While fruit juice could be a component of an alcohol beverage, the intent when purchasing isn't clear I guess. But what about mixes? Bloody Mary mix, Margarita mix, Whiskey Sour mix, etc.- there is clear intent there I would think, so why are they not regulated as alcohol products?By that logic, the coffee I'm drinking right now is an alcohol product, because I'm drinking it in a cup that COULD be used to consume an alcoholic beverage.
Any reasonable court would shoot this down. But i'm not sure whether there are many reasonable courts left, or whether it will make much difference by the time a case works its way through the system.
Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
Because while alcohol is far more destructive overall than tobacco, drinking has not become the social pariah that smoking has become. The government already tried to regulate alcohol out of existence and we know what happened with that.
However, because tobacco use is now socially unacceptable, unrealistic laws and regulations are viewed as acceptable by those who aren't affected by them. Guess what would happen if they tried the same thing with booze again? You can be sure that the resulting uproar would not be pretty.
Despite the fact that this is all pretty silly, I read that they are now going after "mocktails" like Shirley Temples due to the fact that they normalize alcohol use. 
It's pretty frightening where this could all end up.
It's pretty frightening where this could all end up.
Yep, people refused to comply. Laws and regulations can only be effective if people consent to them. The reason tobacco isn't outright illegal is because they know darn well that most tobacco users would not comply, and they can't lock up 40 million people.
There's a lesson here somewhere.
Last edited:
It's their version of correct living and is akin to what the Religious Right is accused of doing. No drinking, no smoking and "watch what you say"! But, they'll be the first to deny any affiliation with religion.
It's like some sort of demented popularity contest. Sugar meets the same criteria for regulation as tobacco and alcohol, but is more widely used than anything we've discussed, and so it will never be regulated. Vaping does not meet the criteria whatsoever, yet it's being regulated out of existence because vapers don't have the numbers.Despite the fact that this is all pretty silly, I read that they are now going after "mocktails" like Shirley Temples due to the fact that they normalize alcohol use.
It's pretty frightening where this could all end up.
Despite the fact that this is all pretty silly, I read that they are now going after "mocktails" like Shirley Temples due to the fact that they normalize alcohol use.
It's pretty frightening where this could all end up.
As long as we're not back to burning witches and warlocks on the stake.
(note to self: no visiting Massachusetts)
To some degree they are. They're as regulated as any other mass produced food product, which without the bits about distillation and alcohol content, is reasonably close to alcohol regulations. Alcohol doesn't have the pmta process though, that's the real kicker.
If one buys zero nic eLiquid the intent is quite clear; they don't use nic
But none of this has to make any sense when the FDA is wearing swastikas on their arms
But none of this has to make any sense when the FDA is wearing swastikas on their arms
So it sounds like you have a Dual Use Cap.
And it might not be considered CRP Compliant due to its Dual Use. Or, the Warning may be a User Alert that using the Cap in one orientation does Not Provide any CRP.
Kinda would have to Know what type Packaging Regulation(s) govern the type of Drug that went into it when you filled your Prescription.
BTW - I received an e-Mail today from Gourmet Vaper. It had a Link to their General Certificate of Conformity (GCC) page. Here is the Link.
Gourmet Vapor E-Cigarettes and E-Liquids
And here is a Flavor/Container I picked at random...
Gourmet Vapor E-Cigarettes and E-Liquids
Notice how eBottles.com is shown to be the Holder of a Certificate that shows Compliance with the Poison Prevention Package as per current Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) Title 16, Part 1700.20 for the given container.
I said something like this before but I can't find the post. The FDA is being pretty dumb with their regs. The "foundational approach" is inherently flawed because the foundation appears quite structurally weak right out of the gate. Foundations are supposed to strongly support future construction. It's just not the case here. They can't even coherently answer the most basic but important questions and we're just getting started.
The regs are so vague that nobody knows how to even start complying. If the court cases are shot down then everything is corrupt top to bottom on this. I'm starting to feel more comfortable with the idea that a good portion of the deeming is going to be set aside and required to go back to the drawing board. A quick an easy victory for the majority of the most important things for us vapers is Cole-Bishop surviving then something like hr2058 making it permanent. The FDA would pretty much have to take their ball and go home if the GF date changes to 8/8. Innovation might be stifled for a while but it's not like it was even just 3 years ago when I started. There is a vast assortment (quite massive actually) of gear and liquids out there. Enough to satisfy most if not all of our needs forever.
The regs are so vague that nobody knows how to even start complying. If the court cases are shot down then everything is corrupt top to bottom on this. I'm starting to feel more comfortable with the idea that a good portion of the deeming is going to be set aside and required to go back to the drawing board. A quick an easy victory for the majority of the most important things for us vapers is Cole-Bishop surviving then something like hr2058 making it permanent. The FDA would pretty much have to take their ball and go home if the GF date changes to 8/8. Innovation might be stifled for a while but it's not like it was even just 3 years ago when I started. There is a vast assortment (quite massive actually) of gear and liquids out there. Enough to satisfy most if not all of our needs forever.
You know, I thought this too at one point. I've only been to the shops in my local area, and ordered online, so I always figured that 0nic was for those who don't want nic. Apparently though, there ARE shops that carry and sell 0nic and then they will add the nic for you, and it's not as rare as you would think.
Yep. And don't think the FDA didn't view this as a loop hole to close. This was even discussed in the forums before the deeming regs were released.
But under the deeming rules shops can no longer "tamper with" or mix juice so that argument is irrelevant.
It is possible an end user would do that, for reasons unknown, and equally likely pigs will fly some day. Thus the swastikas
It would have been extremely easy to make "kits" that the customer could then put together at home. Claiming this would have been rare? Ummm, no. Would have been a perfect loophole to exploit.
If a shop added nic THEN it would be truly a tobacco product according to the regs. Plus the shop would be acting like a manufacturer. So it's tough to justify that as a loophole because it was already closed. But as I said before they wear the swastika and can do as they please
Last edited:
If I was to run into any shop that practices this I would refuse to accept it and I would notify the maker of the juice. I know they would want to know who is tampering with their products. They put tamper proof seals on for a reason.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
unless, as has been discussed multiple times on this forum(facepalm) people see that as a possible workaround to the regs. Shops sell 0nic, you add your own.
Similar threads
- Locked
