Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[seminolewind]

I count thirteen questions. That may well be a new ECF record.

YOU Have Made My Day!!!!!
IMO, I think nicopure did a poor job with their suit.

 

[Lessifer]

I don't think there is Any Dispute that there is a Line. It is where that Line lies and what causing someone to go Over the Line that is such a Topic of Debate.

I suppose that depends on the FDA's definition of "modify."

Do you …

• mix e-liquids?
• make or modify any type of vaping device?
• mix loose tobacco for people to smoke in a pipe?
• roll or blend tobacco for cigars?
• manufacture loose tobacco for consumers to roll their own cigarettes?
• import tobacco products?
• manufacture any tobacco product?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, you may be a manufacturer.

 

[herb]

The only thing i can think of thats hard to overcome is the popularity of naturally extracted tobacco's . I cannot see how you can associate vaping as a tobacco product otherwise.

 

[skoony]

I don't think it's splitting hairs to argue that the ruling of vaping products are tobacco related is not true. It's an inaccurate statement/category, an error. If anything it requires a category of it's own, or labeled ANTI tobacco related. There's a lot of proof that e-liquid is not tobacco related anymore than tomatoes are. That I believe it is the first wrong that needs to be righted. IMO I hate wasting time accepting e-liquid as tobacco related. And it was done without any valid research. I don't think they had enough of anything informative and unbiased and not hearsay. They (FDA) are not being fair to American people to erroneously push vaping under the wrong category and make regulations based on an error. We are American (mostly) people aren't we? We deserve fair treatment under the law. It's biased to shove vaping under tobacco related, including non-nicotine e-liquid.

I think that we have to argue one point at a time starting with vaping mistakenly put in the wrong category of tobacco related products.

A well to do newspaper stated that if the FDA forces us to go black market, they will lose the opportunity to tax us or provide us with fair safety regulations. They will lose their control of everything that is related to vaping. So their laws will not be making us safer. It will be risking our lives with black market untested material. Is that what they want?

Ditto.
I do not disagree with you at all. What I am saying that as of right now the FDA
and the law says we are tobacco product users. Manufacturers and sellers will
be treated as any other manufacturer or seller. If and until the courts or Congress
changes any of this it is the law of the land. I am not saying give up or,do not express
your opinions but, keep in mind we are now all tobacco product users,manufacturers or sellers,no more,no less in the eyes of the law and the courts.

I see no real legal challenge to to our status as tobacco users. Even the bill
in congress to change the grandfather date doesn't dispute that. Without change
in our status as tobacco product users even with the passage of the Cole amendment
and remedies from the court the best we can hope for is parity with the laws that
already govern the manufacture sales and usage of cigarettes. We will have the same
status as cigarette smokers and all the restrictions,taxes and,extra expenses related
to health care costs. We will be pariahs. Please do not get disheartened as this is not
my intent. My point is in order to go forward we must understand where we are at
right now in this point in time.
Hang in there.

Regards
Mike

 

[skoony]

The only thing i can think of thats hard to overcome is the popularity of naturally extracted tobacco's . I cannot see how you can associate vaping as a tobacco product otherwise.

Theoretically if it displaces tobacco use even without anything in it from
the tobacco plant including nicotine it is a tobacco product.
Consider if there wasn't any tobacco pre-vaping. Perhaps then we
wouldn't be in the predicament we are now.

Regards
Mike

 

[zoiDman]

I suppose that depends on the FDA's definition of "modify."

Do you …

• mix e-liquids?
• make or modify any type of vaping device?
• mix loose tobacco for people to smoke in a pipe?
• roll or blend tobacco for cigars?
• manufacture loose tobacco for consumers to roll their own cigarettes?
• import tobacco products?
• manufacture any tobacco product?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, you may be a manufacturer.

Once again, this Discussion turns on what the Legal Definition of "Modify" is. And whether the FDA has Regulatory Authority to over a Modified "Vaping Device" in the fist place.

 

[Bea-FL]

With 0 nic vaping included in the mess I believe it's not going to matter where the nicotine comes from

And how does it make any sense to include 0 nic in this whole mess? Never mind…no answer needed…just a rhetorical question.

 

[Jingles]

I used those roll-your own machines before they were banned. I loved them! When they were banned, I saw it as another example of American ingenuity being stifled! Thus began my hate and distrust of the FDA!

 

[Bea-FL]

Not sure if you guys have seen this yet.

VAPE APOCALYPSE – PHIL BUSARDO TALKS U.S. FDA MALICE, MISERY & MAYHEM POST 8/8 - REGWATCH
Trigger Warning: strong language used to discuss the FDA

https://www.facebook.com/RegulatorWa...4797073048180/
__________________

Thanks for posting this. I watched it and started laughing when the FDA guy, with an appropriately concerned face said they want "to protect the public with sensible, reasonable regulations". You've got to be kidding.

 

[Dunder Mifflin]

Just a heads up, should be interesting.
Join us Sunday 4-6 PM Eastern time for a very special presentation! We will be discussing the phenomenal reply from Nicopure and R2B to the FDA with some very special guests, including Dimitris Agrafiotis and Stefan Didak!
http://.................live.com

 

[snork]

YOU Have Made My Day!!!!!
IMO, I think nicopure did a poor job with their suit.

Why? I think it's the best I've seen out of all. Very narrow, very succinct, easily justified through precedent.

 

[skoony]

I used those roll-your own machines before they were banned. I loved them! When they were banned, I saw it as another example of American ingenuity being stifled! Thus began my hate and distrust of the FDA!

Correct me if I am wrong. In Minnesota one can still purchase roll your
own machines. Are you referring to services that would roll cigarettes for
you for a fee if you supplied the material?
mike

 

[Jingles]

Correct me if I am wrong. In Minnesota one can still purchase roll your
own machines. Are you referring to services that would roll cigarettes for
you for a fee if you supplied the material?
mike

No, these were big machines at the local tobacco store. They were the size of vending machines. You would put a box of tubes in it and some tobacco and about 10 minutes later you would have a carton of cigs all rolled and ready to smoke. It was much quicker than the little hand held machines.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[seminolewind]

Why? I think it's the best I've seen out of all. Very narrow, very succinct, easily justified through precedent.

It's a great world where we can exchange points of view.

 

[seminolewind]

Ditto.
I do not disagree with you at all. What I am saying that as of right now the FDA
and the law says we are tobacco product users. Manufacturers and sellers will
be treated as any other manufacturer or seller. If and until the courts or Congress
changes any of this it is the law of the land. I am not saying give up or,do not express
your opinions but, keep in mind we are now all tobacco product users,manufacturers or sellers,no more,no less in the eyes of the law and the courts.

I see no real legal challenge to to our status as tobacco users. Even the bill
in congress to change the grandfather date doesn't dispute that. Without change
in our status as tobacco product users even with the passage of the Cole amendment
and remedies from the court the best we can hope for is parity with the laws that
already govern the manufacture sales and usage of cigarettes. We will have the same
status as cigarette smokers and all the restrictions,taxes and,extra expenses related
to health care costs. We will be pariahs. Please do not get disheartened as this is not
my intent. My point is in order to go forward we must understand where we are at
right now in this point in time.
Hang in there.

Regards
Mike

Mike, I'm not disheartened. I do think that the first untruth was the FDA stating that vaping products are tobacco related.
I think it's also a conflict of interest when Big Tobacco (Altria) has actually aided the FDA in how to write up these regulations, since we are their competition.

I'll hang in there-but not quietly.

It is disheartening to remain a tobacco product user in the eyes of the government and the public.

 

[r055co]

JMO. But it is because too many Owners rely on FB and Internet Forums for Legal Advice.

Instead of Contacting the FDA and asking for a Legal Clarification in Writing.

Problem is that the FDA themselves are unable to define it/interpret it. Reason really is because they actually didn't write the regulations, Lobbyists from Big Pharma did.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

 

[snork]

It's a great world where we can exchange points of view.

Yes it is. What would you do differently?

Personally I don't care one iota if I'm seen as a tobacco user in anybody's eyes. I know better and nobody will stop me but me. But for the sake of others we need to get this rule overturned and the only way to do it quickly is by a court ruling. I think pointing out specific violations of the law by the FDA to a judge is the best way to do that. We can call the FDA and the public stupid later.

 

[Mazinny]

I think it's also a conflict of interest when Big Tobacco (Altria) has actually aided the FDA in how to write up these regulations, since we are their competition.

Any evidence of this ?

Problem is that the FDA themselves are unable to define it/interpret it. Reason really is because they actually didn't write the regulations, Lobbyists from Big Pharma did.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

Any evidence of this ?

 

[Lessifer]

Once again, this Discussion turns on what the Legal Definition of "Modify" is. And whether the FDA has Regulatory Authority to over a Modified "Vaping Device" in the fist place.

Until that legal definition is decided by a court, or put into statute by Congress, don't we kind of have to go by what the FDA says it is?

Here's what they say:
"If you make, modify, mix, manufacture, fabricate, assemble, process, label, repack, relabel, or import any "tobacco product," then you are considered a tobacco product "manufacturer.""

Here is their definition of tobacco product(bold emphasis mine):
Tobacco product - As stated in section 201(rr) of the FD&C Act in relevant part, a tobacco product: (1) Means any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product (except for raw materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing a component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product); and (2) Does not mean an article that is a drug defined under section 201(g)(1) of the FD&C Act, a device defined under section 201(h) of the FD&C Act, or a combination product described in section 503(g) of the FD&C Act (parts 1100, 1140, 1143 ).

 

[r055co]

Any evidence of this ?

Any evidence of this ?

Here's a start

Big Pharma, Mitch Zeller, and the FDA e-cig regulations: Follow the money

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk