RDA Yuck just not for me

[bwh79]

I just realized you guys were talking about been filled with e-liquid that contains Nicotine". That's not saying the product has "been filled with e-liquid" prior to purchase. It's just the misprinted second half of a statement which appears in full on the reverse:

"The warning below only applies if this product has
been filled with e-liquid that contains Nicotine"

...which, of course, refers to the required warning that appears below it, on both front and back:

This product contains Nicotine which is a highly
addictive substance

...because that, of course, is not true of the product itself, unless and until it is filled with such a liquid, but the law requires that the warning be placed on the packaging, regardless. Which is why they put their disclaimer before it that it's not really true, even though they have to say so.

 

[mongo74]

It's a great little rdta, and it really cranks out flavor. Is it the best out there? Of course not, but it's definitely not the worst lol.

 

[Don29palms]

I just realized you guys were talking about been filled with e-liquid that contains Nicotine". That's not saying the product has "been filled with e-liquid" prior to purchase. It's just the misprinted second half of a statement which appears in full on the reverse:

"The warning below only applies if this product has
been filled with e-liquid that contains Nicotine"

...which, of course, refers to the required warning that appears below it, on both front and back:

This product contains Nicotine which is a highly
addictive substance

...because that, of course, is not true of the product itself, unless and until it is filled with such a liquid, but the law requires that the warning be placed on the packaging, regardless. Which is why they put their disclaimer before it that it's not really true, even though they have to say so.

The warning is not a law. It is a regulation from the FDA.

 

[bwh79]

The warning is not a law. It is a regulation from the FDA.

It is a rule imposed by a governmental organization. Violation is punishable by law. I'm not sure I see the distinction.

 

[Train2]

Yep.

Insane. Like. LITERALLY insane.
Can't believe that'll hold up under any kind of legal challenge...

Them's the rules. So, get this...starting in 2018, all "tobacco products" (which, according to the FDA, now includes things like this atomizer), must have the phrase "WARNING: This product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical." Okay, what? So, this thing that's made of plastic and metal, needs a warning that it contains nicotine, even when it does not? Well, no, not exactly. If the manufacturer submits a self-certification statement to the FDA that the product does not contain nicotine (and the manufacturer has data to support this assertion), then they can omit that statement and put this one instead: "This product is made from tobacco." Remember we're talking about something made from plastic and metal, but the law says they have to say it's made from tobacco.

 

[Don29palms]

It is a rule imposed by a governmental organization. Violation is punishable by law. I'm not sure I see the distinction.

The distinction is that the FDA cannot write laws. Regulations are not laws.

 

[bwh79]

The distinction is that the FDA cannot write laws. Regulations are not laws.

They didn't make the law, they make the regulations. But when the law is "follow these regulations as they are written," then don't they "kind of" write the law? Whatever they put in the regulations, is enforceable by the law that says you have to follow those regulations. If you violate the regulations, you are breaking the law. I dunno, seems kind of the same, to me. No?

 

[Don29palms]

They didn't make the law, they make the regulations. But when the law is "follow these regulations as they are written," then don't they "kind of" write the law? Whatever they put in the regulations, is enforceable by the law that says you have to follow those regulations. If you violate the regulations, you are breaking the law. I dunno, seems kind of the same, to me. No?

No.

 

[bwh79]

No.

So it's not "against the law" to violate the regulations? I can just say "screw 'em" and do whatever I want with no legal consequenses? That's kin' great!