Cole-Bishop Failed. What now for vape?

[ShowerHead]

You know, I find it a bit perplexing that on some issues you're told 'Science, scientific consensus, scientists'
On others, it's "For the children' which is a sure sign that somebody has an issue with whatever and it isn't their concern for kiddies.

If this decision were science based and not the '100% safe can't be determined yet' kind either, we'd all be looking at the new tech vaporizers instead of being concerned about politics.

 

[DaveP]

Tobacco companies must exist to pay the annual settlement payments to states. I think that ends in or around 2025. vaping is a threat to tobacco settlement payments in the eyes of state governments, so they find it profitable to mess with vaping rights in their states.

The FDA is obviously being urged to control the threat to big tobacco.

Someone mentioned the classification of metal and electronic parts in mods and atomizers being considered tobacco products and compared them to guns vs ammo. Both are necessary to use the device, but a gun without bullets is about as effective as a mod without juice.

We can make juice with nic or without nic, but without the mod and the atomizer there's no point. The FDA is working to limit both.

Again, I say that vaping is a thorn in the side of those in state government who wish to continue to collect a portion of tobacco company profits each year until 2025. I suspect that after 2025 vaping will begin to be considered a more respectable industry.

Big Tobacco and Vaping: It's Complicated. - Mt Baker Vapor

 

[ShowerHead]

I'll accept, grudgingly, that we're going to be taxed. At a fair, non sin-tax rate, I'd live with it. At the 'kill the evil beast' tax rates, nope. Maybe US$0.02 per ml. Only sales tax on equipment. I'll accept a 'legal' age for purchase. After that, I'm against it. No flavor bans, safety button batteries, 40W limit on mods, 2ml juice capacity, or anything other than what I outlined.

I'd really suggest that you forget the federal mess and conspiracy theories.
Concentrate on your state and local governments as they are going to have far more to do with your ability to vape than the feds. Already have in quite a few places.

 

[DC2]

Let's single out a top ANTZ & prosecute their crimes against humanity. That'll send a message.

I can't possibly agree with this enough.
And I'd start with Stanton Glantz.

 

[jseah]

If this decision were science based and not the '100% safe can't be determined yet' kind either, we'd all be looking at the new tech vaporizers instead of being concerned about politics.

If everything else was held to the same standard that they want vaping held to (the '100% safe can't be determined yet'), you would never see another drug or food product be approved for sale. Drugs are always approved for sale even with 'adverse side effects', the worst of which is death. This means that the drug that is actually approved for sale and use by humans can possibly kill you even if you take the prescribed dose. And yet they want to see studies over 50 years to prove that vaping won't harm someone before they are willing to embrace it.

 

[go_player]

I hate to be pedantic, but no...

Two reasons:

1) Naturally occurring nicotine is all levorotatory, while synthetic is composed of equal parts dextrorotatory and levorotatory enantiomers.

2) Even if you managed to eliminate the dextrorotatory half of synthetic nic, it would still be possible to tell it apart from tobacco-derived nic based on carbon isotope ratios.

That's OK- I enjoy a good bit of pedantry. In fact, one good bit of pedantry deserves another, so... while the phrasing could have been better I'll stand by what I said. It's not true if you take 'synthetic nicotine' to mean nicotine synthesized using current methods, and it might not (it sounds like you would know better than me) be true of any currently known method of synthesis, but... 'in theory' covers a multitude of sins, and it is certainly possible, in theory, to synthesize nicotine indistinguishable from that derived from tobacco. The techniques involved might be very theoretical .

On a slightly less pedantic note, what I was getting at is that it doesn't make sense, to me at least, to treat a chemical as if it were what it is generally derived from, especially when the differences between that chemical derived from that source and synthetic and other naturally occurring examples of it differ in inconsequential ways. If Congress wants to pass a law giving the FDA sweeping powers to regulate nicotine, let Congress do so, and do so unambiguously.

This is a matter of practical import in this case, especially since most of the justifications for the authority the FDA has been given to regulate tobacco do not apply or have not been shown to apply to the use of nicotine in the absence of tobacco.

We can make juice with nic or without nic, but without the mod and the atomizer there's no point. The FDA is working to limit both.

For me, at least, the nicotine is pretty important, perhaps necessary for vaping to be of much use to me. So, I suppose if it were made very difficult to get nicotine people would move to NETs, but I would find that, personally, much less satisfactory.

It would be pretty difficult to regulate mods and atomizers out of existence, though they might wind up much more DIY.

 

[Rossum]

If Congress wants to pass a law giving the FDA sweeping powers to regulate nicotine, let Congress do so, and do so unambiguously.

I think the FDA already has sweeping powers to regulate drugs, and I doubt anyone make a successful argument that nicotine isn't a drug. Remember that the only reason the FDA wasn't able to ban vaping back in 2009-2010 is that Judge Leon told 'em something to the effect of, "Since it's made from tobacco, the most you can do is regulate it as tobacco." But that ruling (which has protected vaping for the last 6 or so years) wouldn't apply to synthetic nicotine.

 

[Lessifer]

I think the FDA already has sweeping powers to regulate drugs, and I doubt anyone make a successful argument that nicotine isn't a drug. Remember that the only reason the FDA wasn't able to ban vaping back in 2009-2010 is that Judge Leon told 'em something to the effect of, "Since it's made from tobacco, the most you can do is regulate it as tobacco." But that ruling (which has protected vaping for the last 6 or so years) wouldn't apply to synthetic nicotine.

Not that the industry necessarily wants to go this route, but I'm not sure why nicotine could not be considered a dietary supplement.

 

[Chris Yang]

As I know, nicotine is also existing in some e vape, when the users who'd like to give up smoking by e cigs, they can choose the volume of nicotine which is suitable for them to give up it step by step. It is impossible to give up smoking in a short time (one month, two months...), but also it depends on your ages of smoking. For me, I smoke for 7 years before, I failed many times, in any ways, but in recent half year, I did not smoke at all...so if some one want to give up smoking, it needs time, long time. Ecigs is a choice for them to forget the feeling of nicotine and cigar, but if you have any better choice, you can also take a try...In a word, perseverance is top important!!!

 

[MacTechVpr]

I have said this since the day I joined ECF.
The only way to fight this is at the state and local level.

Locally elected politicians can (and will) implement their own versions of taxes, fees and restrictions to protect their MSA payments which are based on tobacco sales.

The 10th amendment bars the FDA from forcing states to comply, but they will willingly act to protect the payments as they have no choice.. They already sold bonds backed by MSA payments.

They only way this stop the madness is to stop the crooked local politicians by voting them out.

Vote locally.

We agree. There is far and away too much consolidation of lobbying and power at the federal level. We must extract vaping from tobacco legislation. There is a far better chance of influencing the fairness or neutrality of legislation closer to home even under the worst of circumstances, i.e. Indiana.

Good luck.

 

[MacTechVpr]

I think the FDA already has sweeping powers to regulate drugs, and I doubt anyone make a successful argument that nicotine isn't a drug. Remember that the only reason the FDA wasn't able to ban vaping back in 2009-2010 is that Judge Leon told 'em something to the effect of, "Since it's made from tobacco, the most you can do is regulate it as tobacco." But that ruling (which has protected vaping for the last 6 or so years) wouldn't apply to synthetic nicotine.

Didn't Sottera resolve that FDA auth only applied to nic as a drug if a therapeutic claim attached?

"Though Brown & Williamson is not crystal clear, we think the better reading is that the FDA lacks FDCA drug/device authority to regulate all tobacco products marketed without claims of therapeutic effect, i.e., as customarily marketed."

"In the absence of an authoritative agency interpretation, I conclude that, unless a product derived from tobacco is marketed for therapeutic purposes, the FDA may regulate it only under the provisions of the Tobacco Control Act.   Accordingly, because NJOY's electronic cigarettes are derived from tobacco, I join my colleagues' disposition.   What the result would be were the FDA to offer a contrary statutory interpretation in the form of a regulation, I leave for the day the agency decides to take that step."

And they did, they did!

I love Sottera...as ambiguous, contradictory and perplexing as the law…as long as we conveniently forget that the original intent and object of the law was combustible tobacco.

Good luck.

 

[MacTechVpr]

If everything else was held to the same standard that…(the '100% safe can't be determined yet')…

Then we could be rid of all the politicians!

Good luck.

 

[zoiDman]

Didn't Soetera resolve that FDA auth only applied to nic as a drug if a therapeutic claim attached?

"Though Brown & Williamson is not crystal clear, we think the better reading is that the FDA lacks FDCA drug/device authority to regulate all tobacco products marketed without claims of therapeutic effect, i.e., as customarily marketed."

"In the absence of an authoritative agency interpretation, I conclude that, unless a product derived from tobacco is marketed for therapeutic purposes, the FDA may regulate it only under the provisions of the Tobacco Control Act.   Accordingly, because NJOY's electronic cigarettes are derived from tobacco, I join my colleagues' disposition.   What the result would be were the FDA to offer a contrary statutory interpretation in the form of a regulation, I leave for the day the agency decides to take that step."

And they did, they did!

I love Soetera...as ambiguous, contradictory and perplexing as the law…as long as we forget that the original intent and object of the law was combustible tobacco.

Good luck.

"...

CONCLUSION


This case appears to be yet another example of FDA's aggressive efforts to

regulate recreational tobacco products as drugs or devices under the FDCA. Ironically,

notwithstanding that Congress has now taken the unprecedented step of granting FDA

jurisdiction over those products, FDA remains undeterred. Unfortunately, its tenacious

drive to maximize its regulatory power has resulted in its advocacy of an interpretation of

the relevant law that I find, at first blush, to be unreasonable and unacceptable. ..."

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2009cv0771-54

 

[DC2]

Not that the industry necessarily wants to go this route, but I'm not sure why nicotine could not be considered a dietary supplement.

I consider it a dietary supplement, and that is why I want to continue using it.

Only problem is I have not used nicotine in around 18 months.
Because I'm being shaken down by the insurance company my employer uses.

At this point in time I refuse to pay extortion fees.

If I ever get Alzheimer's or Parkinson's I'm going to be .......

 

[Lessifer]

I consider it a dietary supplement, and that is why I want to continue using it.

Only problem is I have not used nicotine in around 18 months.
Because I'm being shaken down by the insurance company my employer uses.

At this point in time I refuse to pay extortion fees.

If I ever get Alzheimer's or Parkinson's I'm going to be .......

Yeah, your situation is horrible, afaik my employer still relies on the honor system for the non-smoker discount, but I haven't looked at the policy lately.

They consider nicotine to be tobacco, because it's derived from tobacco, but that doesn't take into account the fact that nicotine is absent any of the health concerns associated with smoking. And yet, some vapers, quite a few, don't see the point in separating vaping from tobacco.

 

[Lessifer]

well, that's not the only reason they consider nicotine to be tobacco. There's the decades of "most addictive substance on the planet" and "nicotine laced" products hooking new generations. Never mind the fact that none of that is based on scientific fact.

 

[jseah]

Yeah, your situation is horrible, afaik my employer still relies on the honor system for the non-smoker discount, but I haven't looked at the policy lately.

They consider nicotine to be tobacco, because it's derived from tobacco, but that doesn't take into account the fact that nicotine is absent any of the health concerns associated with smoking. And yet, some vapers, quite a few, don't see the point in separating vaping from tobacco.

Luckily my employer's health insurance provider just asks if I have used cigars or cigarettes in the past six months. I can honestly reply "no" and I am treated as a non-smoker. Because of the ACA rules, they can tack on a smoker's surcharge to employees that smoke of $75 per paycheck ($150 per month).

 

[Tonee N]

So, do they charge for oxygen at work? Pay to park?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

 

[DPLongo22]

 

[lulu836]

Where in the world did you find this piece of incorrect information? In my particular case I quit smoking overnight. I bought my weekly carton, saw an ecig display, tried it out and threw the the new carton in the trash. That was in 2011. I have never smoked another cigarette.

In much the pattern of AA and their 12 step program I adopted one of the steps which is the one where you make amends. After doing a floor to ceiling scrub of my entire house, washing all my clothes and buying new shoes, I went to each of my friends, individually, and thanked them for remaining my friend even though I smelled like a dirty ashtray for 43 years.