Why was the year 2007 picked in the proposed FDA regulations? - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24
Like Tree33Likes

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

  1. #21
    PV Master ECF Veteran stevegmu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    CZ brat...


    Quote Originally Posted by JerryRM View Post
    I see your point, but will the FDA? Not likely.
    Doesn't make a bit of difference what the FDA thinks. Any competent attorney can make a case in 10 minutes that a regulated power supply is not an electronic cigarette. The way I see it and the way the legal system will see it, only disposables can really be considered electronic cigarettes. They are a single unit which provides power, nicotine liquid and vaporization. All other forms of hardware are just parts.
    Jman8 and Buckeyeoak86 like this.

  2. #22
    Super Member* Verified Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Mansfield, Texas, United States


    The FDA and really NO ONE has a clear number on the quantity of vape devices available in this country. The E-cig or cig alike style push is sponsored by big tobacco. Public sway is being drawn due to the {MODERATED} heads using similar devices as our APVs. With any of these proposed regulations you have to consider enforcement. Imagine the nightmare of paper work to register all the mods owned just in this forum. Now start multiplying by all the other communities.

    It might be a good time to stock pile some mods hahahaha. Reminds me of the assault rifle ban that sent ak47 values to the moon. We see how that worked out. Few years later and it is open again. My point is the growing pains may not tickle. We can as a community be heard.

    Live Long and Vape!
    Last edited by sonicdsl; 07-28-2014 at 08:27 PM. Reason: Mention of illicit drugs is not permitted
    Buckeyeoak86 likes this.

  3. #23
    Ultra Member Verified Member
    ECF Veteran
    dragonpuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Over the river and through the woods, Western NY


    Quote Originally Posted by Kent C View Post
    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
    I know... but there is a huge difference between what they think the greater good is (prohibition) and what it actually is (harm reduction).

    I only hope that the sheer number of our comments on the docket combined with the rationality present in our statements will lead them to understand that if all goes through as planned, it will turn into a
    public relations nightmare for them, because in the end that's all politicians really care about.
    Kent C, DC2 and DrMA 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

  4. #24
    PV Master ECF Veteran Jman8's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Blog Entries


    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 would say chances are around 20%. Really ought to be much higher if political realities matter to people.

    I'm tempted to post an anonymous comment that says I am a black market operator and am begging the FDA to not move the grandfather date as surely this will help me and my cohorts.

    *Bold part is not accurate, but during a propaganda battle is perfectly legitimate.
    dragonpuff, DrMA and Buckeyeoak86 like this.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123