FDA Zeller on E-Cigs: It's Complicated

[Katya]

You are right! That is the sticking point. E-cigs don't fit in. The FDA and BP DO NOT want an alternative product. In their mind, the consequence is less people "quitting". Less people using approved methods. This is ALL resistance due to philosophy rather than substance. Those who have switched have not quit (in their mind). It is still the quit or die mentality as far as I'm concerned. E-cigs keep us on nicotine, they don't want that. The perfect storm is already in place! smoke,, then NRT, smoke then NRT.........with e-cigs involved, its NO smoke and NO NRT. They will lie and cheat to defend this!

Err.. not quite. It's now OK to smoke and use NRT. Dual use and child-friendly flavorings are, apparently, only problematic when it comes to e-cigarettes.

Nicotine Replacement Therapy Labels May Change

The changes that FDA is allowing to these labels reflect the fact that although any nicotine-containing product is potentially addictive, decades of research and use have shown that NRT products sold OTC do not appear to have significant potential for abuse or dependence.

The changes being recommended by FDA include a removal of the warning that consumers should not use an NRT product if they are still smoking, chewing tobacco, using snuff or any other product that contains nicotine—including another NRT.

"The agency heard from several public health groups that the labeling for OTC NRT products may stop consumers who are trying to quit smoking from using them," says FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D. "FDA hopes the recommended changes will allow more people to use these products effectively for smoking cessation and that tobacco dependence will decline in this country."

 

[DC2]

The problem is, there is always going to be experimenting - by teens and adults - they'll never get rid of that subset - a true subset that they're interpreting at the 'whole population level' (which it isn't) - yet they're staking everything on the idea that they can. They're willing to let the hardcore subset die, in order to try to save those they can't control.

This is a main 'lie' that we have to refute. Zeller is truly stuck on it. And again, it's the 'public good' argument. I know people don't like me conveying it, but he's the one who is saying it - I'm just pointing out what he said. Were it not for that, he seems more than willing to save the hardcore smokers. But for him, that trumps all.

And how can they "save the smokers" while protecting overall public health?
How can they keep former smokers from suddenly picking up these tasty and fun electronic cigarettes?
How can they keep the precious little gems from gravitating to electronic cigarettes or dying from drinking nicotine liquid?

1) Ban flavors
2) Tamper-proof cartridges
3) Eliminate the liquid refill market

All they need to do is ignore the fact that cigalikes don't work for a vast majority of people.
As long as they ignore that fact, they can produce a win/win/win/win situation for everybody except for us.

 

[Kent C]

And how can they "save the smokers" while protecting overall public health?

They can't and that was the point of Zeller's comments which implied they wouldn't. Where is all that 'caring'??

How can they keep former smokers from suddenly picking up these tasty and fun electronic cigarettes?
How can they keep the precious little gems from gravitating to electronic cigarettes or dying from drinking nicotine liquid?

1) Ban flavors
2) Tamper-proof cartridges
3) Eliminate the liquid refill market

All they need to do is ignore the fact that cigalikes don't work for a vast majority of people.
As long as they ignore that fact, they can produce a win/win/win/win situation for everybody except for us.

That just give some details of how I said that 'for him, Zeller, that trumps all'. Basically, those are examples of how he can play his hand. I agree that's one outcome of that type of 'public good' thinking. And like much of that type of thinking, it leaves a large part of the 'public' out of it.

This is the problems with the utilitarian motto (which encompasses 'the public good') - 'The greatest good for the greatest number of people'

1. "good" according to what standard? Which invariably winds up as their own subjective views.
2. How do you measure the greatest good and the greatest number?

The 'philosopher' who was a main proponent, Jeremy Bentham, eventually acknowledged there was no good way to answer either of those questions.


Anyone interested in a deeper explanation:

Jeremy Bentham
Thomas Hodgskin Versus Jeremy Bentham | Libertarianism.org