Sneaky Republicans trying to change grandfather date in budget bill.

Status
Not open for further replies.

AndriaD

Reviewer / Blogger
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 24, 2014
21,253
50,807
64
LawrencevilleGA
angryvaper.crypticsites.com
Well... it's nice to see that maybe somebody in Congress has a brain in their pinhead, but that article didn't actually say anything about what new rider might be attached to the bill, relating to e-cigs -- it's just kind of a teaser, that doesn't actually say anything. :blink:

Andria
 

AndriaD

Reviewer / Blogger
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 24, 2014
21,253
50,807
64
LawrencevilleGA
angryvaper.crypticsites.com
I got to the "save the children" part and quit reading.

If they REALLY wanted to save the children, they'd be giving out e-cigs at Toys R Us, to save kids from SMOKING.

It's just a (ahem) smokescreen. :D

Andria
 

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US
I got to the "save the children" part and quit reading.

Yep, another 'pro' article that has more negatives that pros and doesn't even explain WHAT and WHEN the new grandfather date is, or HOW it would affect the market, violating the basic questions of journalistic SOP. 'Sneak' also, is not the case - every 3 and 4 letter agency - ACA etc. has sent letters to on both HR 2058 and HR 3049. So it's a slap at the Republicans. (although that's expected).
 

AndriaD

Reviewer / Blogger
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 24, 2014
21,253
50,807
64
LawrencevilleGA
angryvaper.crypticsites.com
Yep, another 'pro' article that has more negatives that pros and doesn't even explain WHAT and WHEN the new grandfather date is, or HOW it would affect the market, violating the basic questions of journalistic SOP. 'Sneak' also, is not the case - every 3 and 4 letter agency - ACA etc. has sent letters to on both HR 2058 and HR 3049. So it's a slap at the Republicans. (although that's expected).

Yeah.. to me, use of that word "sneak" is exactly like all these ANTZ using the term "nicotine-LACED" ... like it's cyanide or something. :facepalm:

Andria
 

AndriaD

Reviewer / Blogger
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jan 24, 2014
21,253
50,807
64
LawrencevilleGA
angryvaper.crypticsites.com
This is depressing, I bought so many vaping gear and all the juice will inevitably be gone in few years (or significantly less..) and all the gear will just be thrown out one day.
Probably will go back to smoking if this happens haha..
Could have bought the macbook pro me and my wife wanted :/

Or you could start stockpiling nicotine and make your own juice, which is what a lot of us are doing. You have to idiot-proof your vaping, since the gov't idiots are determined to destroy it.

Andria
 

madangus

Super Member
ECF Veteran
May 10, 2015
917
2,091
46
Chicago-land
This is depressing, I bought so many vaping gear and all the juice will inevitably be gone in few years (or significantly less..) and all the gear will just be thrown out one day.
Probably will go back to smoking if this happens haha..
Could have bought the macbook pro me and my wife wanted :/

I am just in an apt, but have about 15 years worth of nicotine base in my little fridge/freezer in the den. I am not even doing the super strong 100mg, was more comfortable with 50mg. Still, it doesn't take that much space to store. Then its just flavourings and the pg/vg.

I am not going to attempt to try and have enough for the test of my life, i would need a house and a chest freezer for that. But i figure 10 to 15 years is plenty of time for me to cut down at a pace thats better for me. I have about a years worth of premixed juice that i will top up to always have a year on hand until I can't, then i will diy.

And then all you've spent will still get used for a bunch of years so i won't feel like such a waste.

I don't know if you could do something like this, the situation is ridiculous, but that's at least what i am doing.
 

Kent C

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jun 12, 2009
26,547
60,051
NW Ohio US
Sadly, it looks like it was removed from the spending bill

E-cigarettes big loser in spending bill

It appears that is the case.

The 'new' section 747 in the spending bill (which was the section in the Ag bill that contained the changed grandfather date):

SEC. 747. None of the funds made available by this

10 Act may be used to implement, administer, or enforce the

11 final rule entitled ‘‘Food Labeling; Nutrition Labeling of

12 Standard Menu Items in Restaurants and Similar Retail

13 Food Establishments’’ published by the Food and Drug

14 Administration in the Federal Register on December 1,

15 2014 (79 Fed. Reg. 71156 et seq.) until the later of—

16 (1) December 1, 2016; or

17 (2) the date that is one year after the date on

18 which the Secretary of Health and Human Services

19 publishes Level 1 guidance with respect to nutrition

20 labeling of standard menu items in restaurants and

21 similar retail food establishments in accordance with

22 paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), (g)(1)(iii), and

23 (g)(1)(iv) of section 10.115 of title 21, Code of Fed24

eral Regulations.


No mention of the Tobacco Control Act. And the 'old section 747' in the Ag bill HR 3049:

Sec. 747. For each tobacco product which the Secretary of Health and Human Services, by regulation under section 901(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, deems to be subject to chapter IX of such Act, none of the funds made available in this Act or any other Act may be used to treat any reference in sections 905 and 910 of such Act to February 15, 2007, as other than a reference to the effective date of the regulation under which a tobacco product is deemed subject to the requirements of such Act pursuant to section 901(b)(1) of such Act, and any reference in such sections to 21 months after the date of enactment of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act as other than a reference to 21 months after the date of such final deeming regulation.

Some mentions of Tobacco:
SEC. 509. None of the funds provided by this Act

13 shall be available to promote the sale or export of tobacco

14 or tobacco products, or to seek the reduction or removal

15 by any foreign country of restrictions on the marketing

16 of tobacco or tobacco products, except for restrictions

17 which are not applied equally to all tobacco or tobacco

18 products of the same type.

----

PROHIBITION ON PROMOTION OF TOBACCO


15 SEC. 7050. None of the funds provided by this Act

16 shall be available to promote the sale or export of tobacco

17 or tobacco products, or to seek the reduction or removal

18 by any foreign country of restrictions on the marketing

19 of tobacco or tobacco products, except for restrictions

20 which are not applied equally to all tobacco or tobacco

21 products of the same type.

----
And, sadly:
(7) $564,117,000 shall be for the Center for Tobacco Products and for related field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs;
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread