Purely accidental, LOL. I was searching 'Illinois' to see if any heath depts here had sent in the mass-form-letter comment so I could follow up with DrMa's 'shame-on-you' letter from the other thread, and up it popped. And I remembered Bill looking for missing BT comments.
FDA Altria urges FDA to impose Deeming Regulation
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Purely accidental, LOL. I was searching 'Illinois' to see if any heath depts here had sent in the mass-form-letter comment so I could follow up with DrMa's 'shame-on-you' letter from the other thread, and up it popped. And I remembered Bill looking for missing BT comments.
No problem here Nate, I've considered the same and if I see one I'll pick one up as well. Wondering if refills are possible but haven't looked into it enough to know yet
For a BT product, I thought it really wasn't bad (there I go again with the sacrilege!). I rather liked the flavor; reminded me of Blu's tobacco flavor but with a better throat kick. Battery life is probably about average for a cigalike, and the carto lasted a couple days of moderate use.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
Please note that Altria urged the FDA to impose a defacto ban on all “open tank systems” and “e-liquids” that are sold separately to consumers by urging FDA to:
- to “require manufacturers of non-tobacco components and parts that are sold directly to consumers to be subject to . . . premarket authorization requirements” and other FSPTCA requirements,
- to “apply premarket authorization and constituent reporting requirements to manufacturers of empty “tanks”, “tank systems”, and other e-vapor components intended for distribution or sale directly to consumers . . . in a way that accounts for each probable combination of tobacco-derived nicotine-containing liquid and each such “tank” or “tank system” and the aerosols produced by such combinations.”
- to analyze “the interaction between a particular liquid and any empty “tank” or “tank system” and any liquid which could be used therein.”
- define “finished tobacco product” to differentiate “components, parts or raw materials” from tobacco products that are ready for human consumption,
- to define “component and part” as any “raw material, additive, substance, piece, item, unit, section, assembly, or sub-assembly that is intended for incorporation into a finished tobacco product, ”
Regulations.gov
- to “require manufacturers of non-tobacco components and parts that are sold directly to consumers to be subject to . . . premarket authorization requirements” and other FSPTCA requirements,
- to “apply premarket authorization and constituent reporting requirements to manufacturers of empty “tanks”, “tank systems”, and other e-vapor components intended for distribution or sale directly to consumers . . . in a way that accounts for each probable combination of tobacco-derived nicotine-containing liquid and each such “tank” or “tank system” and the aerosols produced by such combinations.”
- to analyze “the interaction between a particular liquid and any empty “tank” or “tank system” and any liquid which could be used therein.”
- define “finished tobacco product” to differentiate “components, parts or raw materials” from tobacco products that are ready for human consumption,
- to define “component and part” as any “raw material, additive, substance, piece, item, unit, section, assembly, or sub-assembly that is intended for incorporation into a finished tobacco product, ”
Regulations.gov
As I've mentioned previously, this regulation, even if imposed, would be so ridiculously easy to get around it's almost comical. All you'd have to do is slap a sticker on the thing that says "not intended for use with nicotine-containing liquids." Hell, throw in a free bottle of zero-nic liquid just to heighten the effect.
For this reason, among others, I still think it's far more likely that they're going to go after the liquids themselves, and they'll start by imposing onerous restrictions on the sale and/or import of nicotine base.
The departed Mr. Baker would be surprised
... and a few others. The emphasis on (the bold) eliquids is truly troubling. In case the FDA didn't intend that anyway (I think they did), the push for such a restriction truly aligns with the 'fear' that the FDA and their advocates have promoted using 'poison', 'metals', 'carcinogens' etc.- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
The comments by Altria (and Reynolds) to the FDA reiterate and reinforce the FDA's and CDC's lies about e-cigs.
Can't really blame the big tobacco companies for trying to protect their corporations from competitors.
The problem is that WHO, Obama's FDA and other DHHS agencies, and many others (that claim to be public health advocates) have been lying about e-cigs since 2009, and they've made it politically acceptable for everyone else (including tobacco companies) to repeat their lies.
Can't really blame the big tobacco companies for trying to protect their corporations from competitors.
The problem is that WHO, Obama's FDA and other DHHS agencies, and many others (that claim to be public health advocates) have been lying about e-cigs since 2009, and they've made it politically acceptable for everyone else (including tobacco companies) to repeat their lies.
Totally agree. I expect self-interest from every human - even those who run corporations, and those in government, but the our form of gov't was intended to suppress that urge for people in gov't - to be a gov't of laws, not of men. That is not the case anymore, unfortunately.
Add to this the fact that you've got at least a dozen states that are at risk of having to default on their MSA-secured bond issues if cigarette tax revenues should fall too precipitously. And I really, really hope this comes to pass, because these states, in a near-unprecedented show of fiscal irresponsibility, treated the MSA as though it was merely a fun blank check for their general funds, spending the as-yet-nonexistent money years in advance, and using almost none of it for its intended purpose of reducing smoking. These people need to be held to account for what they've done. Unfortunately, it's going to take a bounced-bond scandal before the average citizen becomes aware of what's been happening with their money.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
Note that neither the MSA payments to states, nor the state securitized bonds for future MSA payments, are based upon state cigarette excise tax revenues.
MSA payments to states are, however, related to nationwide cigarette consumption (and other factors including inflation adjustments).
Regarding the spending of MSA funds (and tobacco tax revenue) on programs to reduce smoking, the vast majority of those funds spent by states for "tobacco control" and "smoking cessation" programs has been spent by state health departments (and/or been given to ACS, AHA, ALA, etc.) to demonize smokeless tobacco, cigars, flavorings, hookah, e-cigs and tobacco companies and to promote and subsidize FDA approved drugs marketed by Big Pharma as the only effective way to quit smoking.
If states spent more money on "smoking cessation" and "tobacco control" programs, the state health departments would just spend it to further demonize e-cigs, cigars, flavorings, hookah, smokeless tobacco and tobacco companies, and to lobby for laws to ban vaping, tax e-cigs, restrict e-cig marketing, etc.
MSA payments to states are, however, related to nationwide cigarette consumption (and other factors including inflation adjustments).
Regarding the spending of MSA funds (and tobacco tax revenue) on programs to reduce smoking, the vast majority of those funds spent by states for "tobacco control" and "smoking cessation" programs has been spent by state health departments (and/or been given to ACS, AHA, ALA, etc.) to demonize smokeless tobacco, cigars, flavorings, hookah, e-cigs and tobacco companies and to promote and subsidize FDA approved drugs marketed by Big Pharma as the only effective way to quit smoking.
If states spent more money on "smoking cessation" and "tobacco control" programs, the state health departments would just spend it to further demonize e-cigs, cigars, flavorings, hookah, smokeless tobacco and tobacco companies, and to lobby for laws to ban vaping, tax e-cigs, restrict e-cig marketing, etc.
Thanks for correcting my erroneous use of the term "tax revenues," Bill. I should've been paying closer attention to what I was typing.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
