I see that you just joined the forum and I get what you are saying but bud, you are going to have to wake up. The FDA et al DO NOT want e cigs around. It has been demonstrated over and over for years. This group has been recognized for it's influence in this issue. Without them, believe me you'd be smoking right now with NO alternative. Take some time and do some research on what has gone down since 2009. You'll find it all right here.
Rising e-cigarette sales spur call for regulations
- Thread starter Petrodus
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I see that you just joined the forum and I get what you are saying but bud, you are going to have to wake up. The FDA et al DO NOT want e cigs around. It has been demonstrated over and over for years. This group has been recognized for it's influence in this issue. Without them, believe me you'd be smoking right now with NO alternative. Take some time and do some research on what has gone down since 2009. You'll find it all right here.
Many of us have been around here for a long time ...
We know what were talking about ... 1st Hand Experience.
Ideology is fine ... but we are dealing with Reality.
If we went went the flow with the FDA ... e-cigs would have
been banned a long time ago ... Believe it OR Not
The ECF isn't a good platform to defend Big Government's ideology
of Regulation Nation.
i might be new on the boards but i'm not new to the issues surrounding e-cigs. pulling rank on how many posts you have is not an argument for your side. if you don't think effective lobbying works, then make a solid argument against it. calling me a noob is, well, it's just name calling.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Almost all of the people in this discussion either spoke at the FDA meeting below or listened to ALL of it live, even taking a vacation day from work to do so.
Eileen has posted SPECIFIC statements by the FDA that they want to approve each e-cig BEFORE they can be sold, using criteria in a law under which they have been doing 100% refusals. ECF and CASAA folks include experts that have been lobbying the FDA for YEARS, starting out with the idea that the FDA might be receptive, and learning otherwise through bitter experience.
Before you assume the people here are newbies to proper lobbying, please AT LEAST listen to Dr. Philips and Bill Godshall's speeches and following Q-and-A at the FDA hearing, that would be #2 and #5 here:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...oducts-youtube-dec-17-2012-a.html#post8106037
Yes regulations are coming, I can agree with you on that point. Actually, I can also agree that you can buy Nicorette in the US without a prescription NOW.
Nicorette et al was invented in Sweden in the 70's. The Swedes are by far and away a country to look at as far as tobacco harm goes. They conducted many studies showing how Nicotine could be delivered in a gum form without harm. The studies were extensive.
My husband used to work for Merrel Dow pharmaceuticals in Canada and was instrumental in getting that drug OTC status in Canada. It took about 5 years a whole whack more testing (because Health Canada would not recognize the Swedish studies) on Canadians, a ton of lobbying, millions of dollars and the support of about 100 doctors. That was about 25 years ago.
Now you too can get it in the US.
Hopefully it won't take as long for e cigs.
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)
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
Amen!
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.
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
That's what we have been doing, but many of us are staring to suspect that this game is rigged.
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:
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
There is a point here, however. President Obama has said in numerous campaign speeches, 2 or more State of the Union Addresses, and I think 1 of his inaugural speeches, that we MUST put science ahead of ideology, and I 100% believe he truly believes this.
But as Bush was tricked by staffers who cherry-picked CIA data to say that Saddam Hussein had nuke stuff going on that was a danger to the U.S., I believe Obama is being misled by staffers to think the FDA is using science.
I am hoping that if we can bring the FDA's antics to the press, we might get him to hear it. I want this to get loud-enough to show up on John Stewart's show.
I think we should get some kind of petition or letter-writing campaign from people where the petition says "We, the undersigned, do NOT smoke and do NOT vape and do NOT own stock in or work for tobacco companies. We have loved ones who have quit smoking by switching to vaping, and we are frightened that the FDA will send them back to smoking, and take away their health gains." ...and then continue with some specific quotes and data about what the FDA is up to.
The reason: I betcha smokers' relatives do NOT write their Congresscritters to oppose smoking bans. Smokers, heck yeah, their loved ones? Not so much.
If my Mom's broken-arm crisis calms down and someone can give me a 1/2-page thing with some links to SHORT, pithy, accurate, data showing the FDA is doing harm, I'll start the petition via a liberal petition-generating source. (Because the liberals are the ones that think THEIR people support this ...nonsense.)
ie. users should not have the choice of e-cigs unless they meet criterias for "cessation" or "harm reduction". All just legal beagle drivel. E-cigs don't fit their horse-blinders and cyborg views of the world.
Ironically, NRTs which have proven to be failed "cessation" products are wholeheartedly FDA approved. Love the doubletalk.
We are getting into an era where ridiculous laws and regulations are nowadays being commonly ignored, consumer demand having become the most senior authority. That being said, CASAA has my full support on Track B.
Last edited:
I'd rather call you a tool, or a shill. Are you a plant by the FDA? Sorry you missed the part about the FDA seizing shippments of hard-ware and e-liquid a few years back. It can happen again. If so, many will lose money and a lot of small businesses will shut down.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
But I believe that the FDA answers to the Department of Health and Human Services. They do Not answer directly to Congress.
I couldn’t agree with this more.
The problem is that many people are Emotionally Clouded by thoughts that the FDA’s Primary purpose is the Health and Wellbeing of the Public.
Per Wiki
Several agencies within HHS are components of the Public Health Service (PHS), including
AHRQ, ASPR, ATSDR, CDC, FDA, HRSA, IHS, NIH, SAMHSA, OGHA, and OPHS.
Being a component of the HHS doesn't scream to me
the FDA reports to the director of the HHS ... or at least
doesn't report to the HHS in the traditional sense ...
In other words the HHS is not above the FDA.
It appears to me, in the traditional sense, there is NO ONE in the
Chain of Command above the FDA. Obviously the Federal Courts
can rule against an FDA decision. When that happens ... The FDA
decides when and if they wish to comply.
Speaking only for myself ...
The FDA will do as it please and the only way to check them
would be in court
Last edited:
The boss over all sections of the FDA is Dr. Margaret Hamberg. She reports to Dr. Kathleeen Sibelius, who is the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. As a cabinet member, she reports to the President.
HHS Organizational Chart
HHS Organizational Chart
This IS what we are trying to do, except we (vapers and other nicotine/tobacco users) are not being treated as stakeholders and given a place at the table so our voice may be heard. The public health groups, ANTZ, Big Pharma reps and tobacco industry reps all get a say, but the people who are directly affected by whatever policies they determine are told to go sit quietly in the corner while the grown ups make the important decisions. CASAA has been working for years to make connections with the people involved to get a place at the table for consumers by sending Elaine to FDA, tobacco and pharma meetings and several different directors and advisors testifying in person before the FDA committees. CASAA doesn't have the funds to hire professional, powerful lobbyists and none of the big e-cigarette companies with that kind of capital have shown any interest in protecting a diverse market. They have made it clear that they are perfectly happy going along with whatever rules the FDA creates (as long as it allows them to sell their pre-filled, tobacco or menthol, cigarette-style devices.)
So, other than what we have been doing - trying to get the FDA to even listen to us and our concerns about reasonable regulations that keep e-cigarettes available, affordable and effective - what else do you suggest we do? How do we work with the FDA when they won't even listen to what we have to say? Maybe if there were hundreds of thousands of us saying it and getting the media to cover our fight? Well, the way we get those kinds of numbers to show up is to rally them and let them know of the threat. We do this by posting here and making people aware of the worst-case scenarios if the FDA doesn't acknowledge us and our concerns. This is not an easy task when so many vapers don't even know e-cigarettes are threatened, let alone that the FDA has been doing everything it can to get e-cigarettes banned. New vapers are usually so uninformed that they think changing what we call e-cigarettes will cause the ANTZ to suddenly change their minds or that the ANTZ just need to be given the facts (not knowing that they HAVE been given the facts and it doesn't matter) or they still believe that Big Tobacco is the root of all of our troubles. Most people have no clue who our true adversaries are nor how far they will go to keep ANY safer alternative off the market. The only way to make them aware is to keep repeating it over and over and get as many as possible inspired to step up and speak.
If you think that none of what we say is based in fact but is just hysterical conspiracy theories then you are seriously underestimating us. It is not a caricature of the FDA at all - it is a clear picture of what we have been dealing with first-hand for the past 3 1/2 years. How are we demonizing it or making the FDA into a caricature when the evidence to date supports the belief that the FDA wants nothing less than to get every e-cigarette off of the market unless it is approved as a smoking cessation product controlled by the pharmaceutical industry? What you call a "caricature" we call a realistic portrait of what we have seen.
Last edited:
figured maybe I should post this here? CT is making moves to ban e-cigarettes in all public spaces. This would include all e-cigarette shopping center kiosks and vape shops. I feel as though this could dramatically stunt the amount of exposure e-cigarettes get and could potentially dissuade large enough numbers of some smokers from making the switch at all. This could also help set precedent for the upcoming federal regulations. I just ask that you all take a look and perhaps consider getting involved by visiting this casaa link and perhaps consider contacting the members of the committee and legislature in CT. CASAA: Call to Action! Connecticut E-Cigarette Usage Ban -- SB 990 Thank you.
I was wondering why so many states were moving to ban e-smoking lately.
Obvious ... now !!!!!
I suggest they will move to ban any ads for e-cigarettes just like cigarettes.
This way they could cover all angles ... AND Oh, by the way ...
I'm sure eventually they would also target the ECF ... Banning e-cigarette ads here
would doom our Internet discussion group.
For the benefit of all those who have posted positive comments
about regulations ... Lets talk again in a few months ... It we're still here.
Last edited:
this is the paranoid conspiratorial attitude i'm talking about that's counterproductive.
i'm not opposed to some regulations so therefore i'm a plant for the FDA? is it so hard to accept that people have different opinions without it being part of some nefarious conspiracy?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked