Here's the problem: A ruling will likely be all inclusive. The FDA likely -- likely -- won't issue piecemeal rulings on parts of the device, the carts, the liquids, the whole nine yards. The FDA has said these are drug-devices. The drug is NOT nicotine, but that poisonous and addictive substance -- a drug -- is in a concoction of many ingredients, all vaporized and inhaled without any scientific proof of the consequences. We call it e-liquid. This drug cocktail has not been approved for sale in this country.
Should sales be allowed to continue when this country carefully spells out how drugs can be brought to market and sold?
Let's say the FDA allows the present situation to continue. It will have, in essence, approved the manufacture and sale of unknown, untested, unproven drugs from China for U.S. consumers.
It will have approved containers that aren't childproof, but a half-thimble of e-liquid will kill a child. It will have approved containers that aren't tamperproof, so they could be easily contaminated at any point prior to sale. It will have approved liquids without proper labeling of content, danger, side effects, place of manufacture. It will have approved a device that is easily broken apart to remove a cartridge so small a three-year-old could swallow it.
It will have approved a new, cheap, unapproved, unregulated addiction system for nicotine, where approved systems delivering nicotine have already sought and been given FDA approval.
It will tacitly allow recreational use of nicotine, a drug it calls both poisonous and highly addictive.
That's if it sides with us, as we are petitioning it to. I do not see that happening. That's irresponsible on its face.
Here's the best I hope for: The FDA allows that e-cigs have done no demonstrable harm in the past year, with hundreds of thousands of users now e-smoking daily. It will realize that these e-smokers are doing what they think is best for them, and their health. It acknowledges a low success rate with existing NRT products. It knows tobacco cigarettes are hazardous. It can only make assumptions about e-cigs.
So it gets mad, to be sure, at what is now the reality. It issues demands much as Congress makes to automakers with fleet fuel efficiency standards. The demands are spelled out, with a timetable for each.
Eg. You have 30 days to childproof and tamperproof your liquid containers or they cannot be sold in the U.S. You have 30 days to prove a person under 18 cannot purchase from your site or sales location. You have 60 days to label e-liquid with all relevant information, with prominent poison warning labels for first responders.
Each step gets a timetable to be met. The final step would be for each manufacturer to submit evidence -- as should have been done last year -- that a particular device and liquid is safe and efficient when used as directed. That would be a year from now. Give this one more year.
E-smoking needs only time to become the smoking method of the future. If killed now, it will likely experience years of delay -- and needless illnesses and deaths of smokers -- until a successful marketing attempt is made. It will return. That might be too late for many.
From all this, take that the present situation is essentially indefensible, in my opinion. It is untenable. It should not have been allowed to remain as long as it has. But be open to change that brings assurances of safety. It's not your "rights" that are being stolen; it's your welfare that is being guarded by drug regulators.
It's not a game without rules. Yours don't trump the ones we've had for many years, the ones designed to protect us all from unscrupulous snake oil salesman. No matter how you phrase it, you do not have a Right to Snake Oil.