Opinion: FDA vaping rule is ridiculous
....perhaps it’s the FDA that should come with a warning label, not e-cigarettes.
....perhaps it’s the FDA that should come with a warning label, not e-cigarettes.
How many Americans will die because of the FDA’s vaping rule?
- Thread starter Mazinny
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
"WARNING- We are not sure quite what to do with vapor products except to keep you from using them regardless of the potential life saving properties of this fantastic product".
No, tobacco does not kill more people then world wars, but inhaling smoke from burning tobacco does shorten a lot of peoples lives. Smokeless tobacco has vanishingly low risk comparable to vaping, and I am staying away from pipe and cigar smokers as I have no issues with it. By making a generalized statement about tobacco you are pushing the same lies that got us into this mess.
The lies we are hearing about vaping are simply an extensions of the lies we have all been fed about smokeless tobacco (and I probably should add second hand smoke). The tobacco control industry got plenty of practice lying and deceiving the public in past decades.
Additional questions would be "How many people have died because of the snus ban in the EU?" Looking at the data out of Sweden the answer is in the millions, and likely ten's of millions.
How many people have died because of the false warning labels on cans of smokeless tobacco in the US, and the lies that have come out of the tobacco control industry and government agencies on the relative risk compared to inhaling smoke? The answer is a lot.
There is nothing new going on with this. I have some faith that this one will fail, largely because of overreach by the FDA. But I could be wrong.
I'll grant you pretty much all your points. FDA doesn't protect us from snake oil they just make it much more expensive. Nicotine gum and patches are approved because they don't work. That makes them snake oil. Electronic cigarettes won't be approved because they do work. The taxes nationally and globally, are just too important.
I could argue a lot of the points you have made. Nicotine gum and patches do work, just not as intended. At least 50% of the use of NRT's is off label. Smokers use then in places they can't smoke. The FDA all but admitted this when they allowed the change in the usage instructions a few years ago.
One of the main reasons the FDA is after vaping is because it goes against the governments general policy of quit or die abstinence only approach to tobacco. The biggest risk to that approach is the concept of tobacco harm reduction.
If the general public where truthfully informed that there are ways of using tobacco and nicotine that have little to no risk, the whole tobacco control industry becomes irrelevant, and that includes both government agencies and private non-profits that make there living off of demonizing tobacco. There would be a whole lot of people who have been making a nice living in tobacco control who would be on the street.
The tobacco control industry successfully misinformed the public about the risk of smokeless tobacco (about 90% of the public believes smokeless tobacco is as harmful, if not more harmful then inhaling smoke). The numbers for vaping are catching up to that, but there is still a big risk for the powers that be that the general public will begin to understand the concept of tobacco harm reduction.
It is popular to say it is all about the money, but I have some doubts about that. Money plays a part, but it is not the whole story.
There are influences then there are controlling influences. Yes, there are many influences. Money is the controlling one. Imagine the Supreme Courts strikes down all discriminatory taxes on tobacco (just for the sake of argument). Suddenly governments' tobacco gravey train is gone. Then everybody would get serious about severely marginalizing or eliminating tobacco and I'm sure we would figure out how to do it. The people getting tobacco money will work at least as hard to protect their money as many of us will to protect our lives.
One of the arguments on our side that's hard to ignore is, how can they ban ecigs while tobacco remains for sale the same as always? That's what the FDA wants to do. If there is going to be a public outcry it will start when a lot of products become harder or impossible to get and thousands of vape shops close.
I don't know what they're saying in that article, "Yet, beginning on August 8, the FDA will treat these two very different products in functionally the same way." I think they're missing the biggest point: tobacco is NOT regulated in the normal sense, of requiring proof of safety or changes to make it so. There are some minor limits and lots of regulations but none touch the meat of the matter. WE'RE trying to fix smoking, to the extent it's even still "smoking", so they're cracking down.
I have to think there's a faction of anti-smoking that wants smoking to end so badly, they just want the smokers to die off. Then this thing comes along that can practically insure smoking-like behavior can go on forever. Yikes!
The first thing the FDA should do, in order to DO ITS JOB, is crack down on fire safety cigarettes legislation in all 50 states. FSCs are implemented by adding carpet glue to the paper, which has NEVER been tested for inhalation safety and the only federal information on it says don't inhale it if it catches fire. Like I say, there's a plot to kill the smokers off.
I have to think there's a faction of anti-smoking that wants smoking to end so badly, they just want the smokers to die off. Then this thing comes along that can practically insure smoking-like behavior can go on forever. Yikes!
The first thing the FDA should do, in order to DO ITS JOB, is crack down on fire safety cigarettes legislation in all 50 states. FSCs are implemented by adding carpet glue to the paper, which has NEVER been tested for inhalation safety and the only federal information on it says don't inhale it if it catches fire. Like I say, there's a plot to kill the smokers off.
This is one thing the FDA/CDC found out from follow-up surveys. "Oh, I only use them where I can't smoke". And it is one of the 'arguments' they used against vaping early on. "They only use ecigs where they can't smoke" - hence the focus on 'dual users'. (this is not to say there aren't dual users, there are, just that the argument was used to diminish the actual continued use of ecigs early on. )
Almost six years and I refuse to go back or give up without a fight. For the last few weeks I have been reading all the posts from new vapors, struggling to find the right devices and e-liquid in order to give up smoking - I remeber that excitement when I discovered that at last - somehing is working to keep me from smoking!
If nothing else, we owe it to them to give them hope and encouragement. No law can stop us. We know it works and no law or deeming can change that.
::steps off her soap box::
If nothing else, we owe it to them to give them hope and encouragement. No law can stop us. We know it works and no law or deeming can change that.
::steps off her soap box::
I listened to the FDA meetings when the issue of changing the instruction labeling for NRT's where being discussed. The FDA actually supported harm reduction as they admitted that as long as people where using NRT's, even off label, it could very well lead to complete cessation of cigarettes long term. It was one short moment of enlightenment by the FDA, never to be seen or heard from again.
They're all in for harm reduction, as long as the method continues to feed big money to their pay masters. However, if you find a way to better yourself without paying the proper people, they will find a way to make sure you regret your decision.
- Status
Similar threads
