Why shouldn't the FDA interfere?

[OutWest]

I think all drugs should be legalised, prohibition doesn't work, the only winners are the black marketeers.

agreed. and spend all that money we're spending on the war on drugs on things like drug addiction prevention and overdose prevention (both through education), disease prevention (by educating about not sharing of needles, etc and having places to get syringes for free), and drug rehab centers.

Here in the states, when ecstasy was legal, it wasnt that big of an issue. Some partiers used it, others didnt, but I never heard of any major incidents as a result of use. After they made it illegal, though, we now have alot more people using it, overdoses occuring, and more.

 

[Kate]

Yes, regulate, tax, educate and treat. Same for us with vaping.

Driving substances underground does nothing to help sort the problems and costs massive amounts of money in enforcement, treatment and lost revenue. Not to mention the social costs for the disenfranchised.

 

[DisMan]

Is is okay for a foreign (or American) company to sell or market a new drug and drug delivery device to the American consumer without that product having met specific safeguards, all carefully spelled out in law and met by other products of a similar ilk?

Wait a second here. Thousands upon thousands of drugs are marketed every day in the USA. These drugs have the appropriate disclaimer attached to them, which is "These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA...etc etc etc".

So, where would e-smoking be different than say, chromium supplements or Vitamin E marketing materials?

What about some prescription drugs which have the same disclaimers?

Where do you really draw the line? Do you force every company to put everything through extensive testing, only for that test to yield a different result in the southern hemisphere, therefore disproving scientific duplication of results?

Now, there are many people who would say "WE MUST BE SAFE!" but be careful who you give that power to. You'll end up making an industry where only the richest companies can even think about bringing product to market...meaning the first companies to pass will be the only companies around in 30 years.

There is extreme *waste* in your proposal. Extreme wastes that will make candy bars become $20.00 in price due to extremely high development costs.

There's a certain degree of this already in this country. A new company trying to cut into big company profits (can we say "Delorean", forgot how to spell it) will get snuffed out even though their design is extremely good and ahead of it's time.

We really need to think of such statements...

Now, I would have a different opinion if, say, we heard news reports that 300 people died while using e-cigs and there is extreme concern with results that show some actual harm. But we're not seeing that, are we? We're not seeing people dying and croaking from using e-cigs. Jumping the gun and throwing extreme regulation into the mix before any results, good or bad, are published is just as damaging as no regulation at all. Actually, it's more damaging because it already sets precedent that the device is bad.

Think of this the next time you buy your Vitamin E supplement that has 500% of the USDA recommended daily allowance...because you're "trying to make your eyes better".

I would be very careful to call for regulation on e-cigs until the evidence is damaging or supporting. Until then, it is only fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Throwing regulation before product goes to market will make this depression even greater...because only the very large companies will prevail.

And let's not forget something...a "drug" is "a substance that is used as a medicine or narcotic"

So..

Medicine: (medicine) something that treats or prevents or alleviates the symptoms of disease

Narcotic: a drug that produces numbness or stupor; often taken for pleasure or to reduce pain; extensive use can lead to addiction

Numbness: partial or total lack of sensation in a part of the body; a symptom of nerve damage or dysfunction

Stupor: grogginess: marginal consciousness

Now, you look at those definitions. Tell me how it fits into e-cigs. Now think about how it fits into e-cigs when Nicotine is not part of the equation.

Why would you regulate it?

 

[Cymri]

What really needs to be recognized here is that the FDA has officially declared nicotine addiction to be a disease. They have an agenda to stamp out nicotine use altogether.

It's naive to think that the FDA will simply view vaping in the same light as they view any other drug or device seeking approval. The antismoking lobby has completely infiltrated the FDA and no arguments for relatively safer ways to use nicotine recreationally are going to fly.

The big tobacco companies may be our best hope. We esmokers might be better served by contacting them instead of the FDA or our congressmen. They have the resources to fight, and it certainly seems to me that they should be as excited about vaping as we are since they clearly need a new direction for their business.

Esmoking will only survive as we know it if it can be officially designated to be a tobacco product.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

the only question the FDA will have is this one:

Is is okay for a foreign (or American) company to sell or market a new drug and drug delivery device to the American consumer without that product having met specific safeguards, all carefully spelled out in law and met by other products of a similar ilk?

I'm more than willing to be wrong when the FDA rules .. hope so .. I want to keep doing this. But seriously ... what do we expect given the present situation?

TB--Gave the Closing Statment. The Jury is out--the only thing left now is the scope of the verdict----Sun

 

[DisMan]

TB--Gave the Closing Statment. The Jury is out--the only thing left now is the scope of the verdict----Sun

And what happens to those people who e-smoke with no nicotine? Do we lump them in and totally ban the device outright?

There's a fine line here. The device and the liquid. The FDA should have *zero* jurisdiction over the device. The liquid...I see argument that they can regulate the liquid.

 

[TropicalBob]

People who would make use an e-cig after a ban on nicotine-liquid would be using the device to treat a medical condition known as nicotine addiction without having the device approved as a medical device. Checkmate.

As Trog said, if a ban is wanted, a reason will be found to ban it. If a ban isn't wanted, then we're home free. Which will it be? The jury is out.

 

[Kate]

Our only real hope is an ethical win.

Can banning something untested and unproven be justified on the grounds of greater public good when it infringes on the rights of individuals?

Should harm be proven before we are protected from it?

 

[DisMan]

Should harm be proven before we are protected from it?

Yes. This is simple logic. If you play the paranoia roll, you are suffering from a mental illness as well...known as paranoia.

People who would make use an e-cig after a ban on nicotine-liquid would be using the device to treat a medical condition known as nicotine addiction without having the device approved as a medical device. Checkmate.

Umm, that's not a checkmate...that's a reach. Nicotine addiction does not exist if nicotine is not part of the equation. If you continue to use the device, you are feeding a habit that you have formed during the nicotine addiction days.

That's like saying alcoholics who no longer drink alcohol, but drink coffee instead, or feeing their alcohol addiction...do you ban coffee? Now what if it's caffeine free coffee?

Really, that's a reach...a very long one. After all, somebody who eats a lot of lifesavers in a day to feed that habit of their mouth being busy after quitting smoking...should we ban the lifesavers now?

You're just speaking crazy talk.

 

[TropicalBob]

You can be bombastic all you want. Let's see how this plays out.

At this point, Disman, I'll just rest on what I've posted earlier. It's not worth trying to penetrate the fog of your analogies.

I'll even let you have the final word -- which I'm certain you'll take advantage of. I promise to respond to you no more. Why try? Realities escape you.

 

[DisMan]

I'll even let you have the final word -- which I'm certain you'll take advantage of. I promise to respond to you no more. Why try? Realities escape you.

Why do you have to make it personal?

While you may feel you are powerless, then fine, that is you. Your hopelessness does not translate to reality, although you may feel it does.

I'm not looking to be right...I'm looking to stimulate conversation. If that is too much for you, I apologize for your lack of interest. But don't try to act like I'm some dude who can't see reality.

Sorry my analogies just don't make you feel all warm and fuzzy....but, in the end, my analogies *are reality* to your hopelessness.

The government drives me nuts...but I have to have faith that our politicians will eventually *not* be purchased by the highest bidder. So many people think our democracy is great and free enterprise is the greatest thing in the world...the reality is that it has failed.

But why would I throw in the towel in hopes that somebody smart would end up at capitol hill? I'm not as dedicated to feeling powerless as you are.

Sorry...I wouldn't sign an affidavit saying my e-cig is for NRT if there was a gun pointed at *my head*. There's a certain level of apathy that I would not be willing to give into at the price of my freedom.

Of course, we could go the whole democratic-communism approach that I proposed in the other forum...but then people will preach how great the failed free enterprise system is, etc.

Anyway, there, I took the last word. Took a couple personal jabs back since I can't be realistic, etc. In the end, at least you can say I'm predictable.

I still like ya TB....just shocked that you would take a personal jab.

 

[Lorddrek]

That's like saying alcoholics who no longer drink alcohol, but drink coffee instead, or feeing their alcohol addiction...do you ban coffee? Now what if it's caffeine free coffee?

Really, that's a reach...a very long one. After all, somebody who eats a lot of lifesavers in a day to feed that habit of their mouth being busy after quitting smoking...should we ban the lifesavers now?

You're just speaking crazy talk.

Now that's some crazy talk!

 

[TropicalBob]

You're just speaking crazy talk.

And all was fine up to that point. I took it VERY personally. How else would it be taken? And it irritated hell out of me. Obviously.

 

[DisMan]

And all was fine up to that point. I took it VERY personally. How else would it be taken? And it irritated hell out of me. Obviously.

My bad. I guess the smiley on the end of the sentence didn't pass the tone correctly.

 

[strayling]

I view my PV as Tobacco Replacement Therapy; I'm quite happy with the nicotine, I just don't want all the other crap that comes along with burning tobacco. Having said that, why people insist that it should be a therapy of any kind baffles me.

 

[Bellinghamster]

The debate which started this all was:

Should the FDA interfere with the current eLiquids to enforce purity standards and proper labeling so that we as intelligent, free people can make our decisions rationally?

This thread was never about child-proof caps, NRT, conspiracies, or personal liberty. It was about (the fantasy of?) government ACTUALLY protecting us in the way it should. NOT by attempting to legislate our behavior for their own "moral" or financial reasons and making us all criminals, but by acting as an advocate for the people in ensuring that unscrupulous or careless manufacturers don't sell us cyanide cotton candy. They have absolutely no business telling me or anyone else how to manage their health or happiness, provided we don't infringe on another's right to the same. Unfortunately, the legality of the matter today is in stark contrast to this belief.

As for the other topics, they make for lively debate. There are some that want to sue McDonald's for the hot coffee they spill in their lap. There are those who by all accounts would prefer total anarchy to any infringement on their desire to act any way they please. Most want "rights" until they are called to own up to the cost of having those rights. Everybody is their own special interest group of one.

Personally, I subscribe to the "Cigarettes kill people the way spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat" school where personal choices should be allowed, provided we accept the consequences of our actions.

 

[tpboles]

And all was fine up to that point. I took it VERY personally. How else would it be taken? And it irritated hell out of me. Obviously.

"Lotta "straw men" brought into this thread. Disregard them all."

In DisMan's defense he could have taken that statement personal also.

Gonna tiptoe away now

BTW - I literally rolled on the floor after I read this lol - "Cigarettes kill people the way spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat"

 

[HK45]

DisMan,

There are also other medical reasons the e-cig might be used. Just like the Nicotrol Inhaler it could be prescribed to people with respiratory ailments and most likely a variety of other reasons. Most NRT's originally needed a doctor's prescription but are now over-the-counter.

 

[caywen]

First, the FDA will be very bad for us if it goes ahead and bans everything with no data, and then sits on their hands until kingdom come. That's one outcome, and that will infuriate me pretty well.

But another outcome is that the FDA will temporarily ban them, conduct thorough analysis, and then instate specific guidelines by which they can be sold.

Should the latter happen, we'll see huge investment in e-cig companies. That will mean some real technical advancements and a more warm fuzzy knowing you're not going to die of cyanide poisoning from some Chinese factory.

 

[mctriple]

This may be a little off from where this thread has gone, but I just wanted to chime in with agreement of the OP's overall opinion.

Eliquids should definitely be more regulated than they are now. I obviously don't feel that they should be banned, but nicotine is a drug, and it only makes sense that eliquid should be taken more seriously than it is right now. Most esmokers take on 100% blind faith that what we're inhaling is safe, but right now there is nobody to hold manufacturers accountable for anything. This should be changed, imo.

Ya, things will change. We all like where things are right now. We save a lot of money compared to smoking analogs, we love the convenience of clicking a few buttons and having more liquid show up on our doorstep, etc. But paying a somewhat higher price to have this drug regulated seems like a pretty good idea to me..