The Meeting Between CASAA and the FDA is Today

[Orb Skewer]

The word 'free base' has become known as a bad word because of the term being used in drug user circles. (It's hard to come up with something that doesn't go against TOS!) It is actually a chemists term. When people hear that word used, it conjures up bad images in the mind.

The word 'vaping' was born in drug user circles Robino1

 

[dr g]

want to get or have the leadership of CASAA get true strength for support, bend the ear of the NRA and the good people of the firearm community, not kidding...the similarities of the "persecution" of our hobby or indulgence due to ignorance or "fear driven by" ignorance of the "vaping community" is eerily similar to that of the "firearm community"

The lies and disinformation and plain old "fear" driven by ignorance the firearm community has grown to identify and deal with on a regular basis...we have HUGE numbers and are already calloused against those that use the same methods of attack in order to push an agenda...want a ready made army...convince those in the firearm community the "nanny state" has set its sights on another group and "we need their help!"

IMO that would be the terrible idea, again ceding the moral high ground. Firearms are a very controversial issue and quite worthy of strong regulation as devices designed to cause injury and death. It would be injecting a political liability where none exists.

vaping has almost no real liabilities, the science will be undeniable. Our goal is not to have it regulated like guns but like coffee.

 

[Robino1]

The word 'Vaping' was born in drug user circles Robino1

Since I've never been around said circles, I did not know this. Free base(ing) is more common since it is used in the news and when talked about drug use in books and such. It is a familiar term to me, whereas vaping is a term I've only heard in context with ecig use.

 

[Lombaowski]

IMO that would be the terrible idea, again ceding the moral high ground. Firearms are a very controversial issue and quite worthy of strong regulation as devices designed to cause injury and death. It would be injecting a political liability where none exists.

Vaping has almost no real liabilities, the science will be undeniable. Our goal is not to have it regulated like guns but like coffee.

Agree with this approach. The gun lobby also has something called the constitution on their side, as well as generations upon generations of God-fearing freedom lovers. The gun lobby is by far the most powerful in this country though so some lessons can be learned, but there just isn't a strong enough correlation. Personal freedom shtick aside, the gun lobby has a cause written in stone while the e-cig lobby has a cause written in...well...vapor. I'd have the useless vitamin lobby on speed dial though, if there is such a thing.

 

[JulesXsmokr]

amazing thread !
just a little side note, that is sticking to me. I heard a couple of times or so the words burning or smoke used in the same sentence as vaping.
As I am trying to eradicate my old vice, and I do spread the word, I have disassociated the two or three words completely from each other. This subject matter can be somewhat deceptful in meaning, so I tend to be clear about how I verse the words, when I try to "discompare" the vape and the cig stuff.
New word "discompare" lol...
Vape On!
sorry for the attempt of my disclosure..

 

[WarHawk-AVG]

IMO that would be the terrible idea, again ceding the moral high ground. Firearms are a very controversial issue and quite worthy of strong regulation as devices designed to cause injury and death. It would be injecting a political liability where none exists.

Vaping has almost no real liabilities, the science will be undeniable. Our goal is not to have it regulated like guns but like coffee.

wow....really?

See what I mean when someone really doesn't understand firearms goes and just "throws it out there"

knives, bats, hammers, fists...even cars

Not going into the dichotomy of "the tool" vs the "evil in ones heart" here...this ain't the time or place

Why not have it regulated and taxed [sales tax..hmmmm] like...oh...say Nicotine patches and gums (which last time I checked are bought and sold wholesale on the interwebs...**cough** ebay **cough** which are just "ALTERNATIVE" methods for nicotine delivery...oh...maybe because ignorant (as in not knowing) people see it "like it's smoking"

In case you didn't realize it...I said "gun community" I didn't say go hit up the NRA....

The people who know all well the sting of ignorant people that jump to conclusions, make baseless statements and ATTACK someone because they do a certain thing KNOW what it's like...THESE are the people we want ON OUR SIDE!!!!

And if you pay close attention...go read the 9th and 10th amendments on the bill of rights...

 

[BigBen2k]

...but you can't buy a firearm on *cough* eBay *cough*...

 

[WarHawk-AVG]

...but you can't buy a firearm on *cough* eBay *cough*...

**cough ** yes you can Guns for Sale - Online Gun Auction - Buy Guns at GunBroker.com **cough**

Let's not argue amongst ourselves...and focus on the problem....

Once again big daddy government is hell bent on taking away something we could do before all to make a buck and for control....simple as that

Porkins says

Stay on Target!

 

[sonicdsl]

Let's keep it on topic folks. Current discussion needs to be taken to the outside. This is not a firearms forum.

 

[WarHawk-AVG]

So how did it go?

Or are they still bound by the "gag order"?

 

[Talyon]

I suppose the gag order wouldn't be lifted any time soon, nor would CASAA speculate on the feeling of how things went.

Know what I'm saying.

 

[dr g]

wow....really?

See what I mean when someone really doesn't understand firearms goes and just "throws it out there"

knives, bats, hammers, fists...even cars

Hope you're not referring to me. It's not disputable what the tool is designed for, and if there is to be regulation of anything at all, tools designed to do that are at the top of the list. The inability to accept that is one of the biggest problems with the firearm lobby.

Compare to ecigs, which are actually designed to save lives.

That's all I will say on that issue.

 

[Robino1]

From what I've read, the FDA asked a lot of questions pertaining to what they were hearing. I haven't seen any write up yet about what went on. The Confidentiality Agreement really limits CASAA on what they may put out publicly. I just want to know if anyone was able to get a read on the FDA's body language and how perceptive they were to what was being presented.

 

[DC2]

I was wondering if at any point in time the presentations might have included a statement along the lines of...

The FDA should carefully consider the impact that upcoming regulations will have on electronic cigarette consumers. These are people who for the most part are tired of being pushed around when they were smokers, and now they have found a product that has allowed them to break free from their past bondage. A product that many, if not most, feel has literally saved their lives. It is quite possible, if not likely, that any regulations that restrict the products that are currently being offered to the electronic cigarette community will cause an enormous backlash.

I don't know if the statement is true, but I sure hope it is.

 

[Robino1]

I was wondering if at any point in time the presentations might have included a statement along the lines of...



I don't know if the statement is true, but I sure hope it is.

I hope so too!

 

[tA71ana]

Those of you who grew up inb the 60's and 70's have to be saying damn

You've got that right..(there is some really strange stuff going on nowadays)

 

[Uma]

Two very complicated accusations with both short and long answers. Short answers:


Tobacco companies may have done research on this, but there is no evidence that the industry succeeded.



Honestly, I don't know enough about COPD to answer that part, but the link to lung cancer is less certain. In all of the years of research, no study that exposed animals to smoke at the same levels smokers get was able to cause lung cancer, even using animals highly susceptible to getting tumors. Only 10% of smokers even get lung cancer. Is that higher than non-smokers? Yes, but there are other lifestyle factors that can come into play for smokers. They tend to be lower income and thus more likely to have a poor diet, higher alcohol use and blue collar jobs that may expose them to other carcinogens that are linked to lung cancer. For example, unlike tobacco smoke, exposing animals to diesel emissions DID cause lung cancer in animals. Poor people tend to live in urban areas and work jobs with a lot of diesel emissions. How do they compensate for that when they look at people who get lung cancer? Not only that, but other causes for lung cancer have largely been overlooked by medical examiners. If someone died of lung cancer, if they ever smoked they were tagged as a "smoking related death" whereas people who didn't smoke were tagged as "natural causes" or just "cancer." This can greatly skew epidemiological statistics on the rates that smokers get lung cancer vs. non-smokers. And research showing that there isn't a strong link is buried so no one ever sees it. Researchers must tow the ANTZ line or they lose jobs and funding. So, much of the research published on lung cancer and smoking can be debated, as well. (I can give you the names of several books that cast doubt on the "strong" link between smoking and lung cancer. Some argue that if you account for errors in data, other factors in lifestyles, genetics and unethical studies created by ANTZ, the rates of lung cancer in smokers isn't really higher than in non-smokers.)

So, how could the tobacco companies "know" smoking contributes to lung cancer before the rest of us when there is still debate today? (OK, that was a long "short" answer, lol!)

You know, that's always bothered me. If smoking causes 1/5 of all cancers, what the heck is causing the 4/5 of other cancers and why aren't they fighting (demonizing, taxing) them as hard as they are the smoke ones? Perhaps the 4/5 cancers could have been avoided had they of been smoking. Maybe (light or moderate) smoking kills the other 4/5 cancer causing cells. We will never know will we. (Sounds to stupid to contemplate, due to all the fearmongering propaganda brainwashing)

 

[AgentAnia]

DC2's hypothetical statement to put to the FDA:

The FDA should carefully consider the impact that upcoming regulations will have on electronic cigarette consumers. These are people who for the most part are tired of being pushed around when they were smokers, and now they have found a product that has allowed them to break free from their past bondage. A product that many, if not most, feel has literally saved their lives. It is quite possible, if not likely, that any regulations that restrict the products that are currently being offered to the electronic cigarette community will cause an enormous backlash.

Tired of being pushed around? That's me!

Backlash by the e-cigarette community? Count me in!

 

[kristin]

You know, that's always bothered me. If smoking causes 1/5 of all cancers, what the heck is causing the 4/5 of other cancers and why aren't they fighting (demonizing, taxing) them as hard as they are the smoke ones? Perhaps the 4/5 cancers could have been avoided had they of been smoking. Maybe (light or moderate) smoking kills the other 4/5 cancer causing cells. We will never know will we. (Sounds to stupid to contemplate, due to all the fearmongering propaganda brainwashing)

That's a good question, Uma.

I've been looking into lung cancer facts. Recently there have been reports that lung cancer is on the rise (in spite of smoking being way down) for women. The reason given is that women started smoking in larger numbers decades after men, so women are catching up. But my research so far hasn't supported that. The vast majority of lung cancer in smokers happens in the elderly (About 2 out of 3 people diagnosed with lung cancer are 65 or older; fewer than 2% of all cases are found in people younger than 45. The average age at the time of diagnosis is about 70), after decades of smoking. Female smoking prevalence peaked in the mid 60's, so it would SEEM to explain why those women are getting lung cancer today. The American Cancer Society estimates for 2013 about 228,190 new cases of lung cancer (118,080 in men and 110,110 in women). That is a very small difference between men and woman, considering the smoking rate difference.

Female smoking never got much above 33.7% (peak in 1966, depending on the source. I used NHI surveys) and that same year male smoking prevalence was 51.9%. A 20 year old smoker in 1966 would be 67 today. In 1955, male smoking was estimated at 52.6% and female smoking was 24.5%. Those folks who were 20 then would be 77 today. After 1966, female smoking rates dropped to 30.5% in 1970 and 28.9% in 1975. (Male smoking in 1970 was 42.3% and in 1975 39.3%). Even if you just look at those only in their early 20's (21-24), female smoking in that age group peaked in 1966 at 49.2% and dropped to 32.3% by 1970. Male rates in that age group were 61.9% in 1966 and 49.8% in 1970.

If female smoking rates had become close to or matched male smoking rates back in the 50's, 60's and 70's, it would make sense that lung cancer rates would rise to match. But as you can see, the female smoking rates never got anywhere close to male smoking rates.

So, if smoking is the cause, why are the female lung cancer numbers so close to male numbers today (and on the rise), when there were so fewer female smokers than males? Could it be because so many more females are working and living in urban areas and doing more previously male-dominated jobs now?

 

[kristin]

From what I've read, the FDA asked a lot of questions pertaining to what they were hearing. I haven't seen any write up yet about what went on. The Confidentiality Agreement really limits CASAA on what they may put out publicly. I just want to know if anyone was able to get a read on the FDA's body language and how perceptive they were to what was being presented.

Just to clarify (as it was clarified to me today), there was no formal or written "confidentiality agreement" or "gag order." It was just made very clear at the meeting that repeating what was said by the panel was frowned upon. As CASAA would like to keep a relationship with the FDA (ie. not be shut out) we will honor that request.

The directors who were there will be putting together a statement regarding the meeting that should be posted before the member meeting Sunday.