FDA deeming regulation proposals - Page 114
Page 114 of 115 FirstFirst ... 1464104110111112113114115 LastLast
Results 1,131 to 1,140 of 1145
Like Tree3603Likes

Thread: FDA deeming regulation proposals

  1. #1131
    Ultra Member KODIAK (TM)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Dead Moose, AK
    Posts
    1,469

    Default

    If you are just interested in hearing the fist-fight between Tom Baker and I, you can jump to the 1 hour 26 minute mark in the broadcast or just use this link to go there directly:

    https://soundcloud.com/vp-live/the-w...date#t=1:25:48
    I still think Mr. "B." is naive but for the most part many of his convictions are rooted in some kind of twisted logic. Sorry to see him banned from ECF. Every worthwhile cause can benefit from a devil's advocate.

  2. #1132
    PV Master ECF Veteran Jman8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    3,051
    Blog Entries
    6

    Default

    Finally in my own little version of "Call To Prepare" and organizing links I've gathered along the way.

    #1 on that list is the proposed rule, and just realized today that the original PDF for proposed rule, or very first link in OP of this thread, is now gone. Good news is the third link does replicate that, so not entirely erased from cyberspace.

    While reviewing the "Docket Folder Summary" from FDA that contains history of the proposed rule (through today), I see a few things:
    - namely what most of us knew in that a new comment area was created, and is current one to use (see here)
    - and that new comment area is based on proposed rule as found here

    - and am curious if the correction(s) (as noted here) are anything significant?

    I don't recall discussing those corrections here on ECF, but perhaps I missed that thread.

  3. #1133
    Double Guru Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Kent C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NW Ohio US
    Posts
    20,289
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jman8 View Post
    Finally in my own little version of "Call To Prepare" and organizing links I've gathered along the way.

    #1 on that list is the proposed rule, and just realized today that the original PDF for proposed rule, or very first link in OP of this thread, is now gone. Good news is the third link does replicate that, so not entirely erased from cyberspace.

    While reviewing the "Docket Folder Summary" from FDA that contains history of the proposed rule (through today), I see a few things:
    - namely what most of us knew in that a new comment area was created, and is current one to use (see here)
    - and that new comment area is based on proposed rule as found here

    - and am curious if the correction(s) (as noted here) are anything significant?

    I don't recall discussing those corrections here on ECF, but perhaps I missed that thread.
    I wrote this:

    White House Weakens Proposed FDA E-Cigarette Regulations

    post #18
    Jman8 likes this.

  4. #1134
    Full Member Verified Member MarkLH90's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OBF_Vapor View Post
    I am willing to take the risk with vaping because I KNOW smoking will kill me, vaping should not.
    Quoted for truth. Even if I read a study saying ejuice is a direct equivalent of Marlboro Menthols at least this ~~~~ tastes better. I'm about to drive to work with a mug full of coffee and a kraken full of Banana Nut Bread. Kiss my ~~~ Marlboro, I'm out!
    DC2, aikanae1, Coldrake and 2 others like this.

  5. #1135
    Full Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Colorado USA
    Posts
    71

    Default

    Smoke-free for a year today. Electronic cigarettes have given me a way to quit smoking. I am confused how it can be labeled as a tobacco product, when it does not contain tobacco. Nicotine is a naturally occurring chemical and can be found in many fruits and vegetables. Electronic cigarettes are not a tobacco product and it would be irresponsible to label it as such.
    SolRayz and Jcdew67 like this.

  6. #1136
    Full Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Nashville,TN
    Posts
    80

    Default

    Derived from Tobacco is just a excuse like others have said targeted towards ecigs so they can try to regulate them.

    So what makes me wonder is if they figure out a way to get synthetic Nicotine or get it from Vegetables cost effectivly and such what they would do.

    To tax them then would require them to tax Vegetables and Fruits as a Tobacco product by Law,sorry son "a apple a day" requires you to be 18 or older =P
    Mowgli likes this.

  7. #1137
    Full Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Washington, DC, USA
    Posts
    16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 6pointprime View Post
    The replay of last night's episode of Click, Bang! is up

    The Wrath Of Tom Baker - HanaModz Debacle - NYC Lawsuit Update

    https://soundcloud.com/vp-live/the-w...-bang-archives
    I need to wake up already. My first thought was "Why would Dr Who even be involved?".
    Last edited by KaraDC; 08-10-2014 at 03:57 PM. Reason: fix bbcode
    aikanae1 and CabinetGuyScott like this.

  8. #1138
    mjt
    mjt is offline
    Senior Member ECF Veteran
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    209

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by randyith View Post
    This is President Obama's mindset, "People don't grow businesses, the US Government does."
    Yep, this is big government at work. They do it all the time and to other industries and they usually use it as a political tool as well to get people to vote. It doesn't matter if it's the EPA,FDA, FAA, HHS, DHS or the IRS, it's all the same and if you only care when it's you that is personally effected, you are part of the problem. As a person that loathes big government, I'm use to being told I'm evil, hate children, the elderly or whatever and mocked as some weirdo because I think the government should be constrained by US Constitution and limited in it's scope.

    This is all to be expected, they won't secure our borders which is required of the Federal Government by law, but they'll sure as heck crush any of us when it pleases them.
    Kent C, DC2, firechick and 7 others like this.

  9. #1139
    Double Guru Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Kent C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NW Ohio US
    Posts
    20,289
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mjt View Post
    Yep, this is big government at work. They do it all the time and to other industries and they usually use it as a political tool as well to get people to vote. It doesn't matter if it's the EPA,FDA, FAA, HHS, DHS or the IRS, it's all the same and if you only care when it's you that is personally effected, you are part of the problem. As a person that loathes big government, I'm use to being told I'm evil, hate children, the elderly or whatever and mocked as some weirdo because I think the government should be constrained by US Constitution and limited in it's scope.

    This is all to be expected, they won't secure our borders which is required of the Federal Government by law, but they'll sure as heck crush any of us when it pleases them.
    1000 likes.
    Soberrider and kathi17 like this.

  10. #1140
    Ultra Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    ClippinWings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    The OC
    Posts
    1,641
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MorpheusPA View Post
    Don't Tread on Me!

    Except in this case, they didn't, it seems. I was tremendously worried about the availability of unflavored nic concentrates, but they did nothing.

    I was worried they'd simply ban flavors. Nope.

    I was worried they'd ban advertising to adults. Nada.

    I wasn't worried about devices as they clearly don't fall under the FDA's umbrella.

    All in all, while this isn't 100%--the approval process' efficiency remains to be seen--I'd say the vaping community got a solid 80% of what it really wanted.
    just went back and was re-reading this thread(morbid curiousity)...

    so, now that the proposed regs have been seriously dissected and the comment period is done.

    Do you still think this?

    Or do you, like me, almost find it comical how far off most people's first impressions were?
    Coldrake likes this.



Bookmarks