I found this posted on CNN (feel free to move to approprate subforum)

[GeorgeS]

While my FIRST response is "well YUCK" - in regards to only 'tobacco flavored' e-cigs have been approved so far, it was rather news to me that ANYTHING had been approved at all.

CNN Article about FDA crackdown on 3 popular vaping disributers



g.

 

[Bimini Twist]

Only tobacco flavored have been approved. Well, I do approve of naturally extracted tobacco flavors, but . . .

What say they about flavored vodkas? There are SO many flavored vodkas that, if they were vape juices, would be accused of "being popular with young people."

I know, the FDA has no jurisdiction over liquor (nor should they over vape juices that have no tobacco involved), but . . . Hey, think of the children!

 

[WorksForMe]

The FDA doesn't plan to ever approve any flavored vape products. They even want to ban menthol cigarettes. The courts in this country have given bureaucracies like the FDA far too much power. If we're lucky that might come to an end though.

Vape Businesses File Supreme Court Amicus Brief Opposing Chevron

A group of vaping businesses and organizations has filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to limit or eliminate Chevron deference.

vaping360.com

.

 

[dwcraig1]

Having only tobacco flavored e-cigs make real cigs more acceptable (IMO), same thing right? (Well no, but.....)

 

[GeorgeS]

The FDA doesn't plan to ever approve any flavored vape products. They even want to ban menthol cigarettes. The courts in this country have given bureaucracies like the FDA far too much power. If we're lucky that might come to an end though.

Vape Businesses File Supreme Court Amicus Brief Opposing Chevron

A group of vaping businesses and organizations has filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to limit or eliminate Chevron deference.

vaping360.com

.

Actually in the "big picture" scheme of things that would be very bad for everyone.

SCOTUS has already put notice via rulings that 'agencies' can't go beyond whatever rules/regulations that congress+president has made into law.

So instead of handing over the management of all the different things all the Federal agencies currently handle by generally enlisting scientists and experts while loosely 'following an agenda' given to them by congress and administration (think clean air/water acts along with countless other things) all the rules/regulations currently in place may need to be 'codeified' in to law by an act of congress+presidential signature.

For anyone that has not spent the last few decades living under a rock, getting just about ANYTHING agreed to and signed into law is fright with intense politics and nary impossible.

IMHO: having elected folk making technical decisions is a very bad idea.



g.

 

[Mordacai]

So what did the FDA and health organisations do in regards to smoking and alcohol use especially in the juvenile and adolescent age demographics?...

So really this isn't about public health at all, it's purely gaslighting at it's finest.

Seems as though what's really driving things here is the tobacco industry with them lobbying and funding various agencies and individuals.

The only thing that I think could be agreed upon is disposable vapes are kind of sketchy, as very little is known about the liquids they use as they're imported pre filled from China and the vapes themselves are an environmental hazard as when they run out they're just thrown away anywhere...

 

[WorksForMe]

Actually in the "big picture" scheme of things that would be very bad for everyone.

SCOTUS has already put notice via rulings that 'agencies' can't go beyond whatever rules/regulations that congress+president has made into law.

So instead of handing over the management of all the different things all the Federal agencies currently handle by generally enlisting scientists and experts while loosely 'following an agenda' given to them by congress and administration (think clean air/water acts along with countless other things) all the rules/regulations currently in place may need to be 'codeified' in to law by an act of congress+presidential signature.

For anyone that has not spent the last few decades living under a rock, getting just about ANYTHING agreed to and signed into law is fright with intense politics and nary impossible.

IMHO: having elected folk making technical decisions is a very bad idea.



g.

I think that our conservative leaning Supreme Court will probably overturn the Chevron Doctrine, because it violates our Constitution’s system of separation of powers. Having said that, it's obvious that you and I have very different opinions on how government should be run, and this is not the place to argue about politics, so I won't. Suffice it say, I think overturning Chevron would be good for the vaping industry.

.

 

[MLEJ]

smoking and alcohol use especially in the juvenile and adolescent age demographics?...

It's against the law to sell tobacco or alcohol to anyone under 21. All the screeching about "the children" is an admission that gov't can't enforce the laws it passes. Also, it's gaslighting, as you mentioned.

what's really driving things here is the tobacco industry

The tobacco industry isn't blameless, certainly, but they're not nearly as influential as they used to be and not the main driver behind the anti-vaping crusade. That "honor" belongs to the pharmaceutical industry. They're one of the largest lobbies in DC & the states, the largest private source of FDA funding, and the largest mass-media advertiser in the US.

 

[Mordacai]

@MLEJ the thing that makes me think that the tobacco industry is mostly behind this is why the need for tobacco flavours...

As we know wouldn't unflavoured be the best option.

But then again, that wouldn't benefit the tobacco industry.

As they may not be doing so well, but they did push for HNB products. Even though the health effects of tobacco are well known.

Then what about the new tobacco product that's been passed, a new cigarette. I can't remember how much money the government threw at that project.

And if anything the pharmaceutical industry and FDA are implicit in this all, as they'll get nice little kickbacks and funding. But the pharmaceutical industry will profit the most of all from this, and their shareholders will profit too.

As the pharmaceutical industry doesn't want a healthy population, they want or should I say need an unhealthy population dependent upon treatments that only treat the symptoms. That way they can make major profits...

 

[GeorgeS]

I think that our conservative leaning Supreme Court will probably overturn the Chevron Doctrine, because it violates our Constitution’s system of separation of powers. Having said that, it's obvious that you and I have very different opinions on how government should be run, and this is not the place to argue about politics, so I won't. Suffice it say, I think overturning Chevron would be good for the vaping industry.

.

Sadly when it comes to Vaping we can't ignore politics and how governments are run as both are effecting the availability of vaping in the US.

Personally I'd go so far to say that all 'nanny state' rules & laws ought to be tossed out as individuals should have the freedom to make their own decisions about their own lives.

Sadly I live in a country where some think it is their job to legislate their own belief's so that others are legally required to live by them.




g.

 

[MLEJ]

the thing that makes me think that the tobacco industry is mostly behind this is why the need for tobacco flavours...

As we know wouldn't unflavoured be the best option.

But then again, that wouldn't benefit the tobacco industry.

Except for a handful of naturally extracted tobacco products, tobacco flavorings are as artificial as any others. Tobacco flavored e-liquids aren't a benefit to cigarette makers. Even if tobacco flavor were derived from tobacco leaf, it's use would benefit farmers, from whom tobacco-product manufacturers source their tobacco leaf, not the cigarette companies.

Most of the nicotine in e-liquids comes from tobacco (it can also be synthesized). E-liquid containing nic, regardless of the flavor, requires the purchase of tobacco, unless synthetic is used,

The cigarette companies aren't blameless in the anti-vaping crusade -- they want the competition eliminated -- but they aren't the major villain. They're in the vape business themselves & have to take a measured approach. If flavors got more people vaping, it would benefit them. The 'flavors hook kids' narrative used to justify their elimination doesn't benefit big tobacco; by making vaping a less attractive smoking cessation aid, it benefits big pharma & the medical industry.

As they may not be doing so well, but they did push for HNB products. Even though the health effects of tobacco are well known.

HNB is more a risk to health than vaping but still less of a risk than combustible cigarettes. That was their push & it's legitimate.

Then what about the new tobacco product that's been passed, a new cigarette. I can't remember how much money the government threw at that project.

Years ago, there was a cigarette brand called Carlton. Each cig contained, on average, 1 mg of "tar' (the stuff that's bad for you) & .1 mg of nic. The brand was never all that popular & it disappeared (at least in the US) as cigarette sales overall declined. Government never backed backed Carlton; it & similar brands (eg, True) were villified along w/ every other & the reduced 'tar' & nic painted as a ploy w/ no positive health impact. Government's backing of a new, reduced-nicotine cigarette now illustrates it's incompetence &/or malfeasance.

Sadly I live in a country where some think it is their job to legislate their own belief's so that others are legally required to live by them.

There's no country on Earth where that temptation hasn't existed among those with power.