FDA Has there been a valid answer as to "Why now?" in regards to the regulation proposals?

[liquid_strat]

Every report I read is targeted at saying "E-cigarettes are being marketed towards children" and "big tobacco makes e-cigarettes". Maybe the Blu e-cig and the gas station cigalikes are made and marketed by big tobacco, but of course not my turtleship mech mod and kayfun. its rediculous. These products are aimed at adults.

Public health concern? Why are tobacco cigarettes not banned. I think 3 or 4 known ingredients (propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, food flavoring, and nicotine) is way better than a combustible plant with 1000's of natural chemical ingredients, many of which are addictive and/or are know to be harmful in many different ways. Even the FDA spokesperson is wrong to to state "addicting a new generation to nicotine". Nicotine is not really the harmful ingredient in tobacco. Media misinformation.

 

[ad356]

greed follow the money. the governments cronies and big tobacco and big pharma are loosing their shirts. 3 million + people are no longer buying cigarettes or pharma products to quit smoking. its criminal activity at its best

 

[twgbonehead]

In all fairness, they aren't banning anything right now. Also, it's hard to know exactly what is in some juices because people who make them out of their house or even at their stores, can put whatever they want in them.

One of the thing's that the FDA will not let the vaping community do is say its safer than smoking a cigarette. I feel one of the reasons that there cannot be a good study on this is because the juice is not regulated, so you can say, yeah if you go to xyz store and buy their juice then its safer than smoking. But if you go to Nate's house and buy his juice then its not. Regulations requiring theres an ingredients label, I feel, is going to get us closer to being able to do a real study.

Just my thoughts.

I believe you are missing the point entirely.

The FDA isn't proposing banning anything. The FDA isn't proposing labeling anything. What it is proposing is that every product apply for registration to the FDA. By the FDA's own estimate, each product registration will cost approx $330,000.

While there is some disagreement as to whether or not this includes mods and heads, it most certainly includes e-liquids.

Consider e-liquids from Mount Baker:

116 flavors X 6 nic levels X 7 PG/VG mixes = 4872 products. Not counting flavor shots. So MBV alone would have to pay about $1.6 billion to license their e-liquids (and wait forever; the FDA is running at about 16 approvals/year).

And what does this $1.6 billion buy us? It's not going towards inspections. This is just a paperwork "registration" which allows the vendor to sell that specific product in the US. Enforcement would be limited to prosecuting sellers of non-registered products.

Clearly MBV won't be licensing every combination of their liquids. The options will dwindle dramatically. (Think of the Howard Johnson's ice cream store in Blazing Saddles).

If you have questions about what a particular vendor is putting in their e-liquid don't buy from them.

 

[Gato del Jugo]

the governments cronies and big tobacco and big pharma are loosing their shirts. 3 million + people are no longer buying cigarettes or pharma products to quit smoking.

And it's been happening at a lot quicker rate than anybody could have imagined, with no let-up in sight..


It's quite evident that Big Government, BT & BP are freaking out...

 

[DeeLeeKay]

I tend to agree that e juice does need some oversight. Letting the FDA control these regulations is a bad thing. Why? They are a political branch of the government that has no checks and balances. "We the people" can't vote the FDA out of office. It is apparent to many of us that those that control the FDA are subject to bribes. Where does that leave us?

 

[zoiDman]

...

Public health concern? Why are tobacco cigarettes not banned. ...

Why would you Ban Something that Rakes In Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in Taxes?

 

[patkin]

In all fairness, they aren't banning anything right now. Also, it's hard to know exactly what is in some juices because people who make them out of their house or even at their stores, can put whatever they want in them.

One of the thing's that the FDA will not let the vaping community do is say its safer than smoking a cigarette. I feel one of the reasons that there cannot be a good study on this is because the juice is not regulated, so you can say, yeah if you go to xyz store and buy their juice then its safer than smoking. But if you go to Nate's house and buy his juice then its not. Regulations requiring theres an ingredients label, I feel, is going to get us closer to being able to do a real study.

Just my thoughts.

Okay, I do understand your concern about juice but advise you to read what the proposed regulations are really after.... your hardware. If you can't get that, your juice is a non-issue. Oh, you'll still be able to buy whatever pre-filled little cigalike BT offers you but that's about it and even those will most likely be tobacco flavor only once the FDA bans flavorings. Read both the FDA Proposal that would capture your hardware and ban it by defacto as well as the OMB report that clearly states they know very well that all small juice mfg (and that mean "small" as in not multi-million dollar companies as in BT) will be shut out of the market as well as all imports. So... you will get what you wish for... oh, so "safe" juice since the FDA has made sure you're always "safe" with tobacco products and medications.... but you'll have to vape what they allow.. OMB predicts a comparatively few juices... WITH what they allow.. a cigalike.

 

[Kent C]

It's a bit like computers. No one in Gov't knew anything about them, and they took a long time to gather the information - in the meantime the computer industry went through a transformation that could only happen in a free market, so each month the gov't became even more behind on knowing what was happening.

When they finally figured it out - they sued MS on some BS charge of bundling but it forced MS and every other computer business to start thinking about having gov't lobbyists. An extra expense, but one that might prevent further action. They got in bed together and lived happily ever after.

With ecigs - same thing - no one, esp. gov't knew anything about them but cigarette sales started to suffer and the revenue stream (something the gov't DOES know something about) began to decrease. They knew Chantix, gum and patches didn't work so they had to find out 'what happened!!' The answer was ecigs. Well we can't let that happen, so data gathering began, grants given out to all the people that helped tame BT - Glantz, Talbot, x, x, x, but some of the x's were more concerned with harm reduction than revenue and sided with the ecigs! But, so be it, Glantz could still produce lies and insinuations threats, spread fear and use children like they did with cigarettes and second hand smoke. Next was to figure the best way to maintain the revenue stream - bring out the deeming doc after floating the idea for years and then make it so some people think they are being 'reasonable' about regulation. Etc. etc.

 

[AgentAnia]

An excellent cliff-notes version of "A History of Electronic Cigarette Regulation to Date":

It's a bit like computers. No one in Gov't knew anything about them, and they took a long time to gather the information - in the meantime the computer industry went through a transformation that could only happen in a free market, so each month the gov't became even more behind on knowing what was happening.

When they finally figured it out - they sued MS on some BS charge of bundling but it forced MS and every other computer business to start thinking about having gov't lobbyists. And extra expense, but one that might prevent further action. They got in bed together and lived happily ever after.

With ecigs - same thing - no one, esp. gov't knew anything about them but cigarette sales started to suffer and the revenue stream (something the gov't DOES know something about) began to decrease. They knew Chantix, gum and patches didn't work so they had to find out 'what happened!!' The answer was ecigs. Well we can't let that happen, so data gathering began, grants given out to all the people that helped tame BT - Glantz, Talbot, x, x, x, but some of the x's were more concerned with harm reduction than revenue and sided with the ecigs! But, so be it, Glantz could still produce lies and insinuations threats, spread fear and use children like they did with cigarettes and second hand smoke. Next was to figure the best way to maintain the revenue stream - bring out the deeming doc after floating the idea for years and then make it so some people think they are being 'reasonable' about regulation. Etc. etc.

(And never forget, FDA has clearly stated that this proposed rule is (only) foundational. They're not finished with us yet, folks, not by a long shot!)

 

[zoiDman]

(And never forget, FDA has clearly stated that this proposed rule is (only) foundational. They're not finished with us yet, folks, not by a long shot!)

Unfortunately, you are Correct.

To loosely quote Churchill...

This Isn't the End. Or even the Beginning of the End. It is Only the End of the Beginning.

 

[Kent C]

An excellent cliff-notes version of "A History of Electronic Cigarette Regulation to Date":



(And never forget, FDA has clearly stated that this proposed rule is (only) foundational. They're not finished with us yet, folks, not by a long shot!)

Thanks And yep, even with all the general statements of how ecigs could be safer - that have some people encouraged?? .. they continue to spread the more specific ANTZ views and esp. make a point that they, the FDA, are the ones with the hammer.

And (I know some people don't want to hear this) there is a certain philosophy that feigns 'tolerance' when it is actually just 'patience' - where in the long run after many several, what seems to be not so imposing moves, end up being a total takeover years later. Unlike individualists who are "we want the world and we want it now", and they're "we want the world and will wait for you to get so discouraged by gradual moves, that you won't fight anymore". More of a "Further on Down the Road" view. lol

 

[zoiDman]

Thanks And yep, even with all the general statements of how ecigs could be safer - that have some people encouraged?? .. they continue to spread the more specific ANTX views and esp. make a point that they, the FDA, are the ones with the hammer.

...

Don't they Kinda have to take that Stances to Appease the ANTZ's of the World? It would seem that it would Only piss them off if they Didn't?

My theory is it Doesn't Matter What the FDA (or an Elected Official for that matter) says. It's just Hype for some peoples ears.

It what they Do that matters.

And that is Yet to be Seen.

 

[patkin]

Yet to be seen... yeh, they're already working on that... we've only seen the capturing groud-work.

 

[CassiusCloud]

For those that may not have seen Mich Zeller's intentions come directly out of his mouth on PBS..
Here they are clear as a bell. Like Russel Crow in The gladiator.
On my command ,Unleash hell.

 

[Kent C]

Don't they Kinda have to take that Stances to Appease the ANTZ's of the World? It would seem that it would Only piss them off if they Didn't?

My theory is it Doesn't Matter What the FDA (or an Elected Official for that matter) says. It's just Hype for some peoples ears.

It what they Do that matters.

And that is Yet to be Seen.

What they say is part of what they do. It's called PR and it is effective on some minds. If it wasn't, they wouldn't do it. But in general, if you want to 'extract' intentions - go by what they do, rather than what they say. As far as ANTZ goes, the FDA are former ANTZ and ANTZ are FDA wannabes.

 

[Rickajho]

What really pisses me off regarding the "marketing to children" B.S. is they aren't even being marketed to anyone. Really - where is this proliferation of ads for e-cigs of any kind? Let alone using kiddy colors, using kiddy cartoon figures and pimping kiddy flavors?

Start doing your own informal pole, beginning with: You. When was the last time you saw a print ad, television commercial or heard a radio spot for e-cigs? Anyone? Anyone at all? Then ask your circle of contacts and friends when the last time was they saw an e-cig promotion. Or have they ever seen one at all?

What a load of bull.

 

[CassiusCloud]

I certainly have never seen any ecig commercial speak of delicious flavors or anything that would entice kids..
I don't know really any places online that you don't get the popup asking if you are over 18 or under 18..

 

[zoiDman]

... As far as ANTZ goes, the FDA are former ANTZ and ANTZ are FDA wannabes.

That's where the FDA is in a Unique Situation.

As Mr. Zeller has stated Many Time.

"Tobacco use is the Single Largest Preventable cause of Death in this Country Today".

But he knows that to be Scientifically Correct, he should be saying...

"Burning Tobacco use is the Single Largest Preventable cause of Death in this Country Today".

So here we are Today with a Viable Alternative to getting Nicotine without Burning Tobacco. And that is a Significant Reduction to the Harm that Burning Tobacco causes.

So on One Hand if the FDA Slams e-Cigarettes, a Huge amount of people will not see a Harm Reduction. But on the Other Hand, there is No Control over Any Aspects to e-Cigarettes. NONE. And BT is way behind in the Market and carries all the Baggage that BT has from years Past.

I think the FDA will take a Middle Ground approach leaning More towards promoting Allowing e-Cigarettes than Not Allowing e-Cigarettes.

It makes sense. There can be a Level of Harm Reduction and still Maintain Profits a Steady Tax Stream.

 

[zoiDman]

What really pisses me off regarding the "marketing to children" B.S. is they aren't even being marketed to anyone. Really - where is this proliferation of ads for e-cigs of any kind? Let alone using kiddy colors, using kiddy cartoon figures and pimping kiddy flavors?

Start doing your own informal pole, beginning with: You. When was the last time you saw a print ad, television commercial or heard a radio spot for e-cigs? Anyone? Anyone at all? Then ask your circle of contacts and friends when the last time was they saw an e-cig promotion. Or have they ever seen one at all?

What a load of bull.

I certainly have never seen any ecig commercial speak of delicious flavors or anything that would entice kids..
I don't know really any places online that you don't get the popup asking if you are over 18 or under 18..

Doesn't the FDA kinda have to take the "Flavors Must go to Save the Children" Approach to Appease the Parental Crowd worried about their kids getting hooked on e-Cigarettes?

 

[potholerepairman]

Anger is good, rage is too.