Obama Is No Longer a Good President

[Cozarkian]

Then why does congress need to get involved?

Congress should be involved so that topics like this will be decided by the will of the people through their duly elected officials, not by persons with no accountabity to voters

 

[JSt0rm]

Congress should be involved so that topics like this will be decided by the will of the people through their duly elected officials, not by persons with no accountabity to voters

So public safety issues should be at the whim of lobbyists?

 

[woolfe9998]

Then why does congress need to get involved?

The short answer is that because, in this case, the FDA is on an ideologically motivated crusade to ban electronic cigarettes in the United States, in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence that e-cigs pose at best an extremely marginal health risk.

A little background. The FDA first tried to assert that it had the power to regulate e-cigs as a "drug or device" which would have allowed them to ban e-cigs entirely until full clinical trials had been conducted, probably for about 10 years. They lost this argument in court, so they are instead allowed to regulate e-cigs as a "tobacco product" under the Tobacco Control Act. This gives them regulatory powers short of a full blown ban. So what they've done is impose regulations so restrictive that virtually no e-cig business in the US will survive them. Essentially, every manufacturer of liquids must pay to have each flavor of liquid go through extensive lab testing. Since about 97% of liquid manufacturers are small businesses, this 97% of the industry will essentially go bankrupt.

It's an abuse of regulatory authority, and for that, yes, Congress needs to get involved. Bear in mind the public health consequences of a de facto ban on something which millions of Americans have used to quit smoking, and millions more may do the same in the future. While at the same time cigarettes continue to be sold. What the FDA is doing is morally wrong and they need to be stopped.

Oh, and another thing - the OP's framing this as being about banning sales to minors is way off. The e-cig community either supports or does not oppose a ban in sales to minors. The real issue is that these regs will make it difficult to impossible for adults to buy liquid in the US because the entire US industry will fold.

 

[JSt0rm]

The short answer is that because, in this case, the FDA is on an ideologically motivated crusade to ban electronic cigarettes in the United States, in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence that e-cigs pose at best an extremely marginal health risk.

A little background. The FDA first tried to assert that it had the power to regulate e-cigs as a "drug or device" which would have allowed them to ban e-cigs entirely until full clinical trials had been conducted, probably for about 10 years. They lost this argument in court, so they are instead allowed to regulate e-cigs as a "tobacco product" under the Tobacco Control Act. This gives them regulatory powers short of a full blown ban. So what they've done is impose regulations so restrictive that virtually no e-cig business in the US will survive them. Essentially, every manufacturer of liquids must pay to have each flavor of liquid go through extensive lab testing. Since about 97% of liquid manufacturers are small businesses, this 97% of the industry will essentially go bankrupt.

It's an abuse of regulatory authority, and for that, yes, Congress needs to get involved. Bear in mind the public health consequences of a de facto ban on something which millions of Americans have used to quit smoking, and millions more may do the same in the future. What the FDA is doing is morally wrong and they need to be stopped.

I disagree for the reasons already mentioned.

 

[woolfe9998]

So public safety issues should be at the whim of lobbyists?

Public safety should be at the "whim" of those who are honest and have legitimate concern for public health. Unfortunately in this case, the FDA does not qualify as either of those things.

 

[shortylickens]

By that logic, does it mean the FDA can also regulate syringes and squeeze tubes and eye droppers?

 

[JSt0rm]

Public safety should be at the "whim" of those who are honest and have legitimate concern for public health. Unfortunately in this case, the FDA does not qualify as either of those things.

Your saying there is no legitimate concern for public health? I just showed an issue with an ingredient in the oils in this very thread. Are you saying thats inaccurate?

 

[woolfe9998]

I disagree for the reasons already mentioned.

You mean the false and misleading propaganda you've linked and discussed here? Sorry, that doesn't qualify either.

Fact: over 10,000 toxicology studies have been run to determine the contents of e-liquid and the vapor it produces when heated. There is very little of concern in those results. What you see in the media are cherry picked studies, the 1 in 1000 which show a lot of one carcinogen in one particular sample of one brand.

Here's a statistical review of what was in early 2015 over 9,000 toxicology studies on e-cigs, not 1 cherry picked study being sensationalized by the media.

http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-18

Note its conclusion, that the total body of scientific literature on e-cigs - which is by now quite extensive - shows that levels of toxins and carcinogens range from 0 to well below occupational safety (i.e. OSHA) standards, which are extremely over cautious. Basically if you're at OSHA thresholds you're way below any level reasonably considered unsafe.

 

[JSt0rm]

By that logic, does it mean the FDA can also regulate syringes and squeeze tubes and eye droppers?

you should of looked that up first 😀

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=800.10

 

[werepossum]

The short answer is that because, in this case, the FDA is on an ideologically motivated crusade to ban electronic cigarettes in the United States, in spite of overwhelming scientific evidence that e-cigs pose at best an extremely marginal health risk.

A little background. The FDA first tried to assert that it had the power to regulate e-cigs as a "drug or device" which would have allowed them to ban e-cigs entirely until full clinical trials had been conducted, probably for about 10 years. They lost this argument in court, so they are instead allowed to regulate e-cigs as a "tobacco product" under the Tobacco Control Act. This gives them regulatory powers short of a full blown ban. So what they've done is impose regulations so restrictive that virtually no e-cig business in the US will survive them. Essentially, every manufacturer of liquids must pay to have each flavor of liquid go through extensive lab testing. Since about 97% of liquid manufacturers are small businesses, this 97% of the industry will essentially go bankrupt.

It's an abuse of regulatory authority, and for that, yes, Congress needs to get involved. Bear in mind the public health consequences of a de facto ban on something which millions of Americans have used to quit smoking, and millions more may do the same in the future. While at the same time cigarettes continue to be sold. What the FDA is doing is morally wrong and they need to be stopped.

Oh, and another thing - the OP's framing this as being about banning sales to minors is way off. The e-cig community either supports or does not oppose a ban in sales to minors. The real issue is that these regs will make it difficult to impossible for adults to buy liquid in the US because the entire US industry will fold.

That's fairly persuasive, but let me play Devil's Advocate. Assuming that 97% of liquid manufacturers are small businesses, why would we assume that those small businesses necessarily know what may be safely ingested into one's lungs? And in what combination and quantity? Ingestion into one's lungs generally speaking has more health risk than ingesting the same substances orally.

I'm perfectly fine with a caveat emptor style of society where government regulates far less and it's the consumer's responsibility to educate himself and make wise decisions. But failing that, I don't see why e-cigarettes should get a pass and be regulated as tobacco products when they are most certainly not.

 

[JSt0rm]

You mean the false and misleading propaganda you've linked and discussed here? Sorry, that doesn't qualify either.

Fact: over 10,000 toxicology studies have been run to determine the contents of e-liquid and the vapor it produces when heated. There's is very little of concern in those results. What you see in the media are cherry picked studies, the 1 in 1000 which show a lot of 1 carcinogen in 1 particular sample of one brand.

Here's a statistical review of what was in early 2015 over 9,000 toxicology studies on e-cigs, not 1 cherry picked study being sensationalized by the media.

http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-14-18

Note its conclusions.

The conclusion from your link:

Conclusions

Current state of knowledge about chemistry of liquids and aerosols associated with electronic cigarettes indicates that there is no evidence that vaping produces inhalable exposures to contaminants of the aerosol that would warrant health concerns by the standards that are used to ensure safety of workplaces. However, the aerosol generated during vaping as a whole (contaminants plus declared ingredients) creates personal exposures that would justify surveillance of health among exposed persons in conjunction with investigation of means to keep any adverse health effects as low as reasonably achievable. Exposures of bystanders are likely to be orders of magnitude less, and thus pose no apparent concern.


lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diacetyl

Read about that stuff.

 

[JSt0rm]

woolf your paper doesn't mention diacetyl at all. Why?

 

[woolfe9998]

Your saying there is no legitimate concern for public health? I just showed an issue with an ingredient in the oils in this very thread. Are you saying thats inaccurate?

Yes, I'm saying there is extremely little to be concerned about, other than the unknown question of whether inhaling a lot of propylene glycol (the primary ingredient in e-liquid) could have long term health consequences. What we know of PG at this point is that it's a common food additive and low to moderate exposure has been found to pose zero health risk. We'll need more time to see if there are consequences to long term exposure to larger amounts. What we DO know is that there are either trace amounts, or zero, of known toxins and carinogens in the vapor.

Your linked article is a subject I'm familiar with. It has to do with the fact that some e-lquids contain trace amounts of diketones, which in rare cases can cause an extremely deadly disease called obliterative bronchitis (aka popcorn lung disease). These diketones come from some of the food flavorings used in the liquids. They have been in these food flavorings for decades without concern, because they are safe for oral ingestion. However, they do pose a tiny risk of a very rare but very deadly disease when inhaled. Which is why liquid manufacturers are switching to flavorings which contain no diketones.

Which further underscores a point that very few people seem aware of: that all these cases of trace carcinogens and other toxins are 100% avoidable risks. They all come from the variety of food flavorings used in the liquid, some of them artificial flavorings which contain very low but measurable carcinogens. But there are always other brands of flavorings which do not have these elements. This is why so many brands of liquid show literally zero carcinogens. Unlike with cigarettes, e-liquid can be made totally clean. But even the stuff that isn't totally clean is a fraction of the health risks of cigs.

 

[woolfe9998]

woolf your paper doesn't mention diacetyl at all. Why?

Because the paper I linked is a review of toxicology literature, not a toxicology study. And as of the date that this review was published, none of the research had tested for diketones (which dicetyl is one). Since then there have been a few published studies on it, but none were available for review at that time.

 

[woolfe9998]

The conclusion from your link:

Conclusions

Current state of knowledge about chemistry of liquids and aerosols associated with electronic cigarettes indicates that there is no evidence that vaping produces inhalable exposures to contaminants of the aerosol that would warrant health concerns by the standards that are used to ensure safety of workplaces. However, the aerosol generated during vaping as a whole (contaminants plus declared ingredients) creates personal exposures that would justify surveillance of health among exposed persons in conjunction with investigation of means to keep any adverse health effects as low as reasonably achievable. Exposures of bystanders are likely to be orders of magnitude less, and thus pose no apparent concern.


lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diacetyl

Read about that stuff.

You best not "LOL" when you don't even know what the bolded portion means. Read the first paragraph of my lengthy reply to you above, where I discuss the theoretical possibility of health risks of long term inhalation of PG. There are NO known risks. PG has been tested and found to be safe, by the FDA and others. However, the theoretical possibility exists because until e-cigs came along, no one was ingesting PG in these quantities. Because of this uncertainty, there is a need, as he said, for surveillance i.e. long term monitoring. He's correct. He's also correct that so far as known toxins and carcinogens, there just isn't much there.

 

[JSt0rm]

well now we at least will know exactly whats in that soup they sell people. We already know it contains diacetyl because labs reversed the stuff and found it in most of the flavored versions.

Do you think the public knowing exactly what the ingredients are is a bad thing because biz has to spend money? lol.

 

[Bitek]

That is a great point for Congress to consider when determining what laws to pass regarding e-cigs.

Hahahaha, you said Congress will do something!


BTW, Congress already did something. It created an agency, administered by the President, who has legal authority to, ah hell, let them explain:

http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/

FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation.

FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines more effective, safer, and more affordable and by helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to maintain and improve their health. FDA also has responsibility for regulating the manufacturing, marketing and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health and to reduce tobacco use by minors.

 

[woolfe9998]

That's fairly persuasive, but let me play Devil's Advocate. Assuming that 97% of liquid manufacturers are small businesses, why would we assume that those small businesses necessarily know what may be safely ingested into one's lungs? And in what combination and quantity? Ingestion into one's lungs generally speaking has more health risk than ingesting the same substances orally.

The businesses don't know very much. However, the scientific community now knows plenty. I linked a broad literature review above in my discussion with JStorm. Accordingly, it doesn't matter what the businesses know. They are just using the same three ingredients as anyone who mixes e-liquid: PG, nicotine, and some kind of flavoring. The flavoring might or might not contain small amounts of carcinogens just like any artificially flavored food might.

If the government wants to test each product individually because they want to make sure that no-one is putting something weirdly toxic in them for some unknown reason, then they can test it themselves. These businesses typically have 1-5 employees and they cannot afford this testing. They aren't big pharma or big tobacco.

I'm perfectly fine with a caveat emptor style of society where government regulates far less and it's the consumer's responsibility to educate himself and make wise decisions. But failing that, I don't see why e-cigarettes should get a pass and be regulated as tobacco products when they are most certainly not.

That is a legal question. You'd have to see the DC Circuit Court's lengthy ruling on that, the one where the FDA got smacked down for attempted regulatory over-reach and didn't bother to appeal because they knew they were wrong. E-cigs are simply not a "drug or device" within the meaning of the enabling legislation, though they probably qualify as "tobacco products" under the TCA because that statute uses a very broad definition.

http://casaa.org/uploads/SE-vs-FDA-Opinion.pdf

 

[JSt0rm]

If you want to make a product that people put in their bodies expect to have to tell whats in it.

 

[Bitek]

IOW, quit your crying you junkies.

Children have no business vaping, companies have no inherent right to sell dangerous and addictive substances, and vaping is for douchebags.

 

[JSt0rm]

IOW, quit your crying you junkies.

Children have no business vaping, companies have no inherent right to sell dangerous and addictive substances, and vaping is for douchebags.

But think about all those 1 to 5 person fly by night businesses!

They would never hurt anyone!

 

[Bitek]

But think about all those 1 to 5 person fly by night businesses!

They would never hurt anyone!

Damn that anti business Obama! He hates jobs and wants everyone on welfare so he can institute Sharia law and.. ah.. make America not great again.. Ah.. I mean for once.. or less greaterer than some time earlier than yesterday

 

[Cozarkian]

Hahahaha, you said Congress will do something!

That was amusing, the rest of your post missed the point. I'm discussing policy behind the political process and the quality of law, not it's mere existence.

I'm also aware of case law regarding the nondelegation doctrine, so no need to post that next.

 

[JSt0rm]

terrorism!

 

[Cozarkian]

So public safety issues should be at the whim of lobbyists?

Aren't they already?