OC Register front page article about vaping

[Katya]

The vape debate: Is it good or bad for Orange County to be the 'Silicon Valley' of vaping? - The Orange County Register

The usual mixed bag: safer than cigarettes, but not not completely safe, we don't know, etc... "Antifreeze" , "wild West", and PHE findings all duly noted. Calls Orange County the Silicon Valley of vaping. Yey!

Interesting email from the FDA quoted:

"“The FDA’s mandate is to protect Americans from tobacco-related disease and death in today’s rapidly evolving marketplace,” Michael Felberbaum, a press officer with the agency, wrote in response to an emailed question about its pending new e-cigarette regulations.

“Under the proposed rule, all newly deemed tobacco products would require market authorization” from the agency, Felberbaum noted. He added that the FDA is sympathetic to the concerns of small businesses and is proposing to stagger the compliance dates."

Hey, the FDA is sympathetic!

Please contact the writer, if you wish...

 

[zoiDman]

Yeah... Someone sent me that Article Today.

It was kinda a Shame that the UK Study(s) only garnered 1 Paragraph...

"One study released late last month by Public Health England, a UK government agency, found that most of the chemicals that cause smoking-related diseases are absent in vaping and that those that are in the vapor pose less of a risk."

It was a Tad Disingenuous to omit the 95% Safer thing from the UK Study. But this is the OC Register.

 

[Katya]

A tad???

 

[zoiDman]

A tad???

I have been Called the Master of Understatement.

As well as some Other Things. LOL

 

[sofarsogood]

Anything that interferes with access to ECs is another way of killing people. Simple as that. A point I like to make is where are the reports of doctors treating illnesses caused by using ecigs and if nicotine is so addictive how come it's been available over the counter for the past 18 years and even if you insist it's addictive and that's bad shouldn't we be regulating cafine for the same "risks"?

One of my coworkers who tired ECs then gave up is back vaping again. It's interesting to see that happening. There are going to be a lot of pathways out of smoking. I'm so hard core vaping now I demonstrated something to my brother who is still a dual user. I smoked one of his cigarettes and tossed it aside to prove I'm not vulnerable any more. I didn't feel a twinge of craving for the old habit. I can stand with the smokers without a concern although I have to stand up wind because cigarette smells spoil the taste of my vape.

 

[Kent C]

He added that the FDA is sympathetic to the concerns of small businesses and is proposing to stagger the compliance dates."

Yet despite this ruse, the actual deeming isn't that 'sympathetic' - it expects almost the whole industry to 'exit the market'. So the 'stagger' will only postpone that 'exit'.

fr. deeming doc:
"Although we do not have an estimate of the number of electronic cigarette manufacturers and importers affected by this proposed rule, we similarly expect that rather than bear the cost of compliance, some would cease to offer their products in the U.S. The total costs of complying with the proposed rule would create the potential for exit; for simplicity we assume throughout this analysis that potential market exits occur at the end of the first year, halfway through the compliance period for labeling requirements and premarket submissions. "

"Premarket tobacco applications, discussed above in section II.B, are expected to be the most burdensome requirement for electronic cigarettes. We expect to see adjustment through additional product consolidation and exit from the U.S. market, compared with what we would expect without regulation. "

 

[Katya]

Yet despite this ruse, the actual deeming isn't that 'sympathetic' - it expects almost the whole industry to 'exit the market'. So the 'stagger' will only postpone that 'exit'.

Hey, I know.

Which is why HR 2058 (moving the grandfather date to the time when the actual deeming regs go into effect) is so critical.

If they move the date, we're in much better shape.

If they don't...

 

[Kent C]

Hey, I know.

I know you know. Just pointing out what someone from OC Reg. should email back to Michael Felberbaum. "About the deeming, didn't you guys say.....mass exit??? So what real "good" would staggering the dates do?"

 

[Katya]

I know you know. Just pointing out what someone from OC Reg. should email back to Michael Felberbaum. "About the deeming, didn't you guys say.....mass exit??? So what real "good" would staggering the dates do?"

Hmmm...

Contact the writer: lwilliams@ocregister.com or jgraham@ocregister.com

 

[Kent C]

Hmmm...

Contact the writer: lwilliams@ocregister.com or jgraham@ocregister.com

Done... I basically explained the situation - post on ecf regarding the article and copy/pasted my responses in the email. I also added this:


I'd also point out - as many of "our experts" - Bill Godshall Pennsylvania's tobacco harm reduction spokesperson, for example, that with the current grandfather date of Feb 2007 - that compliance for substantial equivalence - IF a predicate product could be found - and if so, it would be the lowest tech form of ecigarette ever created - that it would force >99.9% of the companies out of the market. This was "expected" (planned??) in the deeming:

"Therefore, we expect that considerable product consolidation and exit would occur, as well as the entry, exit, and consolidation that would be expected to occur in an emerging market and that would occur under baseline conditions. (For example, ****consolidation might occur under the baseline as large manufacturers of traditional tobacco products enter this market**** and perhaps absorb smaller manufacturers and products.) Entry of future electronic cigarette products onto the market would be determined by the number of marketing authorizations obtained."(again my emphasis)

... where only the large tobacco companies would have the money to complete/pay for any applications for FDA approval - whereby the FDA's supposed 'arch enemy' becomes the biggest winner of the deeming.

 

[Katya]

Thanks, Kent!

 

[skoony]

"“The FDA’s mandate is to protect Americans from tobacco-related disease and death in today’s rapidly evolving marketplace,” Michael Felberbaum, a press officer with the agency, wrote in response to an emailed question about its pending new e-cigarette regulations.

Hmmmm...... . Another government official and the new tobacco mantra.
Tobacco related disease? As far as I know only tobacco causes tobacco
related diseases. Have I missed something?
Regards
Mike

 

[CarolT]

Hmmmm...... . Another government official and the new tobacco mantra.
Tobacco related disease? As far as I know only tobacco causes tobacco
related diseases. Have I missed something?
Regards
Mike

Even the anti-smokers admit that other things cause so-called tobacco related diseases. They specifically blame tobacco for only a portion of them. But they ignore the evidence that infections are the real cause of those diseases they blame on tobacco.

 

[AndriaD]

Even the anti-smokers admit that other things cause so-called tobacco related diseases. They specifically blame tobacco for only a portion of them. But they ignore the evidence that infections are the real cause of those diseases they blame on tobacco.

I have a question along these lines (viral infection), and you seem to be the most knowledgeable on that subject around here. I've been interested in gardening for quite a while, and I know there are some plants that are susceptible to something called "tobacco mosaic virus" -- it can play hell with roses and other ornamentals, and when I smoked, I'd always have to be careful to wash my hands thoroughly before pruning or even touching my roses. Is that virus any danger to humans?

Andria

 

[CarolT]

I have a question along these lines (viral infection), and you seem to be the most knowledgeable on that subject around here. I've been interested in gardening for quite a while, and I know there are some plants that are susceptible to something called "tobacco mosaic virus" -- it can play hell with roses and other ornamentals, and when I smoked, I'd always have to be careful to wash my hands thoroughly before pruning or even touching my roses. Is that virus any danger to humans?

Andria

No danger to humans. And roses have their own kind of mosaic virus.

 

[Katya]

Done... I basically explained the situation - post on ecf regarding the article and copy/pasted my responses in the email. I also added this:


I'd also point out - as many of "our experts" - Bill Godshall Pennsylvania's tobacco harm reduction spokesperson, for example, that with the current grandfather date of Feb 2007 - that compliance for substantial equivalence - IF a predicate product could be found - and if so, it would be the lowest tech form of ecigarette ever created - that it would force >99.9% of the companies out of the market. This was "expected" (planned??) in the deeming:

"Therefore, we expect that considerable product consolidation and exit would occur, as well as the entry, exit, and consolidation that would be expected to occur in an emerging market and that would occur under baseline conditions. (For example, ****consolidation might occur under the baseline as large manufacturers of traditional tobacco products enter this market**** and perhaps absorb smaller manufacturers and products.) Entry of future electronic cigarette products onto the market would be determined by the number of marketing authorizations obtained."(again my emphasis)

... where only the large tobacco companies would have the money to complete/pay for any applications for FDA approval - whereby the FDA's supposed 'arch enemy' becomes the biggest winner of the deeming.

Couldn't help myself. Just forwarded this to the writers of the OCR article.

E-cigarettes: an emerging public health consensus - Press releases - GOV.UK