This should be good, the FDA is going to study how effective they are being in TC

[rothenbj]

FDA to study effect of tobacco rules on smokers | Reuters

"U.S. health regulators said on Thursday they will follow the behavior and health of 40,000 smokers aged 12 and older to study the effects of new tobacco regulations."

"The FDA said almost 70 million Americans aged 12 and older used tobacco products in 2010, and cigarette smoking results in 443,000 deaths in the United States each year."

My initial thoughts are that the 666² number never seems to change regardless of what the FDA does and are they studying smokers or tobacco/nicotine users? Supposedly 45m people smoke (around 20%) but they quote in the article 70m tobacco users (12 and over). Are there that many kids using tobacco or are there that many adults using smokeless instead of smoking.

My final thought is I'm sure they don't include those "pharma grade" nictine users as they do e cig users.

 

[PVPuff&Stuff]

At least they're not hiding it anymore, I suppose.

Always knew that the increasingly strict laws and taxes on cigarettes were about social engineering, and never for a second about health issues.

 

[Stubby]

"The results will strengthen FDA's ability to fulfill our mission to make tobacco-related death and disease part of America's past," FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said in a statement.

Sounds like prohibition

The FDA said the results will help it better tailor regulations to inform people about the risks of tobacco products.

Trying to read between the lines on this one. Doesn't really make sense. Does this mean the FDA will better tailor regulations to inform people on the risk of different tobacco products, or just lump them all together and say no tobacco product is safe and we don't care which one you do because baby jesus cries every time you use what ever your using you dirty addict.

Oh well...... time will tell.

 

[rothenbj]

"Sounds like prohibition"

It also doesn't sound like a goal that will be in the best interests of a country that is having a difficult time making dollars last, unless they keep printing them. Let's look at the reality. Without tobacco related death, we have longer term, longer health care expenses, longer social security expenses all weighting down the economy. To truly eliminate "tobacco" related death you need to eliminate smoking. The only way the FDA will ever fulfill that mission is convince every smoker to quit or find an equally satisfying alternative. There's has been no indication they are willing to consider that unless it is a pharma grade alternative. Finally the only way to replace the government funding that comes out of cigarette taxes is find an alternative area where they can tax SIN.


"Trying to read between the lines on this one. Doesn't really make sense. Does this mean the FDA will better tailor regulations to inform people on the risk of different tobacco products........"

Relative risk in this discussion has, well, never been part of the discussion as far as the FDA is concerned. Hamburg is not a safe alternative to traditional FDA BS.

 

[Vocalek]

Left this comment:

The drop in smoking prevalence in 2010 coincides with a growth spurt in the electronic cigarette industry. Many smokers who switched to e-cigarettes are now smoke-free for a year, 2 years, and even 3 years. The powers-that-be (e.g., the FDA) refuse to admit that their nicotine abstinence approach is unworkable for a majority of smokers. Smoke-free products such as snus (low-nitrosamine, spit-free, moist snuff), dissolvable orbs, and e-cigarettes are working well as acceptable replacements for deadly cigarette smoke--among people who understand that these products are less hazardous than smoking. Yet the government insists on warning labels for smokeless tobacco that are untrue and discourage smokers from switching. An article published in the journal Tobacco Control described focus groups with smokers to explore attitudes about snus: "Participants were skeptical [sic] of the idea that snus was safer than cigarettes and did not see it as an acceptable substitute for cigarettes or as a cessation aid." Of course they were skeptical. They have been systematically misled about product safety. Research shows that modern smokeless tobacco products do not cause mouth cancer or gum disease; however smoking does cause these diseases and many others. All these alternatives eliminate the smoking-related risk of lung disease, reduce risk of all types of cancer, and cardiovascular disease. Let's try providing truthful information to the public and see what happens then.

 

[Uma]

Wow, I'm surprised they could find 40,000 smokers who still have homes and jobs. They must be self employed or something.
For a real down to earth study, they'd have to go out into the streets where they've thrown all the left over tobacco addicts who haven't yet switched over to eCigs.

 

[rolygate]

@Uma
Funny --

 

[rolygate]

"The results will strengthen FDA's ability to fulfill our mission to make tobacco-related death and disease part of America's past," FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said in a statement.

I would call this the final definition of irony. The FDA have never had the slightest interest in doing this, indeed they have fought long and hard to stop any moves that would have this result. If, indeed, tobacco related death and disease became a thing of the past, so would their current jobs and their future promised jobs @ Pharma, since their paymasters would go broke. If no NRTs and no chemotherapy drugs are sold, and if no tobacco is sold, who exactly pays for the FDA? And where would their 'extras' come from?

Almost every action the FDA has taken ensures that there will be no threat of any kind to the sales of quit-smoking drugs. That encapsulates the real mission of the FDA.

The FDA said the results will help it better tailor regulations to inform people about the risks of tobacco products.

The FDA have consistently lied about the risks of various tobacco products as that is core to protecting the sales of pharma products. Why would they change now?

 

[bsb111]

Have no proof but believe referenced FDA study is entirely politically motivated - and "results" of said study will eventually become another social engineering tool for big government.

 

[rolygate]

What on earth gives you that idea?

 

[Slickstick]

He does kind of have a point though. Politics is all about who can raise the most money. The Tobacco companies payroll the the FDA.

 

[bsb111]

Excerpt from article: "The joint effort by the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health is the first such study since Congress asked the FDA to regulate tobacco products in 2009." Will choose to believe you are better informed about the FDA than I and would not presume to lecture in any way. But of the 13 or so areas of direct FDA regulation, I believe tobacco products are more politically influenced than perhaps any other area.

For example, the FDA is also charged with regulating dietary supplements. US television advertising is littered with ads promoting weight loss products, usually with the statement that the product has not been evaluated by the FDA. In my opinion most of these products have little benefit other than a placebo effect (just my opinion) but the FDA response to these products is nothing like the response to electronic cigarettes. Why, again my opinion is the political status of tobacco products as stated in the article "since Congress asked the FDA to regulate tobacco products"; emphasis here on "Congress asked".

I also believe that the results of said study will not be quantitatively sound but will also be influenced by political motivations. This forum is perhaps not the appropriate place to continue; but I did want to attempt to answer your question.

 

[DaveP]

The FDA will always have something to do. Big Tobacco does foot some huge bills because of the FDA and they aren't about to derail that engine. Big Pharma is the same game. Lots of money is made on quit smoking products with a tiny effectiveness factor. Even the medicines available don't fix the problem, they just put off the desire until the prescription runs out.

Ecigs are proven, have no deaths associated, and have no recognized health hazards. Why else would they not promote them as effective unless that would dis-associate former methods and their suppliers. Hint!

One of the best things ecigs have going (support of the hand to mouth habit) is also the thing that causes people to look at ecigs as just another way to smoke.

 

[Vocalek]

FDA? Aren't they the folks who screamed "carcinogens" and "antifreeze" in discussing totally harmless quantities of substances in e-cigarette liquid that could have been described as "Tobacco-specific Nitrosamines, also found in pharmaceutical nicotine products in similar quantities" and "a humectant"? And didn't they also forget to mention that they could not find anything at all harmful in the vapor?

Yeah, I trust them!!!

 

[mostlyclassics]

"The results will strengthen FDA's ability to fulfill our mission to make tobacco-related death and disease part of America's past," FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said in a statement.

I'll continue to sign petitions, leave comments, write letters, donate to CASAA, etc. But I think vapers' only long-term hope is to stockpile nic-liquid and (once it reaches a better state of development) vaping hardware. Margaret Hamburg's statement is just more evidence that we're facing ugly times in the not too distant future.

 

[Stubby]

I'll continue to sign petitions, leave comments, write letters, donate to CASAA, etc. But I think vapers' only long-term hope is to stockpile nic-liquid and (once it reaches a better state of development) vaping hardware. Margaret Hamburg's statement is just more evidence that we're facing ugly times in the not too distant future.

Who are you, a damn seller.

That may make you feel better and help you on a personal level but stocking is not a solution to the bigger problem. There are over 45 million people who smoke in the US alone. The great majority of them haven't a clue as to what tobacco harm reduction is about. That's who needs to be educated much more so then hopeless politicians and fake health experts.

Go ahead and stock up if you feel the need, but don't bring it up in this type of discussion as it's just a distraction from the work that needs to be done.