a few months ago everyone here was fanning the flames about how NY state was going to ban e-cigs with a new law they were going to pass. the law did pass. the results? now i see e-cigs at my corner store. the law only made e-cigs have to follow the same rules as tobacco products, meaning age proof for sale, have to be behind the counter, warning labels on packages, etc. what happened once the law was passed is it cleared the vagueness and freed companies to expand their presence in new york.
Did you think this happened by magic? This was NOT a case of ECF members running around yelling "The sky is falling" and the problem just solved itself.
The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association issued a Call to Action for New York State. Thanks to the consumers who stepped up and contacted New York legislators, A9044-B, which bans the sale of e-cigarettes to minors passed, instead of A9044-B, which would have senselessly banned sales of e-cigarettes to adults.
CASAA: New York State Call to Action (Ended)
what i'm saying, again, let's be clear: regulations are coming. no way around it. we can't stop it. what we can do is be part of the discussions when regulations are being drawn up. this is not an extreme position to take, it is not an ignorant position to take.
Of course it isn't. Next time the FDA holds a workshop or public hearing on tobacco products, feel free to get on the train and come down to Rockville, MD and testify. And also keep your eye on the CASAA Calls to Action so that when a state or local government wants to raise taxes on smokeless tobacco products, ban use of e-cigarettes and even smokeless tobacco products in public, you can join the ranks of those who speak out.
CASAA Calls to Action
If you sign up to be a member of CASAA (no charge to join, but we do accept free-will donations), we will even send you an email when there is an issue that we need to take action on.
Become a CASAA Member
if you want some say in what the regulations will be you will have to learn to work with the people who make those regulations.
Amen!
the FDA has a history of being open to alternative nicotine delivery systems. during the clinton years they de-regulated nicotine gum and nicotine patches so you wouldn't need a prescription to buy them. now i can walk into any drug store (or log on to ebay) and buy nicotine gum, patches, lozenges and who knows what else without having to see a doctor. this weakened big pharma's hold on alternative nicotine delivery systems. now there's a good number of smaller companies who make these products than there were when they were prescription only.
Actually, the FDA has not been as open to nicotine products as you might believe. The only reason the products became available OTC is because the pharmaceutical companies lobbied the FDA to bring that about. After all, if someone needs to go to a doctor and have a prescription written to get their product, their sales will be much smaller than if consumers can just walk into any drugstore and buy NRTs as easily as they buy condoms.
And no, making NRTs available OTC did not weaken pharma's hold on nicotine products. Pharma was being protected by the FDA. The FDA took quick action to drive products such as nicotine water, nicotine gel, and nicotine lollipops off the market as unapproved drugs. For more on this, read some of the filings in the SE & NJOY versus FDA case where the FDA argued that, like these products the FDA had banned in the past, e-cigarettes were nothing more than an unapproved drug.
CASAA Smoking Everywhere vs. FDA
It is only since the e-cigarette companies won that court case that some of these other products have come back onto the market. The FDA plans to fix this "problem" by declaring that these are Other Tobacco Products that FDA can regulate under the Tobacco Act by issuing a deeming regulation.
the FDA wanted to regulate e-cigs as medical devices not because they are evil boogey men who go to their offices and laugh, but because e-cigs are a nicotine delivery system and they control regulations regarding nicotine. they weren't trying to ban them, they were trying to regulate them. and who knows, maybe if they had we wouldn't be dealing with these arguments about silica wicks, aluminum parts, soldering components, etc. that seem permanent mainstays in these boards. the FDA didn't succeed because e-cigs can deliver a lot more than nicotine. one fight won for our side on the basis of technicalities. good for us.
I'm sorry, but "regulating" a product as an "unapproved drug" or "unapproved device" means that the product needs to be taken off the market until the manufacturer submits a New Product Approval application, conducts extensive testing, including clinical trials, and the FDA approves the product. The NDA process costs a staggering sum of money (in the billions), takes years to accomplish, and even after a company has spent all that time and money (during which it can't sell the drug that is being tested), the FDA may still turn them down.
The Truly Staggering Cost Of Inventing New Drugs - Forbes
the next fight is tougher and no technicality is going to win the day for us. if you want some say in the FDA regulations you need to learn to work with them. we don't have enough power to get rid of the system, so we need to learn to work within the system to get some say.
That's what we have been doing, but many of us are staring to suspect that this game is rigged.
call me an idiot, call me a newbie, it doesn't matter. if you think demonizing the FDA and making them into caricatures is going to help our cause, do your thing. i respectfully disagree.
You have it exactly backwards. The tobacco controllers have been demonizing tobacco companies and demonizing smokers for years. As I said, many of us are staring to suspect that this game is rigged.
Why do you suppose that the FDA still has their misleading press conference posted on their web site?
FDA and Public Health Experts Warn About Electronic Cigarettes
Why do you suppose that the CDC web site is now claiming that "tobacco use" kills 400,000 + people per year, instead of saying "smoking"?
Why do you suppose that both the FDA and CDC state that "no tobacco product is safe" when they know that the general public thinks they are saying that no tobacco product is any safer than continuing to smoke?
The following statement is an outright lie:
To date, no tobacco products have been scientifically proven to reduce risk of tobacco-related disease, improve safety or cause less harm than other tobacco products.
Health Fraud
Decades of scientific research on smokers who switched to snus (a type of moist snuff) shows that users of smokeless tobacco have no higher risks of cancer, heart attacks, stokes, and lung disease than non-users of tobacco. In fact, this research was presented by Dr. Neal Benowitz as proof that the FDA could approve long-term (unlimited) use of NRTs without endangering health.
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/NewsEvents/UCM232147.pdf