Jman, you're looking at the environment in 2014 rather than 2010.
Correct. Can't deny this, and I think it matters where we are now, though I realize rest of your post also matters.
Let's back up and redo history. The FDA loses its attempt at declaring e cigs a drug and drug delivery system. Bill and CASAA devote all their effort to fighting all the various locations where restrictions and bans start being generated. Actually, at the very onset, that is basically what was happening early on. Consider if they had continued to focus their attention there.
From what I understand, based on Kristin's recent comments, CASAA was mostly focussed on local items, but then members of vaping community were saying that FDA is where the real fight is at. To me, all that makes sense given the history. As much of this transpired before I even picked up my first eCig, I have great respect and appreciation for those pioneers who worked hard then, stayed up to speed with latest news, and continue to fight the good fight.
It's very possible we wouldn't be here today debating what the FDA may or may not do in the future. When the judges ruled against the FDA they did suggest that the FDA should deal with the product within their powers to control tobacco products. I have little doubt that without the noise created, the FDA would have long ago ruled with the iron fist that still is a possibility. Not only that, but the opposition at that time was much, much smaller, very few supporting studies were available and far fewer people knew anything about e cigs.
All statements I agree with. Could nitpick a little, but as I agree more than I disagree, I think it is important to acknowledge (and respect) what you are saying.
Njoy and Blu were really the only major players as SE went belly up in the first court battle and I'm sure Njoy certainly had taken a financial hit. Had the FDA acted swiftly without harm reduction advocates fighting them, I doubt we'd be having the conversation today. The opposition has bought time. Time has bought us a bigger voice, money in banks to fight unjust regulation and certainly a lot more businesses to fight back.
Again, this is stuff I mostly agree with. An angle where I feel disagreement and where I see this next major chapter of the conversation, ultimately leading to, is FDA also realized this was a type of tobacco product that was a game changer. For sure vaping advocates played a role in influencing their thoughts on matters, but I think it was other factors as well, such as vendors, BT, science, general public, etc. I think all of these contributed to buying time, but I'm willing to acknowledge that early on it was mostly consumer advocates doing the important leg work.
I as well as most of us hope the FDA will be reasonable. I have no doubt they are going to deem any product, derived from tobacco, a tobacco product. Anything less than the worst case scenario was earned via the contribution of the time spent by the harm reduction folks. That being said, the FDA rarely gives in easily.
<snip>
The FDA works very hard to protect their client, the Pharma industry. Perhaps now that would include Big Tobacco.
I snipped the Life Extension part because I fully anticipate FDA to not be reasonable and yes partially because FDA has history with other products and regulation and exercising questionable authority, but mostly because I continue to see TCA (the act) as the real threat. FDA is charged with ensuring that act is well regulated, or whatever government deems as well regulated. The act itself, from pro tobacco (pro nicotine use) perspective is inherently unreasonable. I have diatribe on this that could go on for a couple paragraphs, but the short version of that is I fully believe vapers ought to be working as if we are on same team with all nicotine users and not only looking out for vaping rights.
FDA will attempt to deliver some sort of blow to vapers, and on that I think we can all agree. Any change at the federal level that impacts eCigs will be seen by some segment of the vaping community as 'horrible regulation being proposed.' To other members who say don't use certain products, it may be deemed less of a blow. And according to Bill it will be all products, thus 99% of all members in vaping community will feel that blow.
The FDA though is hardly the issue we are facing right now. And when they do whatever it is they are going to do, it'll be an issue that for sure impacts consumers, but is likely to be more effectively dealt with by those who have larger stake in (mass) distribution of eCig products, namely attorneys for big and small vendors. We, consumers can influence that, and I consider it a given (done deal) that we consumers here on ECF and other vaping forums will be taking that fight up in whatever way works for us, for the benefit of all of us, and for potential eCig users.
But the current, very viable fight, is with local / state legislation that is suddenly highly visible. And we are fighting that. CASAA is on top of this, tackling it. tombaker can pretend CASAA isn't, but tombaker be mistaken. Yet, I don't think tombaker is way off base on his general message that says FDA simply cannot win in medium to longterm, on enforcing a ban on 99% of all eCig products. And I have heard Bill say the exact same thing. Thus two people who seemingly stand opposed are in exact agreement on what is arguably the most critical issue from the FDA perspective.
So, let's say they are both right and FDA loses yet again in court. Well ANTZ or people who are anti-vaping rights, are going to still continue to try and do what they are currently doing. And that is where our focus, as consumers ought to be. I'm guessing vendors don't care a whole lot about where consumers can and cannot vape. Consumers I would think care very passionately about that. I also don't think vendors care as much about the flavors issue as consumers do, though that is debatable. I do think vendors care more about the online sales issue, but that would be one that is about equal. All these things states and local communities can propose legislation on and don't need any influence from FDA to go forward, as we have seen in early 2014.
Unless FDA magically favors eCig products and stands behind them in a way that equals FDA approval of any and all eCig products, they will be a foe from pro-vaping perspective. But they get their charge from TCA, and that comes from more than just federal government. That is clearly a 'we the people' thing. Even some of us 'we the vapers' are seemingly okay with massive control of traditional cigarettes, ya know, cause they are stinkies and all. So, the act presents an enormous, plausibly insurmountable hurdle to the rights of eCig users. Yet, the more local battles we can win, the better. And the more times we can influence proactive legislation for vaping rights, even (much) better. Getting proactive with FDA, given all that we know, strikes me as waste of time.
Here in early 2014.
