I agree.
I attend college and I think this is a great idea. I will look into writing an article for the University newspaper. We need to be active.
The FDA has 'won'
- Thread starter Minimike
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I agree.
I attend college and I think this is a great idea. I will look into writing an article for the University newspaper. We need to be active.
You sir have clearly never been to a hotdog processing plant. I can assure you that you do NOT under any circumstances want to know.
The chinese with their crafty sense of business have probably learned by now that killing your customers may not be the smartest approach to a fat bottom line.
If one of us were to go cockroach position after vaping Ruyan's new "AGENT ORANGE" that would be the end of their sales. Hell people get all ....-hurt over an improperly worded e-mail on here let alone if something were to really happen.
I would think that if the companies in question would wish to CONTINUE bringing in profit, they wouldn't gain a reputation for selling bad or dangerous consumables. Our word of mouth would prevent that, and they know it.
I am not saying they are throwing in arsenic or nuclear waste, but do you feel good about not knowing what the trace substances are? How many years did people smoke cigarettes before we actually knew how bad they were for you? I sound like I am on one side of this dog fight, but I am vaping eastmall juice as we speak, and loving every second of it... I'm not sayin, just sayin...
It's a good thing the founding fathers didn't give up this easily.
I think that's just a reaction to the load of negative media attention that some Chinese products have gotten. Have you ever checked to see how many of the things you buy are made in China? Practically ALL of them, actually. The idea that Chinese products are crap, dangerous, unreliable etc.. is fostered by hysteria over a very small percentage of Chinese imports.
I date myself, but that's ok. I am proud to be from a generation that eventually stopped the war in Vietnam. You don't have to agree with that, and you sure don't have to like it, but it is true. At first the war protesters were perceived as a lunatic fringe group. Eventually, they came to be recognized for their beliefs and resolve. Eventually, they became such a presence that they could no longer be ignored. If you wish to change things, you can. Just don't sit back twiddling your useless thumbs and hoping that someone will see the light. You can make them see that light if you wish.
I'm so tired of this FDA crap!
cigarettes are not FDA approved, they have the Surgeon General's on the box!
FDA was probably bought by the tobaco industry to create all this fuz!
Here is an article on the subject:
"Prominent Public Health Physicians and Tobacco Researchers Expose Double Standard in the FDAs Recent Study of Electronic Cigarettes and Challenge the FDAs Alarmist Attitude Toward the Devices
BOSTON, July 27 The FDA recently went public with misleading information about the safety of electronic cigarettes and the marketing of the devices, not only using its clout but recruiting other prominent organizations to demonize a product that has great public health benefit potential.
A group of prominent doctors and tobacco researchers, including Dr. Michael Siegel at the Boston University School of Public Health, Dr. Joel Nitzkin of the AAPHP Tobacco Control Task Force, and Dr. Brad Rodu, Endowed Chair, Tobacco Harm Reduction Research University of Louisville, challenge the FDA to provide the full quantitative data of the study upon which the FDA has based its warning against electronic cigarettes. They are concerned that the FDAs disingenuous targeting of electronic cigarettes through a biased presentation of the scientific data has had significant negative impact upon the public perception of electronic cigarettes, when the best available evidence suggests that these have shown that the devices offer great potential to reduce serious health issues among traditional tobacco smokers.
In a July 22 news release, the FDA cited the detectable presence of carcinogens and toxic chemicals in a small sample of electronic cigarette cartridges as reason for alarm, singling out nitrosamines as particularly toxic. What the FDA fails to inform the public is that detectable amounts of carcinogens are also present in nicotine replacement products such as NicoDerm CQ and Nicorette gum, both approved by the FDA, and nitrosamines that can be also found in food items such bacon and beer. This double standard and alarmist attitude has had the significant and unfortunate effect of inducing hysteria among the public, discouraging tobacco smokers from using a product which is thought to be a significantly safer alternative to traditional tobacco.
Regrettably, the FDA has used biased reporting of this small and inconclusive study, the complete results of which have not been made public, to secure the vocal support of groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics Tobacco Consortium, the Institute for Global Health, and the American Lung Association in their attack on electronic cigarettes. These researchers argue that it is absurd to consider taking electronic cigarettes off the market when it is the conventional ones which have been shown to be killing people. Further, the electronic cigarette community calls for accurate and fair reporting relative to the findings and statements of prominent medical professionals in favor of this new and important technology and challenges the media to tell the other side of the story.
The FDAs laboratory findings actually indicate that electronic cigarettes are much, much safer than conventional cigarettes, says Dr. Michael Siegel. The traces of carcinogens present are also present in nicotine replacement products. The FDA and the anti-smoking groups have fallen into a huge analytical trap as they have failed to ask the appropriate question. The question they are asking is: Are electronic cigarettes safe? That is not the right question. The right question is: Are electronic cigarettes much safer than traditional ones?
Dr. Rodu states, The FDA tested e-cigarettes for TSNAs using a questionable sampling regimen, and the methods that were so sensitive that the results may have no possible significance to users. The agency failed to report specific levels of these contaminants, and it has failed to conduct similar testing of nicotine medicines that have been sold in the U.S. for over 20 years. These are not the actions of an agency that is science-based and consumer-focused. These pseudo-scientific actions are clearly intended to form the justification for banning a category of products that are probably 99.9% safer than cigarettes.
Dr. Joel Nitzkin speaking as individual states, The newly adopted FDA/Tobacco legislation will give full FDA approval to currently marketed conventional cigarettes. The new law encourages cigarette companies to produce new reduced exposure cigarettes to be marketed as reduced exposure products, with no scientific evidence that such reductions in exposure will reduce risk of future tobacco related illness and death. In the context of these provisions of the newly adopted FDA/Tobacco bill FDA should be encouraging, not maligning the manufacture and sale of electronic cigarettes, and working with manufacturers to assure the highest possible quality control. "
cigarettes are not FDA approved, they have the Surgeon General's on the box!
FDA was probably bought by the tobaco industry to create all this fuz!
Here is an article on the subject:
"Prominent Public Health Physicians and Tobacco Researchers Expose Double Standard in the FDAs Recent Study of Electronic Cigarettes and Challenge the FDAs Alarmist Attitude Toward the Devices
BOSTON, July 27 The FDA recently went public with misleading information about the safety of electronic cigarettes and the marketing of the devices, not only using its clout but recruiting other prominent organizations to demonize a product that has great public health benefit potential.
A group of prominent doctors and tobacco researchers, including Dr. Michael Siegel at the Boston University School of Public Health, Dr. Joel Nitzkin of the AAPHP Tobacco Control Task Force, and Dr. Brad Rodu, Endowed Chair, Tobacco Harm Reduction Research University of Louisville, challenge the FDA to provide the full quantitative data of the study upon which the FDA has based its warning against electronic cigarettes. They are concerned that the FDAs disingenuous targeting of electronic cigarettes through a biased presentation of the scientific data has had significant negative impact upon the public perception of electronic cigarettes, when the best available evidence suggests that these have shown that the devices offer great potential to reduce serious health issues among traditional tobacco smokers.
In a July 22 news release, the FDA cited the detectable presence of carcinogens and toxic chemicals in a small sample of electronic cigarette cartridges as reason for alarm, singling out nitrosamines as particularly toxic. What the FDA fails to inform the public is that detectable amounts of carcinogens are also present in nicotine replacement products such as NicoDerm CQ and Nicorette gum, both approved by the FDA, and nitrosamines that can be also found in food items such bacon and beer. This double standard and alarmist attitude has had the significant and unfortunate effect of inducing hysteria among the public, discouraging tobacco smokers from using a product which is thought to be a significantly safer alternative to traditional tobacco.
Regrettably, the FDA has used biased reporting of this small and inconclusive study, the complete results of which have not been made public, to secure the vocal support of groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics Tobacco Consortium, the Institute for Global Health, and the American Lung Association in their attack on electronic cigarettes. These researchers argue that it is absurd to consider taking electronic cigarettes off the market when it is the conventional ones which have been shown to be killing people. Further, the electronic cigarette community calls for accurate and fair reporting relative to the findings and statements of prominent medical professionals in favor of this new and important technology and challenges the media to tell the other side of the story.
The FDAs laboratory findings actually indicate that electronic cigarettes are much, much safer than conventional cigarettes, says Dr. Michael Siegel. The traces of carcinogens present are also present in nicotine replacement products. The FDA and the anti-smoking groups have fallen into a huge analytical trap as they have failed to ask the appropriate question. The question they are asking is: Are electronic cigarettes safe? That is not the right question. The right question is: Are electronic cigarettes much safer than traditional ones?
Dr. Rodu states, The FDA tested e-cigarettes for TSNAs using a questionable sampling regimen, and the methods that were so sensitive that the results may have no possible significance to users. The agency failed to report specific levels of these contaminants, and it has failed to conduct similar testing of nicotine medicines that have been sold in the U.S. for over 20 years. These are not the actions of an agency that is science-based and consumer-focused. These pseudo-scientific actions are clearly intended to form the justification for banning a category of products that are probably 99.9% safer than cigarettes.
Dr. Joel Nitzkin speaking as individual states, The newly adopted FDA/Tobacco legislation will give full FDA approval to currently marketed conventional cigarettes. The new law encourages cigarette companies to produce new reduced exposure cigarettes to be marketed as reduced exposure products, with no scientific evidence that such reductions in exposure will reduce risk of future tobacco related illness and death. In the context of these provisions of the newly adopted FDA/Tobacco bill FDA should be encouraging, not maligning the manufacture and sale of electronic cigarettes, and working with manufacturers to assure the highest possible quality control. "
Oh my god!
What now???
The FDA found carcinogens on e-cigarettes!
I wont be vaping anymore! I trust FDA!!
That's why i'll be dumb and go back to my cancer stick!
Marlboro is safe!
At least the FDA did not ban real cigs!
Yeah, yeah yeah, right!
I really would like to kick FDA right on the balls!
What now???
The FDA found carcinogens on e-cigarettes!
I wont be vaping anymore! I trust FDA!!
That's why i'll be dumb and go back to my cancer stick!
Marlboro is safe!
At least the FDA did not ban real cigs!
Yeah, yeah yeah, right!
I really would like to kick FDA right on the balls!
Which is why we must NEVER GIVE UP. NEVER SURRENDER. WE *MUST* FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT! HOLD UP OUR PV's AND YELL WE WON'T TAKE THIS .... ANYMORE!
It troubles me to keep seeing this statement that the FDA doesn't ban cigarettes, so it shouldn't ban PVs. The FDA does not have the authority to ban cigarettes. Maybe it would if it could; who knows? But repeating this point weakens the whole argument. We have to demonstrate a better level of understanding of this process than the average 'Murican possesses, if we want to argue effectively.
As for China... I don't have a big problem with product quality. My reasoning: China sentenced a few people to DEATH when melamine was added to milk powder there and some babies died as a result, and the head of the company that manufactured lead-flavored toys committed suicide after China banned his company from exporting. I kinda doubt many manufacturers of anything in the US have that much (a) to fear from the government or (b) shame. There's huge incentive for those folks to keep their noses, and their businesses, clean -- especially in the current climate.
As for China... I don't have a big problem with product quality. My reasoning: China sentenced a few people to DEATH when melamine was added to milk powder there and some babies died as a result, and the head of the company that manufactured lead-flavored toys committed suicide after China banned his company from exporting. I kinda doubt many manufacturers of anything in the US have that much (a) to fear from the government or (b) shame. There's huge incentive for those folks to keep their noses, and their businesses, clean -- especially in the current climate.
The comparison gets made because the FDA's central reasoning for banning these devices is that they "send the wrong message" to smokers... the right message being that the ONLY viable alternative to smoking is not smoking. E-cigarettes look like cigarettes, therefore they must be stopped. While I agree that the comparison is questionable given the FDA's lack of authority to ban traditional cigarettes, I don't think we should stop making it. Why? Because the FDA doesn't hold back their rhetoric. Why should we?
Mini mike..
i nearly got a heart attack when i logged onto the site and saw "The FDA has won".
Could you explain to me in simple terms what it is they have won?
Playing the slot machines? perhaps...
Do us a favor and keep your paranoid metaphors for yourself!!
I take it you'd prefer lung cancer to kill you at unknown date rather than a "unknown/untested" substance kill you on a certain date?
Nobody is forcing to you to smoke -- if you want to sue the tobacco company -- JUST DO IT!
8-o
If nothing else, the thread title proves my point.
Some are up in arms about the wording and reacting in here to said wording. Honestly, if you can't see that the FDA now has the legal and moral authority to do what they want, you are lost.
Some are up in arms about the wording and reacting in here to said wording. Honestly, if you can't see that the FDA now has the legal and moral authority to do what they want, you are lost.
A grassroots campaign is what got Mr. "O" elected. A grassroots campaign can change most anything given enough force...
Or, you can sit down, shut up, and be a good little sheep and you will eventually be herded into a room and slaughtered...
Personally, I don't have a taste for lamb.
I heard an ad on the radio today for "Smoke Assassin", which is another personal vaporizer. You can guess their website.
Anyway, the truth is...the FDA didn't "win". These things are picking up traction. As the world is learning, slow reaction times never stop a freight train. E-Cigs are a freight train. They won't be stopped anytime soon.
Anyway, the truth is...the FDA didn't "win". These things are picking up traction. As the world is learning, slow reaction times never stop a freight train. E-Cigs are a freight train. They won't be stopped anytime soon.
The ECF is making records right now for new members.
If anything the FDA just did a whole lotta advertising to get people searching.
Maybe in our wildest dreams,
FDA is trying to win this by getting more people involved,
more liquid evolved, and the healthy addictions solved.
If many people start vaping and quiting analogs, the FDA will foresurely switch over to approving vaporizers, of course with the gov taxing.
Rob
If anything the FDA just did a whole lotta advertising to get people searching.
Maybe in our wildest dreams,
FDA is trying to win this by getting more people involved,
more liquid evolved, and the healthy addictions solved.
If many people start vaping and quiting analogs, the FDA will foresurely switch over to approving vaporizers, of course with the gov taxing.
Rob
Last edited:
I once had that thought too, in a warped kinda way, then the thought of $42 billion collected last year in cig taxes and settlements overshadowed that...
Right On! Get enough to switch and they will be forced to allow it if they want the taxes and we all know the Gov is more addicted to taxes that we are to nicotine...
But, if BT and BP don't jump on the bandwagon, they will sit back, wait for someone to go through the New Drug process, get approval, grow a market in the millions, then sue the manufacturer for patent infringement, whether they win or not... only in America!
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
