So, what can we do? Do we start "mini" CASAA groups in our towns/cities? And then approach our own doctors/media? With validation and documentation of better health?
I just want to know what I can do.
Legacy urges FDA to ban all e-cigs by immediately imposing the deeming regulation, makes more false fear mongering claims
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
So, what can we do? Do we start "mini" CASAA groups in our towns/cities? And then approach our own doctors/media? With validation and documentation of better health?
I just want to know what I can do.
Also. I think that by adding Legislation to the top of this forum is important. Being a "newbie", I actually had to hunt for this thread. It should be readily available to anyone visiting the home page. Large font and in sight. All vapers need to know what's going on. 
I am going to start by saying that I have been working on getting a clarification...
It appears I MAY have been wrong when I said the proposed deeming regulations are already written.
It seems that they may be written, or they may be nothing more than just a simple deeming, or anything in-between.
The thing is that nobody participating in this conversation knows for sure, as it seems this is all we can know for sure...
I'm a little confused at how the OMB can be determine the financial impact of regulations that don't exist.
But what do I know about how the government does what it does?
As far as there being nothing that vapers can do about those regulations, that is what the comment period is for.
Last edited:
Over the years we have managed to get this subforum moved up significantly from where it started.Also. I think that by adding Legislation to the top of this forum is important. Being a "newbie", I actually had to hunt for this thread. It should be readily available to anyone visiting the home page. Large font and in sight. All vapers need to know what's going on.
I doubt they're going to move it up any further, but it never hurts to ask.
Last edited:
Over the years we have managed to get this subforum moved up significantly from where it started.
I doubt they're going to move it up any further, but it never hurts to ask.
Yes, this forum is very unimportant compared to those of all the forums about available mods and delicious e liquids. However, after the aforementioned get banned everywhere in one form or the other, legislative news might become more important.
I always imagine regulars in those parts of the forum becoming aware of "imposing regulations due at end of this month" and then saying something along lines of, "wow, I'm surprised no one on ECF ever talked about that. We could've done something to prevent this I think."
I wonder if they even read some of their citations. I have linked one of them below that I read and is extremely supportive of the harm reduction offered by alternative means of nicotine consumption. Here's a couple of quotes:
Alternative nicotine delivery devices will still entail risks.
But as nothing in life is devoid of risks it is nonsensical to
dismiss an alternative to a tremendously harmful activity by
claiming the alternative is not absolutely safe, or to claim
that the pursuit of a less hazardous alternative implies that
the alternative is virtually harmless (Gray & Henningfield,
2006).
"Conclusion
We can reduce tobacco related death and disease far more
rapidly than we can reasonably expect to reduce nicotine use
by focusing on the fact that people smoke for the nicotine but
die from the smoke. Applying harm reduction principles to
public health policies on tobacco/nicotine is more than simply
a rational and humane policy. It is more than a pragmatic
response to a market that is, anyway, already in the process
of undergoing significant changes. It has the potential to lead
to one of the greatest public health breakthroughs in human
history by fundamentally changing the forecast of a billion
cigarette-caused deaths this century." (Emphasis mine.)
And this is from 2006. Much more has been offered in terms of research since then that shows the positive benefits of harm reduction through vaping. These people would rather have more people die unless the remedy comes from Pfizer or Phillip Morris. God, I hate Washington DC and all of the self serving special interests who live off of the body politic like a tick on a dog's neck!
http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/DRUPOL_633.pdf
Alternative nicotine delivery devices will still entail risks.
But as nothing in life is devoid of risks it is nonsensical to
dismiss an alternative to a tremendously harmful activity by
claiming the alternative is not absolutely safe, or to claim
that the pursuit of a less hazardous alternative implies that
the alternative is virtually harmless (Gray & Henningfield,
2006).
"Conclusion
We can reduce tobacco related death and disease far more
rapidly than we can reasonably expect to reduce nicotine use
by focusing on the fact that people smoke for the nicotine but
die from the smoke. Applying harm reduction principles to
public health policies on tobacco/nicotine is more than simply
a rational and humane policy. It is more than a pragmatic
response to a market that is, anyway, already in the process
of undergoing significant changes. It has the potential to lead
to one of the greatest public health breakthroughs in human
history by fundamentally changing the forecast of a billion
cigarette-caused deaths this century." (Emphasis mine.)
And this is from 2006. Much more has been offered in terms of research since then that shows the positive benefits of harm reduction through vaping. These people would rather have more people die unless the remedy comes from Pfizer or Phillip Morris. God, I hate Washington DC and all of the self serving special interests who live off of the body politic like a tick on a dog's neck!
http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/DRUPOL_633.pdf
Also. I think that by adding Legislation to the top of this forum is important. Being a "newbie", I actually had to hunt for this thread. It should be readily available to anyone visiting the home page. Large font and in sight. All vapers need to know what's going on.
Over the years we have managed to get this subforum moved up significantly from where it started.
I doubt they're going to move it up any further, but it never hurts to ask.
Atchafalaya: Legislation News is already on the front page if you click "Forum" at the top left, you'll see a list of all the top-level sub-forums. Scroll down a little past the General Discussion sub-forums, and there is Legislation News, Media & General News, a little further is the CASAA sub-forum, etc.
Best bet is to put links in your signatures, as I have done, to help spread the word to those who might not even realize they should be looking.
Tom, this has been asked of you before, and I'll ask it again.
Where are you getting the information that you post here.. Is it merely your opinion, or do you have experience in dealing with government on a higher level than say, casaa board members..
You speak a good game, but if you want those of us who would really like it to be as you say, and to be with you on your crusade, and the FDA will not go as far as casaa says it will, then I and probably others would like to know your credentials that allows you to speak as matter-of-factly as you do..
I can read what the FDA says, and I can come away with the same conclusion,and I can also read it and come away with the conclusions which casaa says, but that doesn't mean I would be right, as I have no experience personally in reading legislation and totally understanding the ramifications which may be directly in front of me in politicspeak.. As we know politicians have a way of inventing words to suit their agenda..
Tell me why I/we should listen to you and take your side.
If this is your opinion then it is only that.
Is this information you have received from "attorneys" you know?
This forum consists of adults and if you want us to pay attention to you, which is what you want it seems, or you wouldn't constantly rebut what casaa is saying, then the smart things for adults to do when looking at either "facts or opinions" from others is to vett the person whom is giving the facts and opinions.
From whence and from what knowledge do you speak? Are you affiliated with any vaping industry or trade association?
If you do not want to reveal yourself then don't. But by declining to do so, you hurt your case and your legal opinions and dissertations fall on deaf ears..
It seems you do have a case to prove, , a "chip" on your shoulder so to speak because if you didn't you would not be so adamant at proving casaa wrong.
I am completely neutral in my attitude on this and have no animosity torwards you at this point or in the future.
If you choose to ignore this then I'm good with that too and since a person can't prove a negative, it will be proof enough for me as to where my alliance will lie..and it will allow me to use my energy elsewhere in formulating my own conclusions.
We all have vested interests in what comes about from the FDA.
I await your reply with eagerness.
Kevin
Where are you getting the information that you post here.. Is it merely your opinion, or do you have experience in dealing with government on a higher level than say, casaa board members..
You speak a good game, but if you want those of us who would really like it to be as you say, and to be with you on your crusade, and the FDA will not go as far as casaa says it will, then I and probably others would like to know your credentials that allows you to speak as matter-of-factly as you do..
I can read what the FDA says, and I can come away with the same conclusion,and I can also read it and come away with the conclusions which casaa says, but that doesn't mean I would be right, as I have no experience personally in reading legislation and totally understanding the ramifications which may be directly in front of me in politicspeak.. As we know politicians have a way of inventing words to suit their agenda..
Tell me why I/we should listen to you and take your side.
If this is your opinion then it is only that.
Is this information you have received from "attorneys" you know?
This forum consists of adults and if you want us to pay attention to you, which is what you want it seems, or you wouldn't constantly rebut what casaa is saying, then the smart things for adults to do when looking at either "facts or opinions" from others is to vett the person whom is giving the facts and opinions.
From whence and from what knowledge do you speak? Are you affiliated with any vaping industry or trade association?
If you do not want to reveal yourself then don't. But by declining to do so, you hurt your case and your legal opinions and dissertations fall on deaf ears..
It seems you do have a case to prove, , a "chip" on your shoulder so to speak because if you didn't you would not be so adamant at proving casaa wrong.
I am completely neutral in my attitude on this and have no animosity torwards you at this point or in the future.
If you choose to ignore this then I'm good with that too and since a person can't prove a negative, it will be proof enough for me as to where my alliance will lie..and it will allow me to use my energy elsewhere in formulating my own conclusions.
We all have vested interests in what comes about from the FDA.
I await your reply with eagerness.
Kevin
Last edited:
I'd like to be clear that it's "as far as CASAA says it might."
We've never said "XYZ will happen." We've always said "XYZ could happen. Or WXY is even possible. Please be ready to act when we find out for certain."CASAA has never claimed to know what is going to happen. Our only purpose is to make people aware of the possibilities, do everything we can to avoid the worst happening (testifying before the FDA, TPSAC and OMB), prepare to take action (submitting comments, going to the media) and hope for the best.
No one on this forum - not Bill, nor Tom, nor I - knows what was submitted to the OMB or what the FDA will finally release for public comment (unless they work for the FDA.) But we can tell you what the FDA could legally do and I'm pretty darn certain that CASAA has that part correct.
I have to say that, after looking again at the FDA guidelines for the registration of tobacco products, Tom is right that the FDA would have a very hard time justifying requiring all e-cig companies to stop selling until they are registered, since even the tobacco companies had a grace period to fulfill that requirement after FSPTCA was passed. However, that doesn't mean the FDA "can't" require that. There is nothing but the threat of lawsuits to stop it and it would probably take an e-cig company longer to go through a lawsuit (and more money) than to just get their registration paperwork turned in.
I figured as much, K3vin.
I just wanted to make sure anyone else reading this thread is clear on that. Some other posters have represented it in other threads like CASAA is claiming to know exactly what the FDA will do and that just isn't true.
The FDA knows who it's main opposition is, us here on ECF as we have this forum etc to fight against the FDA and other bodies opposing ecigs. IMHO you are here to try and sway as many of us as possible to believe u and sit back with nothing to worry about.
Your efforts are failing, even though u may have 3-4 supporters and that is sad. I for one well not be fooled by your misguided understanding of anything to do with Law, regulations etc etc
I'm not saying u don't have a right to voice your opinion, just that I'm not falling for that garbage/bunk.
Sorry Mods if this is innapropiate. But it had to be said and that's my opinion. Ill say no more to this person or his/her posts.
I'll gladly stick with the opinions of CASAA. Ty have a good day.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd like to be clear that it's "as far as CASAA says it might."
CASAA has never claimed to know what is going to happen. Our only purpose is to make people aware of the possibilities, do everything we can to avoid the worst happening (testifying before the FDA, TPSAC and OMB), prepare to take action (submitting comments, going to the media) and hope for the best.
No one on this forum - not Bill, nor Tom, nor I - knows what was submitted to the OMB or what the FDA will finally release for public comment (unless they work for the FDA.) But we can tell you what the FDA could legally do and I'm pretty darn certain that CASAA has that part correct.
Sorry, but I gotta disagree here. OP (Bill G) says would. Not for the first time or only time. It says "would" and it says "ban ALL eCig products currently on the market."
That doesn't leave much room for could or might.
Then there is just the fact that Bill carries more weight in these threads than anyone else. Doesn't have to be that way, but it clearly is and I'm certain I could make this point abundantly clear if asked to do so. Plus, I actually thought Bill was head of CASAA until I learned otherwise about 5 weeks ago in one of these threads. That he's not would seem to take away, a little bit, from first sentence of this paragraph, but I stand by it.
And so if the message is deeming regulations will (or would) ban all eCig products currently on the market, that strikes me as a) very critical to our collective fight and/or b) possibly fear mongering. I see you and others who are passionate on these topics, when involved in these threads, able to back off of your rhetoric and engage in discourse that is reassuring and I feel helpful going forward.
Personally, I don't need to know Tom's credentials. I see his posts as his take on what could happen, and enough information from him to say he could possibly be mistaken. I'm curious about Tom's stake in this, and curious about how he seems so able to write with such authority, but I have equal curiosity on Bill's messages that seem to continue going unchecked and not called out. I get what Bill's credentials and experience are, and I respect that, but have a tough time respecting the message of "would ban all eCigs on the market" as if that is a certainty. Cause if it is, then we are wasting time with FDA stuff which is what Tom is saying, but coming at it from different angle than I'm saying right now. If deeming regulations would ban eCigs, then what possibly can vaping consumers do to stop FDA from that goal? Many of us have already written people in congress (several times) and yet the message is still 'deeming regulations would ban eCigs.' Thus the game is already over, if our top speaker, person with most credentials is conveying that understanding of what's surely coming soon.
IMO, the FDA is going to do whatever it is the FDA is going to do, but i don't see it as full ban of all eCig material currently on the market. I think that is possible, but unlikely. Yet even if that occurs, it would be impossible to enforce for (all) consumers and vendors are hip to what's going on and will fight it with much more at stake than consumers. We've hashed out these issues so much that I can't imagine any of us who have been paying attention would be in any sort of panic mode under a worst case scenario. FDA carries a lot of weight for sure, but they are simply not the only player in the game, and they clearly have opponents that will launch a defensive which is likely to do much more than simply hand entire eCig industry to BT. Furthermore, while 'black market' sounds all dark and mysterious, I think it is more likely to be similar to what we have now which isn't exactly an open market but closer to, or actually is, a grey market. Though admittedly a heavily regulated market is kinda scary compared to a gray market.
I also think Tobacco Act is way more the threat than FDA.
FDA is just the errand boy sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill.
Errand boys with the force of law and guns to enforce it.
(See prohibition or the war on drugs)
Bill Godshall is not CASAA.
Note that I'm not saying he is wrong.
Nor am I saying he is right.
I'm just saying he is not CASAA.
One thing I will say, for those that don't know his background and history...
He has FAR more direct experience with anti-tobacco legislation than anyone on this forum...
But again, that does not make him right, nor does it make him wrong.
Last edited:
You absolutely MUST listen to this...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...red-do-you-want-feel-better-about-things.html
You might come away with a different opinion.
For those of you asking why Bill Godshall says the deeming regulations, if passed as is, would ban most electronic cigarettes...
Listen to the end of his testimony (1:39:00) before the FDA in the link above.
Agree or disagree, you can hear his opinion in his own words.
My reason for believing the FDA wants to ban ecigs no matter how much they help..
The mere fact of how they tried to stop it before being sued in court.
I have not ever read where they informed people who were claiming health benefits, or warned them they need to stop..
They went full on into stopping Any and all things Ecig related at customs without as far as I know any warning whatsoever to the people who were ordering such items.
And I imagine not everyone at that time was saying it was "safer or better "
The FDA got on their high horse,and when it was all said and done, they got ....-hurt when they lost in court.
They took a few years to put something together, was it because they wanted to see how it would play out, or do more testing on ecigs?
My feeling is no, my belief is it is because they have been working and discussing all the angles to get ecigs squashed.. My opinion is they want their pound of flesh and they have been strategizing these last few years to get that accomplished..
The above is my opinion and full of speculation.
The bottom line for all of us here, is that we found an alternative to smoking, on that I would say 99% believe to be safer.
And the fact that a govt agency, who has the ability as most govt. agency's to do whatever the hell they want, an agency who does not like ecigs, and one who as far as I know to date did one small test in 09, and keeps that posted on their site just to try and put fear into people, and uses that test as their rallying cry puts a healthy dose of skepticism in my heart and mind that they want ecigs to stick around..
And if their is one thing most of us know when it comes to govt. if they want something accomplished and the legislation or rules somehow inhibit or prohibit them from accomplishing their goal... Well, they just change the rules or adjust the regulations to accomplish it.
I will be delightfully surprised if the FDA doesn't use a heavy hand on regulating ecigs and it's essential components.
The mere fact of how they tried to stop it before being sued in court.
I have not ever read where they informed people who were claiming health benefits, or warned them they need to stop..
They went full on into stopping Any and all things Ecig related at customs without as far as I know any warning whatsoever to the people who were ordering such items.
And I imagine not everyone at that time was saying it was "safer or better "
The FDA got on their high horse,and when it was all said and done, they got ....-hurt when they lost in court.
They took a few years to put something together, was it because they wanted to see how it would play out, or do more testing on ecigs?
My feeling is no, my belief is it is because they have been working and discussing all the angles to get ecigs squashed.. My opinion is they want their pound of flesh and they have been strategizing these last few years to get that accomplished..
The above is my opinion and full of speculation.
The bottom line for all of us here, is that we found an alternative to smoking, on that I would say 99% believe to be safer.
And the fact that a govt agency, who has the ability as most govt. agency's to do whatever the hell they want, an agency who does not like ecigs, and one who as far as I know to date did one small test in 09, and keeps that posted on their site just to try and put fear into people, and uses that test as their rallying cry puts a healthy dose of skepticism in my heart and mind that they want ecigs to stick around..
And if their is one thing most of us know when it comes to govt. if they want something accomplished and the legislation or rules somehow inhibit or prohibit them from accomplishing their goal... Well, they just change the rules or adjust the regulations to accomplish it.
I will be delightfully surprised if the FDA doesn't use a heavy hand on regulating ecigs and it's essential components.
The cessation questions by Legacy or anyone else really stun me for their stupidity. If I were still teaching and mentoring graduate students in a B school, this would be an easy one to prove-almost too easy.
Look at the numbers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In the US, those numbers would be a little harder to come by. In countries like Italy where cigarettes are a government monopoly, it is a snap. The whole government monopoly thing is a bit difficult to explain, but the simple explanation is that cigarettes can only be sold through a restricted number of licensed and tightly controlled retail outlets.
To make a long story short: tax revenue from cigarette sales have dropped a whopping 6%. This number is truly significant because all of the other studies on cigarette usage and consumption before the advent of the e cig have shown a growth curve-albeit modest, nonetheless positive growth curve.
This is especially true when examining the effectiveness of cigarette cessation therapy. Nothing else has proven to be as effective as the electronic cigarette.
With all of the DIY nuts like myself, modders, cheapskates who order from China (like myself from Fasttech and Focalecig), accurate e cig revenues may be somewhat difficult to find. I buy my flavors, for instance, directly from producers like LorAnn, Capella, and TFA. My nic does not even come from a shop selling ecigs.
We are fighting a losing battle against regulation. It is my personal belief that the stunning growth of the use of ecigs by minors will give the anti vaping community all the ammunition it needs to push legislation in any direction it wants.
Look at the numbers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In the US, those numbers would be a little harder to come by. In countries like Italy where cigarettes are a government monopoly, it is a snap. The whole government monopoly thing is a bit difficult to explain, but the simple explanation is that cigarettes can only be sold through a restricted number of licensed and tightly controlled retail outlets.
To make a long story short: tax revenue from cigarette sales have dropped a whopping 6%. This number is truly significant because all of the other studies on cigarette usage and consumption before the advent of the e cig have shown a growth curve-albeit modest, nonetheless positive growth curve.
This is especially true when examining the effectiveness of cigarette cessation therapy. Nothing else has proven to be as effective as the electronic cigarette.
With all of the DIY nuts like myself, modders, cheapskates who order from China (like myself from Fasttech and Focalecig), accurate e cig revenues may be somewhat difficult to find. I buy my flavors, for instance, directly from producers like LorAnn, Capella, and TFA. My nic does not even come from a shop selling ecigs.
We are fighting a losing battle against regulation. It is my personal belief that the stunning growth of the use of ecigs by minors will give the anti vaping community all the ammunition it needs to push legislation in any direction it wants.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
