FDA Sen Johnson (R-Wis) demands answers from FDA RE deeming
- Thread starter DrMA
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Good point Z, retailers should be doing much more. Only about 1,200 of the 15,000 (ish) retailers are SFATA members. The rest seem to be hoping others will save their business via lawsuit or magic.
I certainly don't intend shaming anyone, I intend to let people know that a legislative solution to this problem is both possible and affordable, but requires numbers. My hope is to inspire, but I probably end up sounding like either a cheerleader or a school marm.
I'm disappointed that no matter how many times I write to my Senators and Congresstart, the only response I get, IF I get a response at all, is a robo-letter from an aide saying that we have to protect the children by instituting age verification and childproof caps and that the Deeming will save childrens' lives. I know the actual representatives aren't reading my letters, and THAT is what disappoints me most. I'm about done with voting, because no matter who you vote for anymore, it's all about them and how much money they can make. Once they get to Washington, they quit listening to the people that sent them there. Representatives... what a misnomer.
I hear you man. You are not alone in that regard, but it tends to be very self fulfilling. Instead of writing a letter to the Rep, try this: pick up the phone, call the DC office and ask the name of the person who handles FDA issues, ask them to spell it. Email that person (House is first name.lastname@mail.house.gov Senate is first_last@senatorlastname.senate.gov) with info, studies showing public health improvement, tell her about the impact on your life. Build a relationship of respect without cynicism. Expect them to work for you.
Ask whether your Rep will support moving the date - because it will allow the thousands of products in use every day to be regulated UP TO 3 YEARS SOONER than under the ludicrous PMTA scheme. That will protect kids more and sooner and prevent job losses and businesses shuttering and prevent giving the entire industry to Big tobacco.
These are the arguments that work with the anti-tobacco zealots.
Once they know you are a real person who is passionate about the issue, they may begin to work with you and pass along info to the boss. Persuade the staff and then get the Senator on board. Ask for a meeting near you, a Vape shop maybe.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I, too, have written letters to more elected officials than I can count. I can recite the talking points, verbatim. I haven't ever tried this approach, though. It's worth a shot.
Will you please say a bit more about the "up to three years earlier" argument? I'm sorry to be daft, but I'm not following. Thanks!
I believe what Truthdog is referring to is the idea that if the grandfather date is changed then all of the products on the market become subject to regulation immediately. Not sure what exact form of regulation they become subject to though. But it's an argument that will sound real good to the nannies.
Yeah... My comment was More about how Most Retailers seem to place more Importance over hawking their products than they do about Informing Vapers. Or Promoting State and or Federal Advocacy.
I'm kinda Confused with this line of Reasoning?
Perhaps you can Explain how this will work with the Anti-Tobacco Zealots.
I wrote as well. I hope the emails of support are effective. I loved the letter he sent to the FDA.
Sorry, I took a vacation. Yeah, the argument to get nannies on board goes like this: There are literally hundreds of thousands of vapor products currently on the market and not subject to many of FDA rule's provisions until they apply and are approved - a process taking up to three years. If the predicate date were moved from 2007 to last month they would all be grandfathered and subject to all regs immediately. Also, the hundred of improvements made in safety and effectiveness will be lost if only predicate products from 2007 era are approved/allowed. This innovation, safety and effectiveness will be stifled unless the date is moved up. Not to mention thousands of small businesses and the preferences of millions of former smokers who Vape.
Does that make sense? I am trying to get Senators to express this to their leadership in advance of the year-end bill in early December when this decision (on moving the date/Cole-Bishop) will be made.
Does that make sense? I am trying to get Senators to express this to their leadership in advance of the year-end bill in early December when this decision (on moving the date/Cole-Bishop) will be made.
Td maybe it's because deep down most peeps feel as I do that we need to extract vaping from tobacco legislation. That short of this all else is capitulation. Playin' their song. Just sayin'.
Good luck.
I believe and now refer to things as vaping , vaping products, and vaping devices. Part of the public's distorted feelings about this whole thing is it's named an electronic cigarette. People Hate cigarettes and it's hard to convince them that it's a good thing.
One thing. Anyone who thinks that these are electronic cigarettes, the same or worse than smoking, appealing to kids, or related to tobacco has not done any reading whatsoever except for media. Anyone who argues how evil vaping devices are has no education about vaping.
I was chatting with a friend of mine yesterday and she asked what's in the fluid and I told her glycerin or PG, food flavoring and nicotine or not. She almost fell off her horse. She thought I was joking.
So it makes me wonder how much research the FDA has actually done on vaping products. Can they actually be impartial if they know nothing about vaping? If you listen to someone talk about vaping, you can even tell where the info came from. Mostly internet hate sites. They really don't know enough about vaping products to make a valid decision. Why on earth would someone have to test glycerin, or Propylene glycol (used in respiratory treatments) , food flavoring, and nicotine that already been tested and passed many years ago from BT.
And if you're vaping 0 nicotine, with an atomizer and batteries, where is the relationship to tobacco? Can the FDA just wake up one morning and decide that they can call anything tobacco related? Oh gosh, are my fingers tobacco related? My lips?
Has anyone seen anything since the last letter in mid July? The new "deadline" for a response was July 29th, which has long since passed.
Our government has grown too big for it's britches and it's sprawl too broad to spread on all the public's back. Surely we can run circles around it if we wanted to rather than try to close its zippers.
Good luck all.
Good luck all.
2 thoughts: As to MacTechVprs desire to be separate from tobacco, that is the shared and ultimate goal, but if FDA succeeds in strangling out of existence 90+% of business, we won't have a prayer at that. So it is a two step strategy:1.Grandfather all current products by changing date. 2. Create separate vapor regs that are appropriate to their level of risk.
Seminolewind, I agree completely on the language; we should not use the word cigarette for any non-combustible products. I don't.
But as for safety, folks who know will point out that many of the ingredients are safe or GRAS for ingestion orally, but have not been studied for inhalation. Hence diacetyl, propinol, and other various organic compounds created could be of concern when heated at different levels and conditions. I realize this can be used against us as when FDA funded zealots crank up dry coils to produce formaldehyde, but if we dismiss this possibility completely I think we run the risk of sounding less credible.
I honestly do want to know which metals may shed particles and be inhaled when heated, and whether any current products, flavorings or practices may carry risk. And by being credible and responsible, that is where we can be trusted to police ourselves.
Truthdog, you are right about testing vaping products. But there's an adult way to do it and benefit the safety of vapers without treating us like naughty kids who are clueless. All that stuff should/could have been worked out between our vaping groups such as the American Vaping association or CASAA and the FDA. It's really not any of BT's business to help create regulations for vaping products, and their involvement is biased.
I think the biggest thing going for us is we are all renegades, starting with being smokers who haven't given up smoking until they discovered vaping. I don't think vaping will stop growing - one way or another. And the way the FDA is going about it is only going to make things worse for themselves by having no control, no retail safety and no taxes paid. It's the total opposite of what they wanted. They could have worked with the vaping industry to not put thousands of small businesses having to close, and allowing a better starting point than 2007. Their starting point includes anything back to the point of not existing.
I think the biggest thing going for us is we are all renegades, starting with being smokers who haven't given up smoking until they discovered vaping. I don't think vaping will stop growing - one way or another. And the way the FDA is going about it is only going to make things worse for themselves by having no control, no retail safety and no taxes paid. It's the total opposite of what they wanted. They could have worked with the vaping industry to not put thousands of small businesses having to close, and allowing a better starting point than 2007. Their starting point includes anything back to the point of not existing.
I have been having a hard time trying to figure out how these regulations
have anything to do with keeping us safe. They have been unable to find
anything that may in fact be harmful that gets anywhere near already
established safe exposure levels. Anything of concern has been found at such
low levels that considering a health concern to otherwise healthy individuals
is laughable. Long term studies are a canard. We know between 1500 and 1600
children age 15 and younger will die in car accidents a year. We do not stop them
from getting into cars.
Regards
Mike
Seriously. Where will this industry be when this process is adversely prolonged the very years we presume to save for the industry? The whole phenomenon of vaping is being stigmatized as was smoking and the public's indifferent fear successfully cultivated as this proceeds.
Our laws and very language are rendered meaningless by these moochers. I find it difficult to see an advantage to helping them fix a broken framework simply by making it more palatable.
While I agree with your reasoning, as I have all due respect for due process and not to spurn all valuable efforts to restore it, when we are categorically denied it by the very actors who've caused it to break…it's time to discard those functionaries and their derelict enablers in Congress. Perhaps our resources might be better directed there. Having spent no small part of my life trying to fight such idiots in the halls of bureaucracy and the courts, I'm disheartened to conclude there's no better way. No more negative law and those who espouse it. We've had our fill of it and I'd like to get back to my vape in peace.
A very respected attorney and legislator once told me, "There is no such thing as justice, only process." Once the latter is gone, we must have the first.
Good luck all.
- Status
