FDA Due to FDA Regulations....
- Thread starter E911Eagle
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- grimm green
- Status
You know, I'm no fan of the FDA or the regulations, but this isn't due to the regulations. This is due to a failure to prepare for regulations that the industry has known were coming for, at a minimum, three months. If they didn't have age verification in place and working prior to this point, that is not due to the FDA.
The Industry has always said they support the sales ban to minors, they should have been prepared for this part of it at the very least.
The Industry has always said they support the sales ban to minors, they should have been prepared for this part of it at the very least.
This is Grimm Green and/or his former spouse's company? Of all the folks to be unprepared one would think they'd have known better?
Giving or selling things to children has been covered by common law from time immemorial. The new rule doesn't ban possession. Parents won't be fined for letting their kids have ecigs. This is all smoke and mirrors.
Hello Everyone,
Im new to the forum.. saw this forum as I was browsing for FDA regulations. I had a question on the regulation dealing with not being able to troubleshoot a device. A vape shop in my area, was buying a customers device for 25 cent and troubleshooting their device, then selling it back to the customer for 35 cent giving them a 10 cent profit. do you guys know if this is safe to do? Currently we are just walking the customer through troubleshooting their own device, which can get quite frustrating for them and ourselves. any input would be appreciated.
thank you.
Im new to the forum.. saw this forum as I was browsing for FDA regulations. I had a question on the regulation dealing with not being able to troubleshoot a device. A vape shop in my area, was buying a customers device for 25 cent and troubleshooting their device, then selling it back to the customer for 35 cent giving them a 10 cent profit. do you guys know if this is safe to do? Currently we are just walking the customer through troubleshooting their own device, which can get quite frustrating for them and ourselves. any input would be appreciated.
thank you.
It's a pretty suspicious and light loophole which I doubt would hold up against the possibility of a fine. I think you are safer walking the customer through as you are doing, but others are probably more sure in their knowledge about that than me. Personally, I wouldn't risk it.
Please add some information to your original post ... I'm not sure what this thread is about
I don't think there are any official answers on this yet. I think if you can possibly show the customer using your own "demo" gear, that's probably best. Other than that, if you're troubleshooting and not ADDING or MODIFYING anything, then it should probably be okay.
yeah, we will probably just keep doing what we are doing..thank you guys for your input..
that's what we were thinking.. why risk it.. thank you for your help
I can't say that I have an answer that you should trust.
But I will say that I really like the approach and think it's pretty darn clever.
It may have been considered more important to not hassle customers buying in droves just before 8/8 than bother having everything ready to go this week, which will be among the slackest.
I can't say that I have an answer that you should trust.
But I will say that I really like the approach and think it's pretty darn clever.
haha, it wasn't our idea.. it was told to us by a customer who visited the other store.. but I'm with you on the cleverness.
When I'm teaching someone how to do something I want them to push the buttons, take the actions, what ever. It's slower, you have to choose your words carefully, you have to be patient.
Suppose a customer brings in a product and claims it's defective. Shouldn't you be allowed to inspect the product and corret the defect? If you can't support the product doesn't that create a safety issue? How can a customer sue you for a defective product if you aren't allowed to touch the product after he buys it? May be you should tell the customer to return the product to the FDA and ask them to refund the purchase price. Or better yet the customer should sue the FDA if there was an injury or property loss because they caused the accident by not allowing the seller to correct a defect. The government has way deeper pockets than any vape shop. The slimey tort lawyers should love this angle.
These questions and so so many more need to be submitted to the FDA for clarification and the answers added to the regulation. I bet here could be thousands of new requirements until literally nobody knows all of them. Or we could demand that both tobacco and vaping be banned. I don't need vaping to stay away from cigarettes if there are no cigarettes to buy.
I like the creative workarounds people are coming up with.
Last edited:
The problem with the buy back / sell back is that if it included disassembling, reassembling, or any type of modification then the shop just manufactured something. For now it's probably fine because you don't have to register as a retailer or manufacturer for a little while. Next year is a different story.
Ditto! Lets see, a sale for pennies and a buy back for pennies to demo the specific mod they just purchased. The optics of this specific case raise red flags to the FDA, ICE, or other local authorities who may inspect. What are you doing that may be non compliant is the first thing that flashes into their minds? Lets see, a customer buys a topper that uses removable/replaceable heads/coils. You take the unit they are purchasing and demo the install of the head/coil. In both cases IMHO these will be fine and no need for a contrived procedure that raises red flags.
Of course, I could be wrong and the problem we all face is the lack of specifics from the FDA and the draconian "enforcement discretion" which they have used for years. Also worth noting is asking the FDA to clarify, with your questions via phone and or email, which we all appreciate, is a slippery slope. Saying this another way, lets just say I'm not optimistic that folks will receive a clear cut and definitive answer signed by the full name and title of the FDA geek. A face to face meeting is another story and that's what the FDA loves since it's keeps their overstaffed payroll busy and justifies their own deeply flawed position. Of course the FDA understands that many vendors don't have the budget to fly to MD and jump through the necessary hoops to even get a face to face meeting. Last time I checked and I could be wrong on this, you need to declare the questions you need answers from the FDA in advance of the meeting so they have the option to not take the meeting if they wish to leave the issue in the "gray area". Also, face to face meetings have a cap/max number of 2.
Just my two cents worth.
Every single government on Earth wishes that electronic cigarettes would go away for the sake of tobacco tax revenues. So I suppose what the FDA is doing would be called American world leadership. Doesn't that make you proud to be an American?
I agree.
As for dealing w/it as a customers, most of us have been dealing with age verification for years ...... I order wine on the internet for gifts to people who like wines.
Really, it's not a BIG DEAL.
I bet when the dust settles, and the lawsuits and such conclude, there will actually be a lot less requirements.
This is the "hump" period where everybody is in no man's land.
All this will smooth out in 2017.
Keep in mind people have been buying wine and smoking pipes on line forever. I can go to tons of those sites and shop every day.
If I were such a vendor I would be calling the appropriate person(s) at the FDA to ask for clarification. Several people on redit has done so from what I am reading.
When they passed the "no online sales" in AR last year, I made full use of the ATC attorney for my state, who was inordinately helpful and totally invested in helping me figure out what I could and could not do. It was amazing to me that vendors in the state of AR did not avail themselves of all this information. The way the guy explained it to me is that as a public servant it was his JOB to illuminate all this for people, and he was happy to do it. I was able to order hardware from a site that had blocked me (even though hardware is and was legal to order, just not e-juice) because I was able to *educate* vendors on these things.
But really, I should not have to do that. Vendors should be fully knowledgeable about the facets of their own business.
I imagine some that were on a free ride for a while will close their businesses once they are asked to put some serious thought into their online shopping cart software, age verification, etc. Some people are truly professional business people and take their business seriously. Other ones will just move on to selling the "next big thing" like they did with beanie babies and cabbage patch dolls and toy race cars before they got into the vaping business.
- Status
Similar threads
