Deeming Regulations Have Been Released!!!!

On last Sunday's show, Kevin interviews SmokeyJoe on VP LIve regarding the deeming regulations and other nonsense.

Can't link to it since there's swearing, but might be worth a listen.

Look on iTunes or Soundcloud for VP LIve Final Countdown To The Deeming Regulations.  

So I have been coming on here and reading posts from people like say, in Washington State who are desperately trying to come up with something vapable after the flavor bans came crashing down, and I went on a pretty serious letter writing campaign in response. Here is the answer I got:

"Thank you for writing me regarding your thoughts on banning smoke-free alternatives to combustible tobacco. I appreciate you taking the time to share your concerns.

The Trump Administration recently announced plans to ban the sale of most flavored e-cigarettes as officials in Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continue to investigate more than 450 health cases, including six deaths, related to e-cigarette use. According to HHS Secretary Alex Azar, the FDA intends to introduce a policy that will remove the sale of all flavored e-cigarette flavors except tobacco, until otherwise specified.

I understand that this is an important issue for parents and consumers of e-cigarettes in our district. As your Representative, I will continue to monitor this situation as it develops and will keep your thoughts in mind if any legislative action is taken on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Again, thank you for contacting my office about this important issue. If you would like to receive regular updates on this and other matters, please visit my website (www.demings.house.gov/) to sign up for my e-newsletter.

Sincerely,

Val Butler Demings
Member of Congress"

The part that instantly grabbed my attention was this:

FDA intends to introduce a policy that will remove the sale of all flavored e-cigarette flavors except tobacco, until otherwise specified.

Is this going to happen ahead of the deeming regulations? Is the FDA going to come up behind us and slip this over our heads while we aren't looking? And while vaping is coming under a full frontal assault, tobacco companies are laughing as they continue to kill 1200 people a day - because the spotlight ain't on them anymore.  

hey guys.
as we all know the vaping industry hits on some interesting topics in harm reduction. we are seeing the reality of regulation more and more these days and with that comes a whole new wave of statistics and reasons for and against advocacy of this industry. one thing that i have noticed is that while addressing various concerns as vaping gains popularity is the subject of where minors lie. anticipating regulation it became important to not grant minors access to this technology. more and more often an article will come out admitting the advantages of vaping and the benefits of placing some restrictions on vaping that are consistent with tobacco regulations. these articles admit that as popularity of vaping rises that the number of adolescent smokers is also decreasing, but adolescents who have tried vaping rises.
to me this isn't that bad? i don't believe that nicotine liquid should be available to minors. if a teen is thinking about picking up a disposable nicotine free e-cig, isn't that just one less teen trying to get a cigarette? if anything i believe that it is definitely preferable that this technology be available to a minor that is seriously considering smoking. again, e-cigs are proving to be beneficial to asthmatic users. does no one remember the e-cigs that were produced to sate appetites for sweets and touted as a weight loss aid?
i am seeing this ammendment being made in otherwise positive articles about vaping. it takes me right back to being 16 when i accompanied a younger friend trying to buy nicorette so he could quit smoking. after a very short conversation with the pharmacist he refused to sell the gum to my friend. his response is that he could just get his mom to buy the quit smoking aid like she bought his cigarettes.
i know it is a slippery slope and i would definitely not freely offer nicotine free e-cigs to minors, but isn't the decline in teen smoking worth it?  

Scientists want probe of UCSF tobacco research
One of the country's best-known tobacco researchers is under fire this week after one of his federally funded vaping studies was retracted and other academics are calling for federal review of some of his other influential anti-vaping research.
Click to expand...

additional Glantz studies deserving of the most scrutiny include two major publications in 2018: A meta analysis of other vaping studies published in the British journal Lancet Respiratory Medicine and one in the journal Pediatrics about teen vaping and smoking.

The Lancet analysis of several studies was based on a "misleading negative correlation between e-cigarettes and smoking cessation"and used studies that had nothing to do with quitting smoking, Abrams said. This violated the basic tenets of medical research review, he added.

"It has had a massive misleading influence in the field to this day because it is cited as the main reference" to show vaping makes it harder to quit smoking, Abrams said.

The other study concluded the "use of e-cigarettes does not discourage, and may encourage, conventional cigarette use among US adolescents." Rodu, who analyzed the claim, found only 11 of 9,000 teens studied vaped before they started smoking and 80% of the kids who smoked hadn't used tobacco product previously.

Using that data, Abrams said the "effect of vaping is not just diminished, it disappears."
Click to expand...

 

Friends,
I really have to stop reading the news.
Every single day there is a new article bashing and smearing vaping as a viable, healthy alternative to smoking the 'stink sticks' (I coined that yesterday, patent pending).
Anyway, it absolutely infuriates me when I read these one-sided articles that is backed by little to no research. Not to mention that these articles are most likely written with some sort of bias. Whether it be BT, BP or the numerous anti-smoking groups, very seldom do they actually ask anyone who knows anything about vaping and the initiative of the hobby/lifestyle and they sure don't interview actual vapers or want to hear the numerous stories of how vaping has saved so many lives.
They say they don't want to 'normalize or glamorize' smoking because it will make it more attractive to kids.
Well, you know what? The more you tell kids NOT to do something, the more they WILL do it. I know, I have 2 of them.
As a former smoker and now around 6 months smoke free, I detest smoking cigarettes. But having said that, I would rather see a kid puffing on a vape than on a Stink Stick.
So, yes, I can see the need for regulations, but the vaping industry does a good job with self-regulation and reputable businesses do not sell to minors.
But, kids will be kids and they will find a way to get their hands on cigarettes just like they do with alcohol.
Let's discuss and vape on!  

I was thinking the whole situation in many countries that vaping is straight up banned or illegal....and also countries like USA that is not that extreme but still many regulations going on and anyways we all know the big tobacco companies and what they try to do.

I am sure tho that vaping won't be stoped...u can't stop vaping and all the big tobacco do is to try buy some more time for them cause they know that cigarettes are in their end..

I don't know how long this will last but I am sure vaping will make cigarette smoking obselete and it will go very big...

Europe claims they have a plan to end tobacco use until 2032 or something like that for example....maybe that happens and it would be good cause it's for everyone's good.... but u can't just fight vaping and let smoking still exist...

Vaping will be back and for good....the people slowly start accept it and learn it cause honestly imagine how many smokers are out there and how many vapers...while vaping is much more enjoyable objectively...

We the people didn't support vaping enough...
ok maybe we the vapers did but I mean the majority out there don't......people are scared and they don't like to change their habits easy....even if it's for their own good.

I know politics are corrupted and all that....but some of us live in democracies maybe not perfect but still....if all people wanted to stop smoking and switch into vaping to make their life better then they couldn't stop us...
Worst case they would do it to get votes like they usually do with everything they do... not that they care for us...

So yeah vaping will go very big the next year's..
 

No wonder they breed potential politicians at ebay. This is a snippet of the text contained in a email a friend of mine got over the weekend:

Due to strict government regulations, eBay doesn't allow the sale of most tobacco products. This includes cigarettes, cigars, herbal cigarettes, and smokeless tobacco. E-cigarettes also aren’t allowed on eBay. We realize e-cigarettes don’t contain tobacco. But due to a lack of globally consistent or clearly established regulations for the sale of these items, eBay has made the decision to not allow the sale of e-cigarettes or their components.

So, since its NOT regulated as of yet, they`ll regulate it for us??? And yet the "other stuff" paraphernalia runs rampant on ebay. That and other things you would`nt want to try and explain to your 6 year old. Like that knitted sweater for a pickle.
God Bless ebay, they`ll be the Vaping Heroes for us all and help make our decisions for us, cause we are just too slow to understand or comprehend the nature of our actions.
Also, you can buy ANY flavor of juice (especially the "other stuff" flavor) you want on ebay, as long as it is zero nic. But what are you going to vape it with? You can buy the juice, but you cant buy the vaporizer. HOW is this LOGIC agreeable to anyone?


The most scandalous entity on Ebay, is Ebay itself.  

And so it begins......

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration said Wednesday it plans to ban the sale of non-tobacco-flavored electronic cigarettes amid a vaping crisis.

“The Trump Administration is making it clear that we intend to clear the market of flavored e-cigarettes to reverse the deeply concerning epidemic of youth e-cigarette use that is impacting children, families, schools and communities,” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar said in a statement. “We will not stand idly by as these products become an on-ramp to combustible cigarettes or nicotine addiction for a generation of youth.”

Michigan became the first state to prohibit sales of most flavored e-cigarettes last week in a bold move to curb the underage vaping epidemic. The ban, which will take effect in a few weeks, will cover both online and in-store sales of all e-cigarette flavors except tobacco.

Trump administration plans to ban sale of flavored electronic cigarettes  

This is part of an newsletter email:
Q: Do the words used to describe vaping alter perceptions of risk?

A: At first sight, the two headlines appear very similar: “Labeling e-cigarette emissions as ‘chemicals’ or ‘aerosols’ increases the perceived risk of exposure” and “Accurate labels like ‘aerosol’ or ‘chemicals’ increase perceived risks of e-cigarette use”. The ironic thing is that while both fairly accurately reflect the study being reported, one – the one that uses the word “Accurate” – is not quite so, well... accurate.

As any chemistry teacher will tell you, everything is composed of chemicals – you are, your food is, the screen you’re reading this on is made up entirely of chemicals. Which makes the labelling of e-cig vapour as “chemicals” self-evidently true at one level, but deliberately misleading at another. (Don’t drink that water, it’s nothing but chemicals!)

As it turns out, those headlines – one from News-Medical.net, the other from Medical Xpress – are placed over identical reports (i.e. an uncritically reproduced press release) of a study published this week in the Journal of American College Health. And the very title of that study, “Aerosol, vapor, or chemicals? College student perceptions of harm from electronic cigarettes and support for a tobacco-free campus policy”, tells you at once that this is hardly unbiased science, seeking answers not yet known, but rather that sadly common form of pseudo-science that starts out with its conclusion in place and sets out to “prove” it.

The study of college students in 2018 and 2019 found – not altogether surprisingly – that those asked to assess the harmfulness of secondhand “aerosol” or “chemicals” emitted by e-cigarettes were more inclined to see them as dangerous than those who were asked to assess “vapor”.

It also found, unsurprisingly, that they were around twice as likely to support a tobacco-free campus policy. This being the US, where authority routinely seems to miss the point that e-cigarettes don’t contain tobacco, we can take that to mean a vape-free campus policy too. Which, it is not hard to assume, is exactly what the researchers wanted them to support.

The study’s conclusion is itself a masterpiece of deception (perhaps self-deception). It is this: “Health campaigns should use accurate terminology to describe e-cigarette emissions, rather than jargon that conveys lower risk.”

Just how the term “chemicals” – which, after all, encompasses every breath you take – is more “accurate” than “vapor” the authors make no attempt to explain.

Now it may be true that much research which purports to support e-cigarette use is equally tendentious, setting out with its conclusion already prepared. But to respond with such blatantly bad science is no help to anyone who really wants to discover facts as yet unknown. And there are plenty of those yet to be discovered in the field of vaping.

Oh, and the answer to the question posed above is: “Yes, of course”.
Click to expand...

This is a link to the study mentioned.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07448481.2020.1819293  

Every day I scour Google News for new news articles about anything related to restricting e-cigarettes and I have probably read well over 300 articles in the past month... On a few articles (probably only 3 or so) they have spoken about a 30-day deadline for the FDA... But I cannot find any information on when that started and when it ends, if in fact it actually even exists. Does anyone have any information about this?

for example:
With the CDC no closer to identifying a sole culprit (or even culprits) behind the epidemic, and with the 30-day deadline for the FDA’s revision of its guidelines removing flavored e-cigarettes from the market rapidly approaching, here’s what we know so far about the three different tracks of the vaping health crisis, and what public health officials are doing to try to slow the trains down.
Click to expand...

There’s Not Just One Vape Crisis — There’s Three