Well how would we go about doing such an uprising?
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk
Proposed FDA Rules
- Thread starter CountBoredom
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Well how would we go about doing such an uprising?
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk
I think it's all about the money lost to vaping by government, BT, BP, and insurance companies. Naturally the government doesn't want to lose the huge taxes on cigs, and BT wants to keep making money, and pharma companies want to keep selling your patches and pills, and the insurance companies want to charge you more for smoking, so if they can force vapers back onto the cigs their agenda is well served. It's all about the money, and not about the children, or anyone's health.
Well, I have already written both of my Senators and my House of Representative Member. I have also contacted my State representatives as well. I am writing my local paper to post a letter to the Editor. I am planning on sending one to every major publication who will consider posting such things. Remember, the review period is our best chance to stop some or all of this. Other than the age restriction, I accept none of it.
I will follow CASAA's lead in this matter as well. They are the most effective ally vapers have.
unconstitutional?
Which part of the constitution prohibits regulating e-cigarettes?
Even if e-cigs WERE protected in our constitution, it wouldn't matter. The constitution is more of a 'suggestion' these days then anything.
Looks like the first part of these regs will go into effect after the 75 day comment period.
this may be the thread to watch http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...a-regulations-relased-thursday-4-23-14-a.html
this may be the thread to watch http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...a-regulations-relased-thursday-4-23-14-a.html
The pharmaceutical industry doesn't care about smoking cessation drugs except as an indicator to how their real smoking-related markets will react.
Yes, NRTs and psychoactive drugs for smoking cessation are a ~$5 billion annual global market, but this is chump change compared to the main channels: (1) sick smoker treatment drugs and (2) the boost to general drug sales caused by smokers. Smoking creates at least 10% of pharma's gross income and it could even be as high as 15% or 20%.
1. The sick smoker drugs are immensely profitable as a near-monopoly situation exists: chemotherapy drugs, COPD drugs, cardiac drugs, vascular drugs etc. All these will take a 60% hit eventually although there is a long timelag in this market.
2. There is an enormous boost to general drug sales caused by smokers: diabetes, cholesterol, bronchitis and blood pressure drugs are examples. This is because a smoker is >40% more likely to be diabetic, and the same applies to many other conditions that drugs can be sold to treat. These conditions often can't be cured while continuing to smoke so the customers are permanent. Smokers will always need inhalers, diabetes meds etc. This market reacts faster than for example the chemotherapy drugs market.
In addition there are other income channels such as OTC meds that are boosted by smoking.
These huge income channels (possibly worth $200bn a year), plus the close integration of pharma with the legislative and regulatory systems, are the reasons why pharma is the strongest and most effective opponent of THR products such as ecigs. It's why they fund a range of front groups to promote their agenda: ban/restrict ecigs, in order to protect their income by protecting smoking. It's why cancer 'health' orgs are in the strange position of protecting and promoting cancer by helping to block ecigs - these groups are controlled by pharma. They pay the CEO $1m a year to keep the faith, so don't expect any honest 'cancer health' orgs anytime soon. They all need to protect smoking, it's the gravy train that pays all their mortgages.
[edit]
And I suppose it's worth adding that the reason why this is allowed is because anything connected to smoking is essentially a free-fire zone: smokers are considered already dead or addicts without rights. Industries can profit from smokers or restrict smokers in ways that would be impossible in other market areas. Smokers are basically considered to be an already-dead tax and profit source. Smokers have no rights, and ex-smokers have no rights either.
Yes, NRTs and psychoactive drugs for smoking cessation are a ~$5 billion annual global market, but this is chump change compared to the main channels: (1) sick smoker treatment drugs and (2) the boost to general drug sales caused by smokers. Smoking creates at least 10% of pharma's gross income and it could even be as high as 15% or 20%.
1. The sick smoker drugs are immensely profitable as a near-monopoly situation exists: chemotherapy drugs, COPD drugs, cardiac drugs, vascular drugs etc. All these will take a 60% hit eventually although there is a long timelag in this market.
2. There is an enormous boost to general drug sales caused by smokers: diabetes, cholesterol, bronchitis and blood pressure drugs are examples. This is because a smoker is >40% more likely to be diabetic, and the same applies to many other conditions that drugs can be sold to treat. These conditions often can't be cured while continuing to smoke so the customers are permanent. Smokers will always need inhalers, diabetes meds etc. This market reacts faster than for example the chemotherapy drugs market.
In addition there are other income channels such as OTC meds that are boosted by smoking.
These huge income channels (possibly worth $200bn a year), plus the close integration of pharma with the legislative and regulatory systems, are the reasons why pharma is the strongest and most effective opponent of THR products such as ecigs. It's why they fund a range of front groups to promote their agenda: ban/restrict ecigs, in order to protect their income by protecting smoking. It's why cancer 'health' orgs are in the strange position of protecting and promoting cancer by helping to block ecigs - these groups are controlled by pharma. They pay the CEO $1m a year to keep the faith, so don't expect any honest 'cancer health' orgs anytime soon. They all need to protect smoking, it's the gravy train that pays all their mortgages.
[edit]
And I suppose it's worth adding that the reason why this is allowed is because anything connected to smoking is essentially a free-fire zone: smokers are considered already dead or addicts without rights. Industries can profit from smokers or restrict smokers in ways that would be impossible in other market areas. Smokers are basically considered to be an already-dead tax and profit source. Smokers have no rights, and ex-smokers have no rights either.
Here is my new Facebook cover photo.
I intend to take this fight to the FDA. What difference can one person make? I dunno, maybe not much, but I will surely try my damnedest to make them wish they had not started this hogwash.
I intend to take this fight to the FDA. What difference can one person make? I dunno, maybe not much, but I will surely try my damnedest to make them wish they had not started this hogwash.
Hmm...so all we gots to do is show that vaping does have serious side effects....hmm well thats a tricky one lmao and I dont care about their hidden agendas I would go and buy some .... before picking up a pack of smokes (not literally but yall get my point) im down to 6mg a day so screw these guys im going home xD
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk
Don't fall into the trap of having to prove/showing vaping is "safe".
It only needs to be shown to be safer than cigarettes (By the FDA's proposed regulations, that is the standard). Showing it is safer than smoking is much, much easier than showing it to be "safe".
Well hey we can all buy some unflavored liquid and just add our own flavor
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
I hope we aren't all stuck vaping Blu and NJoy in a few years.
I don't think many Chinese companies would bother with applying to the FDA for new, or even existing, products, especially with mods and so forth. I also don't think American companies like ProVape can afford that, either.
I don't think many Chinese companies would bother with applying to the FDA for new, or even existing, products, especially with mods and so forth. I also don't think American companies like ProVape can afford that, either.
That just means we gotta kill this thing dead then. Write everyone, and join casaa.
So does this mean my french vanilla coffee flavor is safe, because coffee is not promoted to children. Just trying to figure out where their rationalization begins and ends. It is just another way for the government to tax the crap out of something else.
I think this is the most important area of concern. There a thousands of vendors selling ecigs.. what is the cost and time to get things "approved" will be the question. It's a foolish thing to begin with because they essentially all work the same. The potential problem is enormous and it could leave the vape shops options limited. Can you imagine the FDA sorting through tens of thousands of applications?
It's going to be a problem.
Here is my new Facebook cover photo.
I intend to take this fight to the FDA. What difference can one person make? I dunno, maybe not much, but I will surely try my damnedest to make them wish they had not started this hogwash.
Ed I am sure you are old enough to remember Madalyn Murry o'Hare. Her one voice is what now keeps prayer out of schools. Her one voice changed an entire nation. I am sure that if our many voices come togehter as one we can make a diffrence. Now for me to figure out who my representatives are.
Hey so one wuick question how come they dknt ban flavored dip like cherry apple etc. Made by skoal that could be attractive to kids as well
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk
- Status
Similar threads
