Why shouldn't the FDA interfere?

[ninjapuff]

Let me get this straight... people are now voting for what rights they'd like to have the US Government infringe on next?

This is really sad. First that people actually want this. Second that people think the FDA actually protects anybody from anything (it protects corporate monopolies, NOT people). Third that this will probably happen. Fourth that all the small ecig businesses that we're now dealing with will be put out of business because they can't afford to deal with all the new regulations, paperwork, and testing. Fifth that the new Marlboro and Camel ecigs (that replace the current businesses) will be lower quality and more expensive. Sixth that I will be paying the FDA to do this in the form of income tax. Seventh, and definitely not least, that my rights as a US Citizen will once again be trampled upon as the US Constitution is continually ignored because people think it's the government's job to protect them from cradle to grave rather than be responsible for their own actions.

How many people died some 200 odd years ago to fight for the rights that you now so eagerly give away? This is truly a shame.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

 

[DisMan]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Allow me to elaborate on that quote...

The key to BF's quote is "essential liberty". In the end, not many suppliers have stepped up to take these actions. As you see by the poll, the actions are desired.

None of the "liberties" being requested is not really "essential" liberties. That opens a whole can of worms. Anyway, I do not see how a child proof cap or education to the user is a bad thing. Actually, I think educating the user is an essential liberty and should not be eliminated by corporate desires, directly or indirectly.

You tell people what they're putting in their bodies. That's very fair and, as you see by the poll results, is held highly valuable to the community.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Let me get this straight... people are now voting for what rights they'd like to have the US Government infringe on next?

This is really sad. First that people actually want this. Second that people think the FDA actually protects anybody from anything (it protects corporate monopolies, NOT people). Third that this will probably happen. Fourth that all the small ecig businesses that we're now dealing with will be put out of business because they can't afford to deal with all the new regulations, paperwork, and testing. Fifth that the new Marlboro and Camel ecigs (that replace the current businesses) will be lower quality and more expensive. Sixth that I will be paying the FDA to do this in the form of income tax. Seventh, and definitely not least, that my rights as a US Citizen will once again be trampled upon as the US Constitution is continually ignored because people think it's the government's job to protect them from cradle to grave rather than be responsible for their own actions.

How many people died some 200 odd years ago to fight for the rights that you now so eagerly give away? This is truly a shame.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Ninj--You are missing the point. If it is not done volunarily--it begs a mandate--and I for one think that these are reasonable saftey standards--or are you to young to remember how Big tobacco fooled us and killed many of us holding out on what they knew----that is my take---Sun

 

[ninjapuff]

Allow me to elaborate on that quote...

The key to BF's quote is "essential liberty". In the end, not many suppliers have stepped up to take these actions. As you see by the poll, the actions are desired.

None of the "liberties" being requested is not really "essential" liberties. That opens a whole can of worms.

I consider all my liberties essential. Sorry if I take offense to any of them being taken away. Benjamin Franklin would also take offense. One of the reasons for creating our limited republic was to guard against the corporatism that was rampant in Europe. Giving quality control over to the FDA also gives the FDA the power to shut down and shut out any smaller competitors to big tobacco.

If you think that big tobacco isn't in bed with the government, you're fooling yourself. Just look at the federal tobacco tax increases that will come into effect on April 1st. There's a 2173% tax increase on roll-your-own tobacco (yes, 2173%, that's not a typo). In effect, this will push a lot of people back to buying packs of cigarettes from big tobacco. Any argument that big tobacco didn't play a part in this tax would be silly.

Anyway, I do not see how a child proof cap or education to the user is a bad thing.

Actually, I think educating the user is an essential liberty and should not be eliminated by corporate desires, directly or indirectly.

You tell people what they're putting in their bodies. That's very fair and, as you see by the poll results, is held highly valuable to the community.

I agree, there's a lot of things that the suppliers could be doing, and there's demand for it. The only problem that I have with it is having the FDA mandate everything. This will only drive out small competitors, and leave a semi-monopoly for whichever corporations decide to supply ecigs (most likely big tobacco). At that point, there will be a drop in innovation because of the lack of competition, and we'll be stuck with whatever the corporations make available at whatever price they decide to charge.

 

[ninjapuff]

Ninj--You are missing the point. If it is not done volunarily--it begs a mandate--and I for one think that these are reasonable saftey standards--or are you to young to remember how Big Tobacco fooled us and killed many of us holding out on what they knew----that is my take---Sun

I do get the point... see my previous reply to DisMan.

I think that suppliers should be doing most of these things listed in the poll. Obviously, people want it done, and it would be outright stupid for a supplier to ignore what people want because it would give them a competitive edge.

I just don't want the FDA involved at all. That would be big bad. Maybe I'm just barking up the wrong tree here, but the poll question is, "What requirements should the FDA put on e-liquid?"

If the poll question was, "What should suppliers do to address safety concerns?" I'd have a completely different opinion of this thread.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

I do get the point... see my previous reply to DisMan.

I think that suppliers should be doing most of these things listed in the poll. Obviously, people want it done, and it would be outright stupid for a supplier to ignore what people want because it would give them a competitive edge.

I just don't want the FDA involved at all. That would be big bad. Maybe I'm just barking up the wrong tree here, but the poll question is, "What requirements should the FDA put on e-liquid?"

If the poll question was, "What should suppliers do to address safety concerns?" I'd have a completely different opinion of this thread.

I would agree with that title, but at this point it is indeed--"a Bridge to Far"---Sun

 

[DisMan]

I consider all my liberties essential. Sorry if I take offense to any of them being taken away. Benjamin Franklin would also take offense.

And what liberties are being taken away?

One of the reasons for creating our limited republic was to guard against the corporatism that was rampant in Europe.

And then we allowed corporations in the USA....we learned our lessons.

If you think that big tobacco isn't in bed with the government, you're fooling yourself. Just look at the federal tobacco tax increases that will come into effect on April 1st. There's a 2173% tax increase on roll-your-own tobacco (yes, 2173%, that's not a typo). In effect, this will push a lot of people back to buying packs of cigarettes from big tobacco. Any argument that big tobacco didn't play a part in this tax would be silly.

That's interesting. I thought they were making the tax fairer by finally taxing everybody who uses tobacco..you know, the people skirting the law by not buying regular cigarettes due to a loophole. My bad.

 

[Kate]

Only a few traders have voluntarily tried to protect customers from harm with product packaging and testing. Vested interests cannot be trusted to regulate themselves they need government oversight. In the US you have the FDA to protect the public.

 

[Nuck]

Wall Street is a perfect example of what happens when government regulations are relaxed and corporations are allowed to self-regulate. We all know how well that worked out.

 

[DisMan]

Wall Street is a perfect example of what happens when government regulations are relaxed and corporations are allowed to self-regulate. We all know how well that worked out.

That's really all I have to say there. Mr. hammer, here's the nail. You just hit it on the head.

 

[ninjapuff]

And what liberties are being taken away?

Take this: "Fourth that all the small ecig businesses that we're now dealing with will be put out of business because they can't afford to deal with all the new regulations, paperwork, and testing. Fifth that the new Marlboro and Camel ecigs (that replace the current businesses) will be lower quality and more expensive. Sixth that I will be paying the FDA to do this in the form of income tax."

And add: My right to put whatever the hell I want to into my body as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. Suppliers rights to conduct business without government interference that gives distinct advantages to big corporations that have the resources to affect government mandates via lobbyists. My right to purchase a product whether it has safety features or not (safety features usually imply additional costs, and personally I trust myself to be safe over whatever the FDA mandates).

If an ecig supplier was to address your safety concerns, what benefit would there be to giving the FDA the power to put these suppliers out of business?

And then we allowed corporations in the USA....we learned our lessons.

Evidently not... we no longer have capitalism, we have corporatism, and now it's starting to move towards a corporatism/socialism hybrid where we have socialized programs that corporations are in control of.
History of Corporations (United States)

That's interesting. I thought they were making the tax fairer by finally taxing everybody who uses tobacco..you know, the people skirting the law by not buying regular cigarettes due to a loophole. My bad.

Originally, big tobacco lobbied against the tax increases. Then somebody made a deal, the SCHIP tax increase for RYO tobacco was bumped up to 2173%, and then big tobacco was lobbying for the tax increases.

 

[Bellinghamster]

If an ecig supplier was to address your safety concerns, what benefit would there be to giving the FDA the power to put these suppliers out of business?

The crux of the OP is this:

You CANNOT trust the free market to protect you when it comes to this stuff. It is cheaper to forego safety right up until you kill somebody. Then when the family attempts to sue/prevent future deaths, the corporation will be dust in the wind.

And then my friend, you will have regulation like you never dreamed of.

We're trying to save your liberty to use these devices by being proactively responsible.

 

[ninjapuff]

Only a few traders have voluntarily tried to protect customers from harm with product packaging and testing. Vested interests cannot be trusted to regulate themselves they need government oversight. In the US you have the FDA to protect the public.

A few have moved towards more safety features, and it seems that is the direction that suppliers will be moving in to remain competitive.

How about if we all just put something together and request that suppliers start making these changes?

Government oversight only works when the vested interests aren't in bed with the government.
Exhibit A
Exhibit B

 

[ninjapuff]

Wall Street is a perfect example of what happens when government regulations are relaxed and corporations are allowed to self-regulate. We all know how well that worked out.

Actually, it's an example of how government regulations don't work. Regulations were in place, and they failed.
John Stossel : A False Sense of Security - Townhall.com

 

[ninjapuff]

The crux of the OP is this:

You CANNOT trust the free market to protect you when it comes to this stuff. It is cheaper to forego safety right up until you kill somebody. Then when the family attempts to sue/prevent future deaths, the corporation will be dust in the wind.

And then my friend, you will have regulation like you never dreamed of.

We're trying to save your liberty to use these devices by being proactively responsible.

There's no half-assed dealing with the FDA... either they have complete control of it or they don't. The only way to alter FDA's decisions and policies is with millions of dollars of lobbying. In other words, big tobacco will get what they want.

I only see 2 options; let the FDA take control or fight against it.

 

[Bellinghamster]

A few have moved towards more safety features, and it seems that is the direction that suppliers will be moving in to remain competitive.

The flaw in that logic is that cut-rate suppliers will ALWAYS be competitve. While we as informed, enlighted forum members will know what suppliers are safe, the noob who heard about them in the news and Googles "e-cig" will pick what's cheap.

You're defending liberty ONLY on the side of the seller. The buyer has rights too. Like not to be poisoned by a mislabelled/tainted product.

government regulations don't work. Regulations were in place, and they failed.
John Stossel : A False Sense of Security - Townhall.com

More flawed logic. If goverment regulation doesn't work at all, should we abolish all regulation? Obviously, a goverment of people is flawed by definition. Mistakes will be made, and even if every safeguard is mandated by law somebody will do something stupid and hurt someone. The point is to put consequences behind these actions to make suppliers think twice before gambling with our lives (I'm the only one who gets to gamble with it )

Your arguement is for Anarchy, which works quite well for a population of one. I agree regulation is often misused, and is not the cure for many problems it is applied to, but this is a legitimate risk to public health that should be addressed.

 

[DisMan]

I had a very long reply typed up...I couldn't push "post" because I don't have the energy to amplify your 20 point reply into my 50 point which will expand into a 100 point reply...until somebody else has learned. I guess I'm acting like TB now...I just can't argue this anymore. Not on a point by point basis. So, ninja, you wore me down....I won't be responding to all your points.

The market *does not regulate itself* no matter how much you think it does. And it doesn't do that because the corporation is pretty damned clueless about it's consumers. After all, only large corporations can afford the $13,000 consumer reports that tell how the market is...and very few of them would bother. If the product is selling, it's selling. Only when a decrease is detected does the corporation even bother into looking into why. By then, it's too late.

You claim this hurts small business....but I better start seeing some distributors, like Puresmoker and Janty stepping up to these FDA debates and stating that they will work with the regulators. Oh wait, they don't do that *because they are still making their money*.

When the FDA announced the ban, why didn't we see the distributors come together and set an appointment with the FDA then announce that appointment to the consumer? Why not?

Because there was no reason to...profits are still good. Business is still going. So, now the FDA has to shut them down...that's the only way to make them listen.

In the end, the manufacturer will need to foot the bill for the testing and authentication of the product. After all, Puresmoker, Janty, and all the others are just a channel to sell products. The *maker* of the product is the place to force the requirements on.

Wait....those are all in China....where regulation is lax. Where regulation is how *you* want it to be. Where lead paint makes it into children toys and tainted drugs get distributed all over the world.

Anyway, I don't believe I have seen one response from a Supplier or Distributor in this thread. I could be wrong...but I better start seeing it all over the place or we're all going to suffer.

 

[esqie]

I see Bell's point...we don't know what we are ingesting. I also why that is somehow okay for me. But jeez...not smelling like an ashtray or having too go off by myself to smoke...and paying the government up the ... for that. It's SO worth the risk. A risk that I have assumed.

 

[Bellinghamster]

I only see 2 options; let the FDA take control or fight against it.

I totally sympathize with your distrust of the government. The fact though is that it IS our government. We must do what we can to work within the system in order to protect ourselves and our practices. Your idea of "fighting against it" is invalid. They WILL come. It might not be today. It might not be this month...

But the *first* death attributed to a non-child-safe bottle of e-liquid is going to put all those suppliers you are defending out of business anyway.

 

[DisMan]

But the *first* death attributed to a non-child-safe bottle of e-liquid is going to put all those suppliers you are defending out of business anyway.

That was the best way to say it. And it won't put them out of business in the nice way. There will be raids, FBI, guns, and many families affected. If some child does die, that is.