No I've not actually, apologies if it seems I have. Did not intend to give any impression that I have.
Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
No I've not actually, apologies if it seems I have. Did not intend to give any impression that I have.
This thread is a thousand+ pages long, so nothing I write will make much of a dent, but I do recall reading some simplified explanation about the FDA, that people were using opiates, and killing themselves and others. The FDA was formed. Yet still we can buy booze, and ciggies, both potentially addictive but they make a lot of $ including tax revenue, so still legal today.
I do not get the anti-vaping sentiments. We don't want to put tobacco farmers out of business, or those who are brewing yet another alcoholic beverage, but we do want to put vaping out of business, I guess because it's mostly the Chinese making the devices (though not true of ejuice). Then again I am not for any government including my own today telling me what I can ingest into my body. I am fine with my insurance company saying if you smoke, drink, or vape, we can deny you insurance or charge more, but the government, morality right wing police are not needed.
Gum, patches, just don't work or rarely do. vaping does.
Yep I am a sinner, I vape!
I do not get the anti-vaping sentiments. We don't want to put tobacco farmers out of business, or those who are brewing yet another alcoholic beverage, but we do want to put vaping out of business, I guess because it's mostly the Chinese making the devices (though not true of ejuice). Then again I am not for any government including my own today telling me what I can ingest into my body. I am fine with my insurance company saying if you smoke, drink, or vape, we can deny you insurance or charge more, but the government, morality right wing police are not needed.
Gum, patches, just don't work or rarely do. vaping does.
Yep I am a sinner, I vape!
I thought every fool and his dog knew opiates were addictive and potentially dangerous. Synthetic or not.
I read some where that reason cannot be used to change an opinion that was not reached rationally.
Last edited:
It refers to products not on the market as of the 8/8/2016 cutoff date and/or not registered.
So if Vape X Company starts selling a juice flavor called Loopz tomorrow, it's a counterfeit product. Or, if they did sell that flavor prior and registered it in 3,6 and 9mg varieties but after that put a 1.5mg version on the market, that's also a counterfeit product.
That's gonna be very interesting on the hardware side, if they do pursue enforcement because about 95% of the products for sale today are 'counterfeit'
I think the counterfeit products truly will be the "fakes" or copies of another company's product or device. This would protect the company that actually went through the process to get an approval and should ensure that the item offered for sale is the approved item. If Vape X is making Loopz under the approval process, and Vape Y offers a copy/clone of that, it would be counterfeit. Vape X may be able to let Vape Y sell Loopz under the Vape Y branding if there is a "substantial equivalence" approval in place and the FDA has something showing the connection between the original PMTA and the alternate packaged item.
The items that have not been approved or started the process would be "misbranded" items. If Vape X changes the nicotine of Loopz without FDA approval, or doesn't even try to go through the PMTA process, they would be selling a misbranded product. The same would be true if Vape X does not get the approval, and fails to pull the product from the market after the FDA ruling.
I agree that there's no reason for a non-smoker to start vaping. It's another cool thing to teenagers, but it's not something they should start if they don't smoke in the first place.
After more than 10 years since vaping started it's a shame that the FDA still doesn't know if it's reasonably safe to vape. They do know that it's much safer than smoking and that alone should be a reason to promote switching for smokers. My doctor is thrilled that vaping allowed me to stop smoking in 2010, knowing that I haven't smoked since I started vaping. The FDA should know that it works and I'm sure that they do. They just don't want to be the agency that killed the tobacco companies and took huge tobacco tax contributions from states.
If smoking goes away then states will be 12.x billion dollars a year poorer from tobacco tax losses.
U.S. - tobacco tax revenue and forecast 2024 | Statista
Last edited:
By that same logic there’s no reason for someone who doesn’t drink coffee to start drinking coffee, or the same with alcohol. Yet both experiences can be very pleasant, so why can’t vaping be pleasant? I really don’t agree with that statement.
Also, the FDA is corrupt af. They are literally the last ones to be allowed to pretend to be morally superior.
I think the thought is that once you get older you should be wise enough not to get caught up in a bad habit you know that is detrimental to your health (speaking of cigarettes here). The vast majority of us began smoking at a young age when we thought we were immortal. I always found it odd when someone was well into their 20's who took up smoking. They were far and few between but I knew a couple of them.
Sure, there are enough societal prejudices and unrealistic notions and expectations about what a person should and should not be doing. But usually it’s ideological nonsense.
And I’m sure if we’d live in an harmonious society the amount of “bad choices” would be far lower. The fact of the matter is that we don’t and life can be a real .... show and there’s no right or wrong way to go about it.
DaveP was talking about vaping like it’s only a way to quit smoking. Even judging it by comparing it with smoking as being the same thing. Yet all the evidence suggests that nicotine, like caffeine is pretty safe for moderate consumption. So why would it be a bad choice to start vaping when it’s also something that can be enjoyed?
Sure, there are more constructive ways to relax or deal with stress. I’m sure if you sell all your stuff and meditate on a mountain in Tibet that you could be quiet, relaxed and stress free for the rest of your life. But we live in the west and life is crazy here.
And I don’t think we should be reducing vaping to ‘just’ being a smoking cessation or replacement therapy, but as a much safer way of consuming nicotine.
Anyway, my
.
And I’m sure if we’d live in an harmonious society the amount of “bad choices” would be far lower. The fact of the matter is that we don’t and life can be a real .... show and there’s no right or wrong way to go about it.
DaveP was talking about vaping like it’s only a way to quit smoking. Even judging it by comparing it with smoking as being the same thing. Yet all the evidence suggests that nicotine, like caffeine is pretty safe for moderate consumption. So why would it be a bad choice to start vaping when it’s also something that can be enjoyed?
Sure, there are more constructive ways to relax or deal with stress. I’m sure if you sell all your stuff and meditate on a mountain in Tibet that you could be quiet, relaxed and stress free for the rest of your life. But we live in the west and life is crazy here.
And I don’t think we should be reducing vaping to ‘just’ being a smoking cessation or replacement therapy, but as a much safer way of consuming nicotine.
Anyway, my
.
Don’t get me wrong, I understand where you’re coming from. I have some friend that can just smoke a cig once in a while, no problem. But a lot of self-medicating behavior comes from somewhere. And wanting to eradicate the means before looking at where it comes from is a foolish and ideological endeavor. Just look at the war on drugs.
I think you are off base on this one.
JUUL is by far the most popular e-cig brand in the US, but more than half of them on the market aren't even made by Juul. The majority are China counterfeits made by opportunists taking advantage of their popularity.
The FDA was highly critical of JUUL's marketing and business practices. Maybe JUUL deserved that criticism and maybe they didn't. JUUL complained that many of the so-called JUUL's on the market weren't even made by them, and that statement is true.
Schumer calls for feds to crack down on dangerous counterfeit vape pods from China
Last edited:
It wasn't easy being a teenager back in my day. I'm sure with phones and social media and targeted marketing it must be much harder today. Smoking and drinking was a way of planting your own flag. Drugs weren't on the menu until after I left high school. Vaping wasn't around but I'm pretty sure I would have been a Juuler.
If I could rewrite my life story it wouldn't include cigarettes or beer in my teens. Took me a long time to lose those two.
I can see why there would be concern that smoking and drinking establish habits that are hard to break. If vaping really leads to nicotine addiction and future smoking that would be a concern. There's no evidence of that as far as I know. Even if it was the case, kids are going to do stuff like that. Unless you can deal with the stresses that drive kids to experiment it's a waste of time playing whack-a-mole with the trend of the day.
I gotta admit, there is a certain reasonable logic to that. However, the resulting probable dependence on nicotine tempers me in being 100% on board with it. Yes, speaking from personal experience, some folks do develop a dependence on alcohol as well, but nicotine dependence does seem to be damn near universal once habitually consumed.
A metric I was once taught, "if it causes harm to myself or others - it is a problem" comes to mind.
I would be willing to bet that vaping causes "some" harm, while negligible as compared to tobacco I firmly believe inhaling anything other than air is most likely harmful to some level. In my case it is harm reduction, in the case of a non-smoking 13yo it is increasing the risk of harm.
Nonetheless, I would rather that 13yo have the choice of vaping in lieu of smoking tobacco. Teens will be teens and if it is perceived as "cool" then risk be damned.
So IMHO, encourage teens to vape - no, support vaping as an alternative to tobacco (regardless of age) - yes.
They are playing the government game. I don't think anyone in government wants the tobacco tax income to go away. As I posted above, Electronic Cigarettes are a fiscal threat for the states.
Last edited:
As for US, there is this list of vaping bans - List of vaping bans in the United States - Wikipedia
but it mostly shows the off-line bans/restrictions. Is there a similar list, showing the on-line bans/regulations by States/cities? If anybody knows where to check it, let us know pls.
but it mostly shows the off-line bans/restrictions. Is there a similar list, showing the on-line bans/regulations by States/cities? If anybody knows where to check it, let us know pls.
If addiction is defined as the right drug meets the right brain.... Then yes, some youth have a chance of addiction. I would rather have any addictive tendencies in youth be confined to vaping, not cigarettes. Because there are a ton of OTHER addictive substances in cigarettes, and they are more harmful over the long term.
Physiologically, if you have the right brain (and probably attitude) you could be a social smoker or vaper. These magical unicorns exist but nicotine is fairly addictive. So is coffee.
Nicotine on its own is a much safer alternative. My kiddo had a lot harder time kicking cigarettes (twice) than he did vaping (twice.)
Despite my kiddo's misspent youth (I figure he earned it) he's really not very physiologically addicted to much, and he has literally Tried Everything I think. He just wanted to see what they were all about.
The ease with which he DID quit these things was like, what made me realize he doesn't have addictive tendencies. He just sort of said it was hard for the first few morning (or weeks, with cigarettes) but he genuinely doesn't want to do either, and well, good for him I say.
You just never know what you are going to get, with a teen. I really consider my son's experimentation as just that. He had long professed a desire to try every drug there was, and since I was firm in my boundaries I was like, "OOOKKAAAY." This is what he did until the consequences got too dire.
The addiction (oh not to mention illness) must have skipped a generation. Oh boy I can't WAIT to meet my grandchildren they are going to be kindred spirits and we will have an Unholy Alliance, but I'm not buying them any Juuls either. I already know the little turds are gonna ask.
LOL.
Anna
Physiologically, if you have the right brain (and probably attitude) you could be a social smoker or vaper. These magical unicorns exist but nicotine is fairly addictive. So is coffee.
Nicotine on its own is a much safer alternative. My kiddo had a lot harder time kicking cigarettes (twice) than he did vaping (twice.)
Despite my kiddo's misspent youth (I figure he earned it) he's really not very physiologically addicted to much, and he has literally Tried Everything I think. He just wanted to see what they were all about.
The ease with which he DID quit these things was like, what made me realize he doesn't have addictive tendencies. He just sort of said it was hard for the first few morning (or weeks, with cigarettes) but he genuinely doesn't want to do either, and well, good for him I say.
You just never know what you are going to get, with a teen. I really consider my son's experimentation as just that. He had long professed a desire to try every drug there was, and since I was firm in my boundaries I was like, "OOOKKAAAY." This is what he did until the consequences got too dire.
The addiction (oh not to mention illness) must have skipped a generation. Oh boy I can't WAIT to meet my grandchildren they are going to be kindred spirits and we will have an Unholy Alliance, but I'm not buying them any Juuls either. I already know the little turds are gonna ask.
LOL.
Anna
Local news from Indianapolis. Carmel is an upmarket suburb where the rich folk live.
"CARMEL, Ind. (AP) — An Indianapolis suburb is adding electronic cigarettes to the city's ban on smoking in most public places.
The Carmel City Council voted unanimously in favor of the proposal Monday night. The city ordinance first adopted in 2005 will continue to exempt three bars which currently allow smoking.
Council member Sue Finkam says more limits were needed vaping because it has almost an epidemic among Carmel's high school students.
E-cigarettes weren't being sold when the city's original ordinance was adopted and students 18 and older caught with vaping devices at school weren't breaking any local laws.
Violators could be charged up to $50 for their first violation and up to $500 for more violations in the same year."
"CARMEL, Ind. (AP) — An Indianapolis suburb is adding electronic cigarettes to the city's ban on smoking in most public places.
The Carmel City Council voted unanimously in favor of the proposal Monday night. The city ordinance first adopted in 2005 will continue to exempt three bars which currently allow smoking.
Council member Sue Finkam says more limits were needed vaping because it has almost an epidemic among Carmel's high school students.
E-cigarettes weren't being sold when the city's original ordinance was adopted and students 18 and older caught with vaping devices at school weren't breaking any local laws.
Violators could be charged up to $50 for their first violation and up to $500 for more violations in the same year."
Similar threads
- Locked
