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

[DC2]

The success of e-cigs will force us to reconsider the place of nicotine in the law and in society, to make room for new nicotine product (including addictive ones). This is one of the most important public health debates in recent decades.

I can only hope that this prediction becomes reality, and it is the direction I am constantly trying to steer my fellow vapers.
The common view of nicotine needs to be changed to be more in line with reality.

I didn't like being demonized for being a smoker, but I'll be damned if I will let anyone demonize me for being a nicotine user.
I am going to fight any such stigmatization whenever and wherever I see it.

And that includes right here on this very forum, where we have new members every day who have been brainwashed by decades of lies.
I am seeing more and more on this forum that we may turn out to be our own worst enemy if we don't educate ourselves.

 

[DC2]

Until I see youtube videos posted by "conscientious objectors" paying the consequences of being obstinate vapists in the face of policy; we're all just a bunch of talkers anyway. We all just want to join some organization so we can pat ourselves on the back for doing are part. Numbers, in terms of the apathetic, benefit no cause.

Some day you are likely to see me.

 

[Jay-dub]

CASAA is not the same as ECF, though it was founded by ECF members and they are still very active here. The shield is for making an annual contribution to ECF, I think I put in like $25. I also contribute to CASAA but that does not show up ANYWHERE. So far that money goes mostly to support the high-bandwidth website and some goes to research.

Since they are not the same, you have to learn to manipulate your signature etc to get any CASAA stuff onto your ECF posts. Same if you want Bugs Bunny or the moon.

Joining CASAA consists of signing up on the web site and giving an email address and letting them know which state or states you want to be active in. Default is your home state, but Ol' Codgers with RV's and grandchildren all over the country sometimes sign up for more states.

There is very little email from CASAA -- you get a Call to Action every once in awhile if something is going on in your state that needs attention. For big states, this means I got maybe 4 emails in the last few months, only half of which were relevant to me, since I'm not going to get involved with things in L.A. If you're in a small state, things will be relevant.

Typically City Councils are offended by phone calls and email from out-of-state, they feel you are trying to interfere in the lives of their local constitutents. I only respond to states or cities I sometimes travel to and/or shop in, and I say so in my letters so they know I'm not randomly overreaching.

Helping out with a local Call to Action is important if you can do ANYTHING. We have sometimes lost and heard "My office didn't get a single phone call on this" from some council members. We have sometimes won and heard "We got XXXX phone calls/letters on this."
We have sometimes lost no matter what we do, but even then, we've changed the vote from 5-0 against us to 3-2 against us, which means we are educating people, and means our supporters are on record where we can find them to support THEM next election.

So don't wait until you have money, all you need is an email addy.

Very nice post. You've provided the most convincingly reasonable argument for the cause that I've witnessed since joining the forum. In doing so you've also provided a good example of how to be an asset and earn that pat on the back. I'm on a 501-C4 as V.P. so it's not like I'm against action. That was actually my problem. I didn't see how just existing as a member was being active. Our group has a majority of members that are always "busy" when it comes to volunteering for the communal causes we seek to forward. Their membership is more for their own social benefit. Since I've been frustrated with that situation for a few years now I didn't want to be the same as them by just joining an organization in name only.

 

[tombaker]

yea but you miss the point big time.......they can regulate it to the point it is handed over to big tobacco, which might as well be banning it Bolded for emphasis.

Someone please move this thread.

Great example of News that the Sky is falling, with a bit of duck you head in the sand when you read something that you don't understand.

The FDA lost a big case, and it can not just go about doing what it wants to do. Did you read the ruling? http://electroniccigarettespot.com/...m-opinion-ruling-on-preliminary-injunctions-i You should. President is big where laws and courts come from....and the FDA has not turned this president away now, has it?

The government already defines E-Cigs as a Tobacco free product. https://web.archive.org/web/2013102......./smokeless-tobacco-nicotine-products.html They do have concerns about how they are marketed. Complete solution is not to market it as a smoking cessation device. Your done. Don't market E-Juice with medical claims moves it fairly out of regulations.

The batteries, mods, carts, clearomizers, can not be stopped as devices being sold. That is a done deal.

The disposable E-cig all in ones, sold at Costco and other places, is the perfect example of what the FDA could do the most to regulate. They will go after that, before they go after E-Liquid. Heck the new V2 carts will have liquid and a window in it to see the juice, so these have all the risks of everything the FDA can do or not do. We should be able to agree there.

So we have the your WORSE CASE scenerio,for your imaginary theory that big bad evil Tobacco will come in, and scorch the earth. Great! What does that mean?

1. What would the world look like if Big Tobacco comes in. What would happen?
2. Would they stop the selling of all E-Cigs?
3. Would they change the law so that Nicotine Gum and Patches are illegal and can not be sold without a doctor? Last I checked I can go to the grocery store to get those.

What on earth is your Big emphasis added big big big of Big Tobacco doomsday scenario?

Please explain your Big Tabasco fears, use the Disposable pen E-Cig as case in point......thanks for sharing in advance.

 

[tombaker]

Trust me, there will be cooperation among the larger e-cig vendors to fight this. Might not sound like much but we have $800,000 saved for litigation and have talked to 8 other vendors all using the same attorneys. Together, we should have enough money to go to Federal District Court and the Federal Appellate Court. Between us we should have $6 million for legal fees. All is not lost.

Actually 800K sounds like a HUGE number to me, quite impressive. If I was a business it would be a firm like yours I would want to do business, you will be around even if a storm comes.

I have heard of forms of business insurance for legal matters. For example you can buy insurance to protect against patent disputes. A small company can fend off a huge competitor, with this type of insurance for litigation. I wonder if a group of firms like yours could buy into a plan that would enable protection from potential future legal matters related to government regulation.

 

[DC2]

The FDA lost a big case, and it can not just go about doing what it wants to do. Did you read the ruling? http://electroniccigarettespot.com/...m-opinion-ruling-on-preliminary-injunctions-i You should.

If you knew who you were talking to, you would find that as hilarious as I do.

I hope Mr. Conley comes back and replies to you in greater detail as I look forward to what he has to say.
There is a slight possibility that you may have brought up some valid points that nobody before you has ever thought of.

Anyway, as for who Placebo Effect is, his is the last biography in the following link...
CASAA Board of Directors

I assure you he has done a lot more than just read Judge Leon's decision.

 

[Eric A. Blair]

Actually 800K sounds like a HUGE number to me, quite impressive. If I was a business it would be a firm like yours I would want to do business, you will be around even if a storm comes.

I have heard of forms of business insurance for legal matters. For example you can buy insurance to protect against patent disputes. A small company can fend off a huge competitor, with this type of insurance for litigation. I wonder if a group of firms like yours could buy into a plan that would enable protection from potential future legal matters related to government regulation.

Tom, I hope that the enemy (big gubmint, big Pharma and big alphabet soup non profits) believe your misguided thesis.

 

[Sundodger]

I like the ECF to much to even start replying to this entire Fairytail that is being posted by the OP. Everyone involved in the government, BP, BT has lied to us smokers, tobacco users for years. And to think that they will willingly come to our side without draconian regs is beyond reason to me.
To much money involved for them to have our health in mind.
And to the OP look up the equivalency part of what the FDA can consider as to what is legal/allowed. It covers just about anything that is a real help to us trying to get off cigarettes, away from BT, BP. I wish I was better at words, but I'm not. What I really would like to say would earn me demeanor points, so I'm done.

 

[Berylanna]

I like the ECF to much to even start replying to this entire Fairytail that is being posted by the OP. Everyone involved in the government, BP, BT has lied to us smokers, tobacco users for years. And to think that they will willingly come to our side without draconian regs is beyond reason to me.
To much money involved for them to have our health in mind.
And to the OP look up the equivalency part of what the FDA can consider as to what is legal/allowed. It covers just about anything that is a real help to us trying to get off cigarettes, away from BT, BP. I wish I was better at words, but I'm not. What I really would like to say would earn me demeanor points, so I'm done.

The OP had 2 valid points IMO, and worth posting.

1. We need to fight at the local level, BIG TIME. Should we worry about the FDA? Sure. But they're not the whole story.
2. Some of the laws concerning nicotine regulation MIGHT be usable in court on our side. If we get the right judges. If nobody passes new laws at the FDA's request. If the court battles are won in time to save our favorite vendors.

So both sides of this discussion are relevant and useful, I just would not take any ONE person's post as the whole story.

They say "It takes a village to raise a child." I think "I takes a populace to save a world." Dictatorship and ideology and patriarchy and oligarcy and the current Corporate-archy all have in common one very destructive thing. Too many eyes, ears, and minds get left out, and our Spaceship Earth's problems are way too complicated to be solved by any ONE viewpoint, or even a few dozen, which is all you get when you have thousands or millions of people but the people are only LISTENING to a few dozen viewpoints.

 

[Sundodger]

The OP had 2 valid points IMO, and worth posting.

1. We need to fight at the local level, BIG TIME. Should we worry about the FDA? Sure. But they're not the whole story.

We need to fight at the local level, not just for what affects us, or we believe in, but what is just right, what makes sense. We need to pay attention to everything going on around us to assure that what we don't care about today isn't something we care about tomorrow.

2. Some of the laws concerning nicotine regulation MIGHT be usable in court on our side. If we get the right judges. If nobody passes new laws at the FDA's request. If the court battles are won in time to save our favorite vendors.

Sorry, to many ifs for me.

So both sides of this discussion are relevant and useful, I just would not take any ONE person's post as the whole story.

I agree, it's just the history of how the government and it's useful tools work that worries me. Once you get burned on a hot stove you should learn not to lean on it, it seems many never learn that lesson.


They say "It takes a village to raise a child." I think "I takes a populace to save a world." Dictatorship and ideology and patriarchy and oligarcy and the current Corporate-archy all have in common one very destructive thing. Too many eyes, ears, and minds get left out, and our Spaceship Earth's problems are way too complicated to be solved by any ONE viewpoint, or even a few dozen, which is all you get when you have thousands or millions of people but the people are only LISTENING to a few dozen viewpoints.

I couldn't agree more. But.....the grand illusion of most people is that today it doesn't matter to me, or, I can make a difference for the next one thousand years if I stand up to something that doesn't really matter today.
I've worked all over the world at power plants. Nukes, dirt burners, NG, diesel, hydro's, everything but woodburners, one thing is always present, WE want electricity here and now, but we don't want the pollution and the overhead wires, just get us the electricity. Can't have it all folks. Everyone needs to give a little to take a little, or it just doesn't work out for any of us.

Well that didn't work out well, sorry, will try and fix.

 

[Berylanna]

I couldn't agree more. But.....the grand illusion of most people is that today it doesn't matter to me, or, I can make a difference for the next one thousand years if I stand up to something that doesn't really matter today.
I've worked all over the world at power plants. Nukes, dirt burners, NG, diesel, hydro's, everything but woodburners, one thing is always present, WE want electricity here and now, but we don't want the pollution and the overhead wires, just get us the electricity. Can't have it all folks. Everyone needs to give a little to take a little, or it just doesn't work out for any of us.

Well that didn't work out well, sorry, will try and fix.

I agree that nothing is guaranteed either way. I've been burned and seen folks burned and seen the good guys win too. (It comes of being old......) I remember Martin Luther King. I'm seeing some very destructive laws passed by both the right and the left. Some days I have to cover my eyes. But not all days.

I just want to hear "we got XXX calls on this matter" next time I go to a legislative meeting to make our case.

 

[Jman8]

The real risk is what New York just did….that is the area to fight, worry not about the FDA.
------
1. There is a difference of Vaping and selling electronic cigarettes. The FDA is concerned about how drugs are presented to the populous, as they should. There is no reason to Market E-Cigs as a smoking cessation device. It crosses lines for zero benefit. It is obvious enough of a relationship where they don't need to make marketing claims. The key is marketing claims.

This portion right here from OP is what I like most about OP.

First time I heard about politics of eCigs and FDA was 1.5 years ago, which would've been about 1.5 years after first major scare within vaping community. Since hearing about it, it has been fear mongering galore, first with April 2013 (and many vapers stockpiling out of fear of ban), then Oct. 2013 (when you really need to stockpile) and then last estimate I heard was for sure, absolutely by Dec. 2013. Time is a ticking, and in 5 days, not only will it no longer be December, it'll be another year, with I'm sure more months that will be deemed as 'this is for sure the time to be ultra concerned about eCigs and liquid nicotine being banned by the FDA.'

Fact is, someday it may prove to be true, but second fact is, there wasn't a need to be all out worried when we were told to be all out worried about future of eCigs by the big bad FDA.

I too think the biggest risk, right now, is public banning like what was recently done in NYC, by local government. I don't think it is overall the biggest issue, but it is the one that even a portion of the vaping community (right here on ECF) will go along with. Those willing to go along see it as matter of public courtesy, respect and/or common sense on how vapers ought to conduct themselves in public. And they SEEM TO neglect that this is a very very significant move in the scheme of things. Arguably, as OP is suggesting, the biggest concern that faces the vaping community anytime real soon.

I also recall when I first got into vaping, and before I was aware of FDA political hoopla thinking it is simply not wise for any vaping vendor or vaping organization to promote vaping as a product that will lead to smoking cessation. Word of mouth from us consumers can handle this. On one hand, I very much wish for vaping to be marketed in print, on radio, online and in TV ads, but on the other hand, for me to get into vaping, none of that was necessary. Word of mouth is decent enough going forward, to save the lives of many smokers.

Ideally, it is marketed way more than it is now, but IMO, it is not necessary and I have always thought of it as 'asking for trouble' to position vaping as 'answer to the problem of smoking.' How any vaping vendor or pro-vaping organization doesn't see that as asking for trouble is bizarre to me. And by trouble, I mean, go in that direction if you feel it is absolutely right thing to do, but realize there will absolutely, undeniably be people (authorities) that wish for that message to be regulated if there is money to be made from products that are said to offer that benefit.

I see it as simply not necessary as way to market eCigs. The message will get out regardless of restrictions placed on marketers / advertisers.

Fortunately, from point I started vaping until today, that sort of advertising has greatly dissipated. I'd like to believe it has completely disappeared and all vaping vendors are selling eCig related items as item that stands on its own and needs no comparison, whatsoever, to traditional smoking. I don't know if that is true though. If it is not, I still think it is asking for trouble. And that 2014 will be about making sure that disappears from all such eCig marketing campaigns.

As I understand things, FDA is set up to control the message of legitimacy of eCigs, while local/state governments will possibly be that which seeks bans of some sort, starting with where you shouldn't be doing this, and shaming those who dare to exhale vapor in the presence of other humans.

 

[kristin]

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 recreatational 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.

Great example of News that the Sky is falling, with a bit of duck you head in the sand when you read something that you don't understand.

The FDA lost a big case, and it can not just go about doing what it wants to do. Did you read the ruling? http://electroniccigarettespot.com/...m-opinion-ruling-on-preliminary-injunctions-i You should. President is big where laws and courts come from....and the FDA has not turned this president away now, has it?

The government already defines E-Cigs as a Tobacco free product. https://web.archive.org/web/2013102......./smokeless-tobacco-nicotine-products.html They do have concerns about how they are marketed. Complete solution is not to market it as a smoking cessation device. Your done. Don't market E-Juice with medical claims moves it fairly out of regulations.

The batteries, mods, carts, clearomizers, can not be stopped as devices being sold. That is a done deal.

The disposable E-cig all in ones, sold at Costco and other places, is the perfect example of what the FDA could do the most to regulate. They will go after that, before they go after E-Liquid. Heck the new V2 carts will have liquid and a window in it to see the juice, so these have all the risks of everything the FDA can do or not do. We should be able to agree there.

So we have the your WORSE CASE scenerio,for your imaginary theory that big bad evil Tobacco will come in, and scorch the earth. Great! What does that mean?

1. What would the world look like if Big Tobacco comes in. What would happen?
2. Would they stop the selling of all E-Cigs?
3. Would they change the law so that Nicotine Gum and Patches are illegal and can not be sold without a doctor? Last I checked I can go to the grocery store to get those.

What on earth is your Big emphasis added big big big of Big Tobacco doomsday scenario?

Please explain your Big Tabasco fears, use the Disposable pen E-Cig as case in point......thanks for sharing in advance.

 

[NorthOfAtlanta]

Watching some NIMBY stuff here, the county built a nice indoor swimming facility too close to an upscale subdivision and you should hear them complaining about the noise from the dehumidifiers. I guess I should complain about my neighbors noisey air conditioner, if it's quiet outside and I'm in the back yard I can hear it sometimes.

 

[2coils]

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 recreatational 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.

Thanks Kristin! I was hoping you would chime in with some clarity, as I am not that savvy in regard to speaking of these things yet!

 

[patkin]

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-let-fda-give-e-cig-industry-big-tobacco.html

 

[tombaker]

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-let-fda-give-e-cig-industry-big-tobacco.html

Great we have now a half-cocked unfactual and legally backwards and dangerous representation being offered up by CASAA via Godshall

Godshall says "I showed all of them 4 different cigalikes, 4 different mods/APVs and a 10ml bottle of e-liquid, and pointed out that the APVs and e-liquid are far superior to cigalikes for smoking cessation and for reducing cigarette consumption, and that FDA regs would ban all or virtually all e-liquid products (and perhaps APVs as well).

1. There are no FDA regs written or proposed to ban "virtually all e-liquid" Its just Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, FUD. Plus such a proposal would have all sorts of legal failures, its would not be a fait accompli.
2. APVs and E-Cigs are just as equal to each other to end goal effect (whatever goal) There is no difference. An suggest otherwise it simply a personal preference, which in no way characterizes all preference. Shooting from the hip, next words might as well be a stick shift sports car is so much better than an automatic transmission.

3. And Worst of All: Godshall is now pitching that APVs (and E-Cigs) are smoking cessation devices, aimed and intended for such. What in the world does this guy think he is doing. The exact marketing danger for regulations that needs to be avoided. What a hazard and F-up. Why? Its not hard to follow folks.

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.

 

[Berylanna]

Great we have now a half-cocked unfactual and legally backwards and dangerous representation being offered up by CASAA via Godshall

You are missing so drastically much context here that it is impossible to know where to start, so I won't.

 

[DC2]

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.

The only people who can NOT call them smoking cessation devices are the vendors.
Anyone else can call them smoking cessation devices all day long and there is nothing the FDA can do about it.

 

[williebb123]

Thanks for your thoughts! Unfortunately, greed, self interest, and politics often drive laws that defy logic.

I think one of the largest risks would be a ban on internet sales of nicotine. This one keeps me up at night. It's doubtful we'll see an all out ban on nicotine, but they could very well regulate the way we buy it.

An Internet ban on nicotine would drastically change the landscape of vaping as we know it today. Big tobacco would certainly be the winners in this scenario, since they already have the necessary supply chain needed to supply American vapers in the event an Internet ban were to happen. For me, this would be a worst case scenario... no more buying from my favorite vendors, since none of them are within driving distance.

i feel your fear but we the public can be slimey just like the politicians if internet ban is in place i feel telephone orders may fill the void hehe