Why the FDA can NOT make illegal E-Cigs (false concern), Usage Bans in Public are the REAL problem

[Jman8]

First line from Kristin (CASAA Board) right above....quoting, " The case the FDA lost ruled the FDA couldn't regulate e-cigs as drugs absent therapeutic (ie. smoking cessation) claims and gave the opinion that FDA may be able to regulate them as tobacco products under FSPTCA of 2009.

So Godshall, presumably with the CASAA blessing: Runs up to DC to tell everyone he can, that E-Cigs and are smoking cessation devices, and that is their primary usage, and e-liquid should be consider for its wonderful smoking cessation properties.

Godshall has literally promoted the FDA most available "in" as what all who will listen should consider. Shot everyone in the foot.

Again E-Cigs are NOT smoking cessation devices, and nobody should be promoting them or jaunting up to Washington telling everyone that the FDA should be aware of this wonderful smoking cessation device, which everyone already agrees, is withing the domain of the FDA, as Kristin Just Said.

FWIW, E-Cigs are used by many who were not ex-Smokers, or smokers, and from some that gave up on decades ago.

Your post and points are ones that make me torn on the politics of vaping, and with what some in CASAA are passionate about.
I feel that I tend to approach the entire debate from what you are conveying. And yet, I do appreciate that someone like Godshall took the time, effort, patience and professionalism to the center of national politics that does impact this debate and do something about it. It seems all to easy to sit on sidelines and nitpick about what exactly he said and what that may (or may not) accomplish.

I don't think it is possible he, and he alone, just shot every vaper in the foot. I also feel confident it was not his intention.
I also don't think his message was that the primary use of eCigs is for smoking cessation. I think his primary message was that unless politicians with authority to do something, step in, then it is possible (or likely) that FDA will shoot all vapers in the foot.

As a (proud) moderate smoker, I wish there was way to separate smoking from vaping in political discussions, especially as it relates to non-smokers / non-vapers understanding just how important it is that these remain as free of unreasonable restrictions as humanly possible. But alas, I am not sure how this is possible given the 75+ years of politics around smoking, and the idea that for vast majority of vapers eCigs ARE a smoking cessation product.

IMO, vendors have awoken to what the narrative must be if they desire to keep selling vaping products on their own merit, with emphasis for vaping with its own set of features. But consumers and forums just like this one can't separate the two acts. A person comes here who never smoked and we are hesitant to help them find right gear, best nic juice because they aren't seen as 'one of us' and are getting into it for either the wrong reason or one that makes us suddenly spout off wisdom like "nicotine is a highly addictive and dangerous habit." Fairly certain a vaping vendor isn't going to care, even a little bit, if consumer that approaches them is a current or ex-smoker. Vaping community, for the most part (overwhelming majority) cares very much about the why and what is your history with smoking.

 

[tombaker]

The case the FDA lost ruled the FDA couldn't regulate e-cigs as drugs absent therapeutic (ie. smoking cessation) claims and gave the opinion that FDA may be able to regulate them as tobacco products under FSPTCA of 2009. Under FSPTCA the FDA has the power to deem e-cigarettes under its jurisdiction. That Women's Health article is not evidence that that the government "defines e-cigs as a tobacco-free product." The government currently has no regulatory definition or classification for recreational nicotine products, which is why the FDA is now deeming regulatory powers over them as "Other Tobacco Products."

Once the FDA, with the new powers given it under the new law (FSPTCA), deems e-cigarettes and other novel recreational products made from nicotine derived from tobacco under its authority, it can regulate them as it sees fit with only limited restrictions. FDA cannot ban them or eliminate the nicotine, but it could ban flavors, ban nicotine over 2 mg/ml, ban bottled liquid sales (closed carts only), require testing of each and every liquid (including each flavor of a brand) and submitting those tests to the FDA for pre-market approval (which would require all products currently on the open market to stop selling until they get approval.) This will not just affect big companies, but ANY company that wants to legally sell e-cigarette liquid containing nicotine.

Yes, this will create an illegal black market that the FDA will have a difficult time stopping, but that black market will only benefit existing die hard vapers willing to break the law. The vast majority of vapers and the much larger number of smokers who may have switched would lose access to legal e-liquid until the companies can get FDA market approval. Based on how slow its been approving even small changes for existing tobacco products, it could be 5, 10, 15 or more years before the first approved e-liquid is on the market. Most likely, due to the expense, that will be an e-cig manufactured by a tobacco or pharmaceutical company.

Now, the FDA could choose to fast-track approvals, not make such horrible regulations or just grandfather in existing products already on the market with minimal requirements (label requirements, child-resistant caps.) But everything we've seen the FDA do to date indicates that it wants to rule tobacco products with an iron fist and get people to complete abstinence using approved pharma products. The FDA has given us no reason to believe that it will be reasonable and fair. So, we prepare for the worst but fight and hope for the best.

Okay lets go through all the problems with what your are suggesting the world of where we are in.

1. You completely omitted the question of what you actually replied to, What is the Danger of Big Tobacco and E-Cigs they are selling and intending to sell. APV hardware is out of scope, its allowed, its not going away. E-Liquid would be used within all BIG TOBACCO products, so if they can sell the component, legally, as they want, what is the risk to vaping from BIG TOBACOO. Simplest question, what are the Dangers of BIG TOBACCO, something some posters say I am missing. TIA.

2. Nicotine is not Tobacco, and is not defined as such. I supposed it could be attempted, but that is a bunch of legal hurdles. Yes the government is various forms is defining E-Cigs as Tobacco free. There is no legal absolute defintion. To portray much of what you say, it is all premised upon Nicotine=Tobacco. That premise is a big hurdle.

3. You simply ignore: Although the Supreme Court noted that it was not deciding the larger question of whether any product could be classified as a drug or device absent claims of therapeutic or medical benefit, it made clear nevertheless that FDA’s assertion of jurisdiction over customarily-marketed tobacco products contradicted Congress’s clear intent, Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 529 U.S. at 131-32, which the Supreme Court found to be based on FDA’s repeated representations that it lacked authority under the FDCA to regulate tobacco products “absent claims of therapeutic benefit by the manufacturer,” id. at 144.

--Instead you portray FUD as if the FDA can just do anything and everything just by merely Deeming it. This is not mother Russia.

4. YOU SAID: FDA cannot ban them or eliminate the nicotine, but it could ban flavors, ban nicotine over 2 mg/ml, ban bottled liquid sales (closed carts only), require testing of each and every liquid (including each flavor of a brand) and submitting those tests to the FDA for pre-market approval (which would require all products currently on the open market to stop selling until they get approval.)

a. So you at least agree they can not ban them, unlike the FUD beliefs some posters here are operating on.
b. You have a theory that they can ban flavors which is completely devoid of fact. As if adults don't like fruit or candy is your premise. You are also looking at this base upon marketing, ADVERTISING only.

c. Nothing supports your closed cart claim, Food Flavorings and PG and VG are already known as safe, you can not regulate all products that contain safe products, or ask that each be tested as if its a brand new drug. And you have to define nicotine as a drug first to get all that going in Your Theory.

5. You have nothing besides FUD to support your claim that E-Liquid can be banned. You should understand that if big bad BLU or BIG TOBACCO is allowed to sell E-Cigs of any type, which contain nicotine.....That that by definition will allow E-Liquid to be sold. You get that? So excluding mom and pop shops on the internet (which will be under the radar regardless) Compaines like Apollocigs, and MtBakerVapor will easily be able to pass the facilities inspections if they were ever to come.

6. CASAA is proffering out some absolutely horrible fiction created out of nothing but FUD. You say: Yes, this will create an illegal black market that the FDA will have a difficult time stopping 10 years or so on the market, next stop the twilight zone, E-Cigs being sold in backrooms, hey buddy hook me up with an E-juice suppler that has not been caught by the man yet.
Seriously CASAA is losing a lot of credibly with this hyperbole.

7. CASAA says "The vast majority of vapers and the much larger number of smokers who may have switched would lose access to legal e-liquid until the companies can get FDA market approval. Based on how slow its been approving even small changes for existing tobacco products, it could be 5, 10, 15 or more years before the first approved e-liquid is on the market."

What a joke. You now have a Tobacco product, being defined as a drug. What propaganda! Does CASAA even have a lawyer, beyond working on City Bans and Usage bans, which again I think is the real problem and the real risk to at least fight, BECAUSE USAGE bans are actually Happening.

The joke is that CASAA forgets "The Supreme Court noted, however, that a ban on tobacco products pursuant to the FDCA would contravene congressional intent because Congress “has foreclosed the removal of tobacco products from the market.” Id. at 137." You are suggesting that the FDA will do everything in its power to work around the law, by making a defacto ban of Tobacco products by incredibly strained legal interpretations.....and that the Courts would allow all of this to happen. What would happen if the FDA did try this, They would get their .... handed to them with another major court loss. There is a frame work of laws, and those laws say Tobacco can not be banned, you even agree, so if the change Nicotine into Tobacco Product, is all the more likely they can never touch E-Liquid. And they would have to change all the laws about generally accepted as safe products. Do you think they test every Vitamin that is wrapped in generally known as safe coatings for easy digestion?

8. Now CASAA is claiming that the FDA is trying to rule everything with an iron fist. Again a Joke. What has the FDA done? Test some e-liquids some of which actually ended up having diacetyl. Gosh. You seem to have some sort of smoker jadness to the FDA. They are actually Doctors who do consider their job is to protect the people from snake oil and down right dangerous products, which have been around since snake oil was defined. There are plenty of real PhD's and MDs that support the notion that E-Cigs are good, and something that is not risky, or at least very reasonably risky and should be allowed. These people have worked inside the FDA and outside of it. If I thought that E-Cigs were as harmful as seemingly the CASAA think needs defending....I would be concerned I suppose. But I firmly believe that E-Cigs by the science will be deemed as Generally Accepted as Safe, and the FDA is not going to go after it, because some uninformed ex-smoker are feeling like abused spouses.

9. You say "The FDA has given us no reason to believe that it will be reasonable and fair. So, we prepare for the worst but fight and hope for the best."

Where on earth do you come up with this science fiction? Has the FDA cracked down on anything besides a LOST legal fight you ignore, and more or less trying to urge caution. OH THE HORROR. The FDA at its heart, is not some sort of evil corporation. CASAA is going to start looking like a bunch of Doomsday-Preppers, pretty darn fast.

10. Kristin the essence of your's and seemingly CASAA's argument and operating theory is:
The FDA is in bed with Big Tobacco in order to remove E-Cigs from the market so as they can instead sell cigarettes, so the FDA can then using TV advertising to get them to quit, or sell them off patent short term drugs to get them to quit. So the FDA are super-dupper great friends now. This is your Logic. And the FDA is run by evil Doctors who really want people to not have E-Cigs all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with Science. Anyone can see this FUD theory for what it is. Nuts.

11. City, State, and other USAGE BANS are actually happening, how about you start on what is actually real. What am I missing, real vs your theory that E-Juice taken off the market for 15 years, based upon the laws that clearly say that Tobacco can not be banned. Doomday Preppers, the Sky is Falling, FUD

 

[Jman8]

What is the Danger of Big Tobacco and E-Cigs they are selling and intending to sell. APV hardware is out of scope, its allowed, its not going away. E-Liquid would be used within all BIG TOBACCO products, so if they can sell the component, legally, as they want, what is the risk to vaping from BIG TOBACOO. Simplest question, what are the Dangers of BIG TOBACCO, something some posters say I am missing. TIA.

The perceived danger of BT involvement in eCig industry is:
A) belief that they will seek to monopolize the industry, given their resources
B) because of A, they will gladly agree, or theoretically push for regulations that bolster their approach (and monopoly) and impact the other vendor types. They will essentially be seen as pushing out the little guys who can't keep up with the regulations, as they don't have the vast resources / money to do so.
C) because they lied to us and engineered their previous product to make it more dangerous, more addictive, they will -after having achieved a monopoly- change how juice is made. Making it more addictive than it is now, and possibly engineering it in a way where it not only tastes better (or arguably worse), but is more harmful. But as long as your hooked, then it won't be a big concern to them.

That is what I understand to be the fear of 'handing over the eCig industry' to Big Tobacco.

 

[tombaker]

I don't think it is possible he, and he alone, just shot every vaper in the foot. I also feel confident it was not his intention.
I also don't think his message was that the primary use of eCigs is for smoking cessation. I think his primary message was that unless politicians with authority to do something, step in, then it is possible (or likely) that FDA will shoot all vapers in the foot.

Well as Godshall describes the people working on the stuff, did not consider him all that much and wanted to get out of there. The consequences of Godshall proclaiming to D.C. that E-Cigs are the best smoking cessation device to date, and APVs are even better.....is not going to be anything much.

And definitely nothing because the FDA has not done anything yet. But CASAA sending up people to D.C. to tell lawmakers and Fed Agencies that E-Cigs are cessation devices and therefore by settled law acknowledge by everyone, entirely controllable by the FDA.....the WRONG thing to do.

The FDA is hamstrung by all of the existing laws, supported by the Supreme Court, that if the FDA rules that E-Juice is a Tobacco product the CAN NOT ban it. Maybe wait for the FDA to say what they will, and instead focus on some places saying that E-Cigs must only be used where Smokers can smoke.....Talk about a way to get people to start up again.
The title of this thread still applies.

 

[Jman8]

b. You have a theory that they can ban flavors which is completely devoid of fact. As if adults don't like fruit or candy is your premise.

I think the theory is based on 3 primary things, all of which seem to be saying about the same thing:

1 - tobacco flavors (i.e. fruity flavors) used to be sold in the US, but are not allowed anymore
2 - almost every anti-vaping article I've ever read mentions flavors as 'only reason they are made is to entice children into a lifelong habit of nicotine.'
3 - FSPTCA authority to regulate any tobacco product containing flavors. Just double checked FDA site on this act, and it says: "Sec. 907 of the FDCA - Allows FDA to .... Ban cigarettes with characterizing flavors (except menthol and tobacco)

Put all of this together, and it would seem plausible that if enough non-vapers (don't even have to be anti-vapers) buy into idea that this is how children are enticed into vaping, then FDA would go after flavors found in eCig liquid.

 

[DC2]

And definitely nothing because the FDA has not done anything yet. But CASAA sending up people to D.C. to tell lawmakers and Fed Agencies that E-Cigs are cessation devices and therefore by settled law acknowledge by everyone, entirely controllable by the FDA.....the WRONG thing to do.

CASAA does not "send" Bill Godshall anywhere to do anything.
Bill Godshall goes where he wants when he wants.

You might want to slow your roll a little bit.

So who are you?
What is your area of expertise?

 

[Berylanna]

Well as Godshall describes the people working on the stuff, did not consider him all that much and wanted to get out of there. The consequences of Godshall proclaiming to D.C. that E-Cigs are the best smoking cessation device to date, and APVs are even better.....is not going to be anything much.

And definitely nothing because the FDA has not done anything yet. But CASAA sending up people to D.C. to tell lawmakers and Fed Agencies that E-Cigs are cessation devices and therefore by settled law acknowledge by everyone, entirely controllable by the FDA.....the WRONG thing to do.

You misunderstand the court decision. Anybody EXCEPT manufactures and advertisers paid by manufacturers can say anything they want, the ONLY risk that can occur is that if Brand Murgatroyd makes such a claim then the FDA can (and will) shut down Murgatroyd Corp. This is the same way nutritional supplements are regulated, after a lot of legislative fights and court battles. In fact, now they can kind-of make similar claims as long as they print "This statement is not evaluated by the FDA" on the label.

NOTHING anybody does about making such claims puts ANY danger onto anything but THAT person's product.

 

[Sundodger]

CASAA does not "send" Bill Godshall anywhere to do anything.
Bill Godshall goes where he wants when he wants.

You might want to slow your roll a little bit.

So who are you?
What is your area of expertise?

My Bravo Sierra meter went off the first post on this. Whatever, who ver this guy is he's all over the place and certainly doesn't know his history or how the FDA works. Or, he works for the FDA and is hoping to help get vapers to stop contacting their politicians about this subject.

@JMAN...previously you mentioned about all of the dates that had been posted about the FDA doing something finally. Those dates were not guessed at by vaping advocates, those dates were found on the OMB or FDA's own websites, it was their intent to go forward on those dates. Something changed though. I think vaping advocates voicing their opinions and finding fault with studies that had been used to promote bad regulation, along with finding other studies that showed the opposite of what the ANTZ were saying, slowed if not stopped what the FDA had in mind.
IF the FDA had all its ducks in a row they would have made public at the earliest they could with the regs they wanted. But they couldn't because they couldn't stand behind what they were planning.
This entire subject needs advocates to continue ahead of the FDA to stop any crazy regulation/taxes that BT, BP and the politicians want and need to keep the money flowing.
I look at this a lot like the old Y2K problem. I'm not talking about Comets, alignment of planets and the such, I'm talking about the Y2K computer code problem. Now you bring up Y2K and people think you're nuts. It's called a hoax by many. It was not a hoax, there was a huge problem that without people and companies taking steps to resolve it ahead of time would have probably crashed a good amount of digital commerce around the world, including banking.
Today it's laughed at because it didn't happen, thankfully it didn't happen or no one would have laughed about it.

 

[DC2]

Now you bring up Y2K and people think you're nuts. It's called a hoax by many. It was not a hoax, there was a huge problem that without people and companies taking steps to resolve it ahead of time would have probably crashed a good amount of digital commerce around the world, including banking.
Today it's laughed at because it didn't happen, thankfully it didn't happen or no one would have laughed about it.

No kidding.

I spent nearly six months modifying and patching our software to prevent disaster.
As it was, we still wound up with a couple of small glitches and one pretty significant one.

 

[tombaker]

CASAA does not "send" Bill Godshall anywhere to do anything.
Bill Godshall goes where he wants when he wants.
You might want to slow your roll a little bit.
So who are you?
What is your area of expertise?

I am a fellow, and messenger of none but myself, if you have an retort of fact, or a problem with message, do share. Seems you won't

Either what I wrote stands on its own or it does not. I am available to reply to substance...but will pass on most of the trolls attempting to march in line with the status quo, blindly. If it helps I am Spartacus, and so is that guy, and that guy, and him over there too.....just deal with the facts and substance, that is all that matters.

How about reading 910, reading the rulings, understanding what the FDA has domain over, what is already enshrined in law that the FDA can not work around. And realize that E-Cigs are supported by real doctors, because they deliver nicotine safely for users who want nicotine.

If you want to bather on as if tweeting to buddies, you can do it in private and stop polluting a thread which is trying to look at real items, and not be party to a back and forth between buddies babbling sweet nothings in each's ear. You realize there are Private Messages available for all that. Or start your own thread. The rest should assume the same. Respectfully the OP

 

[Fulgurant]

Okay lets go through all the problems with what your are suggesting the world of where we are in.

1. You completely omitted the question of what you actually replied to, What is the Danger of Big Tobacco and E-Cigs they are selling and intending to sell. APV hardware is out of scope, its allowed, its not going away. E-Liquid would be used within all BIG TOBACCO products, so if they can sell the component, legally, as they want, what is the risk to vaping from BIG TOBACOO. Simplest question, what are the Dangers of BIG TOBACCO, something some posters say I am missing. TIA.

It's simple. Big Tobacco has the resources to deal with any regulations that come down the pike. Smaller concerns probably don't have those resources. Thus, the more onerous the regulations, the more likely it is that Big Tobacco will inherit the e-cig industry.

2. Nicotine is not Tobacco, and is not defined as such. I supposed it could be attempted, but that is a bunch of legal hurdles. Yes the government is various forms is defining E-Cigs as Tobacco free. There is no legal absolute defintion. To portray much of what you say, it is all premised upon Nicotine=Tobacco. That premise is a big hurdle.

Nicotine is derived from tobacco. But more importantly, e-cigarettes clearly have an intended use that mirrors traditional tobacco products'. Arguing that e-cigs aren't tobacco products isn't going to get us anywhere useful.

3. You simply ignore: Although the Supreme Court noted that it was not deciding the larger question of whether any product could be classified as a drug or device absent claims of therapeutic or medical benefit, it made clear nevertheless that FDA’s assertion of jurisdiction over customarily-marketed tobacco products contradicted Congress’s clear intent, Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 529 U.S. at 131-32, which the Supreme Court found to be based on FDA’s repeated representations that it lacked authority under the FDCA to regulate tobacco products “absent claims of therapeutic benefit by the manufacturer,” id. at 144.

--Instead you portray FUD as if the FDA can just do anything and everything just by merely Deeming it. This is not mother Russia.

(Emphasis mine.)

If I understand your point here correctly, then yours is a hilarious misreading of the (poorly phrased) quote you've so smugly supplied. The court said that the FDA cannot regulate tobacco products as medicines. That's what the above-quoted paragraph means, not that the FDA cannot regulate tobacco products unless there are claims of therapeutic benefit. The bolded section refers to the FDA's fallacious argument to justify their outrageous attempt to regulate e-cigs as if they were medicines; the court said that argument was wrong.

The above-quoted paragraph, in other words, says nothing at all to suggest that the FDA cannot deem e-cigs as tobacco products. And if you truly believe that the FDA cannot do that, then you haven't been paying attention -- which is forgivable, but not when you spend hours upon hours molding your ignorance into what amounts to a personal attack on those who support CASAA.

Is the Office of Management and Budget spreading FUD too?

5. You have nothing besides FUD to support your claim that E-Liquid can be banned. You should understand that if big bad BLU or BIG TOBACCO is allowed to sell E-Cigs of any type, which contain nicotine.....That that by definition will allow E-Liquid to be sold. You get that? So excluding mom and pop shops on the internet (which will be under the radar regardless) Compaines like Apollocigs, and MtBakerVapor will easily be able to pass the facilities inspections if they were ever to come.

The topic of refillables is a huge point of contention in Europe, for example. Again, please do pay attention.

And online sales could be disallowed. An online vendor can't be 100% sure that a buyer is of legal age, after all. That's just one way a de-facto or near-enough-to a ban could be implemented. Yes, yes, I know, I'm an idiot conspiracy theorist. Sadly for you, I just happen to be an idiot conspiracy theorist who knows more about this issue than you do, which isn't saying much. And Kristin? She's forgotten more about this issue than you know. Drop the smug tone, please.

6. CASAA is proffering out some absolutely horrible fiction created out of nothing but FUD. You say: Yes, this will create an illegal black market that the FDA will have a difficult time stopping 10 years or so on the market, next stop the twilight zone, E-Cigs being sold in backrooms, hey buddy hook me up with an E-juice suppler that has not been caught by the man yet.
Seriously CASAA is losing a lot of credibly with this hyperbole.

Cause, you know, we really ought to be worried about CASAA's tone rather than all of the very real threats we face locally and on the Federal level. And yes, I happen to agree with you that the local battles are more important at the moment than the FDA, but that doesn't mean we should ignore what the FDA could do, and will do if unopposed. The local battles aren't divorced from the larger one; if enough local bans go through, and if the aggressive misinformation campaign succeeds, then the FDA will be emboldened.

The joke is that CASAA forgets "The Supreme Court noted, however, that a ban on tobacco products pursuant to the FDCA would contravene congressional intent because Congress “has foreclosed the removal of tobacco products from the market.” Id. at 137."

Congress has foreclosed the removal of tobacco products that have been on the market since prior to 2007. Per the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, every tobacco product introduced after that point must undergo a lengthy review process by the FDA. And as Kristin noted, the FDA is way, way behind in their approval process already. The point of confusion here seem to be that e-cigs haven't yet been deemed as tobacco products. E-cig products introduced since 2007 are presently on the market without having been reviewed, but only because they are not yet officially tobacco products, under the law.

But they can and most likely will be deemed as tobacco products, officially, by the FDA, in the near future. Whether the FDA will then punish the e-cig industry to the fullest extent of FDA's considerable powers under the law is an open question. They may very well back off, but I ain't holding my breath for that.

You are suggesting that the FDA will do everything in its power to work around the law, by making a defacto ban of Tobacco products by incredibly strained legal interpretations.....and that the Courts would allow all of this to happen. What would happen if the FDA did try this, They would get their .... handed to them with another major court loss. There is a frame work of laws, and those laws say Tobacco can not be banned, you even agree, so if the change Nicotine into Tobacco Product, is all the more likely they can never touch E-Liquid. And they would have to change all the laws about generally accepted as safe products. Do you think they test every Vitamin that is wrapped in generally known as safe coatings for easy digestion?

We are suggesting that you do not understand the law as it is currently written. Whether the law will withstand court scrutiny is another question. I can certainly hope that the court will support our opposition to any FDA effort to ban (explicitly or in effect) e-cigarettes, but your mocking tone is unwarranted given the evidence at hand.

And yes, e-cigs should be generally accepted as safe, because they are safe by any sensible definition of the term -- but public-health bigwigs all over the world still cry about how e-cigs might entice children to smoke, still make vague insinuations about the potential harms of second-hand vapor, and so on. Have you checked out what passes for journalism on the subject?

9. You say "The FDA has given us no reason to believe that it will be reasonable and fair. So, we prepare for the worst but fight and hope for the best."

Where on earth do you come up with this science fiction? Has the FDA cracked down on anything besides a LOST legal fight you ignore, and more or less trying to urge caution. OH THE HORROR. The FDA at its heart, is not some sort of evil corporation. CASAA is going to start looking like a bunch of Doomsday-Preppers, pretty darn fast.

LOL. This is classic. That court case came about because the FDA wantonly overstepped its authority in immediately deeming e-cigs as medicines, and then confiscated large shipments of private property (e-cigs) on that basis. And we're supposed to be encouraged by that history, with respect to FDA's intentions?

10. Kristin the essence of your's and seemingly CASAA's argument and operating theory is:
The FDA is in bed with Big Tobacco in order to remove E-Cigs from the market so as they can instead sell cigarettes, so the FDA can then using TV advertising to get them to quit, or sell them off patent short term drugs to get them to quit. So the FDA are super-dupper great friends now. This is your Logic. And the FDA is run by evil Doctors who really want people to not have E-Cigs all sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with Science. Anyone can see this FUD theory for what it is. Nuts.

No, the theory is that there is an entire industry of otherwise useless people claiming to be tobacco control experts. Those people's jobs are funded by a combination of misplaced charitable giving, pharmaceutical companies, cigarette tax money, and the tobacco settlement trust -- the latter of which grows or shrinks on a yearly basis based on how much people smoke. It is, in short, an industry that is self-conflicted at its core, like many bureaucracies.

Then you have tobacco companies, which might be on our side eventually, but for the moment they're what I might call malevolently indifferent: they've invested just enough in the e-cig industry to hedge their bets, so if the entire thing went away tomorrow they'd happily go back to peddling tobacco cigarettes. Likewise, if the FDA regulates smaller e-cig concerns out of business, then Big Tobacco can only triumph. It's a no-lose situation for Big Tobacco. They aren't our active antagonists; they're just poised to benefit at our expense.

And believe me, no one in FDA or in tobacco control is consciously working for the tobacco companies' benefit. That's what's so hilarious about all of this. The more tobacco control ties itself in knots under the pretense of destroying their mortal enemies in the tobacco industry, the more BT prospers.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we have Big Pharma, which makes money selling FDA-approved nicotine-replacement products (patches, gums). They also make money treating sick smokers and former smokers. And big pharma funds most of what passes for scientific study on the subject. Make no mistake: this is not a conspiracy in the classic sense. There's no one twirling an oiled mustache and cackling madly in an oaklined room somewhere. But there is a natural confluence of powerful interests at odds with ours. Call it conspiracy or institutional inertia or political pandering; it is what it is.

11. City, State, and other USAGE BANS are actually happening, how about you start on what is actually real. What am I missing, real vs your theory that E-Juice taken off the market for 15 years, based upon the laws that clearly say that Tobacco can not be banned. Doomday Preppers, the Sky is Falling, FUD

No one disagrees that local bans should be opposed.

 

[DC2]

I am a fellow, and messenger of none but myself, if you have an retort of fact, or a problem with message, do share. Seems you won't

Either what I wrote stands on its own or it does not. I am available to reply to substance...but will pass on most of the trolls attempting to march in line with the status quo, blindly. If it helps I am Spartacus, and so is that guy, and that guy, and him over there too.....just deal with the facts and substance, that is all that matters.

How about reading 910, reading the rulings, understanding what the FDA has domain over, what is already enshrined in law that the FDA can not work around. And realize that E-Cigs are supported by real doctors, because they deliver nicotine safely for users who want nicotine.

If you want to bather on as if tweeting to buddies, you can do it in private and stop polluting a thread which is trying to look at real items, and not be party to a back and forth between buddies babbling sweet nothings in each's ear. You realize there are Private Messages available for all that. Or start your own thread. The rest should assume the same. Respectfully the OP

Okay, cool, slowing of the roll not an option for you. Duly noted.

 

[VapieDan]

Of course it will not be banned. Just demonize like tobacco therefore it can be taxed with the excuse it is for the good of us all. I see all the posts here about money saved from analogue disuse. What percentage of that is "Lost" taxes. Big tobacco is hedging it's bet by getting into the E-cig market. That also puts us in bed with the devil.

 

[Eric A. Blair]

......ed alphabet soup ANR CTFK stupid tricks like vaping bans are unenforceable and laughable. They are already in a lot of trouble. State governments are using MSA and cig tax money to pay for plugging budget deficits and buying votes. It's not going to help them pay for their 6 figure salaries/ski chalet in Aspen/Audi Q5 lease. At the same time big Pharma has figured out that paying them protection money is a bad investment. The entire nicotine replacement therapy market is $2 billion a year. That is a lot of money until you see that Singulair one prescription drug by itself made 3.2 billion last year alone.

Yes, they can ban you from blowing big clouds of vapor at a Chuck E. Cheese restaurant.

But they cannot ban you from vaping indoors.

 

[Jman8]

Big tobacco is hedging it's bet by getting into the E-cig market. That also puts us in bed with the devil.

How do you figure? You, being anyone, that sees BT's entrance into eCig industry as 'work of evil corporation.'

Please note: I am the poster who wrote post #63, so I believe I get what the general fear is, but for sake of discussion, let's just pretend for a moment that BT won't obtain an outright monopoly anytime real soon in the industry. Then explain to me what the fear/concern is please.

 

[Berylanna]

Yes, they can ban you from blowing big clouds of vapor at a Chuck E. Cheese restaurant.

But they cannot ban you from vaping indoors.

As a relative of and friend of other assorted folks who have, between them, assorted combinations of the following features:

1. Big-time poverty AND bad teeth
2. A record
3. Tatoos
4. combat PTSD
5. Spinal injuries
6. I'd say black skin but that can be light tan these days.
7. A whole lot of wrinkles and gray hair.

I have seen many many occasions where "unenforced" or "unenforceable" laws DO get enforced against these folks.

A law against vaping where smoking is banned, when combined with a big-time California movement to ban smoking in apartment complexes, will get used to evict people, especially where there is rent control. It will also be used to fine people who do not have enough money to pay the fines, so they end up in jail for awhile. (Yes, the landlord will either look in the window or get a neighbor to claim they saw it.)

The proliferation of laws only enforced against the bottom 20% of society is going to give us a civil war one day if we don't stop that ....., and I'm not sure which side I'd be fighting on.

(The other half of my friends and relatives are like I am: naive, rich, privileged, and most don't even know it. Privilege means you don't go to jail if you break a law that goes against common sense, and you can afford to get a piece of paper that, rightly or wrongly, claims to prove you know your behind from a hole in the ground.)

 

[soba1]

......ed alphabet soup ANR CTFK stupid tricks like vaping bans are unenforceable and laughable. They are already in a lot of trouble. State governments are using MSA and cig tax money to pay for plugging budget deficits and buying votes. It's not going to help them pay for their 6 figure salaries/ski chalet in Aspen/Audi Q5 lease. At the same time big Pharma has figured out that paying them protection money is a bad investment. The entire nicotine replacement therapy market is $2 billion a year. That is a lot of money until you see that Singulair one prescription drug by itself made 3.2 billion last year alone.

Yes, they can ban you from blowing big clouds of vapor at a Chuck E. Cheese restaurant.

But they cannot ban you from vaping indoors.

If you don't exhale there is no infraction.....

 

[tombaker]

--------> My responses in Italics

It's simple. Big Tobacco has the resources to deal with any regulations that come down the pike. Smaller concerns probably don't have those resources. Thus, the more onerous the regulations, the more likely it is that Big Tobacco will inherit the e-cig industry.
[I]--------> We don't know what these regulations will be, and they all have to be bounded by the Tobacco Act which has limitation built within it. The hardware side is outside of the scope. You will be able to buy them alongside of [moderated] forever, and elsewhere. The fear that Big Tobacco will be enabled by the FDA, to control the world, must be base on a theory that FDA and BigT are the best buddies.[/I]


Nicotine is derived from tobacco. But more importantly, e-cigarettes clearly have an intended use that mirrors traditional tobacco products'. Arguing that e-cigs aren't tobacco products isn't going to get us anywhere useful.

--------> I agree that the FDA has conceded that its only authority to regulate E-Cigs is via the Tabacco Act. If I said otherwise I was in error


...but not when you spend hours upon hours molding your ignorance into what amounts to a personal attack on those who support CASAA.

Is the Office of Management and Budget spreading FUD too?

[I]--------> CASAA made some horrific claims which are simply wrong on the law of what the Tobacco can do. Suggesting that all E-Cigs on the market today would be banned, etc etc. The title of the thread clearly states that I think Usage bans are the problem. CASAA rank specualtion on what the FDA could do is not well founded in the law, crazy foolish in what is likely to occur, and premised as fact, even though there is not one regulation being proposed. I don't support such disinformation. I don't support Vapers who go into public libraries with kids and think its a great idea to blow plums. I do support working against bans. I support any efforts to Stop the City and State rules that would force E-Cigs Usage only be in designated smoking areas [/I]


The topic of refillables is a huge point of contention in Europe, for example. Again, please do pay attention.
--------> I am ignoring anything outside of the USA, call me an isolationist if you want

And online sales could be disallowed. An online vendor can't be 100% sure that a buyer is of legal age, after all. That's just one way a de-facto or near-enough-to a ban could be implemented.

[I]--------> There are means of Age verification online, its not a huge hurdle if it comes to that. I don't think they will attempt to ban Internet sales on that basis, or rather that it would stick. Third part age verification has been done before.[/I]

The local battles aren't divorced from the larger one; if enough local bans go through, and if the aggressive misinformation campaign succeeds, then the FDA will be emboldened.
--------> I don't see the FDA as swung by public opinion as much as you do. I do think they work with science, and I do think they entirely hate Big Tobacco and won't go attempt to give E-Cigs to them. I find that suggestion laughable. Local bans, stuff like New York is entirely where the problem is right now. The CASAA explanation of the FDA could do, is not grounded in the law. Its FUD

Congress has foreclosed the removal of tobacco products that have been on the market since prior to 2007. Per the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, every tobacco product introduced after that point must undergo a lengthy review process by the FDA. And as Kristin noted, the FDA is way, way behind in their approval process already. The point of confusion here seem to be that e-cigs haven't yet been deemed as tobacco products. E-cig products introduced since 2007 are presently on the market without having been reviewed, but only because they are not yet officially tobacco products, under the law.

But they can and most likely will be deemed as tobacco products, officially, by the FDA, in the near future. Whether the FDA will then punish the e-cig industry to the fullest extent of FDA's considerable powers under the law is an open question. They may very well back off, but I ain't holding my breath for that.

--------> I have done more research, and just to be clear, again, the FDA has accept the court ruling in the Sottera victory, and agree it can only regulate E-Cigs via the Tobacco Act. CASAA on other suggesting that the E-Cig has changed since its introduction is debatable. A coil vaporizing a liquid, available to inhale. Its been the same for years, who cares if the wicks are on top or not. Its the same device. Saying that every product must go through some sort of new Drug testing is false, wrong, and if you don't agree with that, is pure rank speculation on something that has not been proposed.

For your review:
FDA published a letter to stakeholders on its website conceding defeat in the e-cigarette litigation and announcing that it planned to regulate e-cigarettes as tobacco products. FDA must now go through a rule-making procedure and promulgate a regulation on e-cigarettes. Specifically, the Tobacco A ct requires the Secretary to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register, pro- vide a comment period of not less than 60 days, and then: (A) if the Secretary determines that the standard would be appropriate for the protection of the public health, promulgate a regulation establishing a tobacco product standard and publish in the Federal Register find- ings on the matters referred to in subsec- tion (c); or (B) publish a notice terminating the proceeding for the development of the standard together with the reasons for such termination

We are suggesting that you do not understand the law as it is currently written. Whether the law will withstand court scrutiny is another question. I can certainly hope that the court will support our opposition to any FDA effort to ban (explicitly or in effect) e-cigarettes, but your mocking tone is unwarranted given the evidence at hand.
-----> The FDA has not tried to ban E-Cigs, they specifically are precluded to by the Tobacco Act which is the legal mechanism that is giving them the power to do anything. They can not ban Tobacco products. CASAA various claims they can, is wrong. The proclamations of doom of what the FDA can do, is being offered as fact, heck they have not even published what they think they can do. And the Tobacco act is largely working on marketing of a legal product, and specifically prohibited from banning it. The letter of the law Does Matter. FUD is not evidence.

It's a no-lose situation for Big Tobacco. They aren't our active antagonists; they're just poised to benefit at our expense.
------> Oh no, big Ta back Oh. Sure they will survive. (see cockroaches). The FUD about regulations is killing everyone is out of business is not supported by the Tobacco Act. IF they attempt they will have a judge slap them down, again. I tend to think they will not want that to happen. But there is no regulation at all yet, its just FUD.


No one disagrees that local bans should be opposed.

------> Analysis indicates that the threats of the FDA are hugely overblown, hyped, and largely ignorant of what the FDA is able to do after the huge court loss, and the ability of the Tobacco Act itself. The Tobacco Act PROHIBITS THE BANNING OF TOBACCO products. The E Cig is unchanged in function, its an electric coil vaporizing a liquid....its all the same if you uses a Cart or a Clearomizer. CASAA has published and responded with a bunch of what I consider rank hyperbole about what could happen. Much of which is simply FUD and hyperbole.

The problem of usage bans and classification by cities and States is the true problem. And its a problem which is being lost on lots of fronts.

The point of the thread is nothing is to be gained by jumping up and down on what the FDA may try to do in 2014, and go into effect in 2015 or who knows how many years with court challenges......the usage bans are happening now.....and fight is the problem....its not the FDA. Why not wait until the FDA does something....at this rate it could be years before they do anything......the Government shutdown has delayed the FDA in 2013.

The battle is going on usage bans, sadly its being lost, perhaps because of lack of focus.....stop the doomsday prepping on the FDA......if doomsday is coming you will have 60 days at least to talk it on over in public hearings, read the law, and get down to reality. The FDA can NOT ban E-Cigs under the Tobacco Act, its the letter of the law

IF all else fails read the Subject line of this thread

 

[Jay-dub]

Well as Godshall describes the people working on the stuff, did not consider him all that much and wanted to get out of there. The consequences of Godshall proclaiming to D.C. that E-Cigs are the best smoking cessation device to date, and APVs are even better.....is not going to be anything much.

And definitely nothing because the FDA has not done anything yet. But CASAA sending up people to D.C. to tell lawmakers and Fed Agencies that E-Cigs are cessation devices and therefore by settled law acknowledge by everyone, entirely controllable by the FDA.....the WRONG thing to do.

The FDA is hamstrung by all of the existing laws, supported by the Supreme Court, that if the FDA rules that E-Juice is a Tobacco product the CAN NOT ban it. Maybe wait for the FDA to say what they will, and instead focus on some places saying that E-Cigs must only be used where Smokers can smoke.....Talk about a way to get people to start up again.
The title of this thread still applies.

FWIW, I think your doing a service by slaughtering sacred cows. I've been disheartened by the "group think" of ECF's and CASAA's culture from day one. People like you are a necessary tether, or helpful point of reference, that can help alleviate the oneupmanship that often causes a group or culture to become increasingly radical.

@DC2
Slow your role? LOL! I think it's healthy for you established members to get knocked back down to earth once in a while. You all tend to think your opinions are passed down from on high.

 

[DC2]

We don't know what these regulations will be, and they all have to be bounded by the Tobacco Act which has limitation built within it. The hardware side is outside of the scope. You will be able to buy them alongside of [moderated] forever, and elsewhere.

"(rr) (1) The term '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).

I have done more research, and just to be clear, again, the FDA has accept the court ruling in the Sottera victory, and agree it can only regulate E-Cigs via the Tobacco Act. CASAA on other suggesting that the E-Cig has changed since its introduction is debatable. A coil vaporizing a liquid, available to inhale. Its been the same for years, who cares if the wicks are on top or not. Its the same device. Saying that every product must go through some sort of new Drug testing is false, wrong, and if you don't agree with that, is pure rank speculation on something that has not been proposed.

Read this thread about substantial equivalence...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ing-why-deeming-reg-would-ban-all-e-cigs.html

You might find this very interesting as well, as it touches on both of the above issues...
FDA targets custom cigarette rolling papers

The proclamations of doom of what the FDA can do, is being offered as fact, heck they have not even published what they think they can do.

You are incorrect...
The FDA & Deeming Regulations of E-cigarettes

The problem of usage bans and classification by cities and States is the true problem.

Who the .... do you think has been leading the charge against all of the usage bans?