Become a Patron!
FDA response to lawsuits
- Thread starter inspects
- Start date
KentA
VU Donator
Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
ECF Refugee
It is a delaying tactic & to be expected.
There is a slight chance of it succeeding so it's worth a shot by the FDA, but if they can delay these lawsuits, it will drain the plaintiff's resources & scare others away. They are playing for time hoping the vaping industry will wither.
There is a slight chance of it succeeding so it's worth a shot by the FDA, but if they can delay these lawsuits, it will drain the plaintiff's resources & scare others away. They are playing for time hoping the vaping industry will wither.
JuicyLucy
My name is Lucy and I am a squonkaholic
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
ECF Refugee
VU Challenge Team
Member For 5 Years
"Although the FDA recognized that completely switching to e-cigarettes may reduce the risk of tobacco-related disease for individuals currently smoking conventional cigarettes—one of the deadliest products ever brought to market—it found that e-cigarettes still pose a number of significant health and safety risks."
So they discount harm reduction 100% - repeatedly throughout their answer.
"The FDA recognized that, because e-cigarettes are still relatively new to the marketplace, the current evidence is insufficient to answer two key questions about their overall population- level effects on public health. First, it is unclear whether e-cigarettes might help some smokers quit, as Plaintiffs postulate. Although there is “some indication that such products may have the potential to help some individual users to quit using combusted tobacco products or to reduce their use of such products,” “other evidence is to the contrary,” and “some systematic reviews of available evidence indicate that there is currently insufficient data to draw a conclusion about the efficacy of e-cigarettes as a cessation device.” 81 Fed. Reg. at 29,037. Indeed, e-cigarettes may actually inhibit quitting conventional cigarettes, as “adult smokers who begin to use e-cigarettes seldom completely quit combustible products,” Primack et al. (2015) at 1019 (AR 23,907)—a particularly troubling prospect given the substantial risks of even light or intermittent smoking."
While the whole answer is bullshit, I find these statements particularly troubling:
"Second, the extent to which e-cigarettes are a “gateway” to the use of other tobacco products, including conventional cigarettes, is also uncertain."
"For example, in a one-year study of initially nonsmoking youth and young adults, 68.8 percent of e-cigarette users progressed toward smoking (i.e., either tried conventional cigarettes or indicated that they might), compared to just 18.9 percent of nonusers."
Kids in a non-scientific study say they MIGHT TRY A CIGARETTE makes vaping a gateway drug? BS
They admit that they expect small manufacturers to consolidate or go out of business:
"In general, the FDA predicted that the rule would accelerate consolidation in the e-cigarette industry, reducing the number of devices and e-liquids on the market, both because manufacturers of poor-selling products would likely forgo seeking premarket authorization to avoid its costs, RIA 94, 104–05,6 and because vape shops that currently mix their own e-liquids would likely convert to a pure retail model, RIA 48. Overall, the FDA expects the makers of 360 to 450 e-cigarette devices, and 1,250 to 2,500 e-liquids, to submit premarket applications, and other products to leave the market by the end of the compliance period in August 2018."
It repeatedly states it expects consumers will only pay $2 more annually after regulation - pure BS
I only got half way through it on this reading, but this shows the FDA has its head firmly up its ass!
So they discount harm reduction 100% - repeatedly throughout their answer.
"The FDA recognized that, because e-cigarettes are still relatively new to the marketplace, the current evidence is insufficient to answer two key questions about their overall population- level effects on public health. First, it is unclear whether e-cigarettes might help some smokers quit, as Plaintiffs postulate. Although there is “some indication that such products may have the potential to help some individual users to quit using combusted tobacco products or to reduce their use of such products,” “other evidence is to the contrary,” and “some systematic reviews of available evidence indicate that there is currently insufficient data to draw a conclusion about the efficacy of e-cigarettes as a cessation device.” 81 Fed. Reg. at 29,037. Indeed, e-cigarettes may actually inhibit quitting conventional cigarettes, as “adult smokers who begin to use e-cigarettes seldom completely quit combustible products,” Primack et al. (2015) at 1019 (AR 23,907)—a particularly troubling prospect given the substantial risks of even light or intermittent smoking."
While the whole answer is bullshit, I find these statements particularly troubling:
"Second, the extent to which e-cigarettes are a “gateway” to the use of other tobacco products, including conventional cigarettes, is also uncertain."
"For example, in a one-year study of initially nonsmoking youth and young adults, 68.8 percent of e-cigarette users progressed toward smoking (i.e., either tried conventional cigarettes or indicated that they might), compared to just 18.9 percent of nonusers."
Kids in a non-scientific study say they MIGHT TRY A CIGARETTE makes vaping a gateway drug? BS
They admit that they expect small manufacturers to consolidate or go out of business:
"In general, the FDA predicted that the rule would accelerate consolidation in the e-cigarette industry, reducing the number of devices and e-liquids on the market, both because manufacturers of poor-selling products would likely forgo seeking premarket authorization to avoid its costs, RIA 94, 104–05,6 and because vape shops that currently mix their own e-liquids would likely convert to a pure retail model, RIA 48. Overall, the FDA expects the makers of 360 to 450 e-cigarette devices, and 1,250 to 2,500 e-liquids, to submit premarket applications, and other products to leave the market by the end of the compliance period in August 2018."
It repeatedly states it expects consumers will only pay $2 more annually after regulation - pure BS
I only got half way through it on this reading, but this shows the FDA has its head firmly up its ass!
So I guess it is suffice to say, if a study was not conducted by a FDA sanctioned researcher or a FDA dick holding support association, it's not recognized, and the rest of the global research findings were conducted by a bunch of uneducated dufusses without bearing any kind of merit.
While I agree it should be read, it's a terrible read. The pure amount of BS, starting from paragraph one, is staggering. The survey studies alone MUST be hand-picked and exclusionary. The closing is particularly rich. I can not imagine a logical, fair, principled judge anywhere within our country could possibly even consider the FDA's response seriously for even a second. Big Tobacco's pulling the wool over societies' eyes is a ridiculous inclusion and has absolutely no bearing on companies that aren't even tobacco companies, weren't part of that marketing, etc. In fact, in those statements, and throughout the response, the FDA's presentation is FAR closer to the big tobacco of the past than anything else I've read thus far.
JuicyLucy
My name is Lucy and I am a squonkaholic
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
ECF Refugee
VU Challenge Team
Member For 5 Years
JuicyLucy
My name is Lucy and I am a squonkaholic
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
ECF Refugee
VU Challenge Team
Member For 5 Years
Just dredged through the entirety - whoever was paid to write it seems to be on a per-word commission....
So many contradictions, such poor arguments repeated ad nauseum - definitely a desperate attempt to waste time and 'plaintiffs' money.
Defo agree though that it gives great ammo to campaign for a complete ban of cigarettes and rolling baccy as psych said - after all, they are the most dangerous products ever marketed according to the FDA....
Sent from my E6853 using Tapatalk
So many contradictions, such poor arguments repeated ad nauseum - definitely a desperate attempt to waste time and 'plaintiffs' money.
Defo agree though that it gives great ammo to campaign for a complete ban of cigarettes and rolling baccy as psych said - after all, they are the most dangerous products ever marketed according to the FDA....
Sent from my E6853 using Tapatalk
KentA
VU Donator
Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
ECF Refugee
They've had their 3rd string players on the vaping dilemma all along.
That's a slope I'd rather not start down...
JuicyLucy
My name is Lucy and I am a squonkaholic
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
ECF Refugee
VU Challenge Team
Member For 5 Years
I will never be that "jerk" who will deprive others of their tobacco, just because I am no longer a user.
Ditto. I've seen vapers hack and yack and flail their arms like the most militant anti-smokers. I refuse to be that guy. Besides, I find people who don't know how to stop putting on perfume way more offensive.
JuicyLucy
My name is Lucy and I am a squonkaholic
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
ECF Refugee
VU Challenge Team
Member For 5 Years
I just so detested ex-smokers that turned into militant ANTZ after quitting. Never could stand to be around people like that.
I mean - in a perfect world I'd love to see demand for tobacco dwindle to where it would be near impossible for anyone else to get addicted, but the fact is, outlawing it would only create the same crap us vapers are facing right now.
Count me out.
I mean - in a perfect world I'd love to see demand for tobacco dwindle to where it would be near impossible for anyone else to get addicted, but the fact is, outlawing it would only create the same crap us vapers are facing right now.
Count me out.
Just yesterday my next door neighbor was smoking a cig. I asked where his vape is. He told me he quit vaping. I told him I'm sorry to here that. He looked at me with a blank stare...He said, what, your not going to give me shit? I said It's not my business. I don't judge. He seemed shocked. Now i get to go through his gear. Wining!!!
Yep, I started vaping when my wife had a heart attack. Smoking never really affected me. No HBP, no coughing or hacking, no trouble breathing or getting winded. So, I quit because she needed to and there's no way she would be able to quit if I was smoking. But she didn't quit. She wanted to, but she continued dual using for about a year. Judgment? No. Concern, yeah, but not judgment. And if she went back, I'd still stay vaping, hoping she'd quit again.
Almost exact with my neighbor. Wife loves smoking. He is also surrounded by smokers at his work. He tried, and I helped him as best I could. You can't be disappointed when somebody at least try's. He will always have me to help if he ever wants the help.
JuicyLucy
My name is Lucy and I am a squonkaholic
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
ECF Refugee
VU Challenge Team
Member For 5 Years
Can you imagine how many smokers would be lost forever if vapers joined the anti-tobacco crusade in such a hard core fashion? They would universally hate us!
It would also divide the vaping community, as there are plenty of dual-users and full-time vapers that have the occasional smoke or limit themselves to one or two a day.
It took me 2.5 years to stop dual-using - and a large part of the reason why is because my brain would go into utter panic at the thought of never having a cigarette again.
We should all unite against the FDA, vapers and tobacco users, whether its cigars, pipes, cigarettes, chew, etc.
It would also divide the vaping community, as there are plenty of dual-users and full-time vapers that have the occasional smoke or limit themselves to one or two a day.
It took me 2.5 years to stop dual-using - and a large part of the reason why is because my brain would go into utter panic at the thought of never having a cigarette again.
We should all unite against the FDA, vapers and tobacco users, whether its cigars, pipes, cigarettes, chew, etc.
I fully agree. BT has a stake in this also. The regs affect them negatively. They want to get in to the open system also. At that point then we may have an issue with BT. This is all BP, and save the children crap. Support Tobacco for now, until we don't need them anymore. They have a voice in Washington.
Exactly why I never officially "quit" smoking. It only took me only a few days dual use to stop smoking, but I've never forbidden myself from having one if I should choose to. I did do that once, mostly out of curiosity how I'd react to it about three months in. I enjoyed the first few drags, but about half way through, I started to feel the return of the irritation in my windpipe that had been so happy to be rid of that I didn't even finish it.
But bust on other people for smoking? Nope!
Oh and making it illegal? That would be a cluster-fuck that rivals Prohibition, and besides:
Agreed, I'm an ex smoker (gave up to start vaping 2-3 months ago as i was fed up with the flavour of tobacco) and I always detested the self-righteous ex smokers.
I just found it wonderfully contrary the way they're giving tobacco somewhat of a free pass despite their own description of it...
KentA
VU Donator
Bronze Contributor
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
ECF Refugee
Yep $ talkswalks
been walking all over us lately.
You know, having lost two parents and one in-law within the last 7 months, I've had some very frank discussions with medical professionals. The whole "vice as crime" thing. The FDA, CDC, WHO, all wrap that up in "the damage you do to others" blanket. Not physical damage, mind you, financial damage, the health care costs of smokers. When you factor in shortened lifespans alone (less benefits collected, by at least 10 years according to the CDC), social benefits for smokers are actually LESS than for non-smokers. Given the current average SS check, that equates to $162,000, not even counting the $50k or so in tobacco taxes the smoker contributes as "sin tax". Rather than "burdening" society financially, as those organizations and the anti-smoking organizations claim, smokers are unburdening society.
One of my co-workers (who is neither a smoker nor vaper) actually brought this up with regards to the anti-vaping laws and regs. He said, out of the blue, "don't you know that they want you to die?" If someone completely out of the loop can see that, wow.
One of my co-workers (who is neither a smoker nor vaper) actually brought this up with regards to the anti-vaping laws and regs. He said, out of the blue, "don't you know that they want you to die?" If someone completely out of the loop can see that, wow.
But to my thinking, their charter should be to only regulate things that are a proven threat to public health; at this point that's minimally highly questionable if not a complete farce based on the known dangers of the product (cigarettes) that vape products could completely replace. It's not scientific to say that we need to ban it because it can be used as a substitute for this other known really bad thing, and that position's not even remotely in the interest of public health.
And all the issues around smoking also have nothing to do with it being addictive. We all, as a society, with some opinions formed by truth campaigns from a very, very young age, are not against smoking because people get hooked on it.
Our opinions have to do with it being a carcinogen and over a long term leading to some nasty health problems.
The role of regulation is not to stomp things out because they have unknowables attached to them (this hasn't been done for twenty years so we don't have that data), because doing so would prevent you from gathering the data you need to prove that it's a problem or exonerate it. They're playing guilty until proven innocent with two products that they know are not equivalent, when one of the two have vastly (by the most conservative admissions) less harmful effects, if any.
These are boogeyman scare tactics, and I honestly think that allowing the term e-cigarette to ever exist was a massive collective blunder, and we'll feel the weight of that in the future marketing releases and ads from the FDA (which we'll have to pay for) for a very long time to come. Since the term cigarette is largely viewed in a negative light, it will be spammed all over everything they do to create an association if only by proximity in people's minds. And it will work because they have big dollars and the willingness of companies to run their ads, but in some cases no one else's.
Without intervention by congress or a President that will adjust away their budget, this is going to be very tough, because they have all of our money to use to fight us.