Posted by slickplaid on March 18, 2011
Darrell Issa (Congressman from California’s 49th District) wants to hear from electronic cigarette users about how the FDA wastes taxpayer money on litigation.
TreeceVapes Congressional Oversight Committee head Darrell Issa wants to hear from us. Tweet @DarrellIssa about FDA & e-cigarettes!
Take this opportunity to give the government the news on how the FDA has been treating e-cigarette users!
DarrellIssa What do you want from your government? @ msg me with your answer, and I appreciate an RT so we can hear as many views as possible. Thank you
Darrell Issa was appointed head of the Congressional Oversight Committee last year. Here is a description of what the committee is from their website:
Darrell Issa - Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
“The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has legislative jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, the government procurement process, federal personnel systems, the Postal Service and other matters. Our primary responsibility, however, is oversight of virtually everything government does – from national security to homeland security grants, from federal workforce policies to regulatory reform and reorganization authority, from information technology procurements at individual agencies to government-wide data security standards.As the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, we will work with our colleagues in the minority to exercise effective oversight over the federal government and will work proactively to investigate and expose waste, fraud, and abuse.
As the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, we will work with our colleagues in the minority to exercise effective oversight over the federal government and will work proactively to investigate and expose waste, fraud, and abuse.”
More from @TreeceVapes:
Not long after Issa’s appointment, he announced what was essentially his “hit list” of government organizations, and the FDA was on it. Not long after that, Josh Sharfstein resigned as FDA Deputy Commissioner, and there’s been some speculation that his resignation was a direct response to Issa’s appointment (i.e., perhaps a sign that Sharfstein feared Issa).
Here is a sample tweet that @TreeceVapes did to the congressman:
@DarrellIssa FDA wastes taxpayer money on litigation (despite losing 2X) and misinformation campaign about e-cigarettes. Please help us!
This is a perfect opportunity to let the government know how we feel and to stop being bullied. Tweet DarrellIssa and let your voice be heard!
Join our discussion at International Vapers Club.
Posted by slickplaid on January 24, 2011
Electronic cigarette users everywhere are rejoicing today following the ruling by the United States Court of Appeals that the FDA‘s request for a rehearing was denied. The entire court unanimously declined the FDA‘s rehearing request. This is a giant step towards e-cigarettes being regulated like traditional tobacco products. Consumers view this as an alternative to smoking traditional cigarettes rather than as pharmaceutical smoking cessation devices. The FDA claimed that an electronic cigarette was basically just another tool to quit smoking, much like the nicotine gum, lozenges, and sprays that are available now, marketed as smoking cessation devices, but the ruling denied them the ability to regulate electronic cigarettes as such.
Electronic cigarettes are made up of three parts: the battery, the atomizer, and the nicotine liquid that, when heated, creates a fine water-vapor based mist. The mist allows users to get a small dose of nicotine and flavoring. Basically, a high tech version of a traditional cigarette, only without the combustion of plant material. This means no burning, no tar, and the vapor dissipates rapidly leaving only a light scent in the air. Users are able to pick from varying levels of nicotine strengths, even all the way down to zero nicotine, and flavors. Due to the fact that there is no combustion of plant material, the user doesn’t get the large amounts of combustion related carcinogens present in traditional tobacco products. In short, it’s a smart alternative to traditional tobacco products.
The FDA is currently “considering it’s legal and regulatory options” to pursue the case further. The next steps would be to bring it to the United States Supreme Court, but since the U.S. Court of Appeals rejected it unanimously, it is unlikely that it would be granted. Regardless of the likelihood, the FDA still has the option to pursue and push the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The court also refused the FDA‘s motion to keep intercepting product shipments from China.
So what does this mean for the average vaper? We’re still unclear if the FDA will continue to stop shipments to other vendors from China, but it is likely that as long as the vendor doesn’t make claims that the devices are marketed as smoking cessation devices the shipments should be allowed. It will be a long road to finally be accepted as a smoking alternative, but this is a huge step in the right direction.
Join us in our discussion of the ruling here:
Court documents can be downloaded here:
Court Appeals rejects rehearing, pg. 1
Court Appeals rejects rehearing, pg. 2
Posted by mama on January 23, 2011
A few days ago I read an article from a state college in Florida that made all of its campuses “smoke-free,” which includes the use of electronic cigarettes. This gave me pause for a moment as I thought about my local school campuses and local hospitals.
North Carolina enacted smoking bans (not including electronic cigarettes, thank goodness) in public places (workplaces, schools, restaurants, bars, etc.) back in January 2010. Living between the local hospitals and next door to the community college, we notice that there are throngs of people standing right next to busy roadways smoking. In the case locally, it is a six-lane roadway, which is one of the busiest roads in our small town. How can this be safe? So what I walk away with is this – if you smoke, we don’t really care about you! If a rogue car takes you out, then so be it. You smoke, therefore you are not worthy of ANY protections.
Is it too much to ask for these campuses to set aside a very small piece of real estate so that those who CHOOSE to smoke can do so safely? I am not suggesting a smoking area that is right next to the front door, but possibly one that is located away from the “campus” but that is still part of the campus. Seems this would be a fair compromise, as it would keep non-smokers away from unnecessary smoke but would also keep the smokers safe from harm.
It is not as if tobacco or nicotine is illegal, yet smokers are treated like criminals or second-class citizens. In Florida, you can’t even use an electronic cigarette–which produces a smokeless vapor that has little to no smell–on a school campus? It is dumbfounding to think that the “antis” are so anti that they won’t even consider the possibility of electronic cigarette use. It seems that fear does indeed breed ignorance.