I think that if it's a tamper proof disposable, it could be successfully argued that none of the regulations apply.So is a closed system cigalike with 0 nic a tobacco product? If not, none of the regulations apply to it since it's not a component or accessory either. If so it has to have a label saying it's made from tobacco?
That is not true. Please stop parroting this misinformation. That warning applies to "covered tobacco products" which do not contain nicotine. AKA directly derived from tobacco, with the nicotine removed, such as 0nic cigarettes. 0nic eliquid neither contains nicotine nor is derived from tobacco, thus is not a "covered tobacco product" and the warning does not apply. It would only be regulated as a component, if it is reasonably assumed to have nicotine added to it.
Isn't this why every thing for all intents and purposes is covered?I believe he's only talking about the "made from tobacco" warning label, and it's my reading of it too. That warning applies to tobacco products, that do not contain nicotine, not tobacco product components. The rest of the regulations, like the PMTA's, do apply to tobacco product components.
Yes, that is why it's all regulated, because it's all "intended" to be used with nic.Isn't this why every thing for all intents and purposes is covered?
I have read no where of specific exemptions. A tank may contain juice with nicotine.
A wick and coil may atomize that juice. A battery is used to supply the power to the
coil. A integrated circuit may be used to regulate said power. This pretty much covers
the whole shabang.
I am going out on a limb here but, I think 90% or more of e-cigarettes products will be used
with nic'ed up juice. Ergo the FDA will reasonably assume with out any definitive way
to determine what 10% or less of these products may never contain nicotine they
have to 'reasonably' assume they all have the potential and all must be regulated.
Remember the FDA has stated they are the sole arbitrators of what their regulations
mean on a case by case basis. Why?, one might ask. Well the chillin' of course.
Regards
Mike
The FDA is doing this because they finally can do something, and empty pocket's will be feeding again. It's a win-win (or should I say win-win-win...) situation, just not for us, at all. I agree though, it is all smoke and mirrors.Intended use = anything that looks like smoking.
Forget all the FDA verbiage. It's all smoke and mirrors folks.
So then they all do PTMA or not. Reasonable assumption and or intended use or,both.Again, just specifically talking about the warning labels. Nothing else. Components, that are finished products labeled for sale directly to the consumer, that do not contain nicotine, or tobacco, do not IMO require a warning label of any kind.
Components, sold directly to consumers, will require PMTA approval.
Recently we learn from a reputable health survey group at U of M that most kids who vape are avoiding nicotine (because what interests them is clouds and tricks). That means they can get their e liquid ingredients in the baking section of the grocery store. And mark my words, they will do that. So let's say the FDA requires the marketer of VG channeled to grocery stores is required to put on the label, derived from tobacco. That would not be so good for sales.The judge did address the fact that 0 nicotine e-liquid is labeled tobacco derived.
Recently we learn from a reputable health survey group at U of M that most kids who vape are avoiding nicotine (because what interests them is clouds and tricks). That means they can get their e liquid ingredients in the baking section of the grocery store. And mark my words, they will do that. So let's say the FDA requires the marketer of VG channeled to grocery stores is required to put on the label, derived from tobacco. That would not be so good for sales.
Next step in the lawsuit:
Tobacco On Trial » Blog Archive » DOCKET for NICOPURE LABS v. FDA et al, Oct 17-26, 2016
The excerpt seems to be addressing nic fee e-liquid? Sounds like Judge Amy is scratching her head over this and the FDA's insistence that it's tobacco related (as she should).This was Posted today in the Deeming Thread...
Given the two-year pre-market review compliance period, how would a challenge to the regulation of a nicotine-free e-liquid be adjudicated, if it is not ripe now?
I've read the above a dozen times now and still can't figure out what she's asking. Perhaps somebody whose neurons fire faster than mine could translate.
Given the two-year pre-market review compliance period, how would a challenge to the regulation of a nicotine-free e-liquid be adjudicated, if it is not ripe now?
I've read the above a dozen times now and still can't figure out what she's asking. Perhaps somebody whose neurons fire faster than mine could translate.