Why was the year 2007 picked in the proposed FDA regulations? - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
Like Tree33Likes

Thread: Why was the year 2007 picked in the proposed FDA regulations?

  1. #11
    ECF Guru Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    JerryRM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Not the Sin Bin
    Posts
    17,633

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stevegmu View Post
    I don't see any issues. The only e-cigs I have are NJOY kings, which I use from time to time. My ProVari are regulated power delivery systems...
    I see your point, but will the FDA? Not likely.
    WorksForMe and Buckeyeoak86 like this.
    DON'T go back to smoking, no matter what the FDA does.
    Going back to smoking will be a huge loss for you, in more ways than one.

  2. #12
    Double Guru Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Kent C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NW Ohio US
    Posts
    20,531
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DC2 View Post
    I've seen the answer before, but I don't remember what that answer was right now.
    But I do not it's not the answer you are thinking it is.
    You saw it here :-) ... for one place.

    The Predicate Product of 2006 for FDA: Meet the Ruyan V8 , Early Innovator and Marketer of E-Ciig Vaping
    DC2 and LaraC like this.

  3. #13
    Ultra Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    dragonpuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the river and through the woods, Western NY
    Posts
    1,081

    Default

    On a related note:

    What does everyone think the likelihood is of the grandfather date actually being moved forward to account for changes in regulation?

    "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering." Doctor Who

  4. #14
    Full Member Verified Member 5bucks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    88

    Default

    Thanks folks. Guess I was too cynical and jumped to the wrong conclusions.

  5. #15
    Double Guru Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Kent C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NW Ohio US
    Posts
    20,531
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dragonpuff View Post
    On a related note:

    What does everyone think the likelihood is of the grandfather date actually being moved forward to account for changes in regulation?
    It would have to be by Congress (they'd have to amend the act) and under the current situation in the Senate - I'd say it had 0% of being changed unless Zeller would see the light - unlikely - to put in his bid to congress for it. Even then, I think it couldn't get through committee.

  6. #16
    Ultra Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Supporting Member
    WorksForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    N.N., Virginia
    Posts
    1,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dragonpuff View Post
    On a related note:

    What does everyone think the likelihood is of the grandfather date actually being moved forward to account for changes in regulation?
    I don’t see that happening unless the FDA is under a lot of pressure from somewhere. Leaving all of the existing ecigs on the market unmolested is the last thing they want.

    J.R.


    "If you're not at the table; you're on the menu."

  7. #17
    Ultra Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    dragonpuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the river and through the woods, Western NY
    Posts
    1,081

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kent C View Post
    It would have to be by Congress (they'd have to amend the act) and under the current situation in the Senate - I'd say it had 0% of being changed unless Zeller would see the light - unlikely - to put in his bid to congress for it. Even then, I think it couldn't get through committee.
    Yeah, our chronically inactive congress isn't going to be very helpful seeing as how the deeming regulations are set to go into effect next year it's unlikely that, under any circumstances, congress will vote on it by then...

    "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering." Doctor Who

  8. #18
    Double Guru Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Kent C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NW Ohio US
    Posts
    20,531
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dragonpuff View Post
    Yeah, our chronically inactive congress isn't going to be very helpful seeing as how the deeming regulations are set to go into effect next year it's unlikely that, under any circumstances, congress will vote on it by then...
    It's still unclear exactly when the final rule will come down - some predictions are that it won't be for a while. And it could be after the next election, in which case there would be a possibility of a change in one chamber that might allow an amendment before the regulations are put into effect. Of course, it could be amended even after it's put into effect, but many things would have to happen for that to come about, imo.

    For one thing, within the '24 month' period, cigarette sales could continue to plummet and ecig sales could skyrocket and the results could show up in some polls that the smoking population could drop to, say 15% or lower, and that it could be attributed to ecigarettes :-) .... THEN... there may be some who have opposed ecigarettes but were not part of an ideological group who want no cigarettes OR ecigarettes, where the former group could sway the vote to amendment. Again - not likely - but given those conditions, a probability.
    Jman8 likes this.

  9. #19
    Ultra Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    dragonpuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Over the river and through the woods, Western NY
    Posts
    1,081

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kent C View Post
    It's still unclear exactly when the final rule will come down - some predictions are that it won't be for a while. And it could be after the next election, in which case there would be a possibility of a change in one chamber that might allow an amendment before the regulations are put into effect. Of course, it could be amended even after it's put into effect, but many things would have to happen for that to come about, imo.

    For one thing, within the '24 month' period, cigarette sales could continue to plummet and ecig sales could skyrocket and the results could show up in some polls that the smoking population could drop to, say 15% or lower, and that it could be attributed to ecigarettes :-) .... THEN... there may be some who have opposed ecigarettes but were not part of an ideological group who want no cigarettes OR ecigarettes, where the former group could sway the vote to amendment. Again - not likely - but given those conditions, a probability.
    I got that date from the FDA website saying that the regulations are supposed to go into effect in June of next year... of course, given the way the FDA functions it very well could be pushed far ahead.

    I do hope you're right, that it will be put off enough to see cigarette sales drop and e-cigarette sales rise... AND to see reduced death rates from smoking, and numerous physician reports stating that their vaping patients have vastly improved their health, and then the FDA will see the error of their ways that would sure be swell! This does give me hope

    Or perhaps, we will have a more effective congress in 2016 who puts the needs of the people before that of their pocketbooks and votes on legislation for the greater good of all... wait, scratch that, it will never happen!
    JerryRM and Buckeyeoak86 like this.

    "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering." Doctor Who

  10. #20
    Double Guru Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    Kent C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    NW Ohio US
    Posts
    20,531
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dragonpuff View Post
    Or perhaps, we will have a more effective congress in 2016 who puts the needs of the people before that of their pocketbooks and votes on legislation for the greater good of all... wait, scratch that, it will never happen!
    Actually it (greater good) is what is being used to justify the attack on ecigs. Listen to Zeller (and Harkin and Rockefeller et. al.) - for him it is the greater number of smokers who he thinks want to quit that justifies the deeming. If we had a congress that would uphold the rights of individuals to be free to do what they want so long as no one is harmed, we'd be good. But that is what might never happen
    DC2 and Buckeyeoak86 like this.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks