Are we winning?

[rothenbj]

Actually, if you wade through the 200+ pages of mindless unsupported drivel they spewed, you would see that they specifically mentioned regulating flavorings. They're also "seeking input" on what parts/components of the ecig device/hardware to control/regulate & eventually ban. They specifically mentioned things like lighters and cig cases as not being regulate-able, but they're reserving the right to regulate other (undefined) components... and asking for the public's "help" in deciding what those components should include.

I agree that it's not as draconian as I personally expected it to be - certainly those who currently use e-cigs have plenty of time to take care of themselves, what concerns me is those who haven't discovered (good) e-cigs losing the opportunity to beat the weed in the future.

Once deemed as a tobacco product, anything is possible. Enough press on children and flavors and we'll get tthe flavor ban. The right pressure from BT and a few well placed news reports of nicotine poisonings and the FDA can regulate nic in sealed cartridges only.

This is getting their foot in the door and declaring themselves gatekeeper. Be happy of the window currently opened but don't be too self assured about the future.

 

[aubergine]

PLEASE read Bill Godshall's excellent objection in the thread next door. It's really unhelpful to spread false security here without understanding this legislation. Wishes aren't horses.

 

[Nate760]

PLEASE read Bill Godshall's excellent objection in the thread next door. It's really unhelpful to spread false security here without understanding this legislation. Wishes aren't horses.

Forgive me for playing semantics, but it's an important distinction: this is not legislation. This is an attempt by a regulatory agency to exert its pre-existing powers over a consumer product that has heretofore been outside its purview. It will be up to the courts to decide (and you can bet the tobacco lawyers are already drawing up the injunction requests) if these new regulations are, in fact, permissible under the terms of the FDA's current mandate. If the courts find to the contrary (and there's no reason to believe that's not a possibility), then it will be up to Congress to pass, and the president to sign, new legislation which extends the FDA's authority accordingly.

In other words: these regulations are not yet gospel, there are an awful lot of moving parts here, and it's silly for anyone to assume this is a slam dunk. Frankly, the people proclaiming doom and gloom seem to have a pretty dim understanding of how our government works.

 

[Myrany]

Forgive me for playing semantics, but it's an important distinction: this is not legislation. This is an attempt by a regulatory agency to exert its pre-existing powers over a consumer product that has heretofore been outside its purview. It will be up to the courts to decide (and you can bet the tobacco lawyers are already drawing up the injunction requests) if these new regulations are, in fact, permissible under the terms of the FDA's current mandate. If the courts find to the contrary (and there's no reason to believe that's not a possibility), then it will be up to Congress to pass, and the president to sign, new legislation which extends the FDA's authority accordingly.

In other words: these regulations are not yet gospel, there are an awful lot of moving parts here, and it's silly for anyone to assume this is a slam dunk. Frankly, the people proclaiming doom and gloom seem to have a pretty dim understanding of how our government works.

I do understand how our government works. I just have lost all illusion over the last 20 years or that the government gives one darn about the people it governs or the constitution. In short I have no faith at all that they will NOT try to screw us over ever way possible.

Yes it is silly top say we are doomed right now. It is equally silly to say that we are NOT doomed. FOr me I would rather prepare for the worst, work for the best and take what in the happens.

 

[Nate760]

Yes it is silly top say we are doomed right now. It is equally silly to say that we are NOT doomed. FOr me I would rather prepare for the worst, work for the best and take what in the happens.

I'm reminded of something I've often said to my kids over the years: "Never plan for best-case scenarios or worst-case scenarios, because they both hardly ever happen."

 

[Katya]

It will be up to the courts to decide (and you can bet the tobacco lawyers are already drawing up the injunction requests) if these new regulations are, in fact, permissible under the terms of the FDA's current mandate. If the courts find to the contrary (and there's no reason to believe that's not a possibility), then it will be up to Congress to pass, and the president to sign, new legislation which extends the FDA's authority accordingly.

In other words: these regulations are not yet gospel, there are an awful lot of moving parts here, and it's silly for anyone to assume this is a slam dunk. Frankly, the people proclaiming doom and gloom seem to have a pretty dim understanding of how our government works.

And you believe that BT lawyers are acting on our behalf? Seriously?

I can't afford a lawyer who will fight the FDA in my behalf.

 

[Nate760]

And you believe that BT lawyers are acting on our behalf? Seriously?

I can't afford a lawyer who will fight the FDA in my behalf.

Well, it's kind of a double-edged sword. In terms of public perception, no, it absolutely is not good for us to have tobacco lawyers on the front lines of our struggle, because it just feeds the erroneous belief that BT and the e-cig industry are one and the same. But in pure legal terms, tobacco lawyers are some of the best people to have on your side. They've been doing this stuff for decades and they're very good at it.

But, whether we like it or not, the tobacco companies are the only people in the e-cig business who have the financial wherewithal to go up against the federal government in a years-long court battle.

 

[Katya]

Nate, I don't care about perceptions. I propose that BT lawyers are not on our side--they are out there to cut a deal for BT--and nobody else. BT is not fighting for their share of the market--they want the whole e-cig market all to themselves.

 

[Barbara21]

<snip> It will be up to the courts to decide (and you can bet the tobacco lawyers are already drawing up the injunction requests) if these new regulations are, in fact, permissible under the terms of the FDA's current mandate. <snip>

And you believe that BT lawyers are acting on our behalf? Seriously? <snip>

Well, it's kind of a double-edged sword. In terms of public perception, no, it absolutely is not good for us to have tobacco lawyers on the front lines of our struggle, because it just feeds the erroneous belief that BT and the e-cig industry are one and the same. But in pure legal terms, tobacco lawyers are some of the best people to have on your side. They've been doing this stuff for decades and they're very good at it.

But, whether we like it or not, the tobacco companies are the only people in the e-cig business who have the financial wherewithal to go up against the federal government in a years-long court battle.

Nate, I don't care about perceptions. I propose that BT lawyers are not on our side--they are out there to cut a deal for BT--and nobody else. BT is not fighting for their share of the market--they want the whole e-cig market all to themselves.

I have to agree with Katya. BT lawyers will fight for pre-filled/sealed cartridges since that's what they sell. In fact, I think they will actively fight *against* anything other than these. They would be perfectly happy if all options other than cigalikes were banned.

 

[Nate760]

Nate, I don't care about perceptions. I propose that BT lawyers are not on our side--they are out there to cut a deal for BT--and nobody else. BT is not fighting for their share of the market--they want the whole e-cig market all to themselves.

I don't disagree in principle with any of this. I just don't see any way of attacking these regulations that would protect disposables and pre-filled cartomizers while leaving onerous restrictions on the sectors of the market in which BT has no involvement. Each provision will either be upheld as written, or it'll be thrown out.

 

[Katya]

I don't disagree in principle with any of this. I just don't see any way of attacking these regulations that would protect disposables and pre-filled cartomizers while leaving onerous restrictions on the sectors of the market in which BT has no involvement. Each provision will either be upheld as written, or it'll be thrown out.

I'm not so sure. Everything that BT is peddling now will be grandfathered as pre-2007 devices. So they control everything--the cigs and the terrible pre-2007 e-cigs. Win-win. If their e-cigs don't work, people will go back to smoking. If they do work, fine, people will still be buying BT products at inflated prices. What's not to like?

Do you really think BT lawyers will fight for the eGos and MVPs and ProVaris? Kayfuns? And what if the FDA refuses to approve all those newer devices? What are we going to do then?

 

[Nate760]

I'm not so sure. Everything that BT is peddling now will be grandfathered as pre-2007 devices.

If I'm not mistaken, the only cigalikes on the market in 2007 were the three-piece types with separate atomizer and cartridge. So how do you figure anything on the market now, BT or otherwise, is going to get grandfathered?

Do you really think BT lawyers will fight for the eGos and MVPs and ProVaris? Kayfuns?

As I already explained, it doesn't matter what they're "fighting for" or not fighting for. This isn't like a line-item veto thing. Each provision that is challenged will either be kept in its entirety or thrown out in its entirety. Judges don't care which company a lawyer is working for or what that company's ulterior motives might be. Their job is to decide whether the regulation being challenged is legal or illegal. There's no nuance here; it's one or the other.

 

[Katya]

I hope you're right and I don't remember exactly when cartomizers were first introduced, but the batteries were the same--super minis that need to be recharged every 45 minutes... I started vaping in 2009; I could look it up but I'm too tired. Bottom line--the BT batteries get grandfathered in, their stupid cartomizers will be approved without a problem--one way or the other--they are equivalent to the 3-piece model (a cartomizer is an atomizer + cart).

Other than that, see post #109:

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ming-regulation-proposals-6.html#post12954236

 

[rothenbj]

And you believe that BT lawyers are acting on our behalf? Seriously?

I can't afford a lawyer who will fight the FDA in my behalf.

Katya, you understand the real problem here. The FDA's client for decades has not been the people, as it should be, but the Pharma industry. It pays heartily for the protection the FDA provides. Now the FDA has a new, large client that will be able to provide FDA funding for the protection of their own products. I believe that BT and their other soon to be clients, Big Vapor, have been working closely with the FDA in molding the regulations proposed today with an eye to extension of those regulations once established. I believe TVECA had a seat at that table as well as BT as the FDA was working out how to keep the regulations viable but fluid enough to be strengthened once established.

Velvet glove, iron fist is appropriate. Establish the right to control, then control strongly. Why should flavors be allowed in the future when the are there to market to children? Why should dangerous chemicals be available in quantities that can kill a child? Restrict availability to tamper proof cartridges (as if there's no chocking danger).

I think Bill Godshall has the right approach, never give an inch. They already have the yard stick waiting.

 

[Katya]

Yup. Remember what they did to Swedish snus? Sure, it's not illegal, but how many people can afford the $30 shipping and want to deal with the burden of having to be at home to sign for the package when they can get Camel snus at any gas station.

Get rid of the competition, grab the market, take your money to the bank.

 

[aikanae1]

I have no doubt TVECA was at the table, through the backdoor. I think that's rather obvious. There are still laws on the books against that sort of thing, even if they are rarely used or only amount to a tiny fine. It takes years for that, longer than we have and even if guilty, still would't produce the results we want. We're kinda stuck.

It's far easier to prevent regulations in the first place than trying to change them after the fact.

 

[sonicdsl]

I have no doubt TVECA was at the table, through the backdoor. I think that's rather obvious. There are still laws on the books against that sort of thing, even if they are rarely used or only amount to a tiny fine. It takes years for that, longer than we have and even if guilty, still would't produce the results we want. We're kinda stuck.

It's far easier to prevent regulations in the first place than trying to change them after the fact.

"Vote" with the pocketbook?

 

[rothenbj]

Yup. Remember what they did to Swedish snus? Sure, it's not illegal, but how many people can afford the $30 shipping and want to deal with the burden of having to be at home to sign for the package when they can get Camel snus at any gas station.

Get rid of the competition, grab the market, take your money to the bank.

Actually General has a toe in the door and I'm hoping they can keep it there, Unfortunately, BT appears to have the big players in the convenience store business locked up so General is only available in the smaller independants, but you can get limited brands- Mint, White and Peppermint primarily plus a few "Americanized" brands.

You are right though, PACT certainly crippled the wonderful world of snus that previously existed.

 

[Freedombadeaux]

I have a friend that ran for senator in New Jersey who was willing to sue the New Jersey Criminal System. He has no fear and would probably take on a class action suit! We will definitely win in the end. I have medical records to prove how unhealthy I was compared to how healthy I will be as time goes by. They need to back off!

 

[Katya]

Actually General has a toe in the door and I'm hoping they can keep it there, Unfortunately, BT appears to have the big players in the convenience store business locked up so General is only available in the smaller independants, but you can get limited brands- Mint, White and Peppermint primarily plus a few "Americanized" brands.

You are right though, PACT certainly crippled the wonderful world of snus that previously existed.

I get my General mini mint from my favorite tobacco shack, but the days of browsing, sampling and ordering a tin of that and a couple tins of this freshly from Sweden are over.