[...]
SO... it seems that if there is a preponderance of evidence that people do in fact completely switch that the FDA should be our ally, by their own admission.
The next step would be to demonstrate what kinds of devices actually allow or enable people to completely switch, and that the 2007 date does not provide adequate attention to what actually works.
[...]
Jeff, I think you're talking this one statement out of the context of the law. Zeller can say whatever he likes about various scenarios, but the statute imposes limits.
1) The 2007 date is in the law. The FDA can't change it. They can be flexible about their enforcement decisions, but they can't change that date.
2) The FDA can't just approve e-cigs
as a whole. As we've discussed in numerous threads, every single e-liquid has to have its own application. And that's not just for a flavor, it's for a specific nic concentration, bottle size, VG/PG ratio. JC alone would have to fill something like 100 applications for 20 basic types. Equipment is the same deal. Vision and Kanger would each have to file 100s of applications (and registrations), with the studies and other evidence needed to show that
EACH of these products wouldn't have a net negative effect on pubic health. Most of us don't think that's going to happen for either an e-liquid or a piece of equipment. After all, with tobacco cigarettes, they're all different. Marlboro 100s are not Marlboro Kings - two different products, as far as the FDA is concerned.
3) Kent's point about the overall health effects applies to everything, but it's particularly critical for the one kind of setup that
can be approved with a
single application: a cigAlike (in a particular flavor, anyway). So NJOY and LOGIC would have just two applications, I think - one for menthol and one for regular. Blus would have more, but Lorillard could afford it.
However, cigAlikes are primarily favored by dual users. That means they're still smoking tobacco cigarettes. Since about 5% of tobacco cigarette smokers quit every year, that means that dual users of a cigAlike represent a net health
negative, since they are tobacco cigarette smokers who are less likely to quit. The ANTZ no longer recognize the idea that reduced tobacco cigarette smoking means reduced harm (I can give you Siegel's blog post link on that if you want). The FDA probably doesn't either (I suspect this is somewhere in the PDF).
***
There's no question that Zeller's comment might be an embarassment to the FDA if/when all vaping is effectively banned-by-omission (i.e. nothing is ever approved). Although most people seem to think now that they will just never get around to reviewing the applications from BT and Big Vapor. Equally embarassing to the FDA is his past comment:
"Smoke for the nicotine, die from the tar" (some UK prof said that back in the 70s, but I believe either Zeller or the CDC's Frieden repeated it a few years ago).
But that's all these things are ... random and possibly embarassing remarks. They have no bearing on the law.
And as long as cigAlikes are around, they probably aren't even all that embarassing.
