Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[Lessifer]

And this is Precisely what I would Legally Challenge.

That I, as a Retailer, was Not Assembling a tobacco Product for the purpose of sale when I showed a Customer the Safe and Proper way to Fill and or Change the Coil Head in an e-Cigarette after they it purchased from my Company. And that the e-Cigarette was No Longer my Property. It was property of the Customer.

The TCA was Not Written so that a Retailer could Not Show a Customer how to Safely and Properly operate a tobacco Product after a Legal Adult had Purchased one without being a tobacco Product Manufacture.

And if the FDA Commissionaire/HHS Secretary/OOTP are unwilling to Intervene, and if Members of Congress are Spineless will Not Stand Up to a Clear Example of Regulatory Overreach, then it leaves me with little Options but to Legally Challenge this.

Because I am a Reasonable Person acting in a Reasonable Capacity when I show a Customer the Safe and Proper way to Operate their e-Cigarette after they purchase it from me.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be challenged, I'm saying it would need to be challenged. Again, the only corollary is RYO and if a shop takes your tubes and puts your tobacco in them for you, the FDA would consider that shop a manufacturer. They even stopped the shops from merely providing equipment that would do it for you. So, I can understand why vendors who are not prepared to enter that legal battle at this time would just say "we can only sell it to you."

 

[zoiDman]

I'm not saying it shouldn't be challenged, I'm saying it would need to be challenged. Again, the only corollary is RYO and if a shop takes your tubes and puts your tobacco in them for you, the FDA would consider that shop a manufacturer. They even stopped the shops from merely providing equipment that would do it for you. So, I can understand why vendors who are not prepared to enter that legal battle at this time would just say "we can only sell it to you."

I can Completely Understand why a Retailer would Not Want to or Not Be Prepared to enter into a Legal Battle with one of the Most Power Government Agencies in the USA.

But someone has to if we Don't want to live in a Country where the FDA can Extend Granted Authority as Far and to Satisfy any Agenda they Choose.

And that is a Shame. And why I made Post #13237 in this Thread.

 

[zoiDman]

I'm not saying it shouldn't be challenged, I'm saying it would need to be challenged. Again, the only corollary is RYO and if a shop takes your tubes and puts your tobacco in them for you, the FDA would consider that shop a manufacturer. They even stopped the shops from merely providing equipment that would do it for you. So, I can understand why vendors who are not prepared to enter that legal battle at this time would just say "we can only sell it to you."

BTW - IMO, if a Retailer engages in the Service of Filling RYO Tubes with Tobacco for Customers, using a Machine that the Retailer Owns, then I can see why the FDA would want to designate them as a Manufacture. And why/where something like the Assembly wordage came from.

But if the Retailer Sells the RYO Stuffing machine, and is Merely showing the Customer the Safe and Proper way to Operate the Stuffing Machine after a Customer has purchased it, I don't see how a Court could consider them a Tobacco Manufacture.

BTW2 - I have seen videos of Individuals who say that they will Show People how to Fill and or Change Coil Head in their e-Cigarettes. Why are these people Not "Tobacco Manufactures"?

 

[Lessifer]

BTW - IMO, if a Retailer engages in the Service of Filling RYO Tubes with Tobacco for Customers, using a Machine that the Retailer Owns, then I can see why the FDA would want to designate them as a Manufacture. And why/where something like the Assembly wordage came from.

But if the Retailer Sells the RYO Stuffing machine, and is Merely showing the Customer the Safe and Proper way to Operate the Stuffing Machine after a Customer has purchased it, I don't see how a Court could consider them a Tobacco Manufacture.

BTW2 - I have seen videos of Individuals who say that they will Show People how to Fill and or Change Coil Head in their e-Cigarettes. Why are these people Not "Tobacco Manufactures"?

So, in your BTW1, if a shop shows you how to fill your tank, not a manufacturer, but if they let you use their screwdriver/hex key, then they're a manufacturer?

BTW2 - if the individual in question is not actually interacting with a product that will be/has been sold to the customer, and is not engaged in selling tobacco products, they're not a manufacturer.

 

[skoony]

BTW2 - I have seen videos of Individuals who say that they will Show People how to Fill and or Change Coil Head in their e-Cigarettes. Why are these people Not "Tobacco Manufactures"?

Good question.
Under my personal doctrine of always assuming the worst case scenario
when interpreting government regulations I would guess the FDA will say
that yes they are now unregistered manufacturers. Take down notices
would be issued. Skulls would be cracked. Baby carriages knocked over.
Milk spilled. Mayhem and destruction I say. Then again they may refrain
from nipping at the social media monster.
Who knows?
Regards
Mike

 

[zoiDman]

So, in your BTW1, if a shop shows you how to fill your tank, not a manufacturer, but if they let you use their screwdriver/hex key, then they're a manufacturer?

BTW2 - if the individual in question is not actually interacting with a product that will be/has been sold to the customer, and is not engaged in selling tobacco products, they're not a manufacturer.

Why would letting a Customer us a Screwdriver or Hex Key make them a Manufacture?

---

I should have been More clear. I was referring to Individuals who are Inside Vape Shops or Directly Outside of a Vape Shop that Are interacting with the Product.

 

[ENAUD]

BTW - IMO, if a Retailer engages in the Service of Filling RYO Tubes with Tobacco for Customers, using a Machine that the Retailer Owns, then I can see why the FDA would want to designate them as a Manufacture. And why/where something like the Assembly wordage came from.

But if the Retailer Sells the RYO Stuffing machine, and is Merely showing the Customer the Safe and Proper way to Operate the Stuffing Machine after a Customer has purchased it, I don't see how a Court could consider them a Tobacco Manufacture.

BTW2 - I have seen videos of Individuals who say that they will Show People how to Fill and or Change Coil Head in their e-Cigarettes. Why are these people Not "Tobacco Manufactures"?

And by this same logic, I can see the FDA looking at a rack of taste test setups, and call that shop a manufacturer.

 

[seminolewind]

BTW - IMO, if a Retailer engages in the Service of Filling RYO Tubes with Tobacco for Customers, using a Machine that the Retailer Owns, then I can see why the FDA would want to designate them as a Manufacture. And why/where something like the Assembly wordage came from.

But if the Retailer Sells the RYO Stuffing machine, and is Merely showing the Customer the Safe and Proper way to Operate the Stuffing Machine after a Customer has purchased it, I don't see how a Court could consider them a Tobacco Manufacture.

BTW2 - I have seen videos of Individuals who say that they will Show People how to Fill and or Change Coil Head in their e-Cigarettes. Why are these people Not "Tobacco Manufactures"?

Does it have any bearing that these services are free?

 

[Ca Ike]

I don't doubt that the pharmaceutical companies exert influence in government and FDA, i was just curious if there is smoking gun somewhere that shows lobbyists from big pharma actually wrote the regs, like you stated.

Well considering two of the current heads of the FDA are former pharma CEOs and the former head that started all this worked for pharma, I think it's a good bet.

Once the Rico case against the former FDA head concludes I think we'll have some ammo to use against the agency as a whole. You don't do what she is accused of without some collusion with others in the agency.

 

[Mazinny]

I have evidence a large vaping company helped with them based on a conversation I had with an insider. I won't disclose their name on a public forum but it is true and it disgusted me to hear they were intimately involved with the drafting of the regulations and how joyous they were.

Now you have really piqued my curiosity ! How about a hint, is it the same company that was originally against flavors before they made a 180 on the topic ? I have stated here before that i find it very curious that they haven't made one public comment on the deeming regulations.

Still, even this, while plausibly true, is not evidence, just basis for further investigation. At best you could state i am confident it is true, based on the fact that the source is in a position to know, and your view on his/her trustworthiness. But unless the source goes public with supporting documentation for his claims, it's nothing we can really use against them.

 

[zoiDman]

Does it have any bearing that these services are free?

I'm not sure why it Wouldn't.

But in the RYO example I posted, I believe what would be More Relevant towards the Manufacture/Non-Manufacture argument would be the Difference between a Retailer Using their Stuffing Machine to provide a Service (either paid for by the Customer or not) vs. a Retailer showing a Customer the Safe and Proper way to Operate their Stuffing Machine.

 

[Bea-FL]

Spells out more details of Big Pharma in the FDA

Who is Behind the Campaign to Lie to the Public About Vaping? - VaporVanity.com

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

i just finished reading that article. Every one should read it because if anyone is still under the illusion that there is no corruption in government this article will open their eyes.

This part made me want to scream: "
In order to understand why state governments have been so keen on passing increasingly strict restrictions on the vapor industry, you’ll have to take a trip down memory lane to November 1998, the year that the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement was enacted.

This agreement was sold as being a a major blow against Big Tobacco, but in reality did nothing more than make the tobacco industry even more powerful than anyone could have ever imagined. The agreement included yearly payments in perpetuity from Big Tobacco to 46 different states, in part based upon how much money the companies made from sales. This led to states securitizing the payments in the form of bonds sold to Wall Street, allowing them to spend the Big Tobacco money BEFORE they actually receive it.

The unexpected rise in vaping has directly hurt the profits of the tobacco industry, and thus is indirectly depriving state governments of a revenue stream that they have become dependent upon.

Basically, the less cigarettes that Big Tobacco sells, the less money that the state governments receive. For more information on the TMSA, be sure to check out the Truth About Vaping videoon this very topic. It’ll open your eyes to the true extent of the corruption in the state governments."

It's tragic that our elected officials who are already rich, only worry about putting more money in their pockets instead of supporting means to help citizens, especially when it could be a matter of life or death as in the vaping battle.

 

[Lessifer]

Why would letting a Customer us a Screwdriver or Hex Key make them a Manufacture?

---

I should have been More clear. I was referring to Individuals who are Inside Vape Shops or Directly Outside of a Vape Shop that Are interacting with the Product.

The RYO machines were self serve, if I understand correctly. You put a box of tubes in one part, loose tobacco in another, press a button, and 10 minutes later you have cigarettes. The shop provided the machine, but the shop did none of the filling. If a shop provides a tool for the customer to use to fill their tank, does that make them a manufacturer?

If the individuals who are interacting with the product are not employed by the vape shop, I don't see how the shop could be held responsible. Is the individual violating some regulation? No idea.

 

[Mazinny]

@Mazinny, there will be no smoking gun on this. Even if you found a memo concerning regulation sent to the FDA by Altria which ended up being used verbatim in the final writing of the regs, it would be argued they were merely using feedback from companies in the industry and trying to be sensitive to their needs.

I realize anyone can deny anything. We do live in an era where major presidential candidates are shown clips of what they said, and they still deny saying it with a straight face on national t.v. ! That would be enough evidence for most objective people though.

As far as BT is concerned, they can take a position in opposition to these regs knowing full well that if they remain as is they're a gift, and if they can get further concessions, well why not?

Yes they very well could, i agree. But it just doesn't make sense to me that they would actively help draft the deeming regulations only to publicly oppose them immediately after they are published. Way too much risk to take for a publicly traded company.[/user]

 

[zoiDman]

... If a shop provides a tool for the customer to use to fill their tank, does that make them a manufacturer?

...

When you say "Tool", are you referring to a Screwdriver/Hex Key that the Retailer owns as mentioned Earlier? Or are you Referring to some type of Machinery that Fills Tanks with a Liquid that the Retailer Owns?

 

[phephner]

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

Is this an actual happening? I can find no mention of it on the program schedule nor the FB pages of either of the 'very special guests.'

 

[skoony]

When you say "Tool", are you referring to a Screwdriver/Hex Key that the Retailer owns as mentioned Earlier? Or are you Referring to some type of Machinery that Fills Tanks with a Liquid that the Retailer Owns?

tool
to͞ol/
noun

1. 1.
   a device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function.
   "gardening tools"
   synonyms: implement, utensil, instrument, device, apparatus, gadget, appliance, machine,contrivance, contraption;
   informalgizmo
   "garden tools"

 

[zoiDman]

tool
to͞ol/
noun

1. 1.
   a device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function.
   "gardening tools"
   synonyms: implement, utensil, instrument, device, apparatus, gadget, appliance, machine,contrivance, contraption;
   informalgizmo
   "garden tools"

That's Nice Mike. Thank you for taking the Time to look that up.

 

[Lessifer]

When you say "Tool", are you referring to a Screwdriver/Hex Key that the Retailer owns as mentioned Earlier? Or are you Referring to some type of Machinery that Fills Tanks with a Liquid that the Retailer Owns?

Either. Is there a difference? If it's the action that's in question, how about a syringe used to fill a tank?

In the case of the machine, it doesn't perform an action that the customer could not do on their own, it just performs the action for the customer.

Or let's take a coil jig, if the shop leaves one on the counter for the customers to use to wrap their own coils, is the shop engaging in manufacturing?

 

[zoiDman]

.

Either. Is there a difference? If it's the action that's in question, how about a syringe used to fill a tank?

In the case of the machine, it doesn't perform an action that the customer could not do on their own, it just performs the action for the customer.

Or let's take a coil jig, if the shop leaves one on the counter for the customers to use to wrap their own coils, is the shop engaging in manufacturing?

I think there is a Big Difference between a Readily Accessible Tool like a Screwdriver or Hex Key that can be Reasonably Expected to be found in an Average Household. Verses some type of Machinery that a Averages Individual would Not Be Expected to Own.

I don't know why you Keep Asking me about Retailers providing things so Customer can Perform a Service in their Shops? Because that is a Dead End Road in my Opinion. And I could very well see the Courts Siding with the FDA on this.

I would Focus on does a Retailer have the Ability to show a Customer the Safe and Proper Operation of the Product they buy from a Retailer without the Retailer becoming a FDA Classified Manufacture of a Tobacco Product.

And How does a Retailer Showing a Customer how to Safely and Properly Use the e-Cigarette that they purchased from a Retailer Adversely Effect Public Health more so than when a Retailer does not?