E-cigarettes

FDA Assigns Zero Value to Smokers Who Die Because of Its E-Cigarette Regulations

New rules will dramatically reduce competition, variety, and innovation, retarding the replacement of smoking with a much safer alternative.

|

Nicopure

The FDA's e-cigarette regulations, which were published last May, took effect this week. As I explain in my latest Forbes column, the rules will dramatically reduce competition, variety, and innovation, retarding the replacement of smoking with a much safer alternative:

The Food and Drug Administration's e-cigarette regulations, which took effect this week, immediately struck two blows against public health. As of Monday, companies that sell vaping equipment and the fluids that fill them are forbidden to share potentially lifesaving information about those products with their customers. They are also forbidden to make their products safer, more convenient, or more pleasant to use.

The FDA's censorship and its ban on innovation will discourage smokers from switching to vaping, even though that switch would dramatically reduce the health risks they face. That effect will be compounded by the FDA's requirement that manufacturers obtain its approval for any vaping products they want to keep on the market for longer than two years. The cost of meeting that requirement will force many companies out of business and force those that remain to shrink their offerings, dramatically reducing competition and variety.

All of this is unambiguously bad for consumers and bad for public health. Yet the FDA took none of it into account when it estimated the costs imposed by its regulations, simply assuming that good intentions would ensure good results.

Read the whole thing.

NEXT: Brickbat: I Know You

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. The FDA likely kills more people than the DOD.

    1. Well, more Americans at least.

      1. Hey now, plenty of illegal immigrants smoke in the United States you racist!

  2. So the FDA has gone from vilifying cigarette companies to supporting them. And the DEA just refused yet again to acknowledge the mountain of evidence indicating marijuana should not be a Schedule I drug. It’s almost as if these agencies are there to protect specific established interest groups rather than to protect all consumers with science-based regulation.

  3. I wonder how much the Tobacco Settlement money has to do with this. We’re talking about billions of dollars here.

    1. Bingo. Government is hopelessly addicted to that cash flow, and reduced sales from the tobacco companies has already put a crimp in state budgets.

    2. I feel this way about Exxon and the RICO investigation. Go full Ellis Wyatt, with a sign that says, “Good Luck with your infrastructure and green energy projects, sorry about your fuel tax revenues.”

  4. I guess it’s back to China for vaping gear, then.

    1. It’s already made there anyway from what I can tell. Although, yeah, just because the FDA doesn’t want companies selling these doesn’t put a crimp in buying it from, say, Canada and just having it shipped.

      The FDA would rather you die from smoking cigarettes, while funding the government, than have you use a product that is safer but less regulated. I wonder if the FDA classifies nicotine gum and patches as ‘Tobacco Products’.

  5. If you’re under the impression that government gives a shit about you or your family, then you probably find this article disturbing.
    If, on the other hand, you accept reality and understand that the only thing government cares about is itself, then this story is just another instance of government being government.

    1. How dare you. It’s just a name for the things we choose to do together.

      1. You’re being facetious here but way too many people actually take that as a true statement-it seems more than ever, in the US at least.

        1. Hence, Obama, Hillary, etc

          1. #StrongerTogether

        2. No. That is a correct statement. It just leaves out the fact that we hate each other and ourselves.

      2. It’s just a name for the things “we” “choose” to do together …

        at gunpoint.

  6. This garbage is proof that this isn’t about public health, it’s about a carveout for the large tobacco companies and a bit of a social war against a group of people the left doesn’t like. The FDA should be an evidence based agency but they’ve become politicized and need to be flushed.

    1. The FDA should be an evidence based agency but they’ve become politicized and need to be flushed.

      Ha! You’ll have to use a low-flow toilet!

      1. The most vile of uselessness.

        I live in a state that gets more rainfall than a swamp in an area that is at the junction of two rivers. Water is plentiful. I should not have to flush multiple times to get the darn thing to properly process (along with the application of a plunger on an almost daily basis)

        1. Yeah, and talking about unintended consequences. If you have to flush two or three times, which is SOP for the toilets at the office where I work, you’re using way more water than a regular flow toilet flushed once

        2. You need better toilette. The low flow ones I have work perfectly. But of course the mandate (especially a national mandate) is terrible.

          I also live in an area with abundant groundwater. The one that pisses me off the most are the low flow faucets. In a kitchen sink or bath tub, 2.5 GPM is retarded.

            1. Sounds like a Ferguson. Now that’s a MAN’S flush.

    2. “The FDA should be an evidence based agency but they’ve become politicized and need to be flushed.”

      Totally agree about the flushing. The thing that bothers the most about the FDA (and I’m not sure it would make a difference), but this country has always operated on a presumption of innocence. Why does a company have to prove to the FDA it’s product is safe? Should it not be the job of the FDA to prove that it is not? Why should a company be obligated to spend the amount of money they are required to just to prove their safe product is safe? And if the FDA was truly working to ensure public health and safety, why do they leave the ENTIRE vitamin/dietary supplement untouched? My company could be producing vitamin B12 tablets on the same equipment as we produce rat poison without even cleaning and the FDA wouldn’t give a shit. Fuck this and all other gov’t agencies.

      1. Even worse, if you can’t prove that your product doesn’t produce an increase in safety or efficacy over current drugs on the market, you don’t get approved.

        So if I were to make a drug that was just as good as any of a number of drugs, but can’t prove it is better, I don’t get approved. It’s fucking Bernie Sanders deodorant on a people killing scale.

        Preventable deaths in America are probably 1. Car Accidents, 2. Alcohol, 3. The FDA. And I’m not even sure that is the correct order, it is probably not considering the FDA has probably slowed medicine down at least 30 years.

  7. If only someone in a position of authority over the FDA understood the dangers of cigarette smoking, and how vaping could be a safer alternative.

    Has anyone mentioned this to Obama?

    1. He hides the paper before the Wookie sees it.

    2. Even if Obama quit smoking by vaping, this would not change anything with regard to the FDA and the little people.

  8. Hey, at least progressives have the imagination to envision a better world. “Dealing with the world as it is” is just a cop out.

  9. “All of this is unambiguously bad for consumers and bad for public health. Yet the FDA took none of it into account when it estimated the costs imposed by its regulations, simply assuming that good intentions would ensure good results.”

    Brought to you by the Democratic (party of science) minions infecting the federal employee payroll in every agency.

  10. The government can retard with the best of them.

  11. So on the one hand we have the fact that a pack-a-day smoker who switches to e-cigs represents on the order of $3-4K lost revenue annually, ultimately split between tobacco company sales, state and federal tax collections, and MSA (tobacco settlement) payments.

    And on the other, we have a fledgling cottage industry being choked out of existence by the FDA for no empirically-articulable health-related reason.

    1. When you say it like that…

  12. I find it infinitely amusing, in a grim kind of way, that the progressive left is somehow able to out-socially-conservative actual social conservatives with this kind of insanity. It seems like the only thing the illiberal left is actually ‘liberal’ on are abortions; everything else harkens back to the days of burning witches.

    This is reason number 1 that I can’t stand progressives. I have plenty in common with actual Classical Liberals, but it seems there aren’t any of those left these days.

    1. There is literally nothing classically liberal left about the Democratic Party. Even the issues that we classical liberals (aka libertarians) overlap with them on, their solutions are ALWAYS illiberal and erode liberty.

      This is why I and most other commenters here cannot stand the cosmos. They are stuck in the past, maybe 20 years ago, when we did have some common ground with these assholes and little with the Republicans. Right now the Republican people are much more liberal than the Democratic people, and can be convinced of libertarian ideas, but the cosmos consistently alienate them and degrade them like they are common democrats, rather than reach out to them.

      1. Classically Liberal isn’t the same thing as Libertarian by my understanding but I tend to agree otherwise.

        To me it’s a question of authoritarian impulse and the impulse to regulate anything someone derives pleasure from that isn’t ‘approved’ of by the person with an authoritarian bent. Also, there’s a healthy dose of paternalistic narcissism.

        I.E.
        A) I hate the smell of cigarette smoke.

        B) We’ll do it ‘for their own good’ because it will kill them.

        C) I stuck my nose into their healthcare to the point where it’s everyone’s business, they are costing me money by smoking. (Regardless of the taxes they put into the system, of course!)

        Note that only the first point really matters to this theoretical person.

  13. So you can’t buy manufactured ejuice but you can buy 99% pure nicotine which is insanely poisonous. People are already going DIY because none of the individual components fall under the new regs. So stupid.

    http://www.clivebates.com/?p=4017

  14. Repeal the Food and Drug Act.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.