The FDA is a group of Scientists and Doctors, and there are Bureaucrats in their, along with partisans. The FDA is not looking to screw around with people. The attacks on Smokers of Analogs, have been city councils and States, and Mayors like Bloomberg. Besides treating Smokers like leapers, the politicians tax the heck out of it. Not the FDA.
Again, bold emphasis mine after unbolding all that you wrote.
I think you possibly lost your target audience with that bolded part. Akin to me going to another site, let's say the Tea Party forum, and claiming "Obama is not looking to screw around with people." And then following that up with a 1000 word essay in an attempt to support my position that 'they' are all overreacting.
Everyone has their unique take on the FDA and eCig issue, and mine is that the FDA could show up as friend of eCigs whereby we are living in a world that amounts to eCigs being FDA approved. I'm thinking almost all vapers that care about politics of eCigs would celebrate this, and think it is a wonderful thing that they finally came around.
Yet, because of FSPTCA and what that allows for (complete manipulation of tobacco industry), it is challenging to see how FDA isn't screwing around with people. I think there is portion of vapers/vaping community that takes no issue with screwing with traditional cigarettes and sees it only as item of, don't mess with eCigs. Screw BT, but don't mess with my eCig dag nabbit. IMO, those people are misguided and is huge part of reason why we are where we, the vaping community, are today. Win on the tobacco control issue, and you win on the eCig issue. Throw one item (easily the biggest item) under the bus, and prepare for the antis to eventually do the same to all the little items. People need their boogeyman and once BT is seen as slain, then BV (big vapor) will be next on the chopping block.
The FDA did need to take a look at E-Juice when it did, it found out that a minority of producers were putting crap into the Juice, an the public in general thinks of Chinese Juice as not worth the risk, a boom for USA producers to this day. But they went to far, and the Judge smashed back at them.
Hence, you acknowledge they have ability to screw with people, and with eCig industry.
When I have said the Tobacco Act in all past posts, I am refering to the 2009 FSPTCA Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act). This is the mechanism that the FDA will do, or at this rate Punt the ball, for all things E-Cigs. The FDA has said they agree to this, and the will not challenge the Major court case they lost. Those are done deals.
Correct, and I honestly believe that every vaper who sees you as making a molehill out of a mountain wishes you were 100% correct in your logic. Yet, new deals and new attitudes toward eCigs are being formed all the time. New scientific studies coming out and new organizations forming just based entirely on eCig industry. Both for and against that industry. So, here at end of 2013, the 2009 Act is perhaps most relevant. Yet, it is entirely plausible a new Act will come about some point in the future and be looked at the same way we all look at tobacco legislation from the 1950's (read as outdated). And because the world / information exchange works exponentially faster than it did just 15 years ago, I don't think it'll be another 50 years when the new Act is written. More like 3 to 10 years. In the meantime, those who could pass policies anywhere in the US are bound by FSPTCA, and are taking their lead, or sense of authority from whatever that act says both implicitly and explicitly.
Political vapers are arguing / debating and making calls to action based on what it says implicitly. And that language does, implicitly, screw with people and their behaviors.
the Defacto Ban fear is based on wild conjecture, wait, its being offered out as facts of what the FDA is doing, and about to do.
Based on conjecture? Yes. Wild is your unique take on it. But not yours alone. Some of the time, I agree with your view on this, but other times, I do not. When I do not, I am constantly hoping cooler heads will prevail. Yet, some to most of those same heads seem to have no issue manipulating the heck out of BT and screwing with them. That saddens me, as I feel it is misguided.
Most importantly where the FUD from the CASAA misses the mark is its offering as Fact that the FDA can ban E-Cigs. This is purely false, as the FSPTCA explicitly state they can not. To have E-Cigs controlled by the FSPTCA, the FDA has now accepted as their premise that E-Cigs are a Tabacco product, and have formally given up on attempting to control them as any other means, unless they are being offered up as a Cessation device. All E-Cig OEM, and distributors better not claim or market them as such.
And here we agree.
Yet, the counter argument is that FDA will change whatever this golden era is, into whatever is the BT industry today (or tomorrow). Seen optimistically, that means profit can still be made, product is still sold, and people are still discovering / enjoying the wonders of vaping. Seen pessimistically, it means flavors are gone, legal devices are limited, no more online purchases, and usage bans are in full force. I would add, from my own unique take, that it also means shaming eCig users is seen by vast majority as perfectly okay, for shaming (as the story goes) will help your addicted friend/relative see the light and question their dangerous, dirty habit. If we look at how shameful smoking has become, I do believe we aren't too far away from witnessing to similar shaming among vapers, possibly even from fellow vapers (as I can find that right here on ECF).
Here is one example of what is being profered out as just the FACTS.....A post is titled "FDA issues Brief Summary of “Not Substantially Equivalent” Determinations delineating why deeming reg would ban all e-cigs" This is a horribly wrong statement, its misleading, and its nothing more than an amatuerish analysis of law and the regulatory process. It has been deemed by the FDA, as supported by the court, that the FDA can use the FSPTCA on E-Cigs. The regulations are not written, and its not reasonable to suggest and yell FIRE, that this means all E-Cigs will be banned.
Again, we agree.
There it is.....I will respond to the rest in another post. But when I say the CASAA is spreading FUD, where the laws and the products do not fall into this risk they present, I mean it. Group Think is what it is, it happens all the time.
But is happening on all sides of the issue from arguably all organizations, including FDA, as witnessed by their approach to tackling the BT perceived problem.
What I think would be interesting is if
you were put in charge of CASAA and how would you choose to govern the organization. Perhaps not solely in charge, but say as member of the Board. After sharing your diatribe (some of which I definitely agree with) and getting that rant on the table, how would you move an organization such as CASAA forward? And if you'd really rather not answer that because it is CASAA, then pick another group or make up one that deals with the real issue you cited of usage bans. And I truly mean this when I say this, good luck! I'd love to see language you use and words you put together that helps give hope to the vaping community, for how we can win on that rather significant issue. Especially taking into account the idea that there are anti-vapers roaming this planet.
