E-cigarettes

FDA Imposes a Slow-Motion Ban on E-Cigarettes

The agency's final rule leaves conventional cigarettes on the market while requiring much safer alternatives to meet prohibitive requirements.

|

Vaping360

Today the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced what amounts to a slow-motion ban on e-cigarettes, ignoring the pleas of harm reduction advocates who say it makes no sense to prevent smokers from switching to nicotine products that are indisputably much less hazardous than the ones they are using now. The FDA rule, a preliminary version of which was published two years ago, effectively requires e-cigarette manufacturers to get their products approved as "new tobacco products," an expensive, arduous, and time-consuming process that will be prohibitive for most of them.

Each application is expected to cost $1 million or more, and a separate application will be required for each version of a product—an impossible burden for small businesses that sell vaporizers along with dozens of custom-made fluids. Even large companies that can afford to apply for approval may be unable to persuade the FDA that "permitting such tobacco product to be marketed would be appropriate for the protection of the public health," a requirement set by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Such appropriateness "shall be determined with respect to the risks and benefits to the population as a whole, including users and nonusers of the tobacco product, and taking into account (A) the increased or decreased likelihood that existing users of tobacco products will stop using such products; and (B) the increased or decreased likelihood that those who do not use tobacco products will start using such products."

The "population as a whole" standard means the FDA may reject products even when they are clearly much less dangerous than conventional cigarettes (as e-cigarettes are), based on concerns about how nonsmokers might react to them. Will teenagers who otherwise never would have tried tobacco experiment with e-cigarettes, get hooked on nicotine, and then move on to smoking? There is very little evidence that is happening, but how can a company prove to the FDA it won't happen? And when it comes to assessing the relative hazards of vaping and smoking, will the FDA be satisfied by the observation that e-cigarettes, as noncombustible, tobacco-free products, produce far fewer toxins in much smaller amounts than conventional cigarettes do? Or will it demand long-term research that is impossible given the short history and uncertain future of e-cigarettes?

The FDA's press release, which parrots the CDC's scientifically absurd position that increases in adolescent vaping wipe out the public health gains from decreases in adolescent smoking, does not bode well for companies that hope to meet the agency's demands. "While there has been a significant decline in the use of traditional cigarettes among youth over the past decade," the FDA says, "their use of other tobacco products continues to climb." The FDA, like the CDC, counts e-cigarettes as "other tobacco products," even though they contain no tobacco. That label implies a false equivalence. "As cigarette smoking among those under 18 has fallen, the use of other nicotine products, including e-cigarettes, has taken a drastic leap," says Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell. "All of this is creating a new generation of Americans who are at risk of addiction. Today's announcement is an important step in the fight for a tobacco-free generation."

Burwell seems to think that what matters is the "risk of addiction," as opposed to the risk of smoking-related disease. She also seems to believe that a "tobacco-free generation" is one that not only consumes no tobacco but does not dabble in e-cigarettes either—even the nicotine-free kind, by far the most popular choice among teenagers. If these are the principles that will guide the FDA's regulatory decisions, the e-cigarette industry is well and truly screwed. 

But not immediately. "The FDA expects that manufacturers will continue selling their products for up to two years while they submit—and an additional year while the FDA reviews—a new tobacco product application," the agency says. "The FDA will issue an order granting marketing authorization where appropriate; otherwise, the product will face FDA enforcement."

An amendment approved by the House Appropriations Committee last month would protect the vaping industry from that threat by allowing e-cigarettes currently on the market to stay there without winning approval as new tobacco products. (The current grandfather date is February 15, 2007, when the industry barely existed.) Even that solution would impede innovation and safety improvements, since pre-market approval would still be required for new products. The FDA's regulatory scheme, in other words, privileges the most dangerous nicotine delivery devices (conventional cigarettes) while threatening to eliminate much safer alternatives and blocking the introduction of even better products. All in the name of public health. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Will Rep. Justin Amash Oppose Donald Trump? Looks Likely.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Fuck off slavers. I smoked for 20+ years and vaping is the only thing that helped me quit. Now you want to ruin it. Fuck you all with a rubber coconut. Time to buy some do it yourself supplies.
    P.s. Fuck off you statist authoritarian douchebags, eat a bag of dicks.

    1. Too harsh? Hell no!

    2. Same here. I smoked for about 15 years and now I vape. It’s only because of vaping that I was able to drop the cigarette habit. To this day, if I smoke a cigarette it tastes disgusting and makes me feel like shit because I grew accustomed to vape. But it’s a good thing we have the FDA to protect me from helping myself.

      1. If you’ve quit smoking?you didn’t quit that. Somebody else made that happen.

        1. *sends money to Elizabeth Warren*

      2. I smoked and/or dipped from 13 to 34. I started using (nicotine-free) e-cigs two years ago, and haven’t gone back since. I also eat far less, and cut out soft drinks entirely. I’ve basically made vaping my fallback vice – I substitute it for when I have an urge to dip or smoke or drink Dr Pepper or smoke more weed when I’m already high enough.

        Over 400,000 people die every year from tobacco-related illnesses. It is pure, unadulterated evil to seek to mitigate the work vapes are doing to save and extend lives.

    3. Not too harsh, I feel the exact same way. Smoked for 30 years, quit with e-cigarettes. I have 2.5 liters of 100mg/ml nicotine in my freezer, a few good rebuildable tank system, and a few mods.

      But even with me being set for a while, I wonder how many people that currently smoke or will take up smoking has the FDA and CDC condemned to a life of cigarette smoking? How can they sleep at night knowing they are scaring people into jeopardizing their health? Even nanny state England has more brains then these fucking fuck.

      Fuck them with a flame thrower.

      1. Their entire job is to ensure people die for their own good. How else do you explain an agency that withholds potentially life saving medicine from terminally ill people to protect their “health”.

        You cannot work for the FDA in any capacity without deserving to burn in hell.

      2. “Even nanny state England has more brains then these fucking fuck.”
        Oh, brains they have… They are simply securing an extra income to supplement their taxpayers-funded pensions.

    4. Well said.

    5. Just a bag?

    6. I disagree wholeheartedly!!

      Making the coconut rubber is too merciful!! You need a harder, preferably coarser material.

  2. Product contains zero tobacco, but is regulated as a “tobacco product.” Because science! That, and FYTW!

    1. I think the nicotine comes from tobacco, so technically it is (or contains) a tobacco product.

      But still, fuck this shit. Just because you can legally do something doesn’t mean you should.

      1. It’s about money and power. Control our lives. Feed the Big Tobacco lobbyists who have pushed for this. That’s what they do.

      2. That means soda pop is technically coffee. 😉

      3. You can extract nicotine from eggplants, tomatoes, potatoes and lots of other plants. It is not a “tobacco product”.

      4. And the ejuice that contains 0 nicotine? The FDA has proposed that they will regulate that as tobacco too. The 0 nicotine ejuice contains flavoring, vegetable glycerin and propylene glycol. (Safety? Check the MSDS.) Now tell me what part of the tobacco plant is mined for them.

        1. The only ejuice I’ve seen without nicotine contained cannabis, which is the way to go if you want to smoke something healthier.

  3. Do smokers not fall asleep with lit cigarettes anymore? Or dispose of ashes inappropriately? Or otherwise have open flames around combustibles?

    It seems like housefires used to happen with some regularity and you’d hear about it. I would imagine e-cigarettes win the health and safety battle on this front alone.

    1. I burned a hole in my old mattress down to the springs…and still kept on smoking. Vaping was the only thing that helped me kick that habit. I used to smoke even when I was sick, but now if I get sick, it is not hard to stop for a few days.

    2. Perhaps it’s not really about health and safety. The prevailing nature of our government is something like this either needs to be banned or put in the hands of the current politically connected industries.

    3. Not to mention all the butts that end up on the beach, in the storm drains, etc.

    4. A lot of cigarettes are “fire safe” now, which means they won’t stay lit for very long.

      1. The government mandated the addition of a carcinogenic fire retardant to traditional cigarettes to make them “fire safe”, by the way. “Same great taste, now with even more ways to kill you!”

        1. Really? I though they just took out the oxidizer they put in the paper.

          1. Pretty sure they took out the oxidizer and added a retarding chemical. I could be totally wrong, but that’s what i remember the deal being when the regs went into place.

            1. Lemme guess. You have to inhale harder to keep the cigarette lit. That’s bound to make it healthier.

  4. Is anyone else pondering if this was the bone thrown to Phillip Morris et al.?

    Otherwise we’re left with the Occam’s Razor of power motive. An entire industry devoted to curing the scourge of smoking, well, the last thing they actually want to happen is a cure for the scourge of smoking.

    1. I lean more towards moral preening and optics and totemization but who the hell knows at this point. Everything the government says is such a transparent lie that any conspiracy theory begins to look plausible in comparison.

      1. It’s all about the money.

        The Republicans are in the corner with the tobacco giants who want to put the smaller mom and pop vaping goods manufacturers out of business (who are making better products than the stupid prefilled gas station e-cigarettes from the big guys).

        The Democrats are in the other corner with the pharmaceutical companies. Pharmaceutical companies too. They are taking a heck of a financial beating on nicotine gum, patches and all the other nicotine products that don’t work.

        Both are losing money and pressuring the politicians to do something about it. States are losing the tax money.

        The ex-smokers are bloody and battered in the middle.

        1. You pretty much nailed it.

      2. Ah, that should read – The Democrats are in the other corner with the pharmaceutical companies.

    2. Possibly it’s a matter of bringing vaping products into the tobacco tax fold?

      I bet this is an opening bid. Ultimately, they’ll want vaping to be taxed at the absurd tobacco rate while making the licensing process relatively easy.

      1. ^ This. Follow the money!

      2. That may well be it. Got to make up for the declining tobacco tax revenues.

    3. A bone? I have full confidence that this is fully the result of “big tobacco” lobbying.

      Regulate them under the same umbrella and the new product will be crushed.

      1. Or the tobacco companies will take over the market once the competitors are driven out of business. Smoking will probably continue to decline with or without e-cigs (though less quickly without) and they want to keep their captive market of nicotine addicts.

      2. Let us not forget BP, aka big pharmacy. They are none too happy that customers are using this inexpensive method of quitting instead of their nicotine replacement therapies or suicide pills. They are also the largest contributors to nonprofits like ALA, ACS, and AHA, who put forth an anti-vaping message as well to protect their cash cow. So now you have the tobacco companies, pharmaceutical companies, and of course the lily white nonprofits all saying it is bad (for their bottom line).

        1. Check out the new documentary, A Billion Lives, a true story about government failure, big business and the vaping revolution. The documentary was made by a non-smoker, and non-vaper who has no financial ties to either the tobacco or vaping industry.
          It is estimated that a billion lives will be lost during the next century to smoking. Learn the truth!

  5. Good to know that the federal government is intent on stamping out thousands of small businesses across the country. I live in a medium sized city and vaping shops are seemingly everywhere.

  6. These people don’t know about the shit they are about to step in.

    1. It’s not that they don’t know, it’s that they don’t care. Their boots are tailor made for stepping on necks and the resulting shit.

    2. Oh, they know. It’s why they’re so eager to step in.

  7. I listened to a woman try to convince me that vaping was unhealthy for you because she saw a study one time that said it might cause something called “popcorn lung”.

    She is also ardently anti-GMO because she thinks there’s a link between increased cancer cases and pesticides, or something. I sent her a ton of information refuting all of it, but to no avail.

    Oh yeah, she is also a chain smoker, but according to her that’s okay because “at least I’ll know what kills me.”

    I am absolutely not making this up, she works down the hall from me. Zero self-awareness in these people.

    1. She is also ardently anti-GMO because she thinks there’s a link between increased cancer cases and pesticides

      Ummmm, don’t GMO’s diminish the need for pesticides? At the very least, GMO =/= pesticide. The hardest part of talking to someone like that, is picking one particular point to attack. It takes virtually no brain power to repeat fallacies while it takes a great of effort to refute the numerous fallacies one by one.

      1. That’s why I don’t bother anymore. I just drop some comment about how delicious my genetically-modified corn that I’m having for lunch is or how wonderful it is that we can genetically engineer crops to feed so many malnourished souls and just watch her mentally implode.

      2. The whole thing is a fucking mess of pseudoscientific babble.

        If glyphosate (Roundup) is the problem*, what the fuck does that have to do with “GMOs”? Wouldn’t you want “glyphosate-free” not “GMO-free”?

        * = It is not a problem

        1. * = It is not a problem

          So GMOs ARE the problem!

          1. Everything’s a problem.

            1. From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!

      3. I think the idea is that some GMO plants are resistant to Roundup, so the farmers can spray the stuff liberally to kill every other plant in the field. In theory that means the GMO plants are exposed to more of the herbicide (not pesticide) than they would be otherwise, so in theory the herbicide may get into the food. And since the herbicide is a chemical, then it must be bad because chemicals are bad.

        1. That dihydrogen monoxide will kill you dead. If you shouldn’t leave your small children without supervision around it, it might need to be banned or tightly regulated.

        2. And if you feed gallons of glyphosate to rats, some of them get cancer, so trace amounts on food are obviously going to kill you.

      4. Well, one common strategy is to breed glyphosate-resistant crops, then spray RoundUp (glyphosate) over the fields to kill competing growth. The anti-GMO strategy is to demonize glyphosate (glyphosate is very safe).

        1. Rice farmers do that a lot – without any GMOs.

  8. Whew – I’m glad I didn’t waste my time on that silly vaping fad.

    *lights up*

    1. Especially now that people are moving back and forth more freely from Cuba!

  9. FDA: Have We Made The World Worse Today?

    1. The answer is always yes.

      1. A Global Force for Evil?

  10. Thus began my slow motion descent into madness my shitty cyperpunk dystopian future. I had a vision and in the future there will be waffles.

    1. Go on…

  11. *Sighs, goes out to garage and plugs in woodchipper*

    1. Dude, you need a gasoline powered chipper for the, err, bigger, umm, limbs.

  12. We’re all children to them.

    Where are the feminists to complain about paternalism?

    1. “Where are the feminists to complain about paternalism?”

      Busy combating manspreading.

  13. What is the point of a vaping juice that does not contain nicotine?

    I think the FDA and the CDC moralists are upset that the nicotine fiends have found a way to get their fix without paying punitive taxes on it. Using actual tobacco is to them more honest than vaping and at least the government gets to profit from it. The hysteria they are reacting to vaping does not seem to make much sense otherwise.

    1. Hysteria rarely does. It’s just panic driven by ignorance. It almost always is.

    2. Don’t overlook the fact that government has become quite accustomed to getting massive amounts of money through tobacco taxes, amounts that have been shrinking as fewer people smoke. Can’t be having people switching to e-cigs and overturning the gravy train, now can we?

      1. Agreed, but they seem to be infuriate that people are avoiding those taxes through a “loophole” instead of the moral purity of abstention.

    3. What is the point of a vaping juice that does not contain nicotine?

      That the market gets to decide what goes into it! With all the terror, I know it might be hard to believe, but inhaling moist air can actually be conditionally therapeutic.

      1. NO!! Think of the CHILDREN!!

      2. Huh… I like to inhale over hot tea… does that make me a vaper??

    4. What is the point of a vaping juice that does not contain nicotine?

      For some unexplainable reason, I have never become physically addicted to any substance…not that I didn’t try. But I very easily develop habits. I mentioned this upthread, but vaping has become my fallback vice. It has helped me cut back on a number of unhealthier vices by replacing them in my habits.

      Chewing on straws and toothpicks is nice and all, but I’m tired of leaving a trail of wood splinters and plastic balls everywhere I go. Vaping works out better for everyone.

      1. There’s a North Carolina bathroom joke in there somewhere…

      2. Same. I love my nicotine, but I can do without it. I’d be fine as long as I can just vape. It’s not the nicotine that I was “addicted” to. Right from the start I could take it or leave it. I just loved the act of smoking. Now I love vaping.

        My vape is hurting no one.

    5. A lot of people become attached to the behaviors associated with smoking as well as the drug. Same reason a lot of former smokers chew gum or toothpicks. Those habits are hard to quit even after you get over the nicotine.

      1. the part Im gonna miss the most whenever I try and quit (probably whenever it starts making biking difficult) is getting five minutes outside and away from everyone.

    6. Because liberals/pseudo scientists/prohibitionists think that if it looks like smoke, it must be smoke.

      There’s no other logical way to describe this pants-shitting stupidity.

      Hell, I can pretend this newspaper beside me is a pizza.

      1. I fucking love science!

    7. Vaping juice w/o nicotine is to satisfy the desire for taste & aroma, w/o calories.

  14. The FDA, like the CDC, counts e-cigarettes as “other tobacco products,” even though they contain no tobacco. That label implies a false equivalence.

    I noticed that today in an article on Reuters

    The use of e-cigarettes is on the rise among U.S. middle and high school students, according to government figures, and officials said they are now the most commonly used tobacco product among youth.

    Struck me as odd. Not sure why media feels compelled to use the FDA’s retarded classification. Probably because someone would complain if they didn’t.

    1. I think you underestimate just how committed the average progressive is to the government bureaucracy these days. These fucks were defending IRS agents just a few months back. You don’t think they’ll carry water for harmful FDA regs? The FDA is all that stands between us and being poisoned by corporations.

    2. The nicotine is likely distilled from tobacco and likely contains some nicotine residue. That’s enough of a hook…

  15. Next they’ll be telling me my morning glass of icy cold bong water is a bad idea.

  16. Another classic example of Gov’t effectively monopolizing an industry with regulation. Disgusting.

    1. Looks like another Baptists and Bootleggers scenario.

      Bootleggers – the largest manufacturers who I’m sure are overjoyed by the stifling of competition
      Baptists – the nannying scumfucks who think e-cig use is a moral failing, and that the lack of danger associated with e-cigs will impede their utopian vision of a “tobacco-free generation”. These people belong in the woodchippers.

      1. “Tobacco-Free generation” is in keeping with an “Endgame” scenario to ban tobacco globally by 2030 I believe. Some countries have already taken steps towards this, with Singapore planning to forbid anyone born after 2000 to buy tobacco starting in 2018. So this is more than just a cute PR buzzword.

        However, Tobacco-Free for them means less than 5% of a population uses tobacco, so even they acknowledge that this isn’t perfect. Whether or not they will even achieve this metric remains to be seen, but is highly dubious given past history…

        1. Don’t many Amerindians use tobacco religiously?? Can we use that fact to sic the Social Justice crowd on the anti-tobacco moralists??

  17. Vaping has destroyed the tobacco control industry’s business model, which is why they are so vehemently trying to kill it. They have been working for years to demonize smoking with ever more obscene taxes, gruesome photos on cigarette packs in some countries, indoor and outdoor bans, etc. I even heard something about Canada actually considering a requirement to make cigarettes produce black smoke and taste like shit.

    Anyway, along comes this new product which produces no smoke, is vastly less dangerous, makes no litter (no discarded butts in the street or sidewalks) and doesn’t make its users smell like an ashtray. That is what infuriates them, these people who have built entire careers on demonizing and ultimately banning a product enjoyed for centuries and its users. Vaping makes a mockery of tobacco control and they truly deserve it.

  18. Vaping has destroyed the tobacco control industry’s business model, which is why they are so vehemently trying to kill it. They have been working for years to demonize smoking with ever more obscene taxes, gruesome photos on cigarette packs in some countries, indoor and outdoor bans, etc. I even heard something about Canada actually considering a requirement to make cigarettes produce black smoke and taste like shit.

    Anyway, along comes this new product which produces no smoke, is vastly less dangerous, makes no litter (no discarded butts in the street or sidewalks) and doesn’t make its users smell like an ashtray. That is what infuriates them, these people who have built entire careers on demonizing and ultimately banning a product enjoyed for centuries and its users. Vaping makes a mockery of tobacco control and they truly deserve it.

    1. Corporate angle of this is another DEFCON for nicotine nannies. Totalitarians had tobacco locked up like the banks; several gigantic combines captured into lucrative and coercive special arrangements with the government.

      Vape has upended where the nicotine bucks go: To an industry of dozens or hundreds of separate companies, many overseas, and none party to settlements of yore. This is existential for the nannies, but the genie is thankfully out of the bottle.

      1. Well said. They may succeed in destroying the domestic small vape shops but can they prevent online purchases from overseas? Vape em if you got em.

  19. All these articles and comments make me want to take up vaping as both a middle finger to the FDA and a reason to quit dipping.

  20. #WithoutGovernmentWhoWould

    1. Government is just the harm reduction tools we eliminate together.
      How dare those filthy nicotine users think they can get their fix without paying the toll.
      It’s the same reason we require poison in painkillers – people having fun without risk is unacceptable. People suffering from chronic pain will just have to deal with it. Break a few eggs, etc.

  21. I’ll treat that ban just like every other ban that I don’t agree with. I will simply ignore the control freaks and do what i want. I have zero problems obtaining cannabis oil for vaping so I’m pretty sure I won’t have any problem obtaining nicotine juice for vaping.

    PS fuck of slavers

    1. It’s not just the juice, but the devices. Innovation in those products is going to be crippled – just as intended.

      1. Is vaping catching on overseas? Because an overseas market can support innovation just as much as an American market.

        1. See my comment in response to that post. Overseas manufacturers really sparked the innovation of vaping devices fron cigalikes to personal vaporizing devices in 08-09. The FDA is basically giving those overseas manufacturers and developers the sole ability to innovate the product. Unless they ban their import into the US, which isn’t above the pettiness of the FDA tbqh fam.

      2. I wonder if the development of new vaporizers us simply going to be moved oveseas as a result of this. Way back in 2008-09, Greek engineers began creating new and innovative vaping devices (such as the Genesis tank) and revamped old devices (they began the mechanical mod boom). With schizo policy-makers at the FDA, the only result, it seems to me, of a ban on innovation will be the outsourcing of that innovation. Too bad for the thousands of shop owners and engineers in the US.

        Somebody get me a woodchipper.

  22. Safe smokes isn’t safe. Government must promote abstinence only.

  23. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home aanyone of you interested should visitt the site. More than sure that you will get best result.

    ===== http://www.Alpha-careers.com

  24. Think FDA et al isn’t aware of the latent political market they just activated.

  25. Pure evil. These assholes HAVE to know that crippling the vaping industry (or even just massively raising the price) will result in a lot of people continuing to smoke cigarettes, and a statistically predictable number of them will get cancer, suffer, and DIE. Measured in body count, this has the potential to exceed the thousands poisoned by ‘denatured’ alcohol during prohibition.

  26. http://sfata.org/what-is-the-g…..-industry/

    Exactly one e-cigar product was on the market on February 15, 2007.

    The FDA apparently believes there are 1,675 e-cigarette products on the market today (most likely a gross underestimation) but only about 25 applications will actually be submitted, most likely from the largest incumbent tobacco companies and the oldest e-cigarette company (NJOY). So by the FDA’s own numbers, over 98% of current products on the market will be illegal in two years.

    Also, for the record, the FDA has approved exactly 0 applications for new products since 2011 (the requirements were so onerous that only four were actually submitted).

  27. Fucking Volstead Act for the 21st century

  28. And the black market vaping supply industry goes into operation….

  29. So here’s the world we’ll have.

    A lot of companies will sell the e-cigs (because they’re just pieces of hardware) and the e-liquids will be purchased from an incredibly small number of manufacturers at an enormous mark-up or from black market sellers who mix the stuff in their bathroom labs because they’ll have the “fun” flavors but are likely to fuck-up the ratios or include less-than-desirable ingredients.

    How exactly is this safe?

  30. And California raised the smoking age from 18 to 21 yesterday, even though no one was complaining about it.

    1. Seriously, I live in California and had ZERO inkling this was even proposed…

  31. Which law gives the FDA authority to do this*? I mean, if the FDA can call vaping “tobacco”, then can’t it just call Pez “tobacco” and regulate it as such?

    *Other than the FYTW clause…

    1. Damn it, don’t give them ideas!!

  32. Surely at a cost of a million bucks per product application, it would make more financial sense for the names of FDA bureaucrats to start trending in death prediction markets. After a few terrible accidents, etc., the FDA would presumably knock this shit off.

  33. Does this include 0 Nicotine products, vape caffeine, and, even though we don’t have it yet, we will soon, vape alcohol?

    1. I thought we already had seen vaporized alcohol. Though I can’t imagine why you would want such a thing when drinking is such an enjoyable activity.

      1. “when drinking is such an enjoyable activity”

        Clearly you’ve never had the pleasure of butt-chugging.

    2. good point, you’d also think they can’t regulate the devices themselves; it would be like trying to regulate a tobacco pipe. Hopefully they can’t reg no nic juice, then you just buy the concentrate nic juice and mix it yourself; that would be workable if a bit cumbersome

  34. The news this week is just getting worse and worse. First Trump becomes the de facto Republican candidate, now the FDA is fucking my friends who own vape businesses in the ass. Maybe I should start smoking again.

    To the woodchippers with all of them.

    1. What if Trump gets elected & stops this reg?

      1. Why would he? The hardware is nearly all manufactured in China (much of the e-liquid is made there, too) while the tobacco for most cigarettes is grown in the good ol’ US of A.

  35. I am sorry I tried to better myself my way master, please forgive me.

  36. So a product even without nicotine in it is now considered a tobacco product??? By what tortured twisting of science and definitions can they say that?

    Don’t bother answering. Reality has long been anathema to regulators and their cronies.

  37. DAMNNIT! I like many others quit the real deal years ago thanks to the vape and am perfectly happy at my 3mg juice i’ve been using for the past year; now of course these fuckers stick their red taped assholes right in everyone’s business and ruin what’s probably one of the best harm reduction tools smokers have ever had access to. The fucking ratchet amirite?

  38. I think Mr. Sullum should disclose that he and Reason have received money in the past from the tobacco industry. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Jacob_Sullum I agree that government should be out of the business of regulating anything we ingest, but that such a disclosure would alert readers to check out citations and such — and not just take assertions at face value.

    1. Why, if anything this article is against tobacco. Virtually all vaping products are created and sold not only by people who aren’t related to tobacco, but those in class mpetition with them.

  39. The whole tobacco ban was “look at all the different chemicals”. Now that e-cigs don’t have any of those chemicals, they have changed their tune to “look at the nicotine”. smh

    It’s not about health, it’s about forcing “I don’t like that” on other people.

  40. Can’t have the livestock harming themselves.

  41. FDA must think the RCoP is full of retards then. – http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/o…..eduction-0

    I’m sick of this bullshit.

  42. What are the chances that states will enact bills exempting vaping gear that is made and sold within that state from federal regulation? (Not that this should be necessary in the first place.)

  43. Thank God Obama’s centralized socialist government is looking out for me, a mere 69 year old child.

  44. so this is the moment we’ll be able to point back to as the beginning of big vaporizer?

  45. I’m allergic to cigar and cigarette smoke, and vaping is the only way I’ve been able to walk by smokers vaping outside without suffering and coughing.

    Thanks a lot for endangering my health again, Uncle Sam, you asshole.

  46. The sad thing is, this will end up with a significant body count. Not just the cancers due to vaping no longer being a financially attractive or easily available alternative, but the prohibition effect. The equivalent of “bathtub gin” will be black-market e-juice made from nicotine-based pesticides and crap like that. And every time some kind gets a nicotine overdose or a snort of some other poison and dies, the evil bastards will blame everyone but themselves for making it inevitable.

    Resist much, obey little.

  47. 1. The FDA isn’t acting spontaneously, or it would have acted sooner. It appears to me that it’s dragging its feet. Probably the impetus came from private anti-smoking organizations that have long had an “anti-smoking” mindset. Vaping is smoking, so their knee-jerk reaction is to ban it. They have been grousing for years about how vaping should be regulated, and probably having their lawyers write letters to the FDA about it.

    Such crusaders also tend to have a black vs, white, absolutist mentality and favor only the “best” solution (abstinence) over the “good” solution (harm reduction), They see good solutions as compromises with evil. There must be no compromise!

    2. Bureaucrats favor the letter of the law (stop smoking) over the spirit or intent of the law (harm reduction). See “The Death of Common Sense.” The letters to it by lawyers probably harped on the FDA’s “legal obligation” to regulate vaping, and the FDA probably decided that it didn’t want a legal fight with them. It would rather have a court fight with the vaping industry, one it was more likely to win.

    3. There is a vaping industry organization. It can probably raise funds to mount a collective suit against the FDA, perhaps aided by donations from wealthy libertarians. At a minimum, it might ask to let manufacturers consolidate their applications, if their products are essentially the same.

    4. The Cool Tools site recommends the Kanger EVOD e-cigarette system, at http://kk.org/cooltools/archives/11302

  48. I proposed the following on the WaPo site on 7/7/15:

    Prohibit cigarettes entirely and encourage the use of nicotine vaporizers.
    Results:
    A 90% reduction in tobacco-related illnesses.
    Less litter (no more cigarette butts).
    Less collateral damage to drapes, etc.
    Fewer fires.
    Less of a financial drain on consumers.
    OR: Increased tax revenue from the taxation of vaping liquid plus the increased number of vapers (eventually) over smokers.

    Earlier, on Feb. 12, 2013, I posted the following on the on WhyNot? Site, at: http://www.whynot.net/ideas/7130

    Now that electronic cigarettes have come along, it would be practicable for governments to ban cigarettes, since:
    ? Addicts would have an alternative they could turn to.
    ? No substantial bootlegging would develop.
    ? E-cigarettes would be far healthier for smokers.
    ? E-cigarettes would eliminate any [or nearly every] “externality” on second-hand smokers.
    Therefore there’d be no widespread opposition to the passage of a ban?especially after one or two pioneer countries or provinces (states, in the US) had blazed the trail.

    I dealt there with many objections to the above in my responses to comments on my proposal.

  49. (I had to split my comment into three pieces because of this site’s 1500-byte limit.)
    The best response the vaping industry could make, from a big-picture, public-opinion, political POV, would be to counter the FDA’s action with proposals like the above. It would (even if insincere):
    1. Undercut the complaint that vaping might lead to cigarette smoking.
    2. Provide the only realistic path to the elimination of cigarettes and the massive social and health benefit thereby.
    3. Draw in many anti-smokers to their side.
    4. Make the vaping industry look like the “white hat” in the dispute.
    5. Put the other side on the defensive (Important in politics!)

  50. I can see what your saying… Carrie `s st0rry is great, on monday I bought themselves a BMW 5-series from bringing in $7500 this – four weeks past and-a little over, ten k lass month . with-out a doubt this is the easiest work Ive ever done . I actually started six months/ago and pretty much immediately began to bring home at least $72, p/h . browse this site…O2..

    ——- http://www.Report20.com

  51. til I saw the draft which was of $6881 , I didnt believe that my mother in law had been realy taking home money part-time on their laptop. . there best friend has done this 4 only twelve months and at present took care of the mortgage on there condo and got a top of the range Subaru Impreza . Learn More ….

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ?????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  52. Sigh — I may be optimistic here, but any chance to get Congress to act against the FDA on this? Also, see the supplement industry for an example of successful push back.

    1. Congress is slaves of FDA and Government Almighty… Count on them fer NUTHIN!!! Prep up to lube up either your ass or your woodchipper! I favor our woodchippers, mah self…

  53. Bureaucracy completely out of control.

  54. The rebirth of Prohibition tomorrow or next week?

  55. Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the afore mentioned appeared in the article, leading me to the following question. What sort of legislative idiocy is this??

  56. I have never become physically addicted to any substance…not that I didn’t try. But I very easily develop habits.

  57. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.selfcash10.com

  58. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $12000 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

    Go to tech tab for more detail… http://www.earnmore9.com

  59. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week….

    Read more on this web site============ http://www.earnmore9.com

  60. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    ============ http://www.social36.com

  61. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do thaat on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn money at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the site. More than sure that you will get best result.OI3..

    ====== http://www.CashPost7.com

  62. before I looked at the draft saying $9453 , I have faith that my mother in law woz like truley erning money part time at there computar. . there mums best friend haz done this 4 less than 14 months and just repayed the dept on their apartment and purchased a brand new Honda . read here …..

    Please click the link below
    ==========
    http://www.selfcash10.com

  63. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.Centernet40.com

  64. up to I looked at the check of $4791 , I did not believe …that…my neighbour could actualie earning money in there spare time on their laptop. . there friend brother has been doing this for less than 7 months and resently cleard the morgage on their mini mansion and purchased a great Bugatti Veyron . you could look here ……..

    Click This Link inYour Browser….

    ?????? http://www.Reportmax20.com

  65. I have never become physically addicted to any substance…not that I didn’t try. But I very easily develop habits.

    egypt
    almasdar

  66. I actually quit smoking with help of e-cigarettes. There are many misconceptions, but for me, it has been a valid solution. My story is in the blog of my site, here: https://www.smokshop.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.