Retracting My Support (?) for ECA

[WillPower]

Seems you missed something: The part of Godshall's post quoted by you, that I have highlighted.

The Burr/Hagan bill would be a tremendous improvement over Waxman! It's design is to encourage harm-reduction strategies.

Thank you for correction.

I still don't understand. As I understand it, Burr/Hagan bill was proposed in opposition of Waxman bill and it was defeated.

Waxman = anti-tobacco, Burr/Hagan = unquestionably the most pro-tobacco (from tobacco growing state).

Why is Godshall, who claims to be anti-tobacco, talking about the defeated pro-tobacco bill as if it was passed (and misleading us to some extent). What's up with this guy? Has anyone check if this guy is really who he says he is?

 

[yvilla]

My understanding is that there are still going to be attempts to get it passed, as "harm-reduction" amendments to Waxman.

Edit: He is a vocal supporter of harm-reduction.

 

[WillPower]

My understanding is that there are still going to be attempts to get it passed, as "harm-reduction" amendments to Waxman.

The Burr/Hagan Bill? It is designed to protect the smoker's rights. It pounded by anti-smoking groups. Waxman bill was designed to put tobacco under FDA. Burr/Hagan opposed this idea and the whole Burr/Hagan bill is to establish a brand new agency and take the jurisdiction of tobacco/nic products away from FDA.

I don't think there is NOT any common ground in these two bills except maybe the definition of terms.

 

[yvilla]

Yes, I understand the thrust of it was to propose a whole new agency to regulate all tobacco products, but apparently one whose mission was to encourage the furtherance of harm-reduction.

I really am not in the know about all that is going on in congress right now, but whether it's a push to amend Waxman or a push to get Burr/Hagan passed in the Senate instead, I definitely gather that there is still a fight going on, and the passage of Waxman, unamended, is (hopefully) not necessarily a foregone conclusion.

 

[WillPower]

Yes, I understand the thrust of it was to propose a whole new agency to regulate all tobacco products, but apparently one whose mission was to encourage the furtherance of harm-reduction.

I really am not in the know about all that is going on in congress right now, but whether it's a push to amend Waxman or a push to get Burr/Hagan passed in the Senate instead, I definitely gather that there is still a fight going on, and the passage of Waxman, unamended, is (hopefully) not necessarily a foregone conclusion.

Okay. But, we gotta keep an eye on this guy, Godshall. Not quite sure what he is doing...

On a side note, as my personal harm reduction strategy, I ordered a brand new ScrewDriver from Trog! I can't hardly wait....

 

[yvilla]

Okay. But, we gotta keep an eye on this guy, Godshall. Not quite sure what he is doing...

On a side note, as my personal harm reduction strategy, I ordered a brand new ScrewDriver from Trog! I can't hardly wait....

Hey, we may then actually have something we can agree on soon.

On a more serious note, have you tried googling Bill Godshall? Lot's of info there.

 

[yvilla]

Big oops! I just realized I was confusing the Buyer bill, which is the one that was defeated in the House, with the Burr/Hagan bill, which is introduced in the Senate as the competitor to Waxman.

Buyer's bill did have great harm-reduction proposals, but I know nothing about Burr/Hagen other than what Godshall wrote about it in the post you quoted here in this thread.

Sorry everyone.

Now I wish Godshall had been more explicit in terms of his take on it. My post about a fight still happening over harm-reduction amendments to Waxman is still valid though.

 

[WillPower]

Now I wish Godshall had been more explicit in terms of his take on it. My post about a fight still happening over harm-reduction amendments to Waxman is still valid though.

Ditto here. I read about this guy through Google search. Nothing wrong on search, but there is something wrong with what he is saying in our forum.

I read the Burr/Hagan bill almost cover-to-cover. I understand why Burr is doing it--at least 100's of millions for RJR, his backer, just for RJR "e-cigs." But, why does "Godshall" want us to get Waxman to do the same thing? Something is not quite right.

 

[Boston George]

The waxman bill's passage would be a dark day for e-cigarettes. I hope it gets amended explicitly to defend e-cigarettes.

 

[TropicalBob]

For me, the Waxman bill represents a threat to ALL cigarette alternatives -- and they are critical to my staying off cigarettes. It's not only my beloved e-cigs under the guillotine, but also snus and disssolvables and even pipe tobacco. Everything goes on the "regulation" table if this becomes law.

 

[WillPower]

The waxman bill's passage would be a dark day for e-cigarettes. I hope it gets amended explicitly to defend e-cigarettes.

BG, Do you know why Waxman without amendment for e-cigs are a dark day for e-cigs? Without the amendment, it may not help e-cigs or lose chance to make them legal. Is there anything in the bill that makes worse than no help? Or do you mean no help is the "dark day?"

Godshall seems to me, using a lot of smoke-and-mirror. He casually throws in Burr/Hangan--the most pro-tobacco bill--and make it seems like this defeated bill is something being considered or even in effect.

Then, throws in another email sent almost 2 YEARS AGO, which he could have gotten simply by being on the mailing list. How is this email relevent? It is quite convoluted, unless one is in the trade/lobbying.

Regardless of he is who he claims to be, the "Godshall" is focusing on getting us to help tobacco companies get what they want the most, unrestricted sales of "safe" cigs or cig alternatives... I smell something.

I love mystery... It intrigues me. Come, Watson. The game is afoot!

 

[yvilla]

BG, Do you know why Waxman without amendment for e-cigs are a dark day for e-cigs? Without the amendment, it may not help e-cigs or lose chance to make them legal. Is there anything in the bill that makes worse than no help? Or do you mean no help is the "dark day?"

Here is Dr. Siegel's take on that question:

The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: IN MY VIEW: FDA Tobacco Legislation Would Be Death Knell for Tobacco Harm Reduction

 

[WillPower]

Here is Dr. Siegel's take on that question:

The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: IN MY VIEW: FDA Tobacco Legislation Would Be Death Knell for Tobacco Harm Reduction

Thank you. I just read this article and look at the referenced provisions of the Waxman (H.R.1256.EH - as passed at House).

In short, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH E-CIGS. People like Godshall are just taking the headlines and legistrations and using them to mislead and further their agenda. They think most people won't read the article or the bill (most don't).

Here is fact check on Dr. Siegel's view:

1) Dr. S. is referring to modified tobacco product, like light or ultralight, etc. According to HR 1256.EH Sec. 900 Definitions and Sec. 911, e-cigs has nothing to do with this discussion. By definition in the resolution, e-cigs are not tobacco product.

2) The article talks about Sec.911 not allowing cig companies claim low risk (safer) unless they have done long-term studies. Hey I am okay with that. Cig companies have used terms like LIGHT to give false impression that somehow it is safer. They do things like putting holes lower nic, which gets covered when people, not machine, smoke. Forget the long-term studies, I say just ban this practice.

3) Exception to 2 above is when exposure to, say for example, tar is reduced, then cig companies are allowed to say exposure is reduced, along with disclaimer about not having long term study. I am okay with this too.

Dr. S was complaining about 2 and 3--2 too restrictive, 3 too lenient. HOWEVER, none of these have anything to do with e-cigs.

 

[yvilla]

Willpower, I see where you are coming from. However, I'm not so sure ecigs couldn't be deemed a tobacco product, as the nicotine is extracted from tobacco.

But even assuming you are right and I am wrong about that, without clearly worded provisions in any bill passed that expresses congressional intent to truly and effectively further the development and use of harm reduction products, "tobacco products" or not, and specifically including ecigs, then with the FDA being given control there is a grave risk to all of us who wish to use such products.

 

[Boston George]

BG, Do you know why Waxman without amendment for e-cigs are a dark day for e-cigs?

The legal status of e-cigarette exists in a space between the FDA and the ATF. Products like nicogel are similar and lack FDA approval. Recently, the FDA has made claims that it has jurisdiction over e-cigarettes. Which I think will be settled in court. The passage of the waxman bill will give clear control of cigarettes and nicotine containing products to the FDA. The FDA will make them illegal until they go through clinical testing and may never allow them due to general concerns about nicotine. That is why it would be a dark day.

 

[WillPower]

Willpower, I see where you are coming from. However, I'm not so sure ecigs couldn't be deemed a tobacco product, as the nicotine is extracted from tobacco.

But even assuming you are right and I am wrong about that, without clearly worded provisions in any bill passed that expresses congressional intent to truly and effectively further the development and use of harm reduction products, "tobacco products" or not, and specifically including ecigs, then with the FDA being given control there is a grave risk to all of us who wish to use such products.

I guess anything is possible. But, the Waxman bill clearly defines tobacco product... no ambiguity there, very clearly defined in sec. 900, and as was in Burr/Hagan.

My preference is that, my personal view, I would rather stop cig companies from advertising anything and every crap they come up with as low risk tobacco products. They have done already enough damage to the society with their insatiable greed.

I would much prefer to think that cash-strapped FDA is not going to go out of their ways to stretch the Waxman Sec. 911 to e-cigs, when they barely have the resources to apply as clearly defined.

Haven't cigarette companies done enough bad things? Now, do we really need to protect their rights to call any tobacco product safe just in case, FDA might stretch the clear literal defined definition of "tobacco" in the bill to apply to e-cig?

That's my preference. I guess it is up to individual choice. But, people should know the facts and implications before making the choice.

 

[WillPower]

The legal status of e-cigarette exists in a space between the FDA and the ATF. Products like nicogel are similar and lack FDA approval. Recently, the FDA has made claims that it has jurisdiction over e-cigarettes. Which I think will be settled in court. The passage of the waxman bill will give clear control of cigarettes and nicotine containing products to the FDA. The FDA will make them illegal until they go through clinical testing and may never allow them due to general concerns about nicotine. That is why it would be a dark day.

Here. This is how tobacco would be defined in FDCA, if Waxman passes:

`(rr)(1) The term `tobacco product' means any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product (except for raw materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing a component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product).

`(2) The term `tobacco product' does not mean an article that is a drug under subsection (g)(1), a device under subsection (h), or a combination product described in section 503(g).

Right out of Waxman. (2) excludes anything in (g)(1), the definition of drug, which is what FDA is using to assert their jurisdiction over e-cigs. Hence, by their own admission, e-cigs are not tobacco product. Ergo, pasage of this bill really doesn't do anything for e-cigs. May not help but no harm.

However, having read the relevant section of FDCA, namely section 201, I have to agree with FDA interpretation--I just don't see how e-cigs would not be fall under (g)(1). I guess it would become a moot point if it falls under (g)(1), they have jurisdiction anyway. If by some miracle we win the (g)(1) court battle, then we are clear anyway--nicotine can be derived or synthesized other than tobacco, I believe. EITHER CASE, UNAMENDED WAXMAN IS MOOT FOR E-CIG.

For amending Waxman, once again, it all boils down to the cost. In order to achieve what you suggest, we need to amend Waxman so that:

1) e-cigs included in the tobacco; and
2) allow any crap that tobacco companies come up to be advertised as safer cigarette.

It's like classifying automatic assault rifles with hunting rifles and trying to apply the same restriction. Not a good analogy, but you get the point. It's a personal choice. But it's little too expensive (ethically) for me to get e-cigs legal in this route.

I don't think you and yvilla this way, so don't get me wrong. But, there is a lot of political sickos out there, intentionally spreading misinformation. We should be careful and make informed decisions.

I just don't understand why the "Godshall" and ECA is buying into this. Maybe I am misreading something ... NOT! Seriously, maybe, in that case, let me know. But it is an intriguing mystery...

 

[Boston George]

I have to agree with FDA interpretation--I just don't see how e-cigs would not be fall under (g)(1). I guess it would become a moot point if it falls under (g)(1), they have jurisdiction anyway. If by some miracle we win the (g)(1) court battle,

I think that's our fundamental disagreement. I do not believe that e-cigarettes are a medical device. To that end, I resist the bill because it removes the legal ambiguity that, at least in my opinion, is protecting e-cigarettes.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Had I realized my postings (on other threads) and me would be the subject of postings on this thread, I would have responded earlier to clarify any confusion. I'm also having trouble with this website, as several of my previous postings disappeared when I tried posting them, and I was instead prompted to login again.

If the Waxman (or Kennedy) FDA tobacco bills are enacted, all new and recently introduced (in past two years) smokefree tobacco products will be banned from the market unless/until FDA approves the products (which anti tobacco groups will staunchly oppose).

If/when that occurs, the FDA (if it hasn't done so already) is even more likely to ban e-cigarettes from the market.

While Mike Siegel and I disagree about other tobacco policy issues, we are in almost total agreement on the ramifications of the Waxman/Kennedy FDA tobacco legislation (as well as a ban on e-cigarettes), and we have been collaborating in opposing the FDA tobacco legislation as well as keeping e-cigarettes on the market.

 

[Avid]

If the Waxman (or Kennedy) FDA tobacco bills are enacted, all new and recently introduced (in past two years) smokefree tobacco products will be banned from the market unless/until FDA approves the products (which anti tobacco groups will staunchly oppose).

If/when that occurs, the FDA (if it hasn't done so already) is even more likely to ban e-cigarettes from the market.

While Mike Siegel and I disagree about other tobacco policy issues, we are in almost total agreement on the ramifications of the Waxman/Kennedy FDA tobacco legislation (as well as a ban on e-cigarettes), and we have been collaborating in opposing the FDA tobacco legislation as well as keeping e-cigarettes on the market.

Thank you