Today has been a very hectic day in the US Vape World~
The NY State Senate passed a raft of Bills including the prohibition of the sale of e-liquid.
Yesterday, we found out about a public hearing by the Commerce, Transportation, & Advertising Committee is giving Weds. June 18 2014 in DC. There is a pre-lunch meeting ( not open to the public) followed by a panel discussion.
This committee is chaired by Sen. Rockefeller, who has made it quite plain that he is not pro vaping. Also on the committee is Sen. Barbara Boxer who also authored a Bill s. 2047 at the end of February this year on the same subject: “Aggressive Advertising of e-cigarettes to Youth.” This goes hand-in-hand with the report generated by staff of various Democrats under Sen. Dick Durbin’s auspices. They all use the same reference material: ALA, CDC, Stanton Glantz/Legacy Foundation materials and the misinterpretations with opinions of data taken out of context.
I called Sen. Boxer’s DC Office today to ask some questions and voice my concerns and displeasure with the short notice of the Hearing, the lack of perspective from people who use and/ or have small businesses personal vaping devices and the consequences of her Bill and this Hearing for the knock-on effect this has. The assistant could not find any info on any meetings Boxer had with constituents (like me) who were not ANTZ.
When the assistant pointed out that her Bill came out in Feb (2-28-14) and why didn’t I speak up then. I took a breath, a pause, and explained the urgency of AB1500.
But the study points out—as I have before—that banning flavored juice would likely wind up just benefiting the big tobacco companies that don’t offer flavor options and have the “financial backing” to go through the expensive approval process. If those brand dominate the market, it continued, it may actually increase users’ chances of picking up the smoking habit, because those cigalike products are more similar to tobacco smokes than the newer vape mods.
“The existing vibrant e-cigarette market described in this study suggests that regulation based on insufficient scientific data might run the risk of only changing the market share of different e-cigarette brands rather than smoking prevalence itself,” the authors wrote.
The report stopped short of claiming the proposed FDA regulations would wipe out smaller brands, but said there’s no doubt it would benefit the brands with “strong financial backing,” and that most of those are owned by big tobacco.
That said, it agreed with many points the FDA has proposed, such as listing ingredients, requiring any health claims be backed up by scientific research, and banning vaping indoors and in public places: “Based on the study results, the FDA’s deeming laws seem a logical and fair step,” Cummins said.