FDA Big news coming out of FDA

[skoony]

I'm not too sure about the second Option? Just Not seeing the FDA doing things on Based the Honor System.

To circumnavigate sales from China. I think they actually read our posts and all the talk on how we plan
on getting around any bans and or regs. I am not saying they will actually go around snooping into every
ones business. As roughly 90% of the population will obey the law whatever it turns out to be that in it
self would be enough for them.

The Metric Standard was there first and is a part of a Standardized system. Can't regulate a numerical system or any part there of.

I need a pipe with a m7 threaded end cap

Regulating a standardized size connection as a Product is laughable as there are already other uses besides Vaporizing.

Just saying

In as much as "the 510 connection" as become ingrained into the vaping culture
any thing with one will become suspect y the FDA. There will be an intended
use provision. Again I am not saying they will be coming around checking all
your flashlights.See my response to zoiDman in this post.
Regards
Mike

 

[Bad Ninja]

Sure... But Isn't the Key Word in your post "Right Now"?

Talking about what we Can buy "Right Now" is cool. But I would rather consider How we are going to be able to Buy things Post-Deeming.

The same way you do right now.

But the vendors can no longer make untested claims or use "secret ingredients".

 

[zoiDman]

To circumnavigate sales from China. I think they actually read our posts and all the talk on how we plan
on getting around any bans and or regs. I am not saying they will actually go around snooping into every
ones business. As roughly 90% of the population will obey the law whatever it turns out to be that in it
self would be enough for them.

In as much as "the 510 connection" as become ingrained into the vaping culture
any thing with one will become suspect y the FDA. There will be an intended
use provision. Again I am not saying they will be coming around checking all
your flashlights.See my response to zoiDman in this post.
Regards
Mike

I'm Really not concerned with Foreign Markets. And I'm not even looking at this from the Perspective of the Consumer.

I'm looking at this thru the Eyes of a US Internet Retailers.

Not being able to sell Hardware via the Internet is something that US Retailers might find Hard to Swallow. Especially if it comes 30 Days after the FDA Rules are Finalized.

 

[zoiDman]

The same way you do right now.

...

OK... So we have Nothing to Worry about.

Guess that whole Face-2-Face Sales thing that is the Key Component of the FSTPA is just Widow Dressing.

Hummm? I wonder why the Founder of this Forum felt that this FDA Clarification was so Important? Important Enough to Make this Thread a Global Thread?

 

[stevegmu]

That's because CVS is hurting since they stopped selling tobacco.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/04/investing/cvs-earnings-cigarettes/

Individual bottles are generally more than elsewhere, but with the sales, prices are great...

 

[stevegmu]

I have a buddy who has been stocking up on guns and ammo for more than 10 years because they will be banned tomorrow... The fear mongering has been great for the firearms and munitions industry, as are these threads for nic vendors who sell in bulk...

 

[crxess]

I have a buddy who has been stocking up on guns and ammo for more than 10 years because they will be banned tomorrow...

OMG...........what ever will we do..........

Thought this was about FDA not ATF

 

[stevegmu]

OMG...........what ever will we do..........

Thought this was about FDA not ATF

Same story, different industry...

 

[zoiDman]

I have a buddy who has been stocking up on guns and ammo for more than 10 years because they will be banned tomorrow... The fear mongering has been great for the firearms and munitions industry, as are these threads for nic vendors who sell in bulk...

I wish I had done that with Handgun Ammunition.

Because you Can't Buy Handgun Ammunition via the Net and have it Shipped to where I live.

Of course, there were a Handful of People on Internet Forums that said this would Never Happen. And went from Thread to Thread saying that talking about it was "Fear Mongering".

 

[stevegmu]

I wish I had done that with Handgun Ammunition.

Because you Can't Buy Handgun Ammunition via the Net and have it Shipped to where I live.

Of course, there were a Handful of People on Internet Forums that said this would Never Happen. And went from Thread to Thread saying that talking about it was "Fear Mongering".

This is due to the federal government? I don't live in a state like California for many reasons. I'm surprised even the police in California are allowed to have guns...

 

[Rossum]

I have a buddy who has been stocking up on guns and ammo for more than 10 years because they will be banned tomorrow... The fear mongering has been great for the firearms and munitions industry, as are these threads for nic vendors who sell in bulk...

It is better to have and not to need, than to need and not to have. This applies to both nicotine and ammo (or reloading components).

 

[Bad Ninja]

OK... So we have Nothing to Worry about.

Guess that whole Face-2-Face Sales thing that is the Key Component of the FSTPA is just Widow Dressing.

Hummm? I wonder why the Founder of this Forum felt that this FDA Clarification was so Important? Important Enough to Make this Thread a Global Thread?

Exactly.
Regardless of advertising and labels, the salesperson cannot make statements suggesting the product cures or treats any condition.

That means even if the labels are in accordance with FDA guidelines, the vape store clerk can't preach smoking cessation to a customer in order to sell the product, until said claims are legitimately verified.

Reading comprehension and common sense go hand in hand.

 

[evan le'garde]

Things are not looking good. This is absurd: https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2015-24313.pdf?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery …

Essentially, claims that e-cigs can help people to stop smoking will render the products subject to medical regulation.

Claims that e-cigs are safer will render them subject to "modified risk tobacco" authorisation.

E-Cig companies will be limited to marketing their products as being "satisfying", essentially using the language of the tobacco industry prior to 2000 (due to a Brown & Williamson loophole).

This rule is proposed to "remove ambiguity for marketers", but at the expense of any consumer-facing clarity.

The future looks bleak.

I cannot understand why these products cannot be regulated as recreational. Regardless of claims that these products "can" be used to help people to stop smoking, essentially these products should be recognised as a recreational preventative measure which would enable people, young or old, to start smoking in the first place. It would seem that FDA regulations are composed after comparing these products to other harmful products which came before, when really they shouldn't be compared to anything else at all. It's the comparison which makes these regulations occur in the first place. When someone makes the choice to use these products, then there is no basis to assume that these users have ever smoked tobacco but have chosen to use these products for recreational purposes only. If a person chooses to take up a recreational activity which involves smoking tobacco and then some months or years later decides to switch to the electronic alternative then these regulations would indeed appy, but these regulations appear universally biased and are based on the assumption that everyone who uses one is using it to avoid disease and ill health from tobacco products, which simply isn't the case. If , given the choice, a person could consider either smoking tobacco or using the electronic alternative before even using either and that person chooses the electronic alternative then that would be the right choice, not to avoid ill health, but because it's the sane choice. The electronic alternative isn't a cessation device for those people who have never smoked tobacco. It's a recreational activity, a hobby, something to do in your spare time, with or without nicotine.

There is no reason for governing bodies to make the assumption that these electronic devices are designed exclusively for tobacco smokers who want to quit tobacco. So therefore a universal regulational would be wholely inapropriate.

This regulation is based on a complete supposition.

 

[stevegmu]

It is better to have and not to need, than to need and not to have. This applies to both nicotine and ammo (or reloading components).

I don't plan on fighting a war and don't want to spend all my time stockpiling for a zombie apocalypse. A boat can only carry so much weight; I just need enough to get to the boat...

 

[zoiDman]

This is due to the federal government? I don't live in a state like California for many reasons. I'm surprised even the police in California are allowed to have guns...

Doesn't Really matter.

The key is it will Never Happen. And those who talk about it are just Fear Mongers.

Oh Wait... It Did Happen.

Well, they could Never make Tobacco Products Face-2-Face sales only. Right?

They would need to Pass the FSPTCA Act First. And then the President would have to Sign it before it could become a Federal Law.

 

[stevegmu]

Doesn't Really matter.

The key is it will Never Happen. And those who talk about it are just Fear Mongers.

Oh Wait... It Did Happen.

Well, they could Never make Tobacco Products Face-2-Face sales only. Right?

They would need to Pass the FSPTCA Act First. And then the President would have to Sign it before it could become a Federal Law.

I think you are confused with state law and federal law...

 

[stevegmu]

This is why the FDA proposed these guidelines-


Supports curbed appetite suppression. Eat less while enjoying an electronic cigarette, with the added benefits of a natural appetite suppressant. Let nothing hinder your hotness!*

• Give Your Body & Weight-Loss Goals A Kick By Eating What You Like, Just Less of it!
• Ignore Your Afternoon Cravings Without Going Nuts & Still Feeling Satisfied!*
• Disposable, Fortified E-Cigarette; A More Useful Electronic Cigarette!
• Many Experts Believe That Vapor Allows The Body To Absorb & Utilize Active Supplements Easier!
• 3 Delicious, Exhilarating Flavors: Tobacco, Menthol, & Chocolate
• 1.8% Nicotine by Volume

http://www.nutricigs.com

 

[zoiDman]

...

Reading comprehension and common sense go hand in hand.

You got that Part Right.

I think Many People Read things and Only See what they Want.

 

[LaraC]

Ok. I'm following this thread (slowly catching up) and reading SJ's link over and over.
Here's what I understand.
Doesn't matter what if the manufacturer only says "here, try this, you might like it"

1) If there are "consumer testimonials" that it "provides the same satisfaction" as a cigarette, then it's a tobacco product.
2) if there are "consumer testimonials" that "there is no smoke" it's a MRTP
3) if there are "consumer testimonials" that "it helped me quit smoking" then it is a drug.

So...the letter writing campaigns we've been doing (at our house anyway) for over 6 years (like the recent consumer reports issue) are coming back to bite us in our ***

Please correct me if I've misread.

I think you summed up the "1, 2, 3" part very well, Dee.

However, I don't see that consumer testimonial letters or comments of any kind are a problem in any way...UNLESS a manufacturer or vendor publishes testimonials (of the "2" or "3" type) on his/her website or in his/her marketing materials.

Personal statements or opinions by users about how e-cigs have helped a person stop smoking should be fine --- in personal letter writing campaigns, in personal comments to articles in the media (yeah, like responding to the crappy Consumer Reports article) and in communications with legislators, etc.

It's just the vendors/manufacturers... the sellers, in other words... who can't publish such testimonials (like 2 and 3) in their own marketing, without finding themselves on the "medical" side of FDA's fence.

I could be wrong. FDA has enough weasel words at their lawyers' fingertips, there's no telling just how far they might try to stretch "circumstantial" to cover whatever they want it to cover. And try to shut down whomever they want to shut down.

 

[zoiDman]

I think you are confused with state law and federal law...

Do Federal Laws Supersede State Laws under the Supremacy Clause?

The Key here is that Face-2-Face only sales of Tobacco Products could Never Happen.

Because they would have to Pass the FSPTCA first. And then the President would have to Sign It into Law.

And that is Never Going to Happen.