Representative Tom Cole (R-OK) assigned "H.R. 2058" last April to a congressional committee to "amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act", which would change the date to exclude vaping products "deemed tobacco products" in the "Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009" (FSPTCA). As it stands, product(s) "made or derived from tobacco" and "on the market before February 15, 2007" are already exempt and "grandfathered" under the act. Vaping products were not readily available before the arbitrary date, pharmaceutical products like the patch and gum were available well before the date set in the FSPCTA and would not be subject to tax or regulation.

What are the issues?

The problems faced by possible regulatory control can be confusing to a casual observer. Support for H.R. 2058 is paramount in preventing current and future vaping products from being regulated and taxed without cause due to the time frame they became available. Claims by some, such as "addiction to nicotine" and that tobacco companies are "targeting children" are blatantly abused by some politicians and organizations to persuade public opinion. Large tobacco companies are not in control of the e-cigarette market. Nicotine, without tobacco or other chemicals and additives, has not been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be addictive on its own. According to a study byVanderbilt University Medical Center in 2012, non-smokers, testing the "effectiveness of a trans dermal nicotine patch in improving memory loss" reported no withdrawal symptoms.

This may come as a surprise to most: the claim of nicotine itself being addictive has never been proven, yet has been demonized by governments and health professionals for years.

Organizations are assisting consumers, small business in the political process:

Vapor products have stopped an estimated ten million former smokers in the United States from smoking, and those vapers are proudly taking the political process into their own hands.

They're writing letters, calling, and having meetings with local and state representatives to explain what should be common sense: sponsor this bill. Consumer groups like The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association (CASAA) and Not Blowing Smoke frequently post calls to action on their websites for consumers, keeping them informed of any local or state legislation so consumers can take appropriate steps.

Industry groups like the American Vaping Association (AVA) and Smoke Free Alternatives Trade Association (SFATA) represent the thousands of small businesses who will be impacted by deeming regulations if H.R. 2058 does not pass. These organizations also support local and state vaping organizations along with assisting the consumer groups to oppose legislation at every level.

Momentum is building:

Some vapers have never involved themselves in the political process, are now very active knowing the opportunity to educate representatives is essential in keeping vaping products available as a consumer product, and the importance of the bill. Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA), a former smoker-now vaper himself, is a co-sponsor of Cole's bill.

He made it very clear last week after openly vaping during a hearing on an amendment to ban vaping on planes, stating "There's no combustion, there are no carcinogens ... there is no burning, there is nothing noxious about this whatsoever".

There are now 48 representatives, all republicans, co-sponsoring H.R. 2058.