New article... Rita Chapelle quoted...

[Adam]

Bad picture, but good article. Rita Chapelle is quoted as well. Still not a bad article. I personally have done 7 different news/radio articles in the last week and have yet to have one that is bad. They touch on the concerns, which a good reporter will, however I address them and its reported in a decent light. What do you think?

Omaha.com Metro/Region Section

Keep vaping,

Adam

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Nice find Adam--thanks. Not a bad article indeed. And yes we get to hear from our good friend Rita Chapelle again--I am so gald she is concerned for our well being with this quote:

"We're concerned that consumers will mistakenly think that these products are a safer alternative to smoking," said Rita Chapelle of the FDA. "We don't want people to use a product if we don't know what harm it will lead to."


Thanks for watching out for us Rita!!!-----Sun

 

[tinear]

<loosely quoted> " we KNOW what tobacco products can and will do ~ sooo.... smoke 'em if ya got 'em ! "

 

[gep]

She's another "talking head" bureaucrat. Possibly taking money under the table from either tobacco or pharma....I say possibly because, well ANYTHING is possible....of course given the environment in DC, I suppose I could even go so far as saying "Probably taking..."

Ah to have a cushy GS job/appointment so I would have no one to answer to and can throw my weight around as my prejudices guide me to.

(Me? Bitter? Nah.....)

I think I'll stop posting tonight...I seem to be in a bad mood.

 

[BARENETTED]

"We're concerned that consumers will mistakenly think that these products are a safer alternative to smoking," said Rita Chapelle of the FDA. "We don't want people to use a product if we don't know what harm it will lead to."

Hey Rita - could they possibly be worse than cigarettes?

 

[arnoman]

They could research e-cigs immediately, there are people out there that have been vaping for well over a year, question them, see if they are having side effects. Review the testing done in other countries. It seems the media will report the opinions of a few people with bias in the right places and ignore the masses. Anyone see a pattern here?

Please send e-mails to your elected officials! Don't be nasty, be sincere and friendly.

Contact Elected Officials: USA.gov

God bless the government and big tobacco........a

 

[V-V]

A campaign of "The FDA wants me to smoke myself to death!" anyone?

Or, "Cigarettes are legal, a safer way to inhale nicotine isn't!"

 

[TropicalBob]

Start your considerations from this fact: It is a manufacturer's job to prove a drug or device is safe and efficient to market. It is NOT the FDA's job to prove it is unsafe.

Viewed that way, you can see where e-smoking stands. The FDA does not have to prove anything. It only has to abide by its regulations and purpose. Regulations are in place for new drugs that must be met prior to offering them for sale. Those regulations can't just be tossed aside because some letters are written or petitions received.

These will be safe and legal when the rules are met, not until then.

 

[V-V]

Those regulations are tossed aside daily Bob, every time a smoker smokes.

 

[TropicalBob]

The FDA does not now and never has regulated tobacco products.

Regulations on drugs are not tossed aside daily.

Comparisons between smoking a natural product and inhaling an addictive drug cocktail simply are not valid and of no concern to the FDA. Only e-smoking is a concern. There seems to be great confusion on why tobacco is allowed while e-smoking faces a ban. Two different products entirely; two regulatory agencies. The two practices are not an either/or proposition to the FDA, nor should it be.

 

[deewal]

The FDA does not now and never has regulated tobacco products.

Regulations on drugs are not tossed aside daily.

Comparisons between smoking a natural product and inhaling an addictive drug cocktail simply are not valid and of no concern to the FDA. Only e-smoking is a concern. There seems to be great confusion on why tobacco is allowed while e-smoking faces a ban. Two different products entirely; two regulatory agencies. The two practices are not an either/or proposition to the FDA, nor should it be.

How many more times do you think you are going to have to state that information TBob before it actually sinks in ?

 

[Hangar]

How many more times do you think you are going to have to state that information TBob before it actually sinks in ?

starting a pool of sorts might be fun!

hmm, wait a sec...i cant count that high!!

 

[Vapor Pete]

The FDA does not now and never has regulated tobacco products.

Regulations on drugs are not tossed aside daily.

Comparisons between smoking a natural product and inhaling an addictive drug cocktail simply are not valid and of no concern to the FDA. Only e-smoking is a concern. There seems to be great confusion on why tobacco is allowed while e-smoking faces a ban. Two different products entirely; two regulatory agencies. The two practices are not an either/or proposition to the FDA, nor should it be.

TBob... I think you are missing the point of "Those regulations are being tossed aside every day, every time a smoker dies."
And the comment from someone, "Hey rita, could it be any worse than smoking?" And as Leaford has said, with regards to tobacco vs. e-cigs, "Whats worse than dead?"
I know you are speaking the truth about the FDA, however, the good fight here is coming from a common sense angle. And certain comments from the likes of Rita and the FDA, spark the notion that some people lack said common sense. Saying, in essence, "We will support and enforce a ban on a product that contains 4 ingredients because we'r not sure what they will do to people, while simultaneously allowing tobacco products to kill an alarming rate of our own citizens because, after all, at least we know for sure that tobacco will kill them." That makes no sense. Thats why people continue to post things like that, and thats why you will have to keep posting your technical replies regarding FDA procedures. People are sick of the "talking out of both sides of their mouth" position the FDA has on this issue. Whether perceived or actual.
My best,
-VP

 

[melissa]

Rita is such a "Rita"

 

[Hangar]

TBob... I think you are missing the point of "Those regulations are being tossed aside every day, every time a smoker dies."
And the comment from someone, "Hey rita, could it be any worse than smoking?" And as Leaford has said, with regards to tobacco vs. e-cigs, "Whats worse than dead?"
I know you are speaking the truth about the FDA, however, the good fight here is coming from a common sense angle. And certain comments from the likes of Rita and the FDA, spark the notion that some people lack said common sense. Saying, in essence, "We will support and enforce a ban on a product that contains 4 ingredients because we'r not sure what they will do to people, while simultaneously allowing tobacco products to kill an alarming rate of our own citizens because, after all, at least we know for sure that tobacco will kill them." That makes no sense. Thats why people continue to post things like that, and thats why you will have to keep posting your technical replies regarding FDA procedures. People are sick of the "talking out of both sides of their mouth" position the FDA has on this issue. Whether perceived or actual.
My best,
-VP

yep, folks are being more emotional about this than factual/realistic...the problem with that, is that the proper legal steps needed to be taken to really change something usually get overshadowed or overlooked and that in turn means alot of wasted time not to mention mass confusion and misinformation.

You have to play the game according to what the rules ARE, and NOT what youd LIKE them or WISH them to be...changing the rules is another topic entirely that deserves its own thread.

 

[b00stzx3]

I used to get emotional about the whole deal, with the "conspiracy" theories and such, but take it or not, Tropical Bob speaks the truth. It's not that he doesn't want e-cigs to fluorish, but he's looking at it within the restraints of current law and what KNOW about the FDA, not speculation that Rita and Phillip Morris and Nicorette execs are sitting around a backroom plotting devious ways to kill the e-cig "competition". The more I realized this, the more reality set in. That being said though, I'll make my own ejuice before I'll go back to smoking! Cool article, glad some people have an option other than those Smoking Everywhere sheisters.

 

[Retina_Burn]

The FDA does not now and never has regulated tobacco products.

Regulations on drugs are not tossed aside daily.

Comparisons between smoking a natural product and inhaling an addictive drug cocktail simply are not valid and of no concern to the FDA. Only e-smoking is a concern. There seems to be great confusion on why tobacco is allowed while e-smoking faces a ban. Two different products entirely; two regulatory agencies. The two practices are not an either/or proposition to the FDA, nor should it be.

Maybe you should get SJ to put up a TBob sticky...... "FDA has no authority over tobacco."

It is hard for people that to grasp that FDA doesn't regulate a product like tobacco. I bet if they do actually get control like they want and are pushing for, it will fast become a different industry. Remember people, they have no double standard because they have no control over tobacco at all...... yet.

 

[TropicalBob]

The really horrible irony is, if they do get control over tobacco, the cigarette products on the market will have FDA approval! Now, the bill before Congress states that tobacco companies CANNOT advertise that fact, but it will be a fact nonetheless. So, if it's FDA approved, it must be okay. FDA says so! Now, that's nonsense.

While the jury might be out on e-smoking, it returned a verdict long ago on cigarette smoking. Two separate surgeon general's reports make clear what the FDA thinks about smoking: It's the country's major health problem, a killer, and uses a product that should be banned. But the bill explicitly prohibits a ban. Imagine wiping out the tobacco industry -- and the taxes it generates. Forget it. Tobacco stays.

So here we are: The FDA considers nicotine replacement products to be "drugs". Those face a difficult approval process, while Philip Morris can introduce a new Joy cigarette tomorrow. No, it's not fair. We need to find a way to offer alternatives to nicotine addicts.

Dr. Murray Laugesen of Health New Zealand has a worthy idea: Incentivize nicotine use by taxing tobacco products proportionate to their health risk. Think about that. Cigarettes do the most damage and would carry the highest taxes. Cigars would get a lesser tax. Pipe tobacco would get a lesser tax. Snus would get very little tax. Nasal snuff would get a tiny tax. And so would e-cigarette products.

These, he says in initial reports from his organization, are all better alternatives for the smoker who simply cannot or will not quit nicotine.

I agree with him. To me, that's common sense. Harm reduction is common sense. But such sense is not common when twisted by a complicated bureaucracy into a series of cold "sections" of code and definitions of law. Common sense is dismissed as "hearsay" evidence -- inadmissable.

BTW: Congress will show no "common sense" if it passes the Waxman bill as presently written. That bill should be properly called the Philip Morris Bailout Bill, since it locks PM in as the top cigarette seller and freezes competition. We e-smokers really have two battles yet to be settled: With the FDA on the legal status of all e-smoking products; with Congress on a poorly worded bill.