Not Good News

[Joe Camel]

That sounds like they are just creating excuses.

 

[leeshor]

Actually, from what the manufacturers tell me, they're not legal to sell here. The government owned tobacco producers in Yunan province contribute too much revenue to the government.

It very likely boils down to the same issue here. If the government could figure out how to, collect the same taxes from PVs that they collect from tobacco there wouldn't be quite as much negativity going around.

Government in the U.S. has gone so far beyond it's original purpose it's disheartening at best and ticks me off too.

 

[Above God]

Because currently the FDA is calling e-cigs a drug delivery device and wants them off the market. They are confiscating shipments even as we speak. If this happens we will not see e-cigs at all for probably another 5 to 10 years. If the judge in the current court case rules that they are a tobacco product instead, yes we will lose our flavors as they exist now, but we can at least purchase the equipment and unflavored juice. And, who is to say that the suppliers can't just sell concentrated flavorings with no nicotine so that we can then flavor our own stock? It's definitely a better choice than not being able to buy them at all IMHO.

i dont get how a real cig isnt a "drug delivering device". they contain Nicotine which is a drug and it delivers it to you. no difference imo.

 

[aubergine]

See that forum; pretty much every objection, argument, opinion, option and commentary, intelligible and otherwise, has at some point or another been addressed there, regularly punctuated by flat, real-world observations of what's actually going on.

And that's all she wrote.

 

[CES]

Aubergine, thanks for your summaries. You did a great job with the SE v. FDA thread. Thanks for posting here.


Above God, the FDA agrees with you that e-cigs are drug delivery devices, but they are "unapproved" drug delivery devices, and shipments can be and are being seized. The FDA also doesn't agree that e-cigs are safer than combustible cigs. The studies that determine safety and effectiveness haven't been done and they cost a great deal of money and take many years. If the FDA can regulate these as a drug delivery device, rather than a tobacco alternative then they won't be freely available for many years.

Common sense says that e-cigs have got to be better, safer, and healthier than combustible cigs. But, unfortunately common sense doesn't have much of a place in the choices we have at the moment. The FDA wants to ban them (while fast tracking an anti-nicotine vaccine), some anti-smoking groups think we should just quit, and only get our nicotine from tomatoes, etc.

There are many opinions about what "should be", which is great and makes for lively discussions on many, many threads. That's part of why I'm addicted to the forum....But please consider, if you haven't already, checking out the campaigning sub forum, writing to legislators, the FDA etc. We're not a big group, so every voice is needed. Here are links to specific actions that you can take: (note: the Maryland Bill died in committee, but there is another bill to limit indoor e-cig use)

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/campaigning-discussions/80133-what-do-proposed-bans-4-states.html

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/campaigning-discussions/81630-write-american-lung-association.html

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...4891-comments-please-aaphp-petitions-fda.html

 

[Tugger]

It very likely boils down to the same issue here. If the government could figure out how to, collect the same taxes from PVs that they collect from tobacco there wouldn't be quite as much negativity going around.

Government in the U.S. has gone so far beyond it's original purpose it's disheartening at best and ticks me off too.

Bill Godshall is encouraging people on all these threads not to spread the rumor that this is motivated by tax revenue. The FDA doesn't care about taxes.

 

[MechTechVpr]

I know this is likely comparable to urinating in a hurricane(pissin in the wind, only worse) but maybe one of you incredibly articulate and intelligent people could draft a letter to the fearless leader (that just rammed the most socialistic cluster-F#%/~ of legislation in this countries history up our proverbial ars's in guise of improving this country's overall health care) who is currently undergoing nicotine replacement therapy (reportedly unsuccessfully), Introducing him to the best "unknown" method for quitting analogs out there (or, described as a healthier "replacement" for a product known to be killing millions of taxpayers and costing this country billions of $$ in health care cost...that way to avoid the cessation product issues)

Maybe ... just maybe ... if he was to see it as a safer alternative to his own addiction/unhealthy habit ...even if he couldn't use it publicly .... he would step in and call off the dogs ...

Of course as I sit here and write this politically opinionated, rambling statement, produced in a exhaustive state (from another sleepless night unable to tear myself away from this forum even after burning up two carto) I realize how ridiculous of an idea this is .... Just proof of my frustration that my own employees (if you still believe in that whole “for the people by the people” fantasy) are conspiring to take away the only weapon I have found effective in my personal battle against addiction to a “proven” killer…..bla bla bla….yada yada yada

Sorry guess I could have just not hit the post button !
off to the V4L store to stock up

 

[Garblesnarf]

Sorry guess I could have just not hit the post button !
off to the V4L store to stock up

Ha!

I've said that to myself a good number of times as well, but life wouldn't be nearly as entertaining if everyone censored themselves.

 

[maxx]

Bill Godshall is encouraging people on all these threads not to spread the rumor that this is motivated by tax revenue. The FDA doesn't care about taxes.

Well then, Bill is being deliberately obtuse. All of these actions including the state bills are about tax revenue. It is the single largest driving force in the e-cig war and was the driving force behind the PACT act too.



People keep looking at the FDA like it is some independant agency. The FDA chief is a presidential appointee and the agency is funded by tax dollars. Is the IRS independant? The FCC? No.The agency is part of government and does what it is told to do, period. I get so tired of hearing the hair-splitting argument that the FDA is not empowered to tax. Reveue bills must start in congress...that's the constitution. But anyone who doesn't see that the FDA can be used as a tool to protect existing tax revenue streams or to create new streams via their defintions, is being naive.

 

[jeffree]

I know this is likely comparable to urinating in a hurricane(pissin in the wind, only worse) but maybe one of you incredibly articulate and intelligent people could draft a letter to the fearless leader (that just rammed the most socialistic cluster-F#%/~ of legislation in this countries history up our proverbial ars's in guise of improving this country's overall health care) who is currently undergoing nicotine replacement therapy (reportedly unsuccessfully), Introducing him to the best "unknown" method for quitting analogs out there (or, described as a healthier "replacement" for a product known to be killing millions of taxpayers and costing this country billions of $$ in health care cost...that way to avoid the cessation product issues)

Maybe ... just maybe ... if he was to see it as a safer alternative to his own addiction/unhealthy habit ...even if he couldn't use it publicly .... he would step in and call off the dogs ...

Of course as I sit here and write this politically opinionated, rambling statement, produced in a exhaustive state (from another sleepless night unable to tear myself away from this forum even after burning up two carto) I realize how ridiculous of an idea this is .... Just proof of my frustration that my own employees (if you still believe in that whole “for the people by the people” fantasy) are conspiring to take away the only weapon I have found effective in my personal battle against addiction to a “proven” killer…..bla bla bla….yada yada yada

Sorry guess I could have just not hit the post button !
off to the V4L store to stock up

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, of course, but the reference to "socialism" is way off base. I spend a lot of my time living and working in socialistic countries, and whatever one's opinion of this health care bill, it ain't anywhere even near socialism. That's a fact, not an opinion.

 

[Stephra]

I know this is likely comparable to urinating in a hurricane(pissin in the wind, only worse) but maybe one of you incredibly articulate and intelligent people could draft a letter to the fearless leader who is currently undergoing nicotine replacement therapy (reportedly unsuccessfully), Introducing him to the best "unknown" method for quitting analogs out there

The problem is, it's already been done!

I read some time back that there are some guys on Capitol Hill who are PV users. If I'm remembering correctly, there is a senator or congressman (republican) from Florida who has sent kits to some prominent people, including the president. PVs are not foreign or unheard of... They just aren't widely accepted.

My boss tells everybody about my e-cig and how I quit smoking, but when somebody inevitably says, "Well, you should try it then!", she will wrinkle up her nose and scrunch up her face and say, "Uh-huh, not for me!"

Those who don't love PVs as we do just WON'T get it. And you can throw all the "education" out there you want, and it won't help. The most ignorant thing in the world is willful ignorance.

 

[Tugger]

Well then, Bill is being deliberately obtuse. All of these actions including the state bills are about tax revenue. It is the single largest driving force in the e-cig war and was the driving force behind the PACT act too.



People keep looking at the FDA like it is some independant agency. The FDA chief is a presidential appointee and the agency is funded by tax dollars. Is the IRS independant? The FCC? No.The agency is part of government and does what it is told to do, period. I get so tired of hearing the hair-splitting argument that the FDA is not empowered to tax. Reveue bills must start in congress...that's the constitution. But anyone who doesn't see that the FDA can be used as a tool to protect existing tax revenue streams or to create new streams via their defintions, is being naive.

I think you're being presumptuous. Why can't we take what he says at face value. The conspiracy theories make less sense than just accepting that the FDA doesn't place much stock in harm reduction.

 

[KuiHiggins]

The obvious irony here is of course the fact that our loving gov't cares so much about our well-being that they will keep us safe from eCigs, just so we can keep puffing on analogs. We all know the absurdity of that..I'll comment no further on that point.

But then there's this...

In communist China, they are free to manufacture, sell, and consume eCigs (and supplies) to their heart's content...while we, here in the great U.S.A...the world's beacon of freedom, are being told by our gov't that we will not be allowed to buy, sell, or manufacture the same products.

This is the big gov't that my grandfather fought in WWII for? This is the big gov't that my father was sweating bullets in the Cuban Missile Crisis for?

I guess when November rolls around, I'll of course run my rear-end up to the voting booths, only to vote to replace "Dumber" with "Dumb"...and still watch as my gov't grows bigger & more corrupt & invasive.

Sorry...this whole thing just makes me angry...had to vent.

If this post is too political or offensive, then I understand if it needs to be removed.

Just ticked off I guess..

I feel the exact same way, I'm just too upset to even put it into words. Nicely said.

 

[maxx]

I think you're being presumptuous. Why can't we take what he says at face value. The conspiracy theories make less sense than just accepting that the FDA doesn't place much stock in harm reduction.

Swinging on Bill's nutsack and drinking the kool-aid....or wear a conspiracy kook label? Hmmmm....lemme think.....



I'll take the kook label....

 

[uzzaperez]

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, of course, but the reference to "socialism" is way off base. I spend a lot of my time living and working in socialistic countries, and whatever one's opinion of this health care bill, it ain't anywhere even near socialism. That's a fact, not an opinion.

Perhaps off topic, but "socialism" has sort of become slang for big government even if it isn't always entirely accurate. It blows my mind in general how a country founded on the ideals of freedom has come to where we are today. Politics is all about passing more and more legislation so politicians can tell us what they have accomplished for us. And legislation, though it can and is used to protect freedoms, is most frequently used today to restrict freedoms. The formula for political success is to find something that doesn't have popular support and legislate the hell out of it. Healthcare is the most recent and obvious example. E-cigs may be another casualty. There don't seem to be many true small gov advocate conservatives out there. Locally, an "conservative" AZ politician is preparing a bill to extend the waiting period for a divorce from 60 days to 180 days. Why? Family values, discourage divorce and give folks more time to reconsider. Sounds nice, but WTF? Why are we constantly bombarded by these people who know what is good for us and are hell bent on making our decisions for us?

All I can say is that I'm so happy we elect people who are smarter than me so they can tell me what I can and can't do. Freedom is just too dangerous, no telling what could happen if I were allowed to make choices on my own.

 

[StormFinch]

Well then, Bill is being deliberately obtuse. All of these actions including the state bills are about tax revenue. It is the single largest driving force in the e-cig war and was the driving force behind the PACT act too.



People keep looking at the FDA like it is some independant agency. The FDA chief is a presidential appointee and the agency is funded by tax dollars. Is the IRS independant? The FCC? No.The agency is part of government and does what it is told to do, period. I get so tired of hearing the hair-splitting argument that the FDA is not empowered to tax. Reveue bills must start in congress...that's the constitution. But anyone who doesn't see that the FDA can be used as a tool to protect existing tax revenue streams or to create new streams via their defintions, is being naive.

Actually, I agree with Bill that this is not about tax dollars, but not for the reasons you might think. Only a small portion of the FDA's budget is funded by tax dollars. The rest has been provided by the pharmaceutical companies thanks to a 1992 law. Then the FDA was given control over the Tobacco industry.

I am going to give you two quotes and then the links where they can be found, but this is what I believe is behind the whole thing:

"For the first 86 years of FDA's existence, from 1906-1992, all of FDA's funding came through the U.S. Treasury. In other words, everyone -- industry, people -- paid their taxes, and FDA got appropriations out of the budget.
Starting in 1992, unfortunately, a law was passed that said for a large proportion of the work done by the FDA on new drug applications, the money's going to come directly, quid pro quo, from the industry. If they want a drug reviewed, they pay directly to the FDA to have the drug reviewed."

and;

"The bill would also create a tobacco center within the FDA funded by fees from the industry that are estimated to reach more than $500 million annually by 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office."

frontline: dangerous prescription: the fda: how independent is the fda? | PBS

Chances Bright for Legislation Seeking FDA Regulation of Tobacco - washingtonpost.com


We have already watched the FDA go after natural remedies and supplements. Many were removed from the market even though thousands of people swore by them because they worked with no harmful side effects.
There is an uproar in the Hypothyroid sufferers community because the FDA has been coming down hard on a natural thyroid medication that was grandfathered in since it was in production long before the FDA was created. It happens to be the only direct competition to big pharma's Synthroid.

So no, I do not believe it is about tax dollars, because we no longer pay the FDA. It's about keeping us smoking or using pharmaceutically produced nicotine replacement therapies, because they are the ones paying the FDA.

 

[Garblesnarf]

Swinging on Bill's nutsack and drinking the kool-aid..

Now there's an image I would like out of my head 8-o

Where's the neuralizer from Men-In-Black when I need one?

 

[StormFinch]

I think you're being presumptuous. Why can't we take what he says at face value. The conspiracy theories make less sense than just accepting that the FDA doesn't place much stock in harm reduction.

The FDA doesn't place much stock in harm reduction. Merck and Co. paid them to clear Vioxx for sale. The FDA let it through and whistle blowers say they knew the side effects, adding new warnings on the product 2 years before it was finally pulled from the market. The consequences were disastrous.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Recall that in April of 2002 the FDA added new warnings to labels of Vioxx about the increased risk of heart attack. After months of negative publicity, the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory COX-2 inhibitor drug Vioxx was finally recalled in September of 2004. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Whistleblower Dr. David Graham, in testimony before the US Senate, estimated 88,000 to 139,000 Americans experienced heart attacks as a side effect from the drug, and 30 to 40 percent of these died. That would be an estimated 27,000 to 55,000 preventable deaths attributed to Vioxx."[/FONT]
Just How Many Americans Did Vioxx Kill? by Bill Sardi


27,000 to 55,000 people? There have been 33,000+ people registered to this board over it's entire life span. No, I truly do not believe the FDA gives a fig about us.

 

[curiousJan]

They also want to regulate E-Cigs as a tobacco product. Some see positives in that but I see only negatives. Among other things the government has outlawed flavored cigarettes. Only tobacco and menthol flavors.

There went the watermelon.

No they don't ... they want to regulate a drug-device combination, i.e. a pharmaceutical product.

Jan

 

[Furius]

The FDA doesn't place much stock in harm reduction. Merck and Co. paid them to clear Vioxx for sale. The FDA let it through and whistle blowers say they knew the side effects, adding new warnings on the product 2 years before it was finally pulled from the market. The consequences were disastrous.

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"Recall that in April of 2002 the FDA added new warnings to labels of Vioxx about the increased risk of heart attack. After months of negative publicity, the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory COX-2 inhibitor drug Vioxx was finally recalled in September of 2004. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Whistleblower Dr. David Graham, in testimony before the US Senate, estimated 88,000 to 139,000 Americans experienced heart attacks as a side effect from the drug, and 30 to 40 percent of these died. That would be an estimated 27,000 to 55,000 preventable deaths attributed to Vioxx."[/FONT]
Just How Many Americans Did Vioxx Kill? by Bill Sardi


27,000 to 55,000 people? There have been 33,000+ people registered to this board over it's entire life span. No, I truly do not believe the FDA gives a fig about us.

What an egregious abuse of power that led to the deaths of Americans. Could you imagine if the ecig had 55000 deaths attributed to it? It would probably be easier to get ...... after that gavel fell.
I am astounded that the FDA was allowed to go on as business as usual after that. There should have been a major investigation that led to jail time for some. If there is one outfit that Americans should absolutely be able to trust, it should be the FDA that approves/disapproves all of our consumable products. If that trust is tested once, its time to go back to the drawing board. We shouldn't have to sit and wonder whether the FDA is in a powerful entities pockets. If that is even in question, there should be a major house cleaning.
Its funny to me how the American military is held to insane standards of conduct and how the government doesn't think twice to put American soldiers on trial for a wrongful kill in a war zone or inappropriate conduct, yet the FDA which quite possibly murdered AMERICANS gets the proverbial blind eye. Even the Congress and the President himself has to answer more to the people than the FDA. Its like they are untouchable.