It's time to fight fire with fire

[twgbonehead]

This is something I don't get. How do you figure they could ever enforce a ban? They can't ban the ingredients to ejuice...they can't ban lithium batteries, kanthal wire, and electronics parts. An e-cigarette isn't exactly a high-tech device.

And what about the rest of the world? You think the USA is going to tell China to stop producing e-cig products? HAH!

I mean, banning us from vaping in public spaces is one thing, but completely banning vaping? Absurd!

I really dislike the fact that people are throwing the word "Ban" out there. You're providing an easy strawman.

The FDA is NOT proposing to ban anything.

They are proposing to prevent the sale of items which have not been approved. Getting an item approved will cost (by the FDA's estimate) about $334,000. Their definition of a product is that if ANY component of that product is different, its a separate product.

Moo Juice at 20/80 3 mg is a product
Moo Juice at 40/60 3 mg is a separate product
Moo Juice at 20/80 6 mg is a separate product
And so forth. In fact, anything that has a different SKU is a different product. A blue EVOD head is a different product than a green one.

And YES, they DO intend to cover heads and mods as well; the proposed deeming regulations make that clear. Whether or not vendors could get around this by re-labeling hardware is unknown; the verbiage includes "Or could be used" which leaves the door wide open for them to demand registration and approval of these as well, and to seize shipments of hardware even though there is absolutely no tobacco or nicotine in them.


Absurd? Yes. Happening? Yes.

Edit: And merely applying for approval, and paying the costs to do so is no guarantee that the FDA will actually grant that approval, or when, if ever, they will even look at the application. There are no mandates to the FDA that they must act on these, no formal guidelines on what information must be included in the application (and if the FDA decides you didn't provide enough info, the application gets rejected without recourse. Back to square 0).

Lest you think that's farfetched, look at the backlog of applications since the FDA first was able to require them. IIRC there are over 3000 earlier applications from 2007 that the FDA hasn't responded to in any way, and the number it has actually acted on is on the order of 20. And most of these were SE applications, which are MUCH simpler and cheaper, but not available for e-cig products.) Oh, and most of the "actions" were rejecting the application for insufficient evidence provided.

 

[twgbonehead]

More to the original topic, I'm getting a t-shirt made.

"Vaping Saves Lives! Ed Markey is an Idiot".

Was going to do it front-and-back, but it's cheaper just to do one side. (Also, perhaps, more effective).

 

[kemishdo]

"Ecigarettes keep butts of our streets"

Does CASAA print bumper stickers like this? If they don't maybe they should. I'd buy 'em!

You can make your own at Vistaprint.com.

In fact this is something we all can do, bumper stickers on our cars, seen by hundreds of people or more...
I am going to design one tonight in Photoshop. I so far like the poster who came up with
Vaping saves lives... No Butts about it.

They sell bumper sticker kits at Office Depot also, but they don't hold up in the rain so well, but I could spray it with clear laquer before putting in on my car window, hmmmm.

 

[Myk]

This is something I don't get. How do you figure they could ever enforce a ban? They can't ban the ingredients to ejuice...they can't ban lithium batteries, kanthal wire, and electronics parts. An e-cigarette isn't exactly a high-tech device.

And what about the rest of the world? You think the USA is going to tell China to stop producing e-cig products? HAH!

I mean, banning us from vaping in public spaces is one thing, but completely banning vaping? Absurd!

They couldn't manage to enforce a complete ban on alcohol during Prohibition but it didn't stop them from trying did it?
It didn't stop them from poisoning alcohol (denatured alcohol) and killing people who tried to skirt the law and by alcohol meant for other uses did it?
It didn't stop people who otherwise would have never been exposed to criminals not only become a criminal by drinking but join up with criminal gangs did it?
Our prisons aren't full of criminals who's only crime is not obeying a present ban that can't be enforced are they?

A ban doesn't require complete enforcement to be a ban.

 

[rzil]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lxrMczThIw

check this out

 

[e-pipeman]

I mean, banning us from vaping in public spaces is one thing

Hi granolaboy. I've spotted a trend lately. People make apparently reasonable posts and then drop a bomb in it expecting that we won't notice.

The piece of your post that I have quoted is a case in point. It is clearly not "one thing", it is an outrage.

I look forward to seeing a vital thing like this embedded in your next post.

 

[Amraann]

Hi granolaboy. I've spotted a trend lately. People make apparently reasonable posts and then drop a bomb in it expecting that we won't notice.

The piece of your post that I have quoted is a case in point. It is clearly not "one thing", it is an outrage.

I look forward to seeing a vital thing like this embedded in your next post.

It is ironic that you posted the following earlier today on this thread and then proceeded to post the above quote making things personal...

"It's just sad. This is a friendly forum full of people who enjoy vaping. Currently we are infested with hordes of antz. Their thread titles are deliberately provocative, and they always try to drag a post onto a personal level to cause trouble. I just wish there was the equivalent of Nippon for these antz! "

 

[e-pipeman]

It is ironic that you posted the following earlier today on this thread and then proceeded to post the above quote making things personal...

"It's just sad. This is a friendly forum full of people who enjoy vaping. Currently we are infested with hordes of antz. Their thread titles are deliberately provocative, and they always try to drag a post onto a personal level to cause trouble. I just wish there was the equivalent of Nippon for these antz! "

No irony, just an illustration of my point. Nothing personal about it. If I spot suspect behaviour I point it out. I'm sure the poster is grateful for your support.

 

[Anjaffm]

I really dislike the fact that people are throwing the word "Ban" out there. You're providing an easy strawman.

The FDA is NOT proposing to ban anything.

They are proposing to prevent the sale of items which have not been approved. Getting an item approved will cost (by the FDA's estimate) about $334,000. Their definition of a product is that if ANY component of that product is different, its a separate product.

Moo Juice at 20/80 3 mg is a product
Moo Juice at 40/60 3 mg is a separate product
Moo Juice at 20/80 6 mg is a separate product
And so forth. In fact, anything that has a different SKU is a different product. A blue EVOD head is a different product than a green one.

And YES, they DO intend to cover heads and mods as well; the proposed deeming regulations make that clear. Whether or not vendors could get around this by re-labeling hardware is unknown; the verbiage includes "Or could be used" which leaves the door wide open for them to demand registration and approval of these as well, and to seize shipments of hardware even though there is absolutely no tobacco or nicotine in them.


Absurd? Yes. Happening? Yes.

Edit: And merely applying for approval, and paying the costs to do so is no guarantee that the FDA will actually grant that approval, or when, if ever, they will even look at the application. There are no mandates to the FDA that they must act on these, no formal guidelines on what information must be included in the application (and if the FDA decides you didn't provide enough info, the application gets rejected without recourse. Back to square 0).

Lest you think that's farfetched, look at the backlog of applications since the FDA first was able to require them. IIRC there are over 3000 earlier applications from 2007 that the FDA hasn't responded to in any way, and the number it has actually acted on is on the order of 20. And most of these were SE applications, which are MUCH simpler and cheaper, but not available for e-cig products.) Oh, and most of the "actions" were rejecting the application for insufficient evidence provided.

Well said.
And it is very useful to keep these facts in mind.

 

[twgbonehead]

Well said.
And it is very useful to keep these facts in mind.

Anja,

I don't think I'm overreacting; I think these are the CENTRAL points of the FDA's proposed deeming regulations.

I've seen, in at least one post, where the FDA responded to a petition that included a statement like "You shouldn't ban e-cigarettes"
With the response "The deeming regulations do not propose to ban anything". They don't. Instead they propose to regulate them out of existence.

THAT is the strawman. The FDA sent out responses to everyone who signed the petition which complained about the "proposed ban" and the FDA responded with a 1-sentence rebuttal to everyone who signed the detailed petition. And guess what? Their rebuttal was factually accurate.

STOP USING THE WORD BAN IN REGARDS TO THE FDA PROPOSALS!!!!! That is VERY important, PARTICULARLY if you are commenting on the FDA proposal, or writing to your legislators. You're just setting yourself up for an easy dismissal.

 

[amolson]

Heh, actually, most congresscritters and the like don't actually read their mail. They just count votes. "Lets see, I got 3,427 pro, 13 nay, guess I'll vote pro." Especially on little stuff (to them) like this. Flat out, it's a no brainer for most of them. "Oh, lets see, I have 3000+ voters happy with me and a dozen mad. I don't care one way or another, so heck yeah I'm gonna grab those cheap votes."

The combination of easy transport, cheap and consumable is going to, I think, make vaping and especially ejuice manufacture look like the software explosion, except bigger. Especially if 0 nic vaping takes off.

Who doesn't want to sit back, munch on candy, cake and soda all day, while not gaining an ounce? Especially with all the anti-obesity stuff going on. There's a real market. 69% of Americans are overweight or obese. Forget nicotine, replace sugar.

And then it falls under freedom of expression and privilege (right) of privacy. There's the big legal defense, I think. If a significant percentage of vapers are vaping 0 nic, it becomes a violation of privacy to dig into whether or not someone is vaping nicotine. And with all the big fancy mods, mechs and even brightly colored eGos, it's an external expression of personality, just like someone's purse or tie clip. Ejuice, oh yeah that's definitely an art form and I think should be protected as one.

There's where I think the biggest argument lies, in freedom of expression and art. The ACLU, while often totally out there on some things, does have some very good lawyers. And if I get challenged at work for vaping or allowing my students to do so, I'm running to them. They have ginormous pockets and experience with things like this. I mean if they'll defend someone for wearing a KKK hood in public, a little vapor is nothing.

 

[Myk]

Anja,

I don't think I'm overreacting; I think these are the CENTRAL points of the FDA's proposed deeming regulations.

I've seen, in at least one post, where the FDA responded to a petition that included a statement like "You shouldn't ban e-cigarettes"
With the response "The deeming regulations do not propose to ban anything". They don't. Instead they propose to regulate them out of existence.

THAT is the strawman. The FDA sent out responses to everyone who signed the petition which complained about the "proposed ban" and the FDA responded with a 1-sentence rebuttal to everyone who signed the detailed petition. And guess what? Their rebuttal was factually accurate.

STOP USING THE WORD BAN IN REGARDS TO THE FDA PROPOSALS!!!!! That is VERY important, PARTICULARLY if you are commenting on the FDA proposal, or writing to your legislators. You're just setting yourself up for an easy dismissal.

The last letter to Congress was calling for an investigation of FDA and CDC. They are getting dismissed even by the ones that sound like they read it and are pro-ecig.

We're commoners to them, they can easily dismiss us because they think they're royalty.

 

[Anjaffm]

Anja,

I don't think I'm overreacting; I think these are the CENTRAL points of the FDA's proposed deeming regulations.

I've seen, in at least one post, where the FDA responded to a petition that included a statement like "You shouldn't ban e-cigarettes"
With the response "The deeming regulations do not propose to ban anything". They don't. Instead they propose to regulate them out of existence.

THAT is the strawman. The FDA sent out responses to everyone who signed the petition which complained about the "proposed ban" and the FDA responded with a 1-sentence rebuttal to everyone who signed the detailed petition. And guess what? Their rebuttal was factually accurate.

STOP USING THE WORD BAN IN REGARDS TO THE FDA PROPOSALS!!!!! That is VERY important, PARTICULARLY if you are commenting on the FDA proposal, or writing to your legislators. You're just setting yourself up for an easy dismissal.

I fully agree. And I am glad that you have pointed it out.
Those people in power, they will jump at anything to dismiss the concerns of the common man. Of course. They rule for themselves, not for the people. So, it is a good idea not to give them any such "fodder". They will lie and twist and turn, of course. But why make it easier for them?

Same thing here in Europe. With the EU and its horrible TPD, aimed at protecting the smoking gravy train. We always say, among ourselves, "it will amount to a de-facto ban". Which it is, of course. - In public, we say "regulate it out of existence". Which it is, too.

And I would never accuse you of overreacting

 

[Myk]

Even when politicians are proposing bans (usage bans that were known as bans when they did it with cigarettes) they will claim, "It's not a ban, it's prohibition."
You can fall for their "They're not starving, let them eat cake" dismissals but I'm not and I'm going to point it out to everyone I can. The people are getting sick of it and it doesn't matter what they're for or against.

 

[twgbonehead]

I fully agree. And I am glad that you have pointed it out.
Those people in power, they will jump at anything to dismiss the concerns of the common man. Of course. They rule for themselves, not for the people. So, it is a good idea not to give them any such "fodder". They will lie and twist and turn, of course. But why make it easier for them?

Same thing here in Europe. With the EU and its horrible TPD, aimed at protecting the smoking gravy train. We always say, among ourselves, "it will amount to a de-facto ban". Which it is, of course. - In public, we say "regulate it out of existence". Which it is, too.

And I would never accuse you of overreacting

Anja,

Hi, always love your posts! Thanks for the awareness and effort, it's been inspiring to see how much you have contributed to discussions of this BS in the US, even while you are facing (and fighting!) potentially worse in the EU (and/or Germany, seems like that whole thing is a bit chaotic....)

Just wanted to let you know that. Your posts often make my day!

 

[Anjaffm]

@twgbonehead:

Thank you very much for the lovely compliment! I appreciate it!

Let me give a short explanation, as to the EU and Germany:
The EU (European Union) is an organization made up of 28 member states in Europe. Germany is one of them.
Germany is also the biggest net payer in that European Union. With our tax money.

The current EU was started as the European Economic Community in 1957, to facilitate trade among the member states. With the aim of uniting the member states in trade and economic relations, in order to prevent another war such as WWII.
Then it was renamed the European Community (note: they left out "economic", they wanted more) in 1993.

In the meantime, it is called the European Union (EU). And this is what it has become. Like the Soviet Union, but with the central place in Brussels instead of Moscow. Where a handful of mercenary, unelected bureaucrats make "regulations" that represent the interests of Big Industry and that will govern the lives of millions of people, in all 28 member states. And the member states are expected to make those "regulations" into national law. Like Kasakhstan had to adopt the rules made in Moscow.

You have heard of the TPD (Tobacco Products Directive). Which will serve very well to protect the tobacco market by destroying the healthier competition. In all 28 member states. Decided by a handful of mercenary bureaucrats, in the pay of Big Industry. In some office building in Brussels. Governing my life. From some office building in a foreign country.

And the people of Europe are uniting now all right. Against the monster that the EU has become.

 

[twgbonehead]

Anja,

Thanks for the explanation. I knew some of the basics, but you've filled in a lot of gaps!

Does Germany have to enact the TPD as it is, or can it modify the terms before enacting it into law? Can Germany (or any of the other EU member countries) just decide NOT to implement it, or are there some kind of repercussions if they don't? It would certainly seem that Germany could pretty much write its own terms, given that it's in the driver's seat, financially. Greece, not so much.

Or is it considered a major slap-in-the face if an EU country doesn't go along with EU directives? Can they just "fail to pass" a law forever?

 

[Anjaffm]

@twgbonehead:

Germany cannot decide not to implement an EU regulation. Just as Kasakhstan had to implement any regulation coming from Moscow.
And it is completely irrelevant whether a country is the biggest net payer in that EUSSR or the poorest, smallest member.

As to modifiying: Oh yes, every member state is free to make the regulations even stricter, when they implement them. They can make the e-cigs medicines if they so desire. - Germany cannot make them medicines, unless they are advertised as such. He he. See below.

(Get this: If Germany's trade surplus exceeds the limit set by Moscow.. uhm.. Brussels, then Germany will be fined by the EU. Member states get punished for having a healthy economy. It is like punishing a good soccer team for being better than other teams, during the current soccer world cup. And no, I am not making this up.)

However, the courts in Germany do their job very well. Especially the higher courts. This is our hope.
(The courts in Germany have decided - several times already - that e-cigs are not medicines. In spite of arbitrary decisions taken by some overzealous politicians. The courts in my country work by evidence. Hard evidence. Not ideology, lies and blathering. Thankfully.)

For example, that passage in the TPD that "any contribution to any cross-border activity that promotes e-cigarettes" (such as forums, youtube, blogs, vape meets, vape fairs etc) is strictly forbidden - for private citizens, no less - goes counter to the Constitution of Germany. It goes counter to the freedom of expression and the freedom of assembly. Those rights are laid down in our Constitution. Those rights are sacred and not subject to discussion or abolition. Especially not by a product (!) directive laid down in Brussels.

About "cross-border": There is freedom of movement within the EU. So that guy sitting at the table next to you may be from across the border. I tell an Austrian that I love my Evod - and I go to jail? We'll see about that.

About "contribution": politicians have tried to say that this means only financial contributions.
1. politicians will say anything
2. politicians lie all the time
3. Not one vaper in Europe trusts those people
4. Even if it means "financial contribution" - hey, I am a supporting member in ECF - which is based in the UK - - > cross-border financial contribution. -- So they are going to drag me off to jail? For paying a small amount of money to an international vaping forum? A place where a legal activity is discussed? We'll see about that.

All it needs is one court case. Just one court case. And we can blow this entire crap wide open. An EU product (!) directive that goes directly counter to the Constitution of Germany. Which seeks to invalidate the constitutional rights of citizens of a sovereign country.

Yes. All it needs is one court case.

And until we get that, we do what we can.

Oh, and if you have any kind of doubt about the kinds of "product directives" enacted by the EUSSR Central Committee.. uhm.. the European Commision, if you have any kind of doubt about their motives, take a look at this, please EU drops olive oil jug ban after public outcry - Telegraph

/edit: And anyone who has time is welcome to look at the comments underneath that article. Those are the voices of the citizens of that EUSSR. They say exactly what the citizens think of the EU. And yes, I think the same. Naturally.

 

[tp4tissue]

Guys.. You absolutely CAN NOT be militant and so forceful in choosing your words while campaigning against the non-believers.


What they have on their side is memory of years-and-years of family members dying premature deaths.. we have ALL suffered at the hands of Tobacco burning..


It's important that we decouple the act of vaping from the act of smoking.. and also that we NOT use the same scare tactics of anti-smoking..

We have to be open.. and FRIENDLY... people do not respond well to FORCE.. it has never worked well, and it only stops the message..


We can yell until we're blue... the yelling just get people to shun us, and flip-us-the-bird...

We have to entice them with Coffee and Cake... Then they'll sit down, and see... Hey, vaping is great with Coffee and Cake...

 

[e-pipeman]

Guys.. You absolutely CAN NOT be militant and so forceful in choosing your words while campaigning against the non-believers.


What they have on their side is memory of years-and-years of family members dying premature deaths.. we have ALL suffered at the hands of Tobacco burning..


It's important that we decouple the act of vaping from the act of smoking.. and also that we NOT use the same scare tactics of anti-smoking..

We have to be open.. and FRIENDLY... people do not respond well to FORCE.. it has never worked well, and it only stops the message..


We can yell until we're blue... the yelling just get people to shun us, and flip-us-the-bird...

We have to entice them with Coffee and Cake... Then they'll sit down, and see... Hey, vaping is great with Coffee and Cake...

Show me the family members that have died premature deaths because of vaping. These antz attacks are getting really old.