When is the FDA thing going down?

[cashley]

What? Are you figuring the ejuice won't be taxed like analogs? And make them a $6 dollar a day habit? Then you are figuring wrong.

I am not figuring anything seeing as I don’t have ESP....I am assuming no one here does?

What I was doing is saying as a smoker looking at that article, I would have like many times before that thought long and hard about trying to quit again and that would have led me to explore my options on what I can use to help me quit……..The point was that these searches may bring us more members ( people who vape) who than will want the option to keep vaping and will help us because even in the end if it costs the same as smokes many of us will still vape because we also care about our health too. The end price of vaping is not the point to me it is the freedom to continue to do.

 

[kristin]

For starters, although SAFETY might be a requirement, for reduced-harm, EFFICACY is inappropriate. These are not drugs. The extra expense of proving efficacy is wasted anyway because this product requires drastically different setups and flavors PER PERSON.

As long as they are at least 50% safer than tobacco, I think they should be allowed to make health claims and not worry about efficacy of quitting -- the proof is in the pudding.

Also, a reduced-harm device or eliquid should NOT have to be proven on a per-product, per-flavor basis. There should be a PRESUMPTION of equivalency, out of the gate, that would require a DRASTIC change before new testing is required for safety. For instance, "Pluming" tobacco would be drastically different from using e-liquid and could require its own safety testing.

And, third, pre-approval devices and eliquids should be consumer products that cannot make health claims but are not criminalized. Not sure how that can be done, maybe by "deeming" them to be reduced-harm products (which would subject them to initial approval but the intial approval would be time-consuming and expensive" instead of "tobacco products" (because Congress made it clear that the FDA should never allow new flavors of tobacco products.)

We need a lawyer.

I agree e-cigarettes shouldn't be regulated like cigarettes, but in just about every instance where you wrote "tobacco" above it should say "smoking" or "cigarettes." There are plenty of tobacco products that just as low risk as e-cigarettes. Our problem isn't e-cigarettes being treated "like tobacco," it's all tobacco products are being treated as equally harmful and unacceptable. If we can get that changed, it won't matter if e-cigarettes are classified as tobacco products, because many tobacco products will then be considered just fine to use. Aspirin, penicillin, acetaminophen, chemo, her-oin and coke are all "drugs," but do we regulate or treat them the same?

E-cigarettes shouldn't need an approval process for safety and efficacy anymore than smoke-free tobacco lozenges or sticks or other foods and dietary supplements and that is what CASAA will argue should the FDA deem that they need to be approved that way. We've already been arguing with them that the approval process for "new" tobacco products to qualify as MRTP is impossible to achieve.

 

[Vapor Vinny]

I am not figuring anything seeing as I don’t have ESP....I am assuming no one here does?

You need ESP to figure the government is going to heavily tax ejuice? You need ESP to know that the government is not going to sit back and do nothing while its tobacco tax revenues disappear? Did you just immigrate to America?

Good grief people. The feds don't ban cigarettes for only one reason. Because they make a ton of money off of them. And now they're openly discussing legalizing pot. For the same reason. To make money. You really think they give two craps about helping people stop smoking or making anyone's nicotine habit cheaper?

I am amazed that so many in this country have no clue how their federal government operates. They exist to take your money. Period! And ignorance allows them to do keep doing it.

Just look at the posts in this thread. People are so scared of ecigs being banned that they'd settle for a huge tax on them. How about this? How about the federal government not act as a mafia don and quit shaking down its citizens and perhaps, actually help them benefit from this technology?

Progressives...they fargin suck!!!!

 

[Berylanna]

I agree e-cigarettes shouldn't be regulated like cigarettes, but in just about every instance where you wrote "tobacco" above it should say "smoking" or "cigarettes." There are plenty of tobacco products that just as low risk as e-cigarettes. Our problem isn't e-cigarettes being treated "like tobacco," it's all tobacco products are being treated as equally harmful and unacceptable. If we can get that changed, it won't matter if e-cigarettes are classified as tobacco products, because many tobacco products will then be considered just fine to use. Aspirin, penicillin, acetaminophen, chemo, her-oin and coke are all "drugs," but do we regulate or treat them the same?

E-cigarettes shouldn't need an approval process for safety and efficacy anymore than smoke-free tobacco lozenges or sticks or other foods and dietary supplements and that is what CASAA will argue should the FDA deem that they need to be approved that way. We've already been arguing with them that the approval process for "new" tobacco products to qualify as MRTP is impossible to achieve.

You are so right about "tobacco", my bad! Especially since I'm the author of "The Borg Attack Sweden" cartoon.

The lozenges DID have to prove safety and efficacy, and if they change the amount of sugar by a gram, they'd have to start all over again. That's the problem with pharmaceuticals, and it's why that's the LAST place we want to be put -- but that was solved in 2009.

I agree that none of the above ideas I had would work under current conditions, what I'm talking about is what to tell our Senators and Representatives when we say to give the FDA the money to track down whatever is killing dogs before it starts killing us, but ONLY if they stop wasting time on setting a high bar for quitting smoking.

We should write a bill to give them the money. Write it OUR way, like RJ Reynolds writes bills to prevent sales to minors THEIR way.

The reason I'd like to see Congress require separate rules for MRTP's (instead of letting the pharma-conditioned FDA do it!) is because Congress has already made it clear the FDA should requirethat tobacco products must be PROVEN to not be marketed to kids for EVERY NEW FLAVOR introduced.

 

[potholerepairman]

one thing long term we have in our favor is most from SA or Ca expect a lot more from our gov.How many days of vacation does the US gov give you? answer none.Even Mexico is 7 or 14 a year.Times are changing, ask your teachers how often kids get free breakfast/lunch in the summer without classes in the schools.Most populations expect a lot more than we do, they will out vote,(they have already).The tide is close , not saying its right but its here.

 

[Vapor Vinny]

If, as a society, we insist the federal government wipe our .... (and we have), then you better be prepared to pay a lot of money for that toilet paper. But hey, at least "the less fortunate ones" ain't all stinky and stuff.

 

[Dave_in_OK]

My first I do not trust the FDA or its motives. IMHO before any government agency issues any regulation they should first be required to prove the need for said regulation not with junk science or misinformation but unbiased truth. The FDA doesn't have that in this case thus any regulation they propose will only benefit Big Government, Big Tobacco and Big Pharmacy while at the same time hurt small American Businesses and the consumer.
We live in the information age where the consumer can, if they wish, investigate a company or product and then make an informed decision that's right for them without the help of a biased agency, group, or company; just look at the information inside ECF!
And if all else fails they can hire a lawyer like so many due. Lets not forget that some of the biggest lawsuits are against what the FDA has approved.

 

[Vapor Vinny]

I found this snippet interesting...

"Not all in the industry, it turns out, fear FDA regulation. Eli Alelov, CEO of LOGIC Technology, a maker of e-cigarettes, thinks some regulation is overdue. He told ConsumerAffairs that he wants to see manufacturing standards and age restrictions.

“I support raising the bar for the industry,” Alelov said. “Right now my biggest enemy is not the FDA, it's these 'me too' brands that come into the market with cheap electronic cigarettes, trying to make a buck, and they're putting lousy products on the market. That's hurting the entire industry.”
"

In other words, regulate the market so that only the ones with large amounts of money can play.

And I ain't even commenting on Logic ecigs. Did someone say "lousy products"?

 

[Berylanna]

My first I do not trust the FDA or its motives. IMHO before any government agency issues any regulation they should first be required to prove the need for said regulation not with junk science or misinformation but unbiased truth. The FDA doesn't have that in this case thus any regulation they propose will only benefit Big Government, Big Tobacco and Big Pharmacy while at the same time hurt small American Businesses and the consumer.
We live in the information age where the consumer can, if they wish, investigate a company or product and then make an informed decision that's right for them without the help of a biased agency, group, or company; just look at the information inside ECF!
And if all else fails they can hire a lawyer like so many due. Lets not forget that some of the biggest lawsuits are against what the FDA has approved.

That horse already left the barn with the Tobacco Control Act in 2010. Now the discussion is on how to save ourselves within that context. It is true that they are required to show some science for what they do, but that science can include things like research showing that kids imitate young adults.

That's why I agree with thinking about what we DO want. At least a few in the FDA are just plain confused and will pin a tail on the regulatory donkey(*) blindfolded unless we also provide something they SHOULD so, not just "don't do anything."

(*) sigh, yes I'm a democrat and I see the irony there.

 

[Vapor Vinny]

Rough estimates of ecigarette sales......$500 million in annual sales.....

$80 billion for analogs. We gonna get taxed back to the stinky sticks.

 

[kristin]

The lozenges DID have to prove safety and efficacy, and if they change the amount of sugar by a gram, they'd have to start all over again. That's the problem with pharmaceuticals, and it's why that's the LAST place we want to be put -- but that was solved in 2009.

I said TOBACCO lozenges, not pharmaceutical lozenges.

Congress has already made it clear the FDA should require that tobacco products must be PROVEN to not be marketed to kids for EVERY NEW FLAVOR introduced.

I don't believe that is completely accurate? When and where did they apply that to ALL tobacco products and not just cigarettes?

 

[Berylanna]

I said TOBACCO lozenges, not pharmaceutical lozenges.

Those are still legal? Cool!

I don't believe that is completely accurate? When and where did they apply that to ALL tobacco products and not just cigarettes?

Well, I can't get flavored snus at the cigar store (except mint.) VERY interesting.

 

[Dave_in_OK]

Horses can be put back in the barn and so can the FDA. So I refuse to support a defeatist approach - I may be a dreamer but if one expects to lose they will and they will usually lose more than they should have.

That horse already left the barn with the Tobacco Control Act in 2010. Now the discussion is on how to save ourselves within that context. It is true that they are required to show some science for what they do, but that science can include things like research showing that kids imitate young adults.

That's why I agree with thinking about what we DO want. At least a few in the FDA are just plain confused and will pin a tail on the regulatory donkey(*) blindfolded unless we also provide something they SHOULD so, not just "don't do anything."

(*) sigh, yes I'm a democrat and I see the irony there.

 

[Vapor Vinny]

That horse already left the barn with the Tobacco Control Act in 2010. Now the discussion is on how to save ourselves within that context. It is true that they are required to show some science for what they do, but that science can include things like research showing that kids imitate young adults.

That's why I agree with thinking about what we DO want. At least a few in the FDA are just plain confused and will pin a tail on the regulatory donkey(*) blindfolded unless we also provide something they SHOULD so, not just "don't do anything."

(*) sigh, yes I'm a democrat and I see the irony there.

I've seen estimates that 50% of all smokers, worldwide, will be vaping instead of smoking within 5-7 years. Does anyone really think that world governments aren't going to squeeze as much money as they can out of people to have "the privilege" of vaping? Which is all this FDA charade is about. A systematic demonization of ecigs, so as to pave the way for massive taxes and sin taxes.

The issue is much bigger than ecigs. A lot of us already know that. A lot of us fought that battle...and lost. A lot of others thought we were right-wing nut jobs. TEA (taxed enough already) party. It might have helped if you had gone.

 

[StormFinch]

Are you saying that a battery holder and an empty tank can be considered a nicotine product? I don't see how.

Pre-filled cartridges and nic liquid yes, I understand how those fall under FDA regulation

Here are the exact rules from the horse's mouth, the FDA's pre-market review guidance;

Tobacco product means “any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product (except for raw materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing a component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product)” (section 201(rr) of the FD&C Act; 21 U.S.C. 321(rr)). Thus, the term is not limited to products containing tobacco, but also includes components, parts, or accessories of tobacco products, whether they are sold for further manufacturing or for consumer use. For example, cigarette rolling papers and filters are tobacco products, whether they are sold to consumers for use with roll-your-own tobacco or are sold for further manufacturing into a product sold to a consumer, such as a cigarette. This term does not include an article that is a drug, a device, or a combination product as defined in the FD&C Act (section 201(rr)(2) of the FD&C Act; 21 U.S.C. 321(rr)(2)).

- Draft Guidance for Industry Applications for Premarket Review of New Tobacco Products

So can a battery holder and empty tank be considered a nicotine product? Unfortunately yes, they can.

 

[cashley]

You need ESP to figure the government is going to heavily tax ejuice? You need ESP to know that the government is not going to sit back and do nothing while its tobacco tax revenues disappear? Did you just immigrate to America?

Good grief people. The feds don't ban cigarettes for only one reason. Because they make a ton of money off of them. And now they're openly discussing legalizing pot. For the same reason. To make money. You really think they give two craps about helping people stop smoking or making anyone's nicotine habit cheaper?

I am amazed that so many in this country have no clue how their federal government operates. They exist to take your money. Period! And ignorance allows them to do keep doing it.

Just look at the posts in this thread. People are so scared of ecigs being banned that they'd settle for a huge tax on them. How about this? How about the federal government not act as a mafia don and quit shaking down its citizens and perhaps, actually help them benefit from this technology?

Progressives...they fargin suck!!!!

This will be the last time I bother reading nor responding to you. I find both your tone and general attitude quite repulsive and unhelpful in advancing this cause. You sir do not know me and know nothing of what I know of the government to act as though you do is as ignorant as you claim others are. If you know a way to force the government to stop taxing us than you are being quite neglectful in not sharing with the rest of us, because last time I checked the people of this country won’t even wake up enough to stop companies from dumping things in our food they don’t have to list in the ingredients and shoot they don’t even care they are eating gmo food passed off as the real thing with no clue of what the future health risks are going to be there and again not labeled. They are getting ready to allow milk companies to add things to our milk they don’t have to put on the label. Had you read this thread instead of looking for things you can get all riled up about than you would have seen that I actually would like the FDA to get fully out of the my business unfortunately along with missing esp I seem to be short a magic wand …..Doesn’t mean I am not still going to try and it doesn’t mean I am ‘happy with taxes’ it simply means I can read article and see the potential benefits. You seem like you are the one who accepts this tax seeing as you just ‘know’ it’s going to be there………and you do know they can’t profit off our vaping as much as us smoking regardless of how much they tax it simply because so many have had success quitting nicotine altogether after picking up vaping and oh yeah what was that….we are not getting the millions medical problems associated with smoking so while they may tax it make no mistake they want to ban it ( I know this because they actually did ban it and then went to court to try to keep it that way) so excuse me while I focus on the real threat and not cry about taxes that may or not may come. I for one will believe we have a chance at avoiding them while also knowing that the odds are not with us which is WHY WE NEED MORE PEOPLE which was the point of my original post..
As for the legalization of the other, you are simply uninformed; the plant has many potential medical benefits which most people know. The government has fought legalizing it tooth and nail because it will interfere with the pharmaceutical companies having a loss in revenue not to mention the billions they get to spend on their fake war of drugs and the pockets they get to grease along the way. It is only gaining traction now because people and doctors both realized they have been getting hosed and fought and continue to fight for right use something that works and can be produced inexpensively with way way way fewer side effects. There is a lot more to the issue but we won’t go there any further in this thread seeing as the topic is not supposed to be discussed here in the first place. And again sir I think your attitude “fargin sucks”

Have a good day 

 

[Berylanna]

It is the PREMARKET review I hate. We need to make POSTMARKET be acceptable. Pre-HEALTH-claim review I could accept.

 

[kristin]

Those are still legal? Cool!

Well, I can't get flavored snus at the cigar store (except mint.) VERY interesting.

As far as I know they're legal, but they may not be widely available. They were being test marketed and the ANTZ jumped all over them, probably keeping enough smokers from trying them to drive sales down. They're called "Orbs" and they're made by Camel. What the ANTZ like to call "tobacco candy" and then accuse the tobacco companies of targeting kids with "tobacco candy," even though they only ones calling them "candy" are the ANTZ, since they must target kids because adults don't like flavors. Which, of course, is why Nicorette only comes in tobacco flavor. Oh wait...

As far as I know they are only available in tobacco and mint. I think the tobacco companies are trying to voluntarily avoid the "targeting kids" accusation but it still happens like with the Orbs, sticks and strips - even though they aren't available in anything different than cigarette flavors. The thing is, kids weren't even buying the more expensive "flavored" cigarettes, other than clove, which BT didn't even make. BT discontinued selling the flavored cigarettes before the law was even passed. BT supported the law because it shut out small foreign companies selling clove cigarettes and didn't effect them at all (which is why menthol flavor cigarettes are still legal.) That law hasn't stopped one kid from smoking. It was all talk. Accuse the tobacco industry of targeting kids with flavors, lie that kids were buying flavored cigarettes, ban flavored cigarettes that aren't being sold anymore, be hailed for fixing a "problem" that never existed, get more funding and excuse to raise taxes. (Sound familiar?)

 

[Vapor Vinny]

Ecigs could have been somewhat of a boon for the American economy. Instead, fear of regulation by the government has prevented the type of investment necessary to compete with the Chinese who regulate and tax basically nothing.

Ecigs won't be banned. They will, eventually, be taxed on the same level as cigarettes. Not much you can do about that unless you're prepared to change the entire tax and spend nature of our federal government. Just my opinion, but I think that's the fight we need to be fighting.

 

[kristin]

Even as it stands today, not all tobacco is taxed at the same level as cigarettes. Cigarettes aren't even taxed the same from state to state. Assuming e-cigarettes will be taxed at the same level as cigarettes is an unlikely, worst-case scenario, not a "given." And we HAVE fought attempts to tax e-cigarettes with anything greater than a basic sales tax. We've blocked higher tax rates in Hawaii and Oklahoma. Minnesota sneaked one in, but they didn't go as high as the cigarette rate.