Which is why they want to define e-cigs as tobacco products and give it to BT. This way we get to fulfill the legal agreement. Is there some sort of lawsuit we could bring to stop that from happening?
I, personally, think it is BP that wrote these rules to give this to BT. Because of BT's reputation it is now far easier to "demonize" vaping. Make it look like a cig give it to BT. Status Quo preserved.
Based on my reading of this comment to the FDA. The FDA will have to allow for an extension of the comment period "after" they have more clearly spelled out the impact this will have on small businesses.
Cig-a-likes will be and are BT. It seems to me that is what they want for this industry. They want it to look as much like smoking as they can get it. They do not like the advanced models on the streets.
I guess it is time to ban tomatoes, potatoes, peppers, eggplant, etc. Well, we basically support some kind of regulations. I guess it is going to be the FDA.
:cry::cry::cry:
I know our numbers are small, but they are growing daily. Also it is not just the vapers, but rather extended family and friends who know about vaping. This makes our number larger then just mere vapers.
The question is how does that differ between "reduced harm" and traditional tobacco products? They say one thing but mean something else. It stifles innovation.
I, really think that Congress does need to address this. The tobacco act was created to discourage new tobacco products. The tobacco act does not address "reduced harm products" and how to encourage their development. To regulate electronic cigarettes as a traditional tobacco product is a...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.