch, gum, lozenges, and all that were thoroughly tested to the FDA's satisfaction, and are strictly regulated by them as smoking cessation products. Those products went through a very long and expensive approval process before they were made available for public use.

Now the FDA wants to do the same thing with electronic cigarettes, and there is a court case currently taking place to determine whether or not they will be allowed to do so. The problem is that there are no current electronic cigarette companies big enough to afford such an approval process. In the meantime, the electronic cigarettes would be illegal to sell until somebody does gets them approved.

Those of us here who understand these issues are fighting tooth and nail to have electronic cigarettes categorized (for now) as tobacco products rather than drugs. There are many restrictions on how much the FDA can regulate tobacco products, and they do not have the authority to eliminate them or classify them as drugs.

Once classified as tobacco products, the next step hopefully will be to get them classified as "reduced harm" tobacco products, but that classification does not exist yet, and is still being developed.

See the Campaigning subforum for more information: Campaigning - E-Cigarette Forum

 

[UntamedRose]

Why money?...Why Couldnt they (the big bad gov) tax this product?
Not that I'd want them too..but I dont see why they couldn't tax the mess out of it like they do tobacco.



I was thinking analog as in chemistry, similar structures in drugs kinda thing. didnt make sense.

 

[UntamedRose]

Oh..I see DC2 it's a "drug" vs "tobacco" classification issue.

"drugs" arnt introduced into the markets, prior to years testing...where e-cigs have been.
So they want to pull them, to test them...to maybe put them back on the market. Course that will take...what 5-10 years to do.
Which is a Huge problem for folks like us.

 

[DC2]

Why money?...Why Couldnt they (the big bad gov) tax this product?
Not that I'd want them too..but I dont see why they couldn't tax the mess out of it like they do tobacco.

The FDA doesn't collect taxes, so they wouldn't get the money.

On the other hand, there are two powerful industries that stand to lose tons of money if electronic cigarettes become popular. Big Tobacco, obviously, is one of them, and Big Pharmacy is the other. Electronic cigarettes could nearly replace all of the useless smoking cessation products on the market now. Think of how expensive those products are, and the fact that they don't work, and the fact that many of us try them again and again and again.

Both Big Tobacco and Big Pharmacy have lots and lots and lots of money and influence, and they are very good at using both to their advantage. Many people are convinced, for good reason, that the FDA is simply doing their bidding.

 

[UntamedRose]

Has there been any discussions/threads as to what you all will do IF e-cigs are outlawed?


The federal gov and states get the money from the additional tax's on analog cigs. Isnt the FDA a branch/run by the federal gov? So while they might not personally collect the money, its still ultimately their purse strings. Is what I meant.

Big Tobacco and Big Pharmacy (and other special interest groups) are into everything..always. Seems to be how our gov is run now.

 

[Hoosier]

Also, don't forget that the FDA does not fund the tests, so to get devices through the test process, someone would have to pay. Typically a company pays for the testing and the then makes the money back on selling the product.

The company funding the test would not do so unless they had some agreement that they would have exclusive rights to the proceeds.

 

[Hoosier]

Has there been any discussions/threads as to what you all will do IF e-cigs are outlawed?


The federal gov and states get the money from the additional tax's on analog cigs. Isnt the FDA a branch/run by the federal gov? So while they might not personally collect the money, its still ultimately their purse strings. Is what I meant.

Big Tobacco and Big Pharmacy (and other special interest groups) are into everything..always. Seems to be how our gov is run now.

Yes, there are threads on the topic.

HUD is a branch of the federal government and that means...? Nothing. Their budgets are not hinged on their stance, or even their effectiveness. The military and CIA are branches of the federal government, so if you think a branch could tie it's budget to pushing a tax on a device, why would they not do so?

 

[scheherezade]

There are a bunch of threads on this. One is the PACT Act and then there are individual states trying to ban them. Illinois and Jersey amoung them. By the way, it is entirely possible given the bills that are currently being worked on that the FDA may at some point in the not too distant future, be given control over tobacco.

 

[D103]

Interesting question: Who is really more "addicted" the forty-six plus million smokers in this country, many of whom have made the Smart switch to electronic cigarettes(an OBVIOUS harm reduction product) OR the State govts and Federal govt. who are quite clearly, in my opinion addicted to the "blood money" they collect from tobacco cigarette tax revenues and Phony, disingenuous law suits against the tobacco companies-claiming that cigarette-related health issues has 'drained' their healthcare
resources yet when awarded a multi-million dollar settlement, those very same states put less than 3% of the money back into their healthcare systems. The corruption currently going on related to this issue is appalling and the FDA's actions thus far on this issue have been disingenuous, dishonest, misleading ande unethical.

 

[MaxFrenzy]

The day I started researching e-cigs, I saw a bill to ban them in Illinois. I think this is a really crappy thing to do to people who are looking for an alternative to regular cigs. Unfortunately, many of you are right in that big tobacco business has so much money that it would be hard to compete with that. It's a sad state of affairs

 

[CaptJay]

Maybe the questions we should be asking, as voters (and as human beings not even thinking about politics, or flavor of political party), is: what appears to be MORE important to State and Federal govts? Your health or your money (taxable as opposed to earned)?
To me personally it appears that your money, the money you pay out to either or both of those institutions in the form of tax on cigarettes, is far far more important than your health, your life and your family's lives.
If it were health the powers that be (either party, makes no difference) would be doing everything in their power to endure a healthier populace and giving all the encouragement in the world to people trying to quit/cut down/find a less harmful method of using something like nicotine (not a whole lot different from caffeine, or indeed alcohol or sugar, which no-one seems to get as excited about) - while of course making sure nobody young ever started a habit thats so hard to get rid of. I don't see that happening.

 

[D103]

I totally agree CaptJay and I too do not see that happening!

 

[gerudothief]

Why are other nicotine substitutes such as the patch and gum considered safe "enough" for public use? but not Vaping?

Yet based on the studies done by the FDA themselves the patch and gum have a Whole lot more chemicals in them then the "worst" out of 20 eliquid/cartridge tested and a very...very long list of negative side effects.
The worst the FDA study showed for e liquid was diethylene glycol was detected in one sample, at less then 1ppm.
(people probably inhale similar amounts walking through a parking lot, and you know mechanics do...not sourced or anything IMO)

Biggest issue I'm seeing with Vaping is concern over lack of regulations on both the products and e-liquid.
So...set standards..control who can purchase(18 n over)...problem solved.
But I'm not seeing the FDA working towards doing that. (UK's public health is though)



Just how "new" is Vaping? and why are normal cig's called "analogs"?

The FDA probably just wants their hands in everything. You also have to figure that state governments are whining because people either quit smoking or find alternatives. That adds up to a lot of lost revenue, and that's not mention Tobacco corporations taking a hit.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to regulate and make sure we're not all smoking antifreeze, but if the FDA gets ahold, we could see serious price increases. Regulations don't necessarily mean safer either. The FDA approves a lot of drugs that later get pulled.

 

[gerudothief]

Maybe the questions we should be asking, as voters (and as human beings not even thinking about politics, or flavor of political party), is: what appears to be MORE important to State and Federal govts? Your health or your money (taxable as opposed to earned)?
To me personally it appears that your money, the money you pay out to either or both of those institutions in the form of tax on cigarettes, is far far more important than your health, your life and your family's lives.
If it were health the powers that be (either party, makes no difference) would be doing everything in their power to endure a healthier populace and giving all the encouragement in the world to people trying to quit/cut down/find a less harmful method of using something like nicotine (not a whole lot different from caffeine, or indeed alcohol or sugar, which no-one seems to get as excited about) - while of course making sure nobody young ever started a habit thats so hard to get rid of. I don't see that happening.

You make a really good point, especially with caffeine, alcohol, and sugar. I don't see proposals going out to ban the production, distribution, and sale of high fructose corn syrup due to the rise of obesity(sp) and diabetes. I don't see age restrictions being placed on the purchase of energy drinks. And the last time they tried to ban alcohol.... yeah...

In Washington, however, our wonderful governor is currently proposing a tax increase on beer, gum, candy, soda, cigarettes (again) and other things that were not mentioned in the story. So you see, governments will go after these things if they can get revenue from it.

And it all comes down to generating money.