FDA Could the FDA really regulate E-Liquid??
- Thread starter Bryong70
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
The way I see it hardware that is specific to vaping can be enforced. Kiss all of those pretty vision spinners and kanger evods good-bye. Some of the Mods with changeable batteries are safe... so make sure your mod is quality. The juice is done... even any former "e-juice" maker that tries to market 0% as "nicotine free." 0% juice may survive period... from anyone... but I think it will take dedicated "aromatherapy" juices made by a company with no ties to the current nic juice market to stay in the game without regs. That would be quite the market too. For everyone here I would advise getting some concentrated nic fluid if you're still dependent on it. I just started and I hope to be nic free a year from now. I also hope vaping will soon follow. Not because I think it's super harmful... I'm just ready to be free of all vices/habits/addictions. Disagree if you want, but even vaping is still a vice to me (even if it's a virtually harmless vice).
Figuring out what we need to save our own skins is not helping smokers quit or saving lives or the vaping industry. Most of the stuff will still be on the market for a year - several years yet. We need to be looking at solutions that'll take us into the future, with mods, batteries, and the full selection that allows a person to customize their vape so they can quit.
Right there. The FDA considers the non-stanardization of vapor delivery as a liability and a hazard. I think of it as a feature since no 2 people vape the same. There's a lot of flaws like that.
Right there. The FDA considers the non-stanardization of vapor delivery as a liability and a hazard. I think of it as a feature since no 2 people vape the same. There's a lot of flaws like that.
Exactly this. It's not myself I'm worried about; if, despite my best efforts in opposition, the gear and liquids I use become illegal in a few years' time, I just won't vape anymore. Not because it's illegal per se, but because I don't want to deal with black market prices and black market inconveniences, and because I shall be damned if I ever pay money for a Big Tobacco cigalike.
The people for whom I'm afraid are the ones who are still smoking and don't decide to quit until after the FDA hammer comes down, because many of those people (millions of them) are effectively being sentenced to death by the US government in the name of "public health." This isn't just offensive or wrongheaded or objectionable, this is pure evil.
Well, they can "enact" those regulations but I don't think China cares.
There will be plenty of gizmos still finding their way into the U.S. under the table (albeit at a price). Not to mention, all the existing hardware that still works; it'll be years before the last Provari dies. But again, without affordable nic based e-juice, "our" kind of vaping will just be out of reach for most.Absolutely quit vaping if that's your choice. There are other things in life. But the issue here is whether yet another government infringement will force you to stop doing something that is virtually harmless by making that choice for you.
^^^^THIS!!! 1000% ^^^^^KODIAK;13097583 said:
People should understand, this goes far beyond vaping! Constant Government Intrusion is not good for any citizen!
I think the biggest question I have is will bottled juice survive or not. I can deal with taxes and no interstate commerce. I didn't get into vaping to save money. I did it to save my life. The real kick in the teeth would be sealed cartos only. Or even sealed cheap clearos only. If bottled juice goes by the wayside it will be devastating for current and future vapers. Cigalikes don't work and the tech for them to be satisfying is probably way down the road.
Could the FDA really regulate E-Liquid??
Say What?
I don't think the Question is Can the Regulate e-Liquids. The Question is How Much will they Regulate e-Liquids? And When will it go into Effect?
Say What?
I don't think the Question is Can the Regulate e-Liquids. The Question is How Much will they Regulate e-Liquids? And When will it go into Effect?
Gato, thanks for pointing this out!
Despite what you may have heard on VP Live about what the former FDA Chief Counsel said, zero-nic. e-liquid is safe, as long as it is NOT derived from tobacco.
It's taken me well over an hour to delve into this and get an idea of what happened. (This is a perfect example of how rumors start.)
We need to be extremely careful about exactly what's involved!
Headline: The confusion here in the VP Live report is almost certainly between zero-nicotine products that are derived from tobacco VERSUS zero-nicotine products that are NOT derived from tobacco.
So under the act, it has to be a "tobacco product" or a "component or part or accessory" of a tobacco product. In the latter case (equipment) it could be "intended or anticipated for use" with a tobacco product. The act says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about nicotine. (It's the ALA, the ACA, the CFTFK and our opponents who are saying nicotine = tobacco. But that's not what Congress did when it passed the FSPTCA.)
Take a look at these page numbers in the FDA's PDF, and you'll see that they're also very careful to precisely indicate that they are talking about zero nicotine products that are derived from tobacco:
pp.79-80
pp.93-94
p.139
p.181-2
p.232
***
Now that we understand that, the mystery of how all this confusion arose isn't hard to figure out.
BTW I used this direct link for my download: Central Park Vaping Civil Disobedience Protest - Dimitris Cisco and Kevin on fighting the FDA by VP Live on SoundCloud - Hear the world
Now, we're trying to figure out not just what the former FDA Chief Counsel actally said, in response to Dimitri's query, but also what the lawyer actually meant. And that's where it gets tricky. In fact, we don't even know what the fmr. Chief Counsel said. We only know what Dimitri said, when summarizing the conversation. (Ever wonder why courts don't generally allow hearsay? This is a great example ...)
I suggest everyone read this transcript over very carefully, and ask themselves whether my theory makes sense.
I think the attorney thought that Dimitri was asking about zero nicotine products that are derived from tobacco, and Dimitri thought he was asking about what we all think of as zero-nicotine e-liquid - i.e. something that is almost certainly NOT derived from tobacco.
I've bolded the parts that I think are critical to my interpretation of how this confusion came about. Italics, are my interpretation of the emphasis in the original, based two listenings of the entire colloqy, starting at 1:18:27, at 50% speed:
Dimitri [moderator]: So the last last thing that I want to bring up because a lot of people have been talking about the zero-nicotine thing, and when the attorney [referring to the former FDA Chief counsel] was up again I took the microphone and I asked this question ... ah ... because he gave a clear definition of what the FDA considers to be tobacco, ummm, including the device, right? The device that actually vaporizes the [indistinguishable] ... nicotine to the user. So-o, after the entire presentation I asked him, there's a lot of confusion about zero nicotine products 'cuz based on the regulations themselves, they say that even zero nicotine products has to be applied for and treated as tobacco, which makes absolutely no sense to you and me, and of course a lot of vapers who are out there. And, [he?] said, the attorney said, that, that would require litigation as well, so don't think, don't-don't sit back and say [that] you're a vendor and 'I'm just going to sell zero-nicotine flavoring product. You won't be allowed. It's going to take a legal challenge for you, to prove that not only the e-liquid but the device that you're using 'cuz they're including device in this wording ... the device that you're using in the e-liquid delivering a non-tobacco product [sic] so, I just wanted to put that out there for the people who are [indistinguishable due to interruption].
Participant A [Russ?]: So, that just - what you just said Dimitri - kinda illustrates how difficult it is to know what to do in any direction in all this, because I've been sitting here and my understanding is that the way everything was written, at least the proposal, was that it had to have nicotine in order to come under this in some way, if this was a zero-nicotine product or the device was somehow designed not to be used with nicotine, you could clearly state that, then it's exempt from all this, and now you just shattered all that.
Dimitri: I can bring you up the page, I can bring you up the page ... ah ... I'll do some research ...
Participant B: It includes everything, it doesn't have to have nicotine in it --
Participant A [Russ?]: Shows what I know --
Participant B: It's ridiculous, it's almost as like, ah, you know, [indistinguishable] cigarette lighters ...
[later]
Dimitri: The issue was raised up, and the attorney said the same thing, it's gonna take a legal challenge to be able to overturn that if it is included inside the reg--the final--again these are the proposed, make sure everybody knows that it's not the final, but it appears the way it is now, don't think that you're gonna sell zero nicotine and uh and, and -- be able to get away ... there's ah, another study that's going to be released here in the next couple of days about batteries venting and other issues ... [rest is irrelevent].
***
It turns out that what "Participant A" (Russ?) says in his first response to Dimitri is correct. But Dimitri got confused because Dimitri thought he was asking the attorney about 0% nicotine products that are not derived from tobacco, but the attorney thought Dimitri was making reference to the FDA's own statements in their PDF, which refer to zero-nicotine products that ARE derived from tobacco. (As per the page #s I listed earlier.)
***
This is why we need to be very careful
P.S.: If anyone knows anyone on the VP Live team, can you please send them link to this post? If I send them an e-mail, they probably won't pay any attention. We have enough trouble with all the other misunderstandings here about these proposed reg.s We don't need any more. Here's the link:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/fda-regulations/560897-could-fda-really-regulate-e-liquid-2.html#post13099825
Last edited:
Wait 'till the EPA deems your freezer stockpile a Toxic Chemical Repository....
Shsssss.
If the EPA knows I have Nicotine in My Freezer, I'll probably get on a NSA "List".
With regard to e-liquids, what 0%-nicotine substances are actually derived from tobacco that we need or use? If you buy 0% nicotine e-liquid isn't the tobacco plant skipped altogether thereby making it exempt from the TCA?
I am most definitely missing something here.
Stosh? Weren't you saying that the "tobacco flavors" are not derived from tobacco?
Zoidman, I fear the WTA vendors don't have the money even to register and do a chemical analysis, even if their products are grandparented. Which I don't think they are.
Roger, thanks for your transcript..
For those interested, that discussion starts at the 1:18:27 mark of the replay...
Anyway, I believe what they're getting at is the FDA wants to consider zero-nic e-liquid as a component or part of a tobacco product, as discussed on pages 6 & 7 of the PDF, for example...
http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2014-09491_PI.pdf
For those interested, that discussion starts at the 1:18:27 mark of the replay...
Anyway, I believe what they're getting at is the FDA wants to consider zero-nic e-liquid as a component or part of a tobacco product, as discussed on pages 6 & 7 of the PDF, for example...
http://www.ofr.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2014-09491_PI.pdf
I Don't think the FDA would approve WTA's even if a Vendor Jumped thru All the Regulatory Hoops Anyway.
I don't think Anyone is even going to Try.
Some don't, a RY4 "tobacco" done with vanilla, caramel, smoke flavor...??...wouldn't have tobacco.
Some do use tobacco absolute, and others are NET, IMHO these are the better ones...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
