FDA Why Isn't Vaping the FDA Center for Tobacco Product's Biggest Ally?

[toddkuen]

vaping has a decent (so far) track record and core of good science that offers humanity and the FDA a means to aggressively stop the use of combustion-based and tar-containing tobacco products.

vaping is a disruptive (unforeseen) technology that accomplishes what others, such as patches and gum, do not - it attracts smokers by enticing them to stop smoking (or chewing) with something they can like better than tar and combustion products.

And when they like it better they do not go back.

Financial and political issues of big pharma and tobacco aside its possible to see that, like Swedish SNUS, vaping will stop significant numbers of people from dying from tobacco smoke and tar.

I have never met a vaper who felt bad for (or loved) either tobacco companies or big pharma after switching to vaping.

Yes, the FDA could well destroy vaping through inept or purposefully destructive regulation, but more people will die if they do so.

I think vapers dying after being forced to return to smoking is an important issue.

And note, I am not suggesting vaping needs the FDA, but rather the FDA needs vaping.

Historically vaping has done a d*** good job of self-regulating.

The FDA, on the other hand, is used to regulating large, well-entrenched, public companies where shareholder profit is a concern above all else.

But today's vaping industry is filled with thousands of small business, importers and foreign companies - nothing like what the FDA is accustomed too.

And to the FDA perhaps it all seems "out of control" with no central authority (or authorities) "in charge."

No one can call the "leaders of vaping" into congressional chambers and questions them on the nightly news.

Perhaps the FDA does not (or thinks it does not) it need vapers, but it seems like killing them through over-regulation or elimination a real THR product with a demonstrable success rate, really doesn't promote "public health."

Yet vapers represent the success that can be achieved when combustion and tar products are eliminated.

Is vaping safe? That's like telling a drowning man "oh, I can't through this life preserver because I can't find the consumer safety sticker on it - hold on I'll go look for something safer to throw you."

Today vaping is safer than combustion and tar tobacco and probably about as safe as gum or patches.

Should the FDA turn vapers away it will only be promoting "big tobacco" products as the only real alternative to vaping for many is smoking.

Again, not something that would seem wise for them too do.

So I posit that perhaps the FDA CTP really could use an ally rather than another unhappy, regulated, black-market using mob.

 

[mooreted]

Unfortunately you can't separate political influence, taxes, big money and control from the equation. There is no good reason to regulate and tax most things. But we live in a world of money, power and politics.

Sent from my easy chair using brain waves.

 

[Jman8]

I have never met a vaper who felt bad for (or loved) either tobacco companies or big pharma after switching to vaping.

Please to meet you toddkuen.

Vast majority of what you wrote in OP, I concur with.

 

[mynewtoy]

you forget they are "saving the children" something the children parents can't do themselves

 

[Nboprc]

It seem government doesn't think parents can do that for themselves. So they punish us all. Regs,Taxes Etc.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

[...]

So I posit that perhaps the FDA CTP really could use an ally rather than another unhappy, regulated, black-market using mob.

I agree. The ANTZ are really ticked at the FDA's CTP for not moving forward on banning flavors and internet sales (even though the FDA has no authority to do either).

BTW I want to claim credit for originally having the idea of sending flowers to Mitch Zeller.

I just googled the FDAT top sellers, and was wondering whether anyone thought that he might prefer their lovely Beauty and Grace arrangement (vase included) or perhaps The Big Hug ?

I don't think the vase is included with The Big Hug, but I like the idea of giving a big hug to Mitch. I feel the same way about Lauren Dutra and Stanton Glantz (of UCSF), plus Jamie Kopf (of Consumer Reports).

But Zeller is more photogenic.

(While we're at it, what about the CDC. Suggestions for Tim McAfee, or Tom Frieden?)

 

[BooBoo888]

Is vaping safe? That's like telling a drowning man "oh, I can't through this life preserver because I can't find the consumer safety sticker on it - hold on I'll go look for something safer to throw you."

Great analogy - that's so true!!

 

[Rossum]

I am not suggesting vaping needs the FDA, but rather the FDA needs vaping.

Whether they need (or even have a use for) vaping very much depends on what their true objectives are.

But today's vaping industry is filled with thousands of small business, importers and foreign companies - nothing like what the FDA is accustomed too.

And to the FDA perhaps it all seems "out of control" with no central authority (or authorities) "in charge."

Yep, and those who seek power and control over others hate that.

it seems like killing them through over-regulation or elimination a real THR product with a demonstrable success rate, really doesn't promote "public health."

They may be under the illusion that it will, at least in the long term, a generation or two out. There are people whose worst nightmare would be that vaping is essentially harmless, because then the percentage of people engaged in something that looks like smoking might start heading back up to where it was not all that long ago.

the only real alternative to vaping for many is smoking.

Yup. But so you think this really matters to them?

 

[Bobbilly]

If you live near the cdc. You should go and vape all over. Make an appointment and vape at their desk

 

[toddkuen]

... BTW I want to claim credit for originally having the idea of sending flowers to Mitch Zeller.

When did you send them?

 

[wv2win]

What did Mitch Zeller, who Obama appointed as head of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products, do for years before this appointment???

Lobbyist for the Big Pharmaceutical industry. Why did Obama appoint a "fox" to look after the "hen house"?

 

[DrMA]

Well said, toddkuen. But you're operating from the faulty assumption that the FDA ctp actually wants to put an end to smoking, whereas their true goal is to maintain smoking at 20% of the population while feigning opposition.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

What did Mitch Zeller, who Obama appointed as head of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products, do for years before this appointment???

Lobbyist for the Big Pharmaceutical industry. Why did Obama appoint a "fox" to look after the "hen house"?

As a declared liberal Dem, and a supporter of Obama, I am not going to make any excuses for this very bad decision.

No one here should make any excuses - ever - for any anti-vaping politician.

I believe I've made this point before.

We should also - by the same token - be aware that we have high profile friends who are Dem. Gov.s. (Shumlin of VT who has nixed the VT proposed tax, and Dayton of MN who has clobbered the proposed indoor ban.) We also have enemies who are GOP Gov.s.

I believe that Bill Godshall is right (as he always is on these points) that vapers would benefit from a GOP Senate. You have quoted me on this point. I do not retreat from what I think is probably the truth.

It's critical that we all be honest and grind no partisan axes.

We Democrats need to continue working within our party, to do our best to celebrate people like Shumlin and Dayton, and condemn both Obama's choice of Zeller, as well as the excreble anti-vaping campaign fulminated by Durbin and his pals in the Senate (as well as DeGette, Etsy, and others in the house).

Those of you who are on the other side of the line need to do your part as well.

And that includes Libertarians. No excuses for Ron and Rand Paul, either. They also need to be nudged.

To approach this in an entirely nonpartisan manner, means that we all have to be honest. Democrats are a big part of the problem. I said it. And you can quote me. They can also be part of the solution, as Shumlin and Dayton have proven.

On the GOP side, no quarter must be given for Gov.s like Snyder, Christie, and Kasich.

Fair is fair.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

When did you send them?

You mean the flowers to Mitch Zeller?

I was hoping we could take up a collection, and make sure that some were also sent to Stanton Glantz.

 

[Bobbilly]

Republicans didn't appear to help against taxes in NC

 

[aubergine]

Well, I'm going to send them flowers (I think a dozen American Beauties would be apropos) and then go to their separate offices and vape all the frik OVER them.

I think this campaign is finally getting some real legs.

 

[Gato del Jugo]

What did Mitch Zeller, who Obama appointed as head of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products, do for years before this appointment???

Lobbyist for the Big Pharmaceutical industry. Why did Obama appoint a "fox" to look after the "hen house"?

He also worked for a group that relied on funding from the MSA (Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)..


One angle that I'm in favor of is to publicly go after him & continue to put pressure on him until he's forced to resign...

 

[tombaker]

the entire OP

Excellent post.
I do not understand why the FDA can not be treated as an ally.
As soon as one says that a gaggle of hens will chirp in with a barrage of comments saying look at 2009, they are evil, they are owned by drug makers, owned by tobacco, they want smokers to smoke analogs.

Most of it hype, fear, and loathing

The FDA exists, its not going away, regulations are not going away, the Congress is not going away, and the Senators on opposite side are never going to be gone. There will never be consensus.

But folks are going to want to wish it all away. Perhaps they will claim they are going to leave the country next along with Alec Baldwin.

The Tobacco Control Act of 2009 is the law, and there is absolutely no will to have it removed by either party.

Which bring it back to the OP. I see no tactical advantage to treating the FDA as evil, liars, wanting death to vapers. It just puts a wedge to agreement, and blocks policy which could be helpful from coming about.

I think it best to treat the FDA as being wrong on items, that Vaping is in actuality a good thing, convince them with the evidence that valid, because E-Cigs are safe.

I have not seen a good argument to not try to work with the FDA. There is no good reason to insult them. There are many good reasons to attempt to work with them, and get them to the right side of history.

The FDA has is positioned to accept the evidence, and conclude on the evidence in favor of Vaping.....NOT because they want to, but because of the facts and their obligation to what they call "science".

You can argue with the cop that pulled you over all you want, insult his hair cut, tell him he has some sort of mommy issues that made him this way......and you will get the ticket every time. OR you can explain your case, indicate that the signage of the street is a real problem, say that you understand why you got pulled over, its not the cop who cause the bad road conditions, and see if you can get him to agree to let you slide. One will always not work, the other could. Its not a perfect analogy But when advocacy goes about the business of calling the regulators liars with blood on their hands, you won't get a better result for your cause.

I vape because it is safe, and certainly a much better alternative to any existing smokeless or analog products. I also think all that is able to be shown. The 2009 act, requires if that is shown, and E-Cigs do not cause more consumption of Analogs, that they will need to approve the product. Treating them as an Ally helps to get the regulatory outcome we want, treating the FDA as scum, creates real world barriers to have the regulators act in favor of Vapers.

Trash talking never gets your opponent to move over to your side. We want the FDA to be on the side of Vapers. The agency is made of people, who interpret the law as they believe they are able. Why wouldn't you want to make it easiest for people to agree with you.

 

[DrMA]

Fascinating post, tombaker. I find it both entirely right and wrong at the same time. Because, you see, in a fair world it would indeed make sense to work with the FDA and entrust that scientific fact and common sense will prevail. However, the cop you mentioned in your example is one of those who just pulled you over for having a broken tail light; and when you point out that the tail light is not actually broken, he demonstrates it is with the but of his gun. The he takes you in for "resisting arrest" and "assaulting an officer", and throws you in the same holding cell with Bubba (if you know what I mean) on Friday night, so you'll have to wait till Monday before you can make bail. Have fun trying to make that cop your ally and/or challenging the record in court. And even if, by some miracle, you did manage to win in court, you still spent the weekend in a holding cell with Bubba.

 

[Roger_Lafayette]

I'm still looking for a consensus. There's the FTD "Beauty and Grace" arrangement, that comes with the vase.

Or the "Big Hug."

Which do you prefer?

Excellent post.
I do not understand why the FDA can not be treated as an ally.
As soon as one says that a gaggle of hens will chirp in with a barrage of comments saying look at 2009, they are evil, they are owned by drug makers, owned by tobacco, they want smokers to smoke analogs.

Most of it hype, fear, and loathing

The FDA exists, its not going away, regulations are not going away, the Congress is not going away, and the Senators on opposite side are never going to be gone. There will never be consensus.

But folks are going to want to wish it all away. Perhaps they will claim they are going to leave the country next along with Alec Baldwin.

The Tobacco Control Act of 2009 is the law, and there is absolutely no will to have it removed by either party.

Which bring it back to the OP. I see no tactical advantage to treating the FDA as evil, liars, wanting death to vapers. It just puts a wedge to agreement, and blocks policy which could be helpful from coming about.

I think it best to treat the FDA as being wrong on items, that Vaping is in actuality a good thing, convince them with the evidence that valid, because E-Cigs are safe.

I have not seen a good argument to not try to work with the FDA. There is no good reason to insult them. There are many good reasons to attempt to work with them, and get them to the right side of history.

The FDA has is positioned to accept the evidence, and conclude on the evidence in favor of Vaping.....NOT because they want to, but because of the facts and their obligation to what they call "science".

You can argue with the cop that pulled you over all you want, insult his hair cut, tell him he has some sort of mommy issues that made him this way......and you will get the ticket every time. OR you can explain your case, indicate that the signage of the street is a real problem, say that you understand why you got pulled over, its not the cop who cause the bad road conditions, and see if you can get him to agree to let you slide. One will always not work, the other could. Its not a perfect analogy But when advocacy goes about the business of calling the regulators liars with blood on their hands, you won't get a better result for your cause.

I vape because it is safe, and certainly a much better alternative to any existing smokeless or analog products. I also think all that is able to be shown. The 2009 act, requires if that is shown, and E-Cigs do not cause more consumption of Analogs, that they will need to approve the product. Treating them as an Ally helps to get the regulatory outcome we want, treating the FDA as scum, creates real world barriers to have the regulators act in favor of Vapers.

Trash talking never gets your opponent to move over to your side. We want the FDA to be on the side of Vapers. The agency is made of people, who interpret the law as they believe they are able. Why wouldn't you want to make it easiest for people to agree with you.