Monday, August 8, 2016

FDA Vapor Regs Analogy for Non-Vapers

Don't get why the FDA vapor product regulations are ridiculous? Let us give you a more relatable analogy...

Imagine that some small, upstart tech company developed a car that significantly reduces accidents and emissions, and makes driving at least 95% safer for the public and cleaner for the environment.

Except the government, environmental groups and insurance companies claim that the remaining 5% risk is still too high and that teens might be lured into buying these cool-looking, colorful cars (adults don't want cool cars, of course) and drive recklessly, because they (correctly) perceive the car to be safer. So, they say these safer, cleaner cars need to be regulated just like the existing, dangerous gas guzzlers.

The new regulations require the small tech company to jump through new, prohibitively expensive and complicated regulatory hoops that were supposed to reduce accidents and emissions. Not only do they have to prove they're safer and cleaner than existing cars, they have to prove that their car will never cause an accident, can't be misused to cause an accident, can't be modified to increase emissions, will never inspire someone to drive recklessly and won't cause someone to buy a different car (that doesn't have the same safety and environmental features) in the future.

Even if they do manage to prove all of that and can scrape up the money to get approved, the regulations also prohibit the company and car dealerships from allowing customers to test drive the car and forbid them from advertising or telling their customers that the car is safer than other cars and better for the environment.

On top of all of that, the regulations DON'T apply to the existing car designs on the market, because the law grandfathered in any car design that was on the market before 2007,  allowing them to keep selling without hindrance. Of course, if Big Auto wants to introduce a new design, it can afford the millions of dollars it would cost to meet the requirements OR it can just make a few tweaks and claim the new design is "substantially equivalent" to its pre-2007 design. As long as they don't make their car safer or cleaner, it's substantially equivalent.

Therefore, the new, reduced risk and cleaner car won't be able to be sold and the far more dangerous gas guzzlers will be the consumers' only option. Or, the government and policy groups tell them, they should just quit driving altogether and walk or bike everywhere, since that's the safest and healthiest option.

To add insult to injury, the governments that passed high taxes on the old cars - to encourage the public to buy cleaner and safer cars - are now applying the same onerous taxes to the cleaner and safer cars, too.

That's EXACTLY what the FDA is doing to the vapor industry.

If you're a vaper, the fight is NOT OVER! Go to NOW!


  1. To make this analogy even more appropriate:

    The main reason for the success of this innovation is its customisation. It is made of rather simple parts. You don't need a big company to improve some of these parts. So a lot of small businesses appeared that offered a wide range of individual modifications. Every customer had the choice of many alternative parts to build exactly the combination that fits his needs. Or even create his own parts. And that's what none of the gas guzzler mafia considers. They just want to sell their mass produced junkers. No need for diversity, when you don't have real competition.

  2. This is fantastic, a brilliant analogy. You are absolutely correct. Why doesn't the American General Public care to know the facts about vaping? How can we change public opinion? We need better leadership in the vape community and we must remain united. Plus, constantly telling as many American citizens as we can about the benefits of vaping is imperative. Regardless what are your thoughts to help teach Americans of this unconstitutional overreach?


Bookmark and Share
Bookmark and Share