I don't understand their logic in regard to "gateway" products leading to smoking. we all know, as bill stated, vaping is a gateway away from smoking. why were they not concerned over the introduction of nicotine gum as a "gateway" TO smoking? my logic tells me the vast majority of gum chewed in America is being chewed by under age people, not adults. that fact didn't grab their attention? like I said, I don't get their logic.
Godshall goes to the White House and Congress urging them to not let FDA give the e-cig industry to Big Tobacco
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
^I think you could benefit from studying the history/cases/studies/research/statistics provided over at CASAA... much of that appears on threads here also. Additionally, I may have missed them but have you provided links to studies/research/stats backing up your contentions?
Last edited:
"I am a fellow, and messenger of none but myself, if you have an retort of fact, or a problem with message, do share. Seems you won't
Either what I wrote stands on its own or it does not. I am available to reply to substance...but will pass on most of the trolls attempting to march in line with the status quo, blindly. If it helps I am Spartacus, and so is that guy, and that guy, and him over there too.....just deal with the facts and substance, that is all that matters.
How about reading 910, reading the rulings, understanding what the FDA has domain over, what is already enshrined in law that the FDA can not work around. And realize that E-Cigs are supported by real doctors, because they deliver nicotine safely for users who want nicotine.
If you want to bather on as if tweeting to buddies, you can do it in private and stop polluting a thread which is trying to look at real items, and not be party to a back and forth between buddies babbling sweet nothings in each's ear. You realize there are Private Messages available for all that. Or start your own thread. The rest should assume the same. Respectfully the OP"
Above post is from another thread by tombaker ^^^^^^^
Tom maybe you could take your own advise. If you wish to bad mouth someone then make a thread of your own and see how far it gets.
Lights out,
Sundodger
Either what I wrote stands on its own or it does not. I am available to reply to substance...but will pass on most of the trolls attempting to march in line with the status quo, blindly. If it helps I am Spartacus, and so is that guy, and that guy, and him over there too.....just deal with the facts and substance, that is all that matters.
How about reading 910, reading the rulings, understanding what the FDA has domain over, what is already enshrined in law that the FDA can not work around. And realize that E-Cigs are supported by real doctors, because they deliver nicotine safely for users who want nicotine.
If you want to bather on as if tweeting to buddies, you can do it in private and stop polluting a thread which is trying to look at real items, and not be party to a back and forth between buddies babbling sweet nothings in each's ear. You realize there are Private Messages available for all that. Or start your own thread. The rest should assume the same. Respectfully the OP"
Above post is from another thread by tombaker ^^^^^^^
Tom maybe you could take your own advise. If you wish to bad mouth someone then make a thread of your own and see how far it gets.
Lights out,
Sundodger
Last edited:
Actually I #42 was first said here:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...e-concern-usage-bans-public-real-problem.html
which was the response to a link to this thread I left over there. Need I say wishing I hadn't?
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...e-concern-usage-bans-public-real-problem.html
which was the response to a link to this thread I left over there. Need I say wishing I hadn't?
To Sundoger: Talking about the context and misinformation within the OP, is reasonable, to say someone is wrong on factual matters is not badmouthing. I don't want to comment on your feelings, and I earnestly believe in the good intent of the OP, and stated such already.
patkin: My critique of the OP and his talking points are fair game to challenge. Proceed.
1. The FDA has conceeded that it can only act on E-Cigs via the Tobacco Act. They have stated they will not challenge the courts ruling.
2. The Tobacco Act has many limitations on what it can do. The OP argues that FDA via the Tobacco Act would and could "FDA regs would ban most effective e-cigs (AVP/mods e-juice, flavorings)"
Sorry that is just false. Read the Tobacco act. Want a citation of what it is and can do? Overview of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act: Consumer fact Sheet
Most of what they can do is related to how Tobacco is marketed and sold. Then
FDA cannot:
Ban certain specified classes of tobacco products – Sec. 907 of the FDCA
Require the reduction of nicotine yields to zero – Sec. 907 of the FDCA
Require prescriptions to purchase tobacco products – Sec. 906 of the FDCA
Ban face-to-face tobacco sales in any particular category of retail outlet – Sec. 906 of the FDCA
There is some language about controlling flavors of Cigarettes, but that does not apply to Cigars as we already know, and it would be an effort to extend it to E-Juice. I would suggest that they won't want to do that fight.
I would also suggest that there is no new innovation of the E-Cig since inception. A fluid heated over a coil wire, heats to a Vapor. That there is a glass tank or different wick is not a substantial change in function. There for example is nothing new patented. Nevertheless they can not ban the hardware itself.
The FDA has to propose something, before anyone should be going into full panic mode. After that proposal it will have at least 60 days for public comment.
Please remember that the Tobacco act PROHIBITS banning of a class of Tobacco products. They have formally conceded that their regulation efforts are established only by contending that E-Cigs are a class of Tobacco.
4. I think the fear of Big Tobacco coming in and screwing everything up, is misguided and wrong on the law. I am not worried that Big T is going to work hard to keep BLU cigs in business. Or concerned that Altria is already producing the MarkTen https://www.markten.com/gconnect/login_input.action
Why should I care that Big Tobacco is going to do the heavy lifting with any legal challenges?
5. MtBakerVaper is going to be able to compete against ANYONE on prices, and be able to sustain the onerous every 2 year inspections that the FDA could choose to explore. But first you have to have the regulations or whatever the FDA is going to attempt. If you look at how long they are taking and missing deadline after deadline, you realize just how limited the scope of the dangers of the Tobacco Act is.
Or the Sky is falling.
You may wish to research the FDA website re "substantial equivalences." They are quite detailed and specific about what constitutes a "change" in form or function.
They are prohibited from de jure bans. De facto bans are another thing entirely.
Tom, you might want to read this-
FDA takes small step in tobacco product backlog - Las Cruces Sun-News
"A grandfather clause in the law allows products introduced between February 2007 and March 2011 that are similar to those previously on the market to be sold while under review. They can be removed from store shelves if they don't pass muster with the agency. But about 500 products submitted for review since March 2011 are being kept off the market."
How much is a new cigarette different than and older one? How much is a new smokeless product different than an old one? The difference is that the FDA decides what the difference is and whether the manufacturer has jumped through the appropriate hoops required by the FDA.
FDA takes small step in tobacco product backlog - Las Cruces Sun-News
"A grandfather clause in the law allows products introduced between February 2007 and March 2011 that are similar to those previously on the market to be sold while under review. They can be removed from store shelves if they don't pass muster with the agency. But about 500 products submitted for review since March 2011 are being kept off the market."
How much is a new cigarette different than and older one? How much is a new smokeless product different than an old one? The difference is that the FDA decides what the difference is and whether the manufacturer has jumped through the appropriate hoops required by the FDA.
I read it, and says While only two products have been authorized to be marketed, the vast majority of those awaiting review are for products already being sold in the U.S. "............................................................................SO this confirms, that the problem is with a slow government, and the products are on the shelves. Being sold. The companies are not being harmed by the long review process..............so no doom.
Bill isn't a Vendor, he can tell the truth without fear. Consumers can tell the truth without fear. That's why the EU tried to take away their freedom of speech right in their proposed rulings.
But otherwise, yes, it's correct they are not a SCP, but instead a safer alternative that works so wonderfully that smokers forget about smoking once they find the right for them setup.
In fact, I get a kick out of SG who always always always declares there is no proof these are a SCP.
. we kinda owe SG a big thanks for confirming this.
But otherwise, yes, it's correct they are not a SCP, but instead a safer alternative that works so wonderfully that smokers forget about smoking once they find the right for them setup.
In fact, I get a kick out of SG who always always always declares there is no proof these are a SCP.
. we kinda owe SG a big thanks for confirming this.
Tombaker, every time I've read one of your posts on this subject, the movie title "Kill Bill" kept repeating in my head. I thought that rather curious so returned to reread them. Doing so created the same reaction and made it clear why the phenomena: You have a most disrespectful way of addressing your concerns to where the impression is that you have a personal grudge against Bill precluding some measure of gratitude. I'm expending the energy here by posting this in part to provide you the opportunity to address this. If you, in fact, mean no disrespect and do, at the very least, appreciate Bill's generosity, it gives you the opportunity to state so and to explain why you weren't there sitting beside him versing your opinions or presentng them in any other legislative arena affording you that opportunity. If you have spoken at any, I apologize as I haven't seen you state so. In fact... and this is only personal curiosity.... I would like to know if you are active individually or as a member of any group other than an internet forum that is pro vaping.
Last edited:
The pop culture fantasy movie reference is lost on me, I don't want to participate in that distraction. Take it to a PM or skip it. While I wrote I applauded the effort with the OP, I said why it was a misfire, and gave reasons why. I am a bit older than the current generations notions that "everyone gets a trophy, always".
I prefer the pragmatic approach to reviewing the law, understanding the capabilities of who has it at their disposal, and keeping to the facts. Regarding your question if I am pro-Vaping, I am, I vape, I think people should be allowed to vape in most places, but not all. As example, the rules about Vaping in front of schools filled with people that can not legally vape, I support. I support it the principle that children are impressionable, learn by emulation, and a firm understanding of protective mothers, who will win any fight on those grounds. As a pragmatist I won't engage in a battle where I know it will lose, and the effects of fighting to a loss will certainly weaken the overall goals of freedom to vape, reasonably. Such as bars, both tasting bars, as well as alcohol bars. As an aside I do think vapers should not go heavy VG and blow thick clouds where strangers congregate, a thinner juice is respectful. Everything a vaper can do, is not everything a vaper should do.
Advocating E-Cigs as smoking cessation devices, in 2014, is not a battle to make, and its not something that does well with the current regulatory mandates, as already decided in the courts by the Sottera decision. E-Cigs will be under the FDA as a Tobacco Product, that is the law, that is what the Sottera decision generated. The FDA has said it will issue a deeming regulation that the Nicotine of E-Cigs is within the domain of the FDA....and after the public comment period, it will go into effect. (The odds that the FDA will be stopped from making E-Cigs withing the 2009 Tobacco Control Act, are so minimal, even will giant effort to stop it, are so small, its a waste of time, and effort to think E-Cig won't be subject to the FD&C Act.)
I simply will not be drawn into attempts to personalize a factual discussion, even if its "personal curiosity" .
Some of my concerns expressed deal with expressing items as factual when not, as done within the context of the OP as:
1. Saying that nicotine does not create a nicotine dependance if done through vaping. re:" havent created nicotine dependence in any nonsmoker (youth or adult), teen and adult smokers >20 times more likely than nonsmokers to report past-30-day e-cig use." If the quote is saying there is no evidence that 2nd hand Vape creates a dependence, I agree, but that is not how it is written.
2. Saying that E-Cigs are used by 99% ex or current smokers, is simply factually wrong, ignores the 0 nicotine Vapors by choice, and is not a productive comment given the FDA will certainly be concerned about new vapers, and stopping vaping under 18. Kids are trying Vaping, like it or not, who have never smoked a harsh cigarette in their lives. This is important because the 2009 Tobacco Act is aimed at prevention of underage Tobacco Product usage of all types.
3. Wrongly portraying that Big Tobacco can control the E-Cig industry, its a false concern because its not possible given the law.
4. Concluding that any corporation small and large, seeking to introduce E-Cigs, while supporting reasonable regulation, is trying to eliminate other players from selling E-Cigs. The Big Tobacco control argument is naive fear. And its why many small Vendors and Manufacturers support regulations penly.
5. Suggesting that the unwritten regulation will ban E-Cigs, it can not, or that it can stop APV hardware of any type. Remember without nicotine E-Liquid not a Tobacco product, and vendors can sell those products without fear of the FDA. Because of that, APV hardware will not and can not be regulated per all written FDA law.
6. Portraying as fact that if unwritten and not defined regulations will create black markets. Saying that FDA is moving to ban E-Cigs when they are prohibited by law, that they can not ban Tobacco products.
These are items I am able to speak to. I am able to show why the FDA regulations need not be feared. Talk to why if the FDA were to overstep, the Courts will overrule them. And I am available to talk whay overzealous local usage bans are a problem today, and should be where the attention and effort need be directed.
More than 2 years ago, it was being said that FDA regulation would be coming in months, the dangers of those regulation is minimal, meanwhile the lack of focus on Local Ban, impacts vapers now.
I remain.
Smoking replacement devices?
I know I enjoy vaping...don't see any reason to quit
Nice thing is, he made it in the door and bent their ears...
This administration --which includes the appointees at the FDA CDC etc.etc.--does what it darn well pleases and the law be damned! I personally resent your being critical of Bill Godshall as he has helped all of us in so many ways and given freely of his time. Please be informed before you write your next dissertation.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
Since virtually every sentence posted on this thread by tombaker contains inaccurate statements, I'm not wasting my time correcting or clarifying them.
If tombaker simply read Chapter IX of the Tobacco Control Act or some of many posts about the FDA since 2009, he'd realize that everything I told OMB about the FDA deeming regulation is correct.
If tombaker simply read Chapter IX of the Tobacco Control Act or some of many posts about the FDA since 2009, he'd realize that everything I told OMB about the FDA deeming regulation is correct.
I will say to you Bill and CASAA thanks for all that you have done are doing and will do
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
