The final countdown to August 8th - your FDA comments NEEDED

Status
Not open for further replies.

dragonpuff

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
This is my latest comment:

My friend just got diagnosed with cervical cancer. She is going through chemotherapy and radiation. She has struggled to quit smoking and so far she has only succeeded in cutting back. I told her that after many tries, the only way I could quit was by using electronic cigarettes. I said that whenever she's ready, I will help her pick out the right e-cigarette supplies. I know that e-cigarettes are the only way she'll be able to really quit.

I cannot understand why the FDA would choose to effectively ban a technology that has already saved the lives of thousands of people and promises to save millions more by preventing smoking related disease. We have the opportunity to reverse one of the biggest public health crises of our time, and the FDA plans to keep that from happening by blocking access to this technology through overregulation. I cannot understand for the life of me how they sleep at night.
 

BekFL

Full Member
Jan 31, 2013
17
20
Florida
My last (#10 plus the CASAA CTA)


To: FDA Center for Tobacco Products
RE: FDA, Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0189,
Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 0910- AG38

I find the use of “tobacco product” for products, such as electronic cigarettes/ vaporizers, that only contain nicotine baffling and extremely confusing. The term “tobacco product” implies that there are actual tobacco particles in the product. The term “nicotine product” or “nicotine based” for products containing nicotine but no actual tobacco is less confusing and more factual.
For years now consumers have heard terms like combustible tobacco, smoke-less tobacco and nicotine replacement (notice it’s not tobacco replacement). To the consumer and public in general (not Doctors and politicians) combustible equals cigarettes and lung cancer, smokeless equals snuff or chew and cancers of the mouth, nicotine replacement equals not ideal but safe (based on 30 years of NRT research and recent FDA approval for long term use). So, not only is calling nicotine only products “tobacco products” confusing it is also very misleading to the average person.
Nicotine only products i.e. e-cigs not regulated as a drug are a unique product and should not be deemed “tobacco products”. However, FDA guidance and oversight that provides reasonable, honest, not costly to small vendors, and applicable guidelines that consider the uniqueness of “nicotine only products” is a good idea.
I’d also like to point out these observations. The major tobacco companies were not involved in the electronic cigarette business at the time the FSPTCA was written and passed. The FSPTCA never mentions or defines electronic cigarettes. It does however, define/mention cigarette(s) 92 times, smoking 62 times, smokeless 55 times, cigar 13 times. Nicotine only products are never mentioned (or defined) but, nicotine replacement products are mentioned twice and nicotine based products mentioned once. I don’t believe electronic cigarettes were even taken into consideration when the FSPTCA was written or they were assumed to be NRT which the court later determined they were not.

1jy-8doj-ac9p
 
I won't be leaving a comment. Won't do a damn bit of good. Big Government will continue to do whatever the hell it wants.

I commented. I told them they can shove their proposals up their bums because I will vape no matter what unless they plan to ban electronic components, batteries, kanthal, cotton, synthetic nicotine, PG/VG, and flavorings.
 

classwife

Admin
Admin
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
May 9, 2010
98,561
161,084
68
Wesley Chapel, Florida
apathy-quotes-6.jpg
 

rolygate

Vaping Master
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 24, 2009
8,354
12,405
ECF Towers
Leaving a comment adds to the weight of public resistance to the proposed regulations.

In itself, it is of no value. It will of course be completely ignored. We are responding to a whitewash exercise by one of the most corrupt organisations on the planet, whose controllers absolutely do not care a jot for public health. But: when counted and when examined for useful content, it is indeed worthwhile because it provides a basis for legal challenge.

Unless there are successful legal challenges to the proposed regulations, and then to the increasingly harsh measures they will add if the first tranche is successful, then legal vaping as we know it is finished. All products will have to be sourced from the black market.

Therefore, we all need to do what we can to assist the legal challenges, and unless you wish to contribute $10,000 then the next best thing is to respond to these consultation exercises: you are providing something to work with for the people who will have to foot the bill and who will fight for your right to life and health.
 

NGAHaze

Infinity Member
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 13, 2010
4,326
19,839
Georgia
I won't be leaving a comment. Won't do a damn bit of good. Big Government will continue to do whatever the hell it wants.

I respect your right to your own opinion however if all you have to offer is a fatalistic and apathetic comment in a thread specific to those who are actually trying to make a difference despite the odds, honestly you could have saved yourself the trouble and us the bother of having to read it.

Now if you have any alternative actions that you feel might prove beneficial then by all means, please share them! :)
 

CabinetGuyScott

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Jan 24, 2014
484
1,188
Detroit
customcabinetsbycasey.com
Comment Tracking Number: 1jy-8dok-nz0p

I even had 793 characters to spare!!

I didn't know we could do attachments!

I added the following via pdf's I luckily had downloaded over the past 9 months:

E-cigarette primer for state and local lawmakers | R Street Institute | Free Markets. Real Solutions.

Achieving appropriate regulations for electronic cigarettes

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/ecf-library/529552-nicotine-myths.html

"Tobacco Harm Reduction: opportunity and opposition" by Phillips & Rodu: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3FU0iObJqKKZEhUZk1vMGF4b0k/edit

A Joel Nitzkin presentation he made out in Oregon (no link available at this moment)

And added this:

First-hand accounts of VICTORY OVER SMOKING - A NEW LIFE BEGINS: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...obacco-use-way-e-cig-did-not-intend-quit.html

Blog entry of my entire comment
 
Last edited:

yzer

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Nov 23, 2011
5,248
3,870
Northern California
I am aware that these comments may contain elements that many vapers may find objectionable but that's the way I see it and how I commented as an individual consumer. My comment tracking number code includes the text and photo attachment.

To: Food and Drug Administration
Re: Comments on FDA Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0189


Dear Sirs,

I am a US citizen, a user of e-cigarettes and am not involved in the tobacco or e-cigarette industry. I smoked cigarettes for 35 years at a rate of about 1.5 packs per day. I tried to quit smoking on numerous occasions over the years by quitting cold turkey or using nicotine replacement therapy products including the nicotine patch and nicotine gum. None of those attempts were successful. I was able to quit smoking entirely over two years ago by using an advanced e-cigarette of a type I will describe below. I am a much healthier and happier person thanks to the switch to e-cigarettes. I don’t want the FDA to outlaw the e-cigarette devices I am using.

I agree that the FDA should provide some useful regulation of e-cigarettes.

-FDA should regulate liquids used for production of e-cigarette vapor including accurate measurement of nicotine dosage, purity of base liquids and additional ingredients. FDA should regulate sanitary and safe practices in the e-liquid mixing industry including use of child-resistant packaging and disclosure of ingredients on package labeling.

-FDA should require warnings on e-liquid labeling regarding the addictive nature of nicotine. If these liquids contain flavorings or additives that have not been proven safe for inhalation then this fact must be disclosed on product labeling.

-FDA should limit nicotine strength of nicotine base sold for home liquid mixing to not more than 102 mg/ml nicotine.

-FDA should regulate safe standards for all components of e-cigarette devices that come into direct contact with e-liquid that is vaporized. This includes cartomizers, tanks and atomizers, but not power units.

-FDA should prohibit the purchase of all e-liquids by minors that contain nicotine or flavorings not tested as safe for inhalation.

FDA has missed the mark on proposed regulations of e-cigarettes by restricting the definition of an e-cigarette to fit only the small but expensive to use devices promoted by the big tobacco corporations. Larger, safer, more efficient and less expensive to use e-cigarette devices like the type I use will be outlawed and people like me will be forced to use less effective and more expensive e-cigarettes, relapse to smoking or purchase products on the black market.

Here are the vaping devices I use. These devices are the Chinese-made Sigelei Zmax V3 and V5 variable wattage and variable voltage devices (see attached photo). They use safer chemistry standard IMR 3.7V cylindrical batteries of several different sizes that are safely charged by standardized Li-ion cylindrical battery chargers. These power devices feature several advanced safety circuits and cost about $60.00 each. The atomizer is a Chinese-made cartomizer surrounded by a US-made borosilicate glass tank. I mix my own 12mg/ml nicotine liquid with Glycerin USP distilled water and nicotine base liquid. I use no flavorings of any kind. I vaporize about 2.5ml of liquid per day at a cost of less than $120.00 per year. I previously spent $2,500 per year for cigarettes.

200a.jpg


The Sigelei power units and the IBTanked tank shown in the photo will be outlawed by proposed FDA deeming regulations. The power units do not contain or hold nicotine or e-liquid and should not be deemed tobacco products by law as these do not contain nicotine or other tobacco products. The safety of these products should be regulated and should be the responsibility of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, not the FDA. The cartomizer and the glass tank should be regulated by FDA as tobacco products as these are designed to hold and make contact with e-liquids. To the best of my knowledge the cartomizer shown in the photo will be grandfathered into FDA approval as it was available for sale prior to 2009.

E-cigarettes helped me to quit smoking. I ask the FDA to not outlaw effective, safe and economical e-cigarette devices because they are not sold by the big tobacco corporations.
 

Dusty_D

Original Guru
Senior Moderator
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 22, 2010
16,228
47,678
53
Toronto, Canada
dustysfoodieadventures.blogspot.ca
This thread has me "liking" a lot of posts by Surf Monkey.
I never thought I'd see that day come.
:laugh:

Thanks Surf Monkey, for what you're doing out here.
:)


You just had to go and jinx it right?! It's all on your head now.. :glare:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread