FDA cliff notes on fda?

[NorthOfAtlanta]

While the comments that Zeller made were in a Q&A, he points directly to the statutory definition. I don't think he was 'caught off guard' - in fact his preface 'this is a good and complicated question' and he seems to understand the 'complications' involved.

Zeller: "All roads lead back to the statutory definition of tobacco products. And ultimately, there has to be something there that is made or derived from tobacco...." @15:13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaWLRIjc2AU

At 21:15 he is asked about nicotine derived from vegetables and once again states the statutory definition. Basically no tobacco, no FDA control under this regulation.
Recorded on tape and not the type of statement someone in his position would make if there was any wiggle room.

 

[Kent C]

At 21:15 he is asked about nicotine derived from vegetables and once again states the statutory definition. Basically no tobacco, no FDA control under this regulation.
Recorded on tape and not the type of statement someone in his position would make if there was any wiggle room.

Thanks. Yep - basically he knows what his job entails. That said, apart from the 'derivation' subject, the whole idea of 'deeming' is to redefine certain products and merely 'deem' them so. So some ecig parts are or may be 'deemed' tobacco products - that's the whole point, but Zeller, as he states clearly, is not going to 'deem' the nicotine from say an eggplant as being a 'tobacco derivitive'. He's actually smarter than that

 

[philoshop]

Right up until the point where nicotine derived from the 'eggplant' becomes commercially viable for use in vaporization products. At that point there will be a new flurry of deeming under discussion, and the precedent and momentum will be even more heavily on the side of the FDA.

 

[skoony]

While the comments that Zeller made were in a Q&A, he points directly to the statutory definition. I don't think he was 'caught off guard' - in fact his preface 'this is a good and complicated question' and he seems to understand the 'complications' involved.

Zeller: "All roads lead back to the statutory definition of tobacco products. And ultimately, there has to be something there that is made or derived from tobacco...." @15:13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaWLRIjc2AU

Zeller: "All roads lead back to the statutory definition of tobacco products. And ultimately, there has to be something there that is made or derived from tobacco...." @15:13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaWLRIjc2AU
derived:copied,mimicked,substituted,in place of.
that's why they can regulate the hard ware.
that's why they can regulate the juice.
i believe all this nicotine derived from tobacco is a canard.
nicotine is nicotine. they are not going to let that slide between
their fingers so easily.
there is nothing in the language of the statue that says made from
a tobacco product only.
it says made or derived from.
two separate and distinct criteria.
i am not saying your wrong per say.
i hope you are right. what i am saying is the
way the statue is written they can do as they
please and the courts wont be able to do
anything about it because of the wording
in the statue.

regards
mike

 

[skoony]

jeez. I thought we just cleared that up. It is you not Zeller, who is conflating the two definitions. His quoted statement was 'made or derived from tobacco'.

If you're going to stick with your original debunked argument, then I have no more to say to you on this subject.

two separate and distinct criteria.
regards
mike
p.s., and when did Zeller become such a trusted source?

 

[Kent C]

two separate and distinct criteria.
regards
mike
p.s., and when did Zeller become such a trusted source?

Me earlier:
"If you're going to stick with your original debunked argument, then I have no more to say to you on this subject."

Now:
"If you're going to stick with your original debunked argument, then I have no more to say to you on this subject."


Have a nice life.

 

[skoony]

At 21:15 he is asked about nicotine derived from vegetables and once again states the statutory definition. Basically no tobacco, no FDA control under this regulation.
Recorded on tape and not the type of statement someone in his position would make if there was any wiggle room.

wiggle room? there's a hole big enough to march the First Infantry Division
through.
what the statutory definition is and what Zeller says are two different things.
he is miss representing what the statue says. words mean things.
the deeming regs are going to be written according to what the statue says,
not what Zeller says. Zeller admits as much when he says in the end it will depend
on if its a tobacco product or a derived of tobacco. taken all together he really said yes,no or may be.
i watch the tape. Zeller said the former and immediately added the latter as a caveat.

regards
mike

 

[DC2]

Can you explain again how cigarette rolling papers is derived from tobacco? As I see it, if that is derived from tobacco, then so are pancakes and televisions.

The TCA defines “tobacco product” broadly to include products made from or derived from tobacco, including their components, parts and accessories except for products already regulated as drugs.

 

[SeniorBoy]

pst..................................... /lol

I know that. I was answering member @Jman8 post trying to be subtle, respectfull, yet factuall. As per this:

Can you explain again how you view 0 nic juice is derived from tobacco? As I see it, if that is derived from tobacco, then so are pancakes and televisions.

I love pancakes! Does that help? /joke lol

Perhaps I can answer your question this way using part of your words:

Can you explain again how cigarette rolling papers is derived from tobacco? As I see it, if that is derived from tobacco, then so are pancakes and televisions.

See:

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/UCM239021.pdf

https://www.google.com/search?q=fda...microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&gws_rd=ssl

EDIT: And of course, a vendor adapts:

Flavored Rolling Papers Legality



The complete original post I made at: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/fda-regulations/632401-cliff-notes-fda.html#post14816968

He chose not to respond which is fine and I assume he gets the logic. At least I hope he does.

 

[skoony]

pst..................................... /lol

I know that. I was answering member @Jman8 post trying to be subtle, respectfull, yet factuall. As per this:



I love pancakes! Does that help? /joke lol

Perhaps I can answer your question this way using part of your words:

Can you explain again how cigarette rolling papers is derived from tobacco? As I see it, if that is derived from tobacco, then so are pancakes and televisions.

See:

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/UCM239021.pdf

https://www.google.com/search?q=fda...microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&gws_rd=ssl

EDIT: And of course, a vendor adapts:

Flavored Rolling Papers Legality



The complete original post I made at: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/fda-regulations/632401-cliff-notes-fda.html#post14816968

He chose not to respond which is fine and I assume he gets the logic. At least I hope he does.

C. Tobacco Product
Tobacco product means “any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for
human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product
(except for raw materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing a component, part, or
accessory of a tobacco product)” (section 201(rr)(1) of the Act. Thus, the term is not
limited to products containing tobacco, but also includes components, parts, or
accessories of tobacco products, whether they are sold for further manufacturing or for
consumer use. For example, tobacco, papers, and filters are tobacco products, whether
they are sold to consumers for use with roll-your-own tobacco or are sold for further
manufacturing into a product sold to a consumer, such as a cigarette. This term does not
include an article that is a drug, a device, or a combination product as defined in the
FD&C Act (section 201(rr)(2) of the FD&C Act (21 USC 321(rr)(2)).
source:http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/UCM239021.pdf
this is the relevant part i believe.
regards
mike

 

[Jman8]

A. This is a game of wait and see.

B. Courts will have a field day with products that don't contain nicotine but are regulated as tobacco products.

C. To the degree the courts are ineffective, the black market will be very effective for delivering tobacco products, galore, to the consumer.

D. Anyone that disagrees with or disputes C, well, welcome to your first day on earth. Hope you can find a way to fit in.

 

[DC2]

The black market is NOT a solution for everyone going forward.
Unless of course we don't care about those who are unable or unwilling to engage in a black market.

 

[Kent C]

The black market is NOT a solution for everyone going forward.
Unless of course we don't care about those who are unable or unwilling to engage in a black market.

Not sure what that last means. But.... IF someone is unwilling to engage in the black market, then we shouldn't care about that. That's their decision and it should be respected.

What I'm not sure about is someone who would be willing but "unable" to engage in the black market. If you mean they are 'unable' because of their ethical considerations, then that really puts them in the 'unwilling' category. And again, we shouldn't care about that since it's their considerations, not ours.

If you mean that the black market prices would make them unable to participate, then those who do care about them, should be able to help them out, some, or they could find a creative way to make the exchange possible.

If you're just pushing the 'care' button, then disregard the above. It may work for some, and not so much for others. It may even achieve the opposite - a bit like the save the children line.

 

[Jman8]

The black market is NOT a solution for everyone going forward.
Unless of course we don't care about those who are unable or unwilling to engage in a black market.

If A is worst case scenario (de facto ban on 99% of all current products) and 'products' includes things that don't contain nicotine - like pancakes and televisions)

And B is worst case scenario (courts find everything the FDA does to be perfectly acceptable - and pancakes and televisions are banned as well, along with bacon)

Then the black market is the solution going forward.

 

[Chrisnotes86]

Is it a good idea to open a brick and mortar vape shop with all this garbage going on? How can an entrepreneur who is passionate about vaping make a profit in the industry? Any ideas are encouraged!

 

[Kent C]

Is it a good idea to open a brick and mortar vape shop with all this garbage going on? How can an entrepreneur who is passionate about vaping make a profit in the industry? Any ideas are encouraged!

Unfortunately, your and many others' similar concerns is the result of the force or threat of force in the market by those who hate business in general and who also hate the idea that some product can make someone happier and healthier. And worse, they promote their ideas under the guise of 'caring' for you and your children.

Getting rid of those people in positions of power is the ultimate solution, but until then (it may be a while ...

If someone would have a plan to operate in the market and a plan that if or when ecigarettes or the bulk of ecigarettes are restricted from the free market, that one could continue in the black market, then there's a chance of profit.

 

[MrSparkle]

Read the thread, hit the links (will need to watch the Zeller thing later when I can concentrate on it - this attack against vaping in and of itself is disturbing and I need to read more here on it).

I can see where skoony was going on this - the FDA pushing overarching regulation, which would seem to me at the behest of BT lobbying. Which brings me to...

Isn't that what all this is about? If BT and taxing entities will be losing much money from the rise of e-cigs, isn't all the regulation steered towards gaining back at least some of that revenue?

 

[BuGlen]

Read the thread, hit the links (will need to watch the Zeller thing later when I can concentrate on it - this attack against vaping in and of itself is disturbing and I need to read more here on it).

I can see where skoony was going on this - the FDA pushing overarching regulation, which would seem to me at the behest of BT lobbying. Which brings me to...

Isn't that what all this is about? If BT and taxing entities will be losing much money from the rise of e-cigs, isn't all the regulation steered towards gaining back at least some of that revenue?

BT and government are 2 of the 3 part of the axis of evil, in this case. Big Pharma is the third leg that has been a major contributor to the campaign against vapor products from way back, and they have the FDAs ear (and pocket).

 

[Kent C]

Isn't that what all this is about? If BT and taxing entities will be losing much money from the rise of e-cigs, isn't all the regulation steered towards gaining back at least some of that revenue?

First, your anger at BT is misplaced - the 'BT hooked me on cigarettes' comment on another thread is likely why, from your viewpoint. But BT didn't "hook" you. You "hooked" you. Just like I 'hooked' me, and how others hooked themselves

Secondly, the FDA and the Tobacco Control group hates BT. The only reason it appears that BT and Big Government (BG) are in bed, is because after the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, BT has the Stockholm syndrome, and their 'agreement' with the FDA deeming (which is fading - the agreement, that is) is more 'don't hit me anymore' and the fact that they have their own ecigarette departments now and think that they can afford the cost of the deeming better than other ecig vendors especially IF the deeming goes as the FDA plans - they are correct about that.

BG has more to lose in revenues AND more importantly, they are in more control of things than BT or BP, although lobbying does help steer that control - BUT take away lobbying and the influence of campaign contributions and that will show you who actually has control - Government. And there are enough do-gooders and people who know what's best for you and me, in gov't, to where many would attempt to stop vaping regardless of any lobbying or campaign contributions. It is why some of them are in gov't. They couldn't have that amount of control in the private sector - most have mediocre intelligence at best and little ability to compete in a free market - they need the 'badge' of gov't to apply that type of control.

 

[MrSparkle]

Just spent a couple hours running through the December 10 FDA workshop thread, and found myself hitting the like button a lot.

I'll leave it at this:

I was admittedly oblivious to all of this (or really, the extent / consequences of regulation) just days ago. I have no basis to chime in on these threads, and my largely uneducated political views and punk rock ideology towards government and big business wouldn't be relevant, anyway.

I need to work on both of those... I'm getting on 50

But ye gods... if vaping can do what it's done for me in just a month, multiply myself by however many other smokers considering quitting out there... and they won't get the unmolested, affordable choice I got...

I see how fast the new members forum moves - if all those folks added their voices... all the noobs asking after the intricacies of coils, etc. would seem to not be paying attention to the larger issue at hand - paying unnecessary taxation or even not being able to do it at all legally, very soon.

So in light of the "Cliff Notes" topic of this thread, an idea pops up: I'm not a pop-up guy (I have strict security / script / pop-up measures set on my browser) - but could ECF use a pop-up upon each visit to ECF, to at least bring more attention to the regulatory issue? Those other noobs aren't going to dig down into the issue like I'm starting to here.

Or perhaps not? Smoking being sort of an "old person" kind of thing, maybe the more mature will...


Anyway: I won't be able to throw much money at vaping advocacy due to current circumstances - that will hopefully change in the coming months - but I joined the CASAA mailing list this morning, and will add my voice when the calls for action come through. I'll stay out of the threads here, but will be reading and appreciating most every thing said.