It is quite likely that Cole Bishop will pass (if politically expedient) before the lawsuit is even close to over. Remember, regardless of who "wins" in this first round, which could take years, appeals are certain to be entered with the process dragged out that much longer. If Cole Bishop does survive in the appropriations bill, it will be passed well before the lawsuit is even close to a decision.
Deeming Regulations Are In Effect
- Thread starter Bob Chill
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
It is quite likely that Cole Bishop will pass (if politically expedient) before the lawsuit is even close to over. Remember, regardless of who "wins" in this first round, which could take years, appeals are certain to be entered with the process dragged out that much longer. If Cole Bishop does survive in the appropriations bill, it will be passed well before the lawsuit is even close to a decision.
The single most important thing that CB does is protects open systems and bottled eliquid. I don't think any of us believe that the FDA is going to approve any open system. Which would make bottled eliquid obsolete by default. That's priority #1 in battling the regs.
This part of CB could potentially cause problems if the FDA wants to abuse authority and establish battery standards that are difficult to meet (or prohibit certain batteries):
- Require FDA to begin rulemaking to establish a product standard for e-vapor product batteries within 1 year of the effective date of the Deeming Regulation, and publish a final product standard for e-vapor product batteries within 2 years of the effective date of the Deeming Regulation.
It will depend on how the word "product batteries" is interpreted. I think that was a miscue by whoever wrote the language of the amendment as it would only make sense in the context of the "power supply" to vape with, or the mod itself, rather than merely the battery itself as the only regulated part. I can't imagine it will come down to only regulating 18650's in that language, but as with all this stuff, we won't know until it is enacted and applied.
Going back a little to the age thing:
1) A lot of the "Save the children" arguments are considering "Children" up to 21, that's just misleading
2) I'm not pro teen smoking or vaping (I would prefer my son to vape) but why does the government insist on legislating were parents should be educating?
3) Why is it acceptable for parents to ask for legislation that takes responsability off their hands?
1) A lot of the "Save the children" arguments are considering "Children" up to 21, that's just misleading
2) I'm not pro teen smoking or vaping (I would prefer my son to vape) but why does the government insist on legislating were parents should be educating?
3) Why is it acceptable for parents to ask for legislation that takes responsability off their hands?
I think there's an argument for what constitutes ecigs as "tobacco related". I don't see anything at all related to tobacco or smoking besides nicotine. And nicotine is "grandfathered" in. So I'd like to know why every piece of every device created as an ecig or nicotine-less liquid is related to tobacco? Inhaling steam is not related to tobacco. I don't think that just being an alternative to smoking is enough to say it's tobacco related.
The FDA would just rather keep their tobacco "cash cow" over a product which can't possibly provide anywhere near as much tax as tobacco.
The FDA would just rather keep their tobacco "cash cow" over a product which can't possibly provide anywhere near as much tax as tobacco.
I made 2 orders from Fasttech last month, one on the 12th and one on the 19th.
The first one arrived before 8/8 and was left in the mailbox as usual.
The second arrived after 8/8 and I had to sign for delivery.
The second shipment was 2 Istick Picos. The idea that two cheap metal battery cases with a cheap circuit board would require a signature because it is now "DEEMED" a tobacco product surpasses the concept of absurd!
If you held out a Pico (with NO battery) to even the most uninformed individual and told them the FDA considered it a tobacco product, their reaction would be "Are you kidding me?"
IMO, the FDA's deeming regs are a massive over reach. Even non-smoker/non-vapers get that.
When the dust settles, I don't think the Deeming regs will look anything like they do now. No way.
The first one arrived before 8/8 and was left in the mailbox as usual.
The second arrived after 8/8 and I had to sign for delivery.
The second shipment was 2 Istick Picos. The idea that two cheap metal battery cases with a cheap circuit board would require a signature because it is now "DEEMED" a tobacco product surpasses the concept of absurd!
If you held out a Pico (with NO battery) to even the most uninformed individual and told them the FDA considered it a tobacco product, their reaction would be "Are you kidding me?"
IMO, the FDA's deeming regs are a massive over reach. Even non-smoker/non-vapers get that.
When the dust settles, I don't think the Deeming regs will look anything like they do now. No way.
Actually it was Singapore post. The original order was 2 picos and 3 mini Isticks. They could only ship the built ins by Singapore or Netherlands. The order got split and they sent the Picos, haven't been updated on the minis.
Yeah, free shipping with signature(after the fact).
I received my order from FT 8/16. the order was placed 7/31. It was just some pre-made coils and o-rings. No signature required so I am thinking there was something other than the dooming regs that flagged as sig needed.
There doesn't seem to be any rhyme nor reason to some of the things that are happening.
There doesn't seem to be any rhyme nor reason to some of the things that are happening.
The label stated "signiture required". Maybe FT understands the deeming regs better than we do. Sad indeed.
That is the only shipping method I have ever had to sign for from FT, twice a while back when they were having shipping problems. Once I was able to go back to using USPS E-packet, postman just drops in box, no signature needed, but I never order anything with a battery from them.
Different shipping methods are suppose to have different requirements. Nothing to do with the deeming. You weren't signing for "Adult Shipping Required" just "Shipping Required".
Another eedeeit here.
I stocked up for the princely sum of $250, and now vaping costs me nothing.
Actually, that's not true - I had to buy some VG yesterday. Cost me $4 for a two month supply.
My point is that I'm sitting pretty.
I can now vape for the next 20 years for only the price of PG, VG, Kanthal and cotton.
The only reason I'm even still reading about it is because of idle curiosity, not because the deeming regs can or will affect me in any way.
I'm mostly upset about the deeming regs because of their potential effects on two categories of people:
1. Current vapers who simply couldn't afford to stock up, or who have disabilities which prevent them from making their own coils.
2. Current smokers, who might find it harder (or even impossible) to switch to vaping in the future.
If you had the ability to stock up and didn't, and the deeming regs or enormous taxes make life difficult for you in the future, I have no sympathy.
Aren't free samples prohibited in the regs? I spent 10-15 minutes the other day trying out different flavors at a local B&M in Illinois.
Someone who I know has a local vape store near them that is still custom mixing eliquid.
I am pretty sure both free samples and custom mixing eliquid are now illegal, but maybe the store owners either don't know or don't care
Just because people do stuff doesn't mean all is OK. Sooner or later they will find themselves facing fines and other enforcement actions.
In doing some research I honestly do not think these FDA regs will stand in a court of law. There are numerous lawsuits challenging these regulations. In looking at how the courts have ruled concerning other cases brought forth against the FDA for other overreaching regulations, I just can't see this happening. The courts have ruled against the FDA more times than not. And what they are attempting to do now with the vaping industry is so much more absurd than the other cases it's lost in court.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Free samples are, but the work-around is trivial: Charge a nominal fee for sampling.
I don't think custom mixing is illegal provided the shop has made and sold the exact mix in question at least once before Aug 8th.
I'm glad to hear that there are at least some shops who aren't folding like a cheap suit.
- Status
Similar threads
