FDA FDA's leaked guidance for PMTAs confirm deeming reg would ban >99.9% of nicotine vapor products

[Kent C]

I, as dual user, do not see that as our common conviction.

I can see why, as a dual user, that line would stick out more than others but the next line - But what they fear the most is the resolve that we assert that we are free to make that choice. .... seemed to be more of his point. Of course, that's the one that stuck out to me Mac will likely chime in to set us straight.

 

[DC2]

I wonder how the Courts would view the FDA Restricting/Regulating the Sale of a Product that contains No Nicotine derived from tobacco?

So you wonder how the courts would rule on their "intended use" doctrine?
I think we know how Judge Leon would rule, since he already has.

 

[Robino1]

Remember it is possible to change ones stance, especially when your talking years on a forum.

I know my stance has changed, on several issues, during my years on here. Really, typecasting an individual pretty much doesn't give anyone wiggle room for compromise

 

[DC2]

I'm not just talking about vaping, per se, I'm talking about ALL government. If the argument is that it is government and the history of government is the problem, HOW do we as individuals change 'history repeating itself'?

Term limits is a good start.

 

[Kent C]

Remember it is possible to change ones stance, especially when your talking years on a forum.

I know my stance has changed, on several issues, during my years on here. Really, typecasting an individual pretty much doesn't give anyone wiggle room for compromise

Not sure who you're addressing - it could be a few posting since many are vets. My view is that identifying the politics involved isn't 'typecasting' - just identifying something that can be addressed, esp. if it led to the deeming. There are many who have wiggled out of some (not all) of their views. And have said they're the better for it. Some have not. Oh well, but conversations that bring out the points and identify exactly what we're facing, helps those, who don't know, some of the things to consider. It's the purpose of free expression. It's how we come to better conclusions.

 

[zoiDman]

So you wonder how the courts would rule on their "intended use" doctrine?
I think we know how Judge Leon would rule, since he already has.

I think if the Product in question did Not Contain Nicotine which was Derived from tobacco, and was Not Marketed/Advertised as being meant to be used with an e-Cigarette, or sold with an e-Cigarette, that a Court may see it as an Overstep of the FDA's Authority to Regulate Tobacco Products.

 

[AndriaD]

Remember it is possible to change ones stance, especially when your talking years on a forum.

I know my stance has changed, on several issues, during my years on here. Really, typecasting an individual pretty much doesn't give anyone wiggle room for compromise

That's true. When I first started hearing about the Deeming regulations, I thought that having some regulations sounded like a pretty good idea. But then I started reading more about what those regulations would actually entail... and it does appear that the FDA intends to utterly destroy vaping as we know it.

IF we had a government that wasn't corrupted by corporate megabucks... and IF the FDA hadn't been co-opted by its revolving door with BP... and IF our gov't wasn't so addicted to tobacco taxes... THEN some REASONABLE regulations truly would be a desirable thing.

But this is the same agency who routinely approves drugs that have more side effects that intended uses. The same agency that apparently thinks that a drug that can make you suicidal or homicidal is a better way of quitting smoking than vaping. The same agency that allows the use of a color preservative in foods which may kill or seriously injure asthmatics -- which are approx 20%-25% of the population.

And this is the same gov't that has been shaming and criminalizing smokers for decades, while simultaneously raising taxes on them so that the same gov't which is hollering about smoking being so deadly become dependent on that money for their very survival, so it's very clear that no one in that gov't has an IQ over about 80 -- they want us to quit, they say, yet when we finally do, they scramble for the money they're no longer getting -- quite normal for a complete mental-deficient, but this is our gov't???

If they had really wanted us to quit, they would have made financial arrangements for the future when we had somehow managed to quit, not made themselves so addicted to tobacco taxes that now that we finally are quitting, they've determined to destroy the means of quitting, instead foisting would-be-quitters back onto the methods which DON'T WORK to help more than maybe 5% of smokers actually quit.

This situation calls, no, BEGS, for Civil Disobedience in the most strident terms, if not outright full-scale revolution, to get rid of those mental defectives who have allowed our gov't to degenerate to this insanity.

Andria

 

[DC2]

We've had our own 'long train of abuses' - starting with the demonization of smokers, smoking designated areas, the 2nd hand smoke junk science that basically accuses all smokers of killing people, the redefining/deeming of 'tobacco products' as vaping and perhaps a banning of vaping products.

Those are the policies involved - that makes up the train of abuses. But it's the 'evinces a design' part that needs to be addressed - what is the politics or philosophy that brings those policies into effect. "Design" suggests intent. Some say money, some say control. And this is where the 'we know what's best for you' mindset comes in. Elections that pose a socialist against a puritan isn't going to change that, as you point out. It's the primaries where one can change who it is who becomes the candidate to vote for. And that can change things via elections. The only other solution is what the Founders did.

This is one of the best posts I've seen on this forum.

 

[Kent C]

Term limits is a good start.

There's a growing body of evidence (Cato Institute and others) that show the longer a person is a member of Congress, the more taxing, spending and regulations they support. And the more money they can make when going through the revolving door. The freshman and sophomores (in general and from both parties) are much more likely to not spend as much (noted exceptions).

 

[zoiDman]

So you wonder how the courts would rule on their "intended use" doctrine?
I think we know how Judge Leon would rule, since he already has.

Hey BTW - Who stands to be a Big Loser if Flavored e-Liquids are Decimated in the coming Regulated Market?

I wonder if LorAnn and Flavour Art are funneling Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars thru 501(c)(4)'s to protect their Interests?

 

[Kent C]

This is one of the best posts I've seen on this forum.

Thank you. Many would call it a 'libertarian rant' but you're going to get that when you quote most of the founders.

I'm all for the CTAs and CASAA, but if this is going to stop - we have to know, and address, what are the ideas that are pushing it in every state and at the federal level as well. If we ignore that, or that type of discussion is frowned upon, and censored, we'll be doing CTA's forever.

 

[Stubby]

Stubby, we came on board here around the same time. A lot of members who come to ECF around the same time tend to know others in the 'class' so to speak. I've had a few conversations with you throughout the years - I credit you for my choice of snus from the information you gave. Thanked you for it, etc. I also saw your posts mentioned at that time they were posted, so I didn't have to 'dig' to get them. I've seen your 'rational progressive tax' for nicotine as well. Your point - in about four posts now was to attack and then make a supposed 'neutral' statement - you're not 'neutral' - (paraphrasing) that 'you'd bet that no one here knows your politics' and you'd lose that bet with me.

I deal in realities, not ideas based on some idealistic ideology. We have to play the cards that are dealt, not the cards we wish we had. We don't live in the idealized system you long for (and actually never did). I don't care about your purity test. On many issues I am progressive, others conservative, though I am quite aware that pragmatism is not up to your lofty standards. I am not the one derailing threads on a daily bases pushing unrealistic ideals. I leave that to the fanatics. Get off the soapbox Kent as it and does nothing but turn people away.

 

[sofarsogood]

Hey BTW - Who stands to be a Big Loser if Flavored e-Liquids are Decimated in the coming Regulated Market?

I wonder if LorAnn and Flavour Art are funneling Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars thru 501(c)(4)'s to protect their Interests?

I think the big pre mix makers are betting that the FDA and State governments will define the market in a way that gives then a relative monopoly. You'll have to go to a licensed tobacco seller to buy any vape stuff where you will be taxed up the wazoo. The larger e liquid companies will be able to meet the FDA standards. The rest will not. I believe the major e liquid companies are hoping for this kind of regulation for their commercial advantage.

The problem with this outcome is I cannot see how governments recover even a fraction of the lost excise taxes without making liquified nic one of the most valuable black market items on the planet. If I can get 4 years out of 1 liter of 100mg nic I've avoided $12,000 worth of cigarettes. $12,000 a bottle? Hot tip. BUY NIC!!

Perhaps there is something I've overlooked.

 

[DC2]

I think if the Product in question did Not Contain Nicotine which was Derived from Tobacco, and was Not Marketed/Advertised as being meant to be used with an e-Cigarette, or sold with an e-Cigarette, that a Court may see it as an Overstep of the FDA's Authority to Regulate Tobacco Products.

And I would totally agree with that...
But the FDA seems to think they can pull it off...
:shrug:

 

[MacTechVpr]

I, as dual user, do not see that as our common conviction. And I, quite evidently, am not afraid of standing up. I also see us having common conviction - that being that our mutual desire to keep vaping a recreational choice, rather than a mandated pseudo choice for all that vaping has included and may some day include. As a recreational choice, it can be whatever the individual wishes it to be, as long as it is aligned with government, and ONLY as long as government is acting reasonably with regards to the recreational nature of the activity. If government cannot behave reasonably on this fundamental point, then compromise(s) after this are not really welcomed, nor should they be sought. To what end, if not treated recreationally? To quit smoking? Please. Been there, done that.

All our political activity right now, and what we fight for, is filtered through various perspectives. The recreational one, IMO, trumps them all. It perfectly allows for the vaper who by (recreational) choice wishes to use vaping as a means to reduce/quit smoking. Or who uses it to socialize. To blow huge clouds. To collect shiny toys. To vape a wide array of flavors. And more.

If we resist the FDA's own version of calls to action, then are we not de-legitimatizing their authority? Or at least calling it into question? And if we don't resist it, aren't we therefore legitimizing it to some extent? Perhaps not if we are making other plans, i.e. preparing / stocking up for alternate (underground) market where FDA authority is absent. And where recreational use will reign supreme.

Not saying don't resist. Quite the opposite. And not judging folks motivations for use. When I talk about legitimizing I refer what will and must be selective approvals by the FDA which will favor deep-pocket participants.

What is it exactly we're trying to accomplish with the FDA that protects our consumer right? That doesn't serve as a sanction to some and restriction to others? If it's not really open commerce at the end of the day, where is our certainty?

Think FDA will go after competitor nic production and inter-state sale of unapproved producers fairly soon after rule approval to aggressively constrain any further expansion. Rules will probably get stricter as needed to get there. Because they mean to cap, control and transition tobacco. If there's to be any vaping — no loss of revenue. And I made that call as an investor about the time TCA passed. Only hope I see is states stepping in to protect their own revenue potentials. For us, which none of this is about really, from a legal standpoint, supporting in-state nic producers to maintain access. Not saying nic sales will be done. But retailers will have to be conforming themselves. Short of challenging TCA itself, I don't see a resolution in our favor as consumers.

FDA doesn't plan to regulate the interstate commerce but the manufacturing of an industry. Not to tax, but to control every exit path and alternative to tobacco. That's the problem.

To overcome it I think would require strong support of states to authorize by legislation a protected marketplace for nicotine. And I see nothing short of massive open popular resistance will accomplish that outcome. It will take time to overturn (preferably) or amend TCA. So maybe I am imagining a utopian dream in which some government acts rationally. But I'm not reassured many have planned for either of these two contingencies for all the attention FDA derives by its machinations.

But you're right. Without a popular voice they will not yield. So engagement by the many uninformed vapers is key. Some (vapers) just don't know they need the community as much as we have here. At least they're encountering the conviction that we'll keep on vaping, if they do. We'll not survive though if we can't protect our right to access nic and do what we do best — help others quit. This vanishes as a pastime, hobby or entertainment without growth.

Frankly, I'm exhausted talkin' about this. It's a complicated world we're in. And folks are distracted. If we're going to do this, it's gonna have to be us. Vapers are going to have to step up, and to the right plate. Uncle Sam ain't listenin'.

Good luck all.

 

[MacTechVpr]

I think the big pre mix makers are betting that the FDA and State governments will define the market in a way that gives then a relative monopoly. You'll have to go to a licensed tobacco seller to buy any vape stuff where you will be taxed up the wazoo. The larger e liquid companies will be able to meet the FDA standards. The rest will not. I believe the major e liquid companies are hoping for this kind of regulation for their commercial advantage.

The problem with this outcome is I cannot see how governments recover even a fraction of the lost excise taxes without making liquified nic one of the most valuable black market items on the planet. If I can get 4 years out of 1 liter of 100mg nic I've avoided $12,000 worth of cigarettes. $12,000 a bottle? Hot tip. BUY NIC!!

Perhaps there is something I've overlooked.

I don't believe they can either. They already have to conform to some regulation I understand. No the revenue (fees, approvals) are intended to be prohibitive. In time, a migration of taxation to an industry where all resalable elements are subject and can be in some manner taxed. That makes sense to me.

Wouldn't it be funny though after all you folks making such investments you suddenly see dozens of nic distillers sprout up all around ya? Just in case anyone thinks I'm aligned with a nic maker. LOL

Have a good one and good luck.

 

[DC2]

There's a growing body of evidence (Cato Institute and others) that show the longer a person is a member of Congress, the more taxing, spending and regulations they support. And the more money they can make when going through the revolving door. The freshman and sophomores (in general and from both parties) are much more likely to not spend as much (noted exceptions).

And term limits will help prevent people wanting to make money from entering politics.
That's the best outcome I can see coming from term limits.

I want people who govern because they care.
And not because they care about their bank accounts.

 

[DC2]

I deal in realities, not ideas based on some idealistic ideology. We have to play the cards that are dealt, not the cards we wish we had.

Just wanted to say, when dealing with poker metaphors...

If a card is flipped over, or whatever, a new deal is called for.
And what we need is a new deal.

Well, we may not NEED it, but it is one of the best things to hope for.

 

[roxynoodle]

The only idea I have of how to fix it would be to create an atmosphere for Mars, colonize it and start over with a new system of government. And give it a few decades and it will be as corrupt as this one. But, I'll be dead and the future generations will need to come up with another idea.

 

[sofarsogood]

I don't believe they can either. They already have to conform to some regulation I understand. No the revenue (fees, approvals) are intended to be prohibitive. In time, a migration of taxation to an industry where all resalable elements are subject and can be in some manner taxed. That makes sense to me.

Wouldn't it be funny though after all you folks making such investments you suddenly see dozens of nic distillers sprout up all around ya? Just in case anyone thinks I'm aligned with a nic maker.

Trying to get rid of vaping by burying the devices in regulation is going to be hard. The ecig is a magnificent invention as inventions go, simple, robust, adaptable, and CHEAP! It works with high tech or with no tech at all. That makes it like keeping a bunch of cats in a basket. If government becomes too oppressive about the hardware human ingenuity will defeat them. Then nic will have to be added to the controlled substances list. Vaping itself will have to be outlawed. They might be able to ban vaping or kill the market but it can never be a cash cow like tobacco. The Tobacco Age is ending because the greedy b...tards finally squeezed their golden goose a little too hard.

As for e liquid. 3 liters of 100mg would cost me $150 and last 10 years if it didn't spoil. Isn't that about how long it takes to get to Pluto? There's no laws against vaping on Pluto.