Edit: Ignore this. I didn't read the chain of discussion.
The Meeting Between CASAA and the FDA is Today
- Thread starter Robino1
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Edit: Ignore this. I didn't read the chain of discussion.
The FDA had our people sign a confidentiality agreement? For a listening session? Good grief...
(AgentAnia may not be around the forum much today. She'll be busy making tinfoil hats for the tobacco control people at FDA...)
As much as I was hoping something would come out I knew a listening session was just that. FDA listening. I worked as a financial advisor under contract for the SBA for 4 years. The contract came up for bid every year. We had to do a verbal response each year in a "listening session". It basically consisted of the agency listening and nothing else. No guidance whatsoever. The few times the agency spoke the simply asked us to clarify statements we made.
Last edited:
Hopefully the FDA wasn't playing words with friends or updating their face books and some of what CASAA had to say sunk in.
Every time you speak to an agency in a fashion like this or in a bid situation you have a confidentiality agreement. Private companies talking to public agencies has a standard set of protocol. Private companies and organizations are not allowed to willy nilly make public statements about what was discussed with public agencies in these formats.
Speaking from plenty of experience, dealing with public agencies is a beast in itself. Layer upon layer of protocol and rules.
Speaking from plenty of experience, dealing with public agencies is a beast in itself. Layer upon layer of protocol and rules.
Your logic is flawed at best. People living longer has to do with advances in medical science not the presence of second hand smoke. That is an odd connection you made there. Studies show that second hand smoke is harmful. I don't really care HOW harmful.
BTW this is an odd place to be advocating second hand smoke... why am I even having this conversation? Rediculous.
I want information on this meeting!! The suspense is killing me!! Although I doubt any of the information that comes forth will be worthwhile any forward progress on this issue is certainly welcome. Keep us posted OP. 
Not really. It felt more like the agency was there "just because". I'm not sure it mattered what we said. I always felt like the decision was kinda already made and we were just going through the motions. We just avoided saying anything stupid. It's not apples to apples because we weren't speaking about regulations and things like that. But you have to wonder if the FDA has already made up it's mind about certain things regardless of what anybody says.
That's my experience too, and I've had plenty also. The higher you go up the food chain, the more ridiculous the protocols become. If you're dealing with a political appointee, it's even worse. Their staff are among the most self-righteous, condescending and rude people I've ever dealt with.
I'd rather tell a flag officer that he's doing it wrong than have to deal with a PA's staff.
Ridiculous (spelling) maybe. It is pertinent to the conversation since it is where the ANTZ got their start. And yes, advances in medicine have enabled people to live longer.
My belief is people are genetically predisposed to whatever disease they may get in life. There have been people that have been heavy smokers that live very long lives. Famous ones that come to mind...Bette Davis and George Burns. But anyway, I digress. Everything can be debated to death.
We can agree to disagree.
Not on the side of Government regulation!
Okay, with that out of the way:
Not pushing Regulation will result in a loss of BILLIONS to government
A swing to Non-tobacco use opens a tone of debates.
1) Loss of related income to the medical profession
2) loss of Insurance increases (often never used by payee)
3) Increased life span (Over crowding)
4) Faster Failure to Social Security (more to pay out)
5) Food Shortage (due to over population)
6) increased Jobless rate - see above
Does anyone Not get that there is an agenda?
Defective toys are Recalled due to safety - Can't have the replacement workers injured or worse.
Yet Tobacco - Sworn by government to be Deadly - is Taxed and remains.
Off the soap box.............before I get in trouble.
Okay, with that out of the way:
Not pushing Regulation will result in a loss of BILLIONS to government
A swing to Non-tobacco use opens a tone of debates.
1) Loss of related income to the medical profession
2) loss of Insurance increases (often never used by payee)
3) Increased life span (Over crowding)
4) Faster Failure to Social Security (more to pay out)
5) Food Shortage (due to over population)
6) increased Jobless rate - see above
Does anyone Not get that there is an agenda?
Defective toys are Recalled due to safety - Can't have the replacement workers injured or worse.
Yet Tobacco - Sworn by government to be Deadly - is Taxed and remains.
Off the soap box.............before I get in trouble.
Maybe I got it wrong, but if you smoke *by yourself*, you're effectively not hurting "anyone else", and your freedom remains... Do you see that?
It seems clear to me that individual ecig consumers are not considered significant stakeholders to the FDA powers that be. I do hold out hope, however, that CASAA, an organization, will be listened to. Whether or not FDA will consider their (i.e. our) position significant to the issue remains to be seen.
I would be curious to know if these listening sessions are recorded in any way (audio or transcript), by whoever...
I would be curious to know if these listening sessions are recorded in any way (audio or transcript), by whoever...
Maybe the lead paint we chewed on as children gave us an immunity to second hand smoke ?
I grew up in a house that was blue with pipe smoke and other pleasant aromas, and so did my father. He lived to be 100 years old ...
Not on the side of Government regulation!
Okay, with that out of the way:
Not pushing Regulation will result in a loss of BILLIONS to government
A swing to Non-tobacco use opens a tone of debates.
1) Loss of related income to the medical profession
2) loss of Insurance increases (often never used by payee)
3) Increased life span (Over crowding)
4) Faster Failure to Social Security (more to pay out)
5) Food Shortage (due to over population)
6) increased Jobless rate - see above
Does anyone Not get that there is an agenda?
Defective toys are Recalled due to safety - Can't have the replacement workers injured or worse.
Yet Tobacco - Sworn by government to be Deadly - is Taxed and remains.
Off the soap box.............before I get in trouble.
The lunatics are running the asylum, throw in enough confusion at them (us)
so that we fail to see everything that is going on around us.
Its sad that we must fight for small personal freedoms; while greater
events are in place that may take place that may impact our lives
even more so than second hand smoke ever will.
The effects of GMO's in our foods, additives in our drinking
water. The anount of Americans on anti depressants.
I read somewhere that the last thing big pharma and the medical
industry cured was polio. There is never a profit in a cure.
Lol now big pharma has invented a new disease Big Pharma invents yet another disease to sell deadly drugs: 'Shift Work Disorder' now used to push medication that may kill you,
yeah wow.
Oh and thanks for the soap box.
Elaine is not an attorney, but two attorneys who serve as directors were also there: Julie Woessner and Ron Ward.
Maybe the lead paint we chewed on as children gave us an immunity to second hand smoke ?
I grew up in a house that was blue with pipe smoke and other pleasant aromas, and so did my father. He lived to be 100 years old ...
That irony is that the World Health Organization commissioned a report on second hand smoke in 1998 that actually found that exposure to second hand smoke as children seemed to have a PROTECTIVE effect, as less of those children got cancer than those who were not exposed to SHS:
"many studies conclude that nobody dies from secondhand smoke. In 30 studies (mostly in research on lung cancer) 81% of the 177 results found no statistically significant correlation between secondhand smoke and adverse health effects. A positive correlation was found in 13% of the results and a negative correlation was found in 6% of them (which would indicate that secondhand smoke is actually good for you). (Source: Online Library of Drug Policy, BMJ, WHO.) Even a large scale study in 1998 conducted by the World Health Organization, which is fanatically against smoking, could find no connection between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. As a result, the World Health Organization attempted to deep-six the study. (Source: The Economist, March 12, 1998.) By the way, even when a statistically significant correlation is found between secondhand smoke and health damage, that is still not good proof of the conclusion that secondhand smoke is bad for your health."
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
