FDA Congress can stop this thing?
- Thread starter Jman8
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
YW -- He's a smart man..thinks with common sense. That $3.60 that goes to state taxes on cigarettes per pack is the whole reasoning behind all this regulation crap and not THE CHILDREN. Anyone that can't see this point is blind imo.
You may want to read this thread on my conversation with Senator Isakson's Legislative Assistant for the HELP committee. Basically, in politics there is little that is a "certainty" but on this issue, a change in the senate leaderships almost assuredly would help our cause. It most definitely would not hurt it:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ons-legislative-assistant-help-committee.html
I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they plan on doing just that, when the time comes.
I wonder how much time between when the final rule is published and it goes to Congress for approval?
Your other thread is highly relevant to this thread, and parts of it deserve to be quoted here. But do wish to say that the partisan stuff that occurred there won't be tolerated here as much, as I am OP and really just don't care for a political point if it can't be tied to vaping (directly) within 2 to 3 posts.
Anyway, you provided the link, so I'm going to provide the quotes.
So fair to say (part of) Congress is not in favor of FDA taking any action relative to electronic cigarettes.
For me, this is the biggest take away. It is possibly first time I've heard anyone at national level, with authority, express this.
It does make me want to (again) write my own state's congresspeople and see if they have this awareness and share the concern. Also seems like the sort of thing that a CTA is ripe for. To have many ECF'ers writing and getting as many as possible known to us who do share this concern.
What I said in post #18 of this thread would be where I would be headed with this, and is part of the reason I hesitate in writing. I'd want to mention moving the grandfather date, but hold off writing at all, because I feel like that is so underplayed in the vaping community that I feel like I'd be possibly barking up wrong tree. For me, it is the most viable tree, but the idea of 'kill the bill' is more tempting to go for and seems to be getting slightly more play at this time.
If I and say 5 other people go to FDA and say do this or that, they have default rhetoric of "sorry, we are not legally permitted to do so." But if x amount of congress people started saying, "either we kill this or you move the grandfather date," then we are talking about a different game. Or as I like the chess analogy, we'd be putting FDA into check on this issue (but not checkmate).
And yet, the most spoken about strategy at this point is: a) delay comment period and b) delay FDA action enough until there is change in Congress and hope for the best. I honestly do not like this more than what I mentioned above as "most viable," but as this one leads to "kill the bill" it is hard to take a firm stance against it.
Even more reason to write to own Congresspeople. Currently shows up to many ECFers, and I would guess most in vaping community, that we don't have Congress in our corner. Likely Burr, probably Alexander, and now Isakson. Perhaps other congresspeople are known to other citizens, but would be nice for us simple laypeople to know as we fret daily about what FDA will surely be doing very soon. Yet, can't really do if Congress speaks up and expresses their concern with what FDA is up to in light of FSPTCA that Congress came up with.
CASAA has directly hinted at this as overarching strategy going forward. So writing is on the wall really. But I do wonder if writing ought to be on the forum. We have CASAA forum for this, and perhaps ought to have place where not all 'visitors' eyes' can see what we are up to. At same time, I'm thinking it is better to stay open on this and let the other side feel the frantic part of this, realizing that both at national and state level they have very visible and vocal opposition that will stand up to the deceptive campaign they are clearly waging.
Another type of hearing in DC would be great. One that speaks to THR as front and center issue. And one that has umpteen small business vendors expressing their legitimate concerns to national and federal personnel so that isn't so easily downplayed by our opposition. Yet, this is ultimately up to Congress and/or media to bring this to forefront.
Second biggest take away for me, even while I have serious concerns about how it could play out.
My concern is why go for cessation claims (only) when THR and significant reduction in smoking are truth for most vapers and don't dance on line that some vapers rather not dance on?
My takeaway and like for this is to hear as many people as possible nationally who express that eCigs worked (to reduce/stop smoking). The more the merrier, and the more that are in Congress, the better.
As much as I have been vocally optimistic since 4/24/14, I do have issues with the 'hurry up and wait' approach. Wait for comments to be extended, which you may not know about until 2 weeks before the comment period ends, and wait for midterm elections to change things and eliminate our concerns, which you may never know about until next people in Congress tell us what their position is exactly. When all FDA has to do is establish regulatory framework that has already been proposed. I feel confident that if I had been expressing the 'hurry up and wait' approach with these 2 specifics in mind during the week or two after 4/24/14, it would have lead to harsh criticism as something to hang our hat on. But if Bill G. or Isakson say it, suddenly it is a viable option and seemingly no criticism warranted about that strategy going forward. I dunno what to say on this really as it gives support to the optimistic position and I'm all cool with that.
Said what I needed to say above this quote, and with this one just wish to reiterate my appreciation to wv2win for communicating with Isakson's staff, sharing that with us, and contributing to a new way of understanding this significant issue going forward.
The one thing every vaper should know, as they should have been told dozens of times by now, is to contact their representatives.
This should have been going on for years, and should continue, and should never stop until we win.
With that in mind, Jman, I'm not entirely clear on what you are advocating for at this point in time?
This should have been going on for years, and should continue, and should never stop until we win.
With that in mind, Jman, I'm not entirely clear on what you are advocating for at this point in time?
To write Congress urging them to change the grandfather date for vaping products, whereby all products currently on the market can stay on the market (which FDA has already conceded) and do not need to file applications of registration with FDA (which FDA says is necessary based on its understanding of FSPTCA). Regulatory framework would still be established but wouldn't decimate the industry in way we are all thinking it could. Grandfathering would allow 14 million products to stay in the market and be treated as 'okay' under FSPTCA. All small businesses would be able to compete on equal playing field with BT/BV.
Is now the best time for that?
You want an influx of comments from vapers.
A Call To Action.
Asking Congress for the opportunity for the FDA to change the Grandfather date is a move that can happen at any time, no need to wait as far as I can see.
So a Call to Action targeting our representatives asking for such might be a good move any time now.
On that I can agree.
Is now the best time for that?
You want an influx of comments from vapers.
A Call To Action.
Asking Congress for the opportunity for the FDA to change the Grandfather date is a move that can happen at any time, no need to wait as far as I can see.
So a Call to Action targeting our representatives asking for such might be a good move any time now.
On that I can agree.
But as noted before, I hesitate because "kill the bill" is a better option and currently seems to have more traction. So, not sure how effective it can be to say "move the grandfather date" when others are saying, "bump that, end FDA's authority on regulating eCigs."
As noted in post #18, I'd rather go for "kill the bill" as if that's what we really want (and might get) and then appear to settle for the grandfather adjustment, which keeps regulatory framework in place. Would kinda be ideal if Congress had this sort of strategy in mind, or at least members of Congress who are willing to step up and oppose those calling for anti-eCig measures.
OK... But are you saying that Somehow the FDA is just Not Going to Do Anything if we All Voice our Opinions Loud Enough?
And just Walk Away and Leave e-Cigarettes and e-Liquids Just how they Are Now?
This is the first chuckle I have had all day!
On a serious note, I see both Jman and DC2's point. At the end of the day, I think asking to change the grandfather date is too big of a concession and the current moment. I think we need a clear message, just not sure what it is?? Except for the CTA's from CASAA. I think now is more than ever, WE ALL need to attend the meetings and send the same message. I will admit, I am 100% guilty of not attending the meetings. This needs to change.
I was Wondering if anyone would Pick Up the Kill Bill reference. LOL
---
I think that for Hardware side, getting the 2007 Date moved up to something a Little More Realistic should be the Highest Priority. And where the Most Amount of Effort should be placed.
As for the e-Liquid side. This to me is what I would Argue why the Comment Period needs to be Extended. Because the FDA has not Adequately Outline what it Proposes to do with e-Liquids. So the Public and e-Liquid Sellers have been Disenfranchised in their Ability to Comment on Something.
How can we Comment on Something the FDA Wants/Plans to Do if we Do Not Know what the FDA Wants/Plans to do?
The FDA doesn't pass bills, they just write regulations.
Congress would have to propose a bill to negate the regulations and pass it with a big enough majority to override a presidential veto. Tough road to hoe as most in congress have no idea or care what the FDA is even proposing. We're going to have a whole lot of contacting and convincing of congress to pull it off.
I'm not sure where you are getting this. I said urge Congress to get involved, to kill the bill. FDA didn't come up with FSPTCA and has admitted they don't have any input in changing its legality.
Bill Godshall and many others have said that a change in Congress or involvement by Congress could eliminate what FDA is up to with regards to eCigs. I'm curious if you have posed similar inquiry to Bill G, and if not, why not?
I'm not firmly in this camp of kill the bill as I see regulations of eCigs as inevitable, and have already stated what I would advocate for with regards to getting Congress involved.
If not addressing the only question I asked in this post, please refrain from addressing me on this thread given recent dialogue we've had where you dismissed what I had to say. Thank you.
I think changing the grandfather date is the most sensible thing moving forward. I'm yet to hear something that I consider more sensible, but am open to what that could be.
Changing the grandfather date comes from FDA as a plausible alternative.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
