Nothing new, just some interesting statements in this article

[hoogie76]

This article posted today had some interesting statements..

E-cigarettes: a burning question for U.S. regulators - Sun Sentinel I find this statement interesting:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration currently has no regulations on e-cigarettes, but it is expected to release rules this month that would extend its "tobacco product" authority over the devices. New FDA rules could follow.

"Further research is needed to assess the potential public health benefits and risks of electronic cigarettes and other novel tobacco products," said Jenny Haliski, an FDA spokeswoman.

To be sure, no one is expecting the federal government to go as far as Brazil, Norway and Singapore, where the devices are banned outright.

I find it interesting because this is the way that I read the current the rule submitted to OMB(View Rule) that states:

Statement of Need: Currently, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) provides FDA with immediate authority to regulate cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. The Tobacco Control Act also permits FDA to issue regulations deeming other tobacco products that meet the statutory definition of "tobacco product" to also be subject to the Food Drug & Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). This regulation is necessary to afford FDA the authority to regulate these products which include hookah, electronic cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, other novel tobacco products, and future tobacco products.

In reading this, it seems that this rule, to me anyway, is to get the authority to be able to create regulations for products not under current regulation. I may be totally off my rocker though as the proposed rule claims 2 parts but even with further reading is still unclear as to what will can be immediately regulated.


These statements from the first article really make me angry:

"Essentially e-cigarette companies are selling nicotine addiction," said Dr. Neil Schluger, chief scientific officer for the World Lung Foundation, which advocates for tobacco control.

"Once you have them addicted to nicotine, you can sell them all sorts of things, including conventional cigarettes," he said. "This is a giant Trojan horse."

I've busted my ... for almost 5 years to create a business that does not sell tobacco and gets people away from tobacco. Why in the hell would I myself go from 24mg, to 16mg, to 11mg, then to 6mg? So I could then addict myself back to tobacco products that I don't sell?

This is just such idiotic thinking but probably the kind of stuff that the antz like to hear because it has buzzwords and flashing lights.

Big Tobacco really just got into this game in the last year or so and I don't think that they deserve credit for thinking about how to create new ways to get people back to smoking tobacco. Why doesn't Dr. Schulger realize that Big Tobacco is jumping into the game because cig sales are dropping. Just doesn't make sense that he would even make a statement like that.

I'm sure you all noticed, but see the way they are vilifying BT as the culprit in all of these attempts to gain new addicts when it was really the e-cig vendors who took the risks for years to get e-cigs out and give people an alternative to their tobacco addiction. Just not fair and irritating.

Sorry had to rant.

hoog

 

[AgentAnia]

Thanks for posting this, hoogie.

This is just such idiotic thinking but probably the kind of stuff that the antz like to hear because it has buzzwords and flashing lights.

It isn't that ANTZ like to hear this stuff (tho they do!), it's because they *write* this stuff.

That "we won't ban then like Brazil etc." is a given. Alcohol prohibition didn't work, and that lesson has been learned. The most they can do in the US is "de facto ban" them like the EU is trying to do, i.e. regulate them into oblivion.

I tried to post this comment and couldn't get signed in, so I'll post it here, and if anyone else wants to post it to the article, please do!

"Nicotine-laced liquid" implies a connection with illegal drugs. Perhaps "nicotine-infused liquid" might have been a more objective word choice.

And this statement:

"'Essentially e-cigarette companies are selling nicotine addiction,' said Dr. Neil Schluger, chief scientific officer for the World Lung Foundation, which advocates for tobacco control.

"'Once you have them addicted to nicotine, you can sell them all sorts of things, including conventional cigarettes,' he said. 'This is a giant Trojan horse.'"

Utter nonsense! The vast majority of people who use e-cigarettes were already smokers. What e-cigarette companies are selling is a far SAFER alternative to smoking tobacco cigarettes. And to imply that consumers of nicotine are somehow zombie-ized into buying other, increasingly more harmful products is just downright insulting. Is this really what the American Lung Foundation thinks of us?

"For regulators, the big question is, are e-cigarettes a treatment for would-be quitters or "gateway" products to nicotine addiction?" The third answer, not offered as a choice here, is the correct one: E-cigarettes are a safer alternative to smoking tobacco cigarettes.

 

[Vocalek]

And to imply that consumers of nicotine are somehow zombie-ized into buying other, increasingly more harmful products is just downright insulting. Is this really what the American Lung Foundation thinks of us?

There's that pesky demonic possession again!

 

[AgentAnia]

There's that pesky demonic possession again!

Soon to be the latest smoking-cessation therapy: Nicotine exorcism...

 

[Anjaffm]

bah humbug!

Say, how much money does that American Lung Foundation get from Big Pharma, again?

We have a saying in my mother tongue "Wes Brot ich ess, des Lied ich sing" = When somebody feeds me bread, then I sing the songs that he likes.
Enough said.

 

[Traver]

I'm sure you all noticed, but see the way they are vilifying BT as the culprit in all of these attempts to gain new addicts when it was really the e-cig vendors who took the risks for years to get e-cigs out and give people an alternative to their tobacco addiction. Just not fair and irritating.

Big tobacco is about to invest billions in the electronic cigarette industry and these people are far more afraid of them than of the little companies that started this business. They are the ones who can pour money into the legislative processes and counter the lobbying efforts of pharma inc.
Personally I am convinced that is why there is such a big push to get anti vaping legislation passed now. Before the tobacco companies have a large stake in e-cigs and start putting money into legislation..

 

[Psyche]

Big tobacco is about to invest billions in the electronic cigarette industry and these people are far more afraid of them than of the little companies that started this business. They are the ones who can pour money into the legislative processes and counter the lobbying efforts of pharma inc.
Personally I am convinced that is why there is such a big push to get anti vaping legislation passed now. Before the tobacco companies have a large stake in e-cigs and start putting money into legislation..

I think the reason for the push is because the powers that be didn't think e-cig popularity would boom like it has.

Big Pharma and Big Tobacco thought they had the monopoly on nicotine, until they didn't. I think the push to regulate and ban is a panic reaction to the loss of that monopoly and all the money it generates. It threatens not only the manufacturers, but the taxman and the anti-smoking non-profits and lots of research money going towards tobacco control.

David only faced one Goliath. We have four by my count.