The battle is already lost.

[leaford]

Thus far I have yet to see the FDA do ANYTHING but ask for the exact same things they ask of every other consumable product wished to be marketed... then sold in the U.S.
All this whining and complaining about how they hate the product is the epitome of immaturity.
The manufacturers or resellers.. or ANY#$@@*&@^BODY needs to follow the rules no matter how valid we all know the product to be.
Hint:
Manufacturer/Reseller! Get a friggen lawyer and do what he/she tells you.
Make the appropriate submissions.. applications... pay for the testing and try your damndest to kill the test rats...
Submit results to the FDA and presto effin poof here you'll have either a yes or a no.

The only reason there is a supposed ban is because this has yet to happen.

And relax everyone, until this happens we'll still be able to order our wants from China as long as it is modest orders... Ordering a seventy-two tonne shipment of nicotine juice might catch an eye.. so keep the orders just under that.

I agree. This is what TB and I have been saying all along. Arguing the conspiracy/corruption angle with the FDA is pointless, and damaging to our credibility. Those arguments may apply to other government officials, anti-tobacco activists, etc, but the FDA is doing what it should, and what it is required by law to do.

Let's also remember that the FDA's position is NOT the final word on the matter. The courts and congress play a role, too. I'm sure the suppliers have their lawyers, and have a counter argument or two to play when the time comes.

The FDA's position is clear, and it is consistent with their mandate and responsibilities. We have to stop blaming them, and start working the system.

 

[jburns]

It's not like the only thing North Americans can build are cars and wood-framed houses!

We can build cars? For profit?

 

[Vaping Chas]

a couple of observations, one yes i am a newbie to vaping , but i have read a lot of this and other forums as well i have read through the IHRA's comments on tobacco use sub category nicotine, it is the WORLDS view that tobacco usage be lowered to extinction but within this they mentioned nicotine and alternatives besides the normal whats on the market at this current time gums, pills, etc to OTHER alternatives never mentioning E-cig by name i for one believe that a clear concise plan be started from this forum and others , petitions used, (yes i have already signed the one Joe speaks about and others ) letters to members of the government house senate etc. expressing our concerns, but also the need to be the first to have the media on our sides and push this before the government can produce their media blitz, just a couple of my own thoughts my .02

flaming and bashing not allowed

 

[Boston George]

We can build cars? For profit?

I like my cars, like I like my women.

Small, fast and imported.

 

[Maxwell_Edison]

So should I not buy my first starter kit? Seriously confused here. I was really looking forward to getting off tobacco. I have the gum, the lozenges and can get the patches, but they don't help me.

PS I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but if the big Pharmacy companies can sell (at outrages prices) the nicotine alternatives mentioned above, how can one not get the idea that big Pharmacy doesn't want this available? And what about the April's huge tobacco tax increase? I have to believe that our health isn't an issue here, money is.

 

[leaford]

The battle is not for FDA approval, they will never approve of e-cigs any more than they will ever approve of cigarettes not falling under their jurisdiction. We will not change their official position because their official position comes from the law. They are required to pursue their responsibilities aggressively, and by the law, these would appear to qualify as drug delivery devices. They are doing what they should. We will not change their minds with less than scientific proof of safety and efficacy.

Fortunately, though the FDA is in charge of carrying out the law, they don't have the final say in setting it or interpreting it. Either congress or the courts could change everything.

The current Waxman bill would change everything for the worse, for us. I really don't think it has the support to pass the Senate. But if it does it could be bleak. If not, though, we have time to work on congressional support. Time to prepare data , legal tactics to argue in court, and hopefully for manufacturers to begin doing the studies and clinical trials we will eventually NEED no matter what we do..

 

[Vape]

Obviously there's a lot of work ahead and none of this is a short term solution to our needs or a guarantee on what the future holds, but it's a myth that e-cig users are exclusively reliant on overseas manufacturers for any reason.

It's not like the only thing North Americans can build are cars and wood-framed houses!

I am totally jazzed about this prospect and share your enthusiasm, however that part about being "a myth that e-cig users are exclusively reliant on overseas manufacturers for any reason".... I assume you mean to end this fact, I know of no other country producing e-cigs other than China right now, that's pretty reliant.

 

[Boston George]

Leaford, I have watched many of your videos and strongly feel you are an asset to the community.

your last post however, seems self-contradicting.

The battle is not for FDA approval, they will never approve of e-cigs any more than they will ever approve of cigarettes not falling under their jurisdiction.

The current belief is that the only reason the FDA is stepping in is because e-cigs have not gone through the approval process. Had they done the proper studies they would be allowed currently.

Your previous post seems to agree with this:

The FDA's position is clear, and it is consistent with their mandate and responsibilities. We have to stop blaming them, and start working the system.

Basically my question is what do you believe?
-The FDA will under no circumstance allow e-cigs to be sold?
-The FDA will allow them to be sold only after they have been prove safe?
-Or something else?

As for conspiracy/corruption angle. We aren't talking about UFOs. Its hardly fantasy to believe that corporate lobbyists influence policy. Money greases the wheels. No networks of corruption or nonsense, just facts of life.


Oh and I fully agree with you on the Waxman bill.

 

[Kendra]

I buy stevia in bulk now and I buy it as a nutritional supplement. The FDA does not permit it to be sold as a sweetener, only as a nutritional supplement. And, when I started using stevia, I learned the same thing you learned, Boston George. The scoop is that the FDA was getting lobbied by the aspartame and splenda people. I'm not sure how that works. . . do these aspartame/equal and splenda people donate money to them? How do they spread their influence specifically?

Anyways, I think the FDA is obviously incredibly crooked. Not just the stevia issue, but this issue, how they are in cahoots with the tobacco industry, too. Also, I read somewhere that the Cancer Society is also in on the banning of the e-cigs. Well, all the tobacco companies have to donate an awful lot of money now to smoking cessation programs and I bet you the cancer society actually receives money from that fund now.

It's really disappointing. I think we need a lobbyist. I'm not sure how we would go about doing that, but that's what we need-- a lobbyist in Washington.

 

[Darkest]

I bet the cancer societies are multi billion dollar. If we had cure for cancer I wonder how many billions would be lost and how many researchers out of work. Sometimes it's hard to really trust anything for no other reason that the information is controlled by those with the money. Then you have the public and they are pretty easily swayed by such terms as "Terrorist", "Second hand smoke" etc etc. When you take a step back and try not to let your emotions get involved and just look at the information available pretty shortly you end up asking yourself "Can I trust ANY of this?" Hell, I still haven't figured out why they took down building 7.

It is interesting the way the domino's are falling and the fact they haven't taken any action yet. I agree that we need to take advantage of the lull and do everything within our power to sway public opinion as quickly as we can. People shouldn't be finding out about this from "Good morning America" Maybe we can call it the "Anti terrorist smoking device with the benefits of no second hand smoke"

 

[Kendra]

I bet the cancer societies are multi billion dollar. If we had cure for cancer I wonder how many billions would be lost and how many researchers out of work. Sometimes it's hard to really trust anything for no other reason that the information is controlled by those with the money. Then you have the public and they are pretty easily swayed by such terms as "Terrorist", "Second hand smoke" etc etc. When you take a step back and try not to let your emotions get involved and just look at the information available pretty shortly you end up asking yourself "Can I trust ANY of this?" Hell, I still haven't figured out why they took down building 7.

It is interesting the way the domino's are falling and the fact they haven't taken any action yet. I agree that we need to take advantage of the lull and do everything within our power to sway public opinion as quickly as we can. People shouldn't be finding out about this from "Good morning America" Maybe we can call it the "Anti terrorist smoking device with the benefits of no second hand smoke"

You know, I am not sure that this is the place to bring up your skepticism regarding 9/11 and building 7 and to minimize the fact that people are out to kill you. Additionally, assuming you supported our present president, the current terminology his administration has come up with for terrorism is now "man caused disaster".

I think you can find more appropriate forums for that discussion.

 

[Darkest]

I was just commenting on the current state of things in regards to how things appear to work here. The building 7 comment was a joke by the way, but I was trying to make a point about getting solid information. In America today, I think administration is more or less funded by the money people and that really does affect anyone trying to make any kind of changes and in our case I believe it's significant and relevant.

As an added note, I don't see any "man caused disaster"'s trying to take my e-cigs

 

[Kendra]

I was just commenting on the current state of things in regards to how things appear to work here. The building 7 comment was a joke by the way, but I was trying to make a point about getting solid information. In America today, I think administration is more or less funded by the money people and that really does affect anyone trying to make any kind of changes and in our case I believe it's significant and relevant.

As an added note, I don't see any "man caused disaster"'s trying to take my e-cigs

I think taking away my e cigs would be a man caused disaster.

I think the administration is funded by the money, too, you know. But, I work on terrorism-related issues all day long, so when people seem to minimize it, I always feel compelled to respond. No offense intended.

 

[leaford]

Basically my question is what do you believe?
-The FDA will under no circumstance allow e-cigs to be sold?
-The FDA will allow them to be sold only after they have been prove safe?
-Or something else?

As for conspiracy/corruption angle. We aren't talking about UFOs. Its hardly fantasy to believe that corporate lobbyists influence policy. Money greases the wheels. No networks of corruption or nonsense, just facts of life.

Sorry, i meant to write, the FDA will never approve of UNREGULATED e-cigs. "UNregulated," one little word, one big difference. Sorry!

And you're right, it's not nonesense to recognize that influence peddling goes on. But it edges across that line a little if you insist that corruption is the only possible explanation for their position or actions, when them honestly following their legal obligations is really explanation enough.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Leford--you are correct in stating that not everything is corrupt, but I can not concur with you when looking though the prism of the e-cig. If the FDA really wanted to "follow their legal obligations", they would have already banned them. It is obvious to me and IMO, I contend that the FDA is having some internal issues about banning the e-cig that has nothing to do with saftey. ---that is my take on it---Sun

 

[leaford]

Leford--you are correct in stating that not everything is corrupt, but I can not concur with you when looking though the prism of the e-cig. If the FDA really wanted to "follow their legal obligations", they would have already banned them. It is obvious to me and IMO, I contend that the FDA is having some internal issues about banning the e-cig that has nothing to do with saftey. ---that is my take on it---Sun

By their lights, they have banned them. They've made thjeir position clear, the e-cig is a drug/device combination, and does not have FDA approval, so is therefore illegal to be marketed in the US. But with the Waxman bill before congress, of course they're treading lightly. They want it to pass, and making waves NOW would be counter-productive to that. But they've clearly staked out their position.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

By their lights, they have banned them. They've made thjeir position clear, the e-cig is a drug/device combination, and does not have FDA approval, so is therefore illegal to be marketed in the US. But with the Waxman bill before congress, of course they're treading lightly. They want it to pass, and making waves NOW would be counter-productive to that. But they've clearly staked out their position.

I am all to aware of their position--I reported many news thread here about the FDA's position. But you just made my argument for me--waiting for the Waxman bill to clear Congress does not go to saftey and is stalling the ban if I understand you correctly. So is that not a form of corruption in and of itself as the FDA's charge is a mission of saftey, and not one of politics??? Or did I miss something in the reasoning-----Sun

 

[leaford]

It's not corruption to have and pursue a strategy. In fact, NOT employing a strategy of any kind would be incompetance. Pursuit at all costs isn't always the right strategy. Sometimes a general orders a strategic retreat or holds in place instead of pursuing a fleeing enemy, in order to achieve a larger strategic goal.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

It's not corruption to have and pursue a strategy. In fact, NOT employing a strategy of any kind would be incompetance. Pursuit at all costs isn't always the right strategy. Sometimes a general orders a strategic retreat or holds in place instead of pursuing a fleeing enemy, in order to achieve a larger strategic goal.

I hear what you are saying Leford and that is correct--but that again is politics in front of saftey--a real no no in the face of the mission they are charged with and I think that is what Darkest, in part was saying. To think that there is no political manuvering and other nasty business going on is simply not true--Who knows Leford, only the shadow knows--we will never know---that is for sure---------Sun

 

[Lorddrek]

Let's just be thankful the FDA is dragging their feet right now. They made the present ruling quite clear and just because any real action has not been taken does not mean they are not going to. The best reason I have heard is the FDA is waiting until they are handed the keys to tobacco. Some of the most serious players all want this to happen.

I like to play strategy games and the longer you wait to go on the offensive, the stronger your opponent will be. Take this time we have been given to stock up and turn on as many people as possible to the pleasures of personal nicotine vaporizers. Action will be a whole lot tougher against millions of vapers than just a hundred thousand.

Lorddrek