Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[ScottBrooks]

China will just call there mods "variable wattage" flashlights. The FDA just created a HUGE black market, do they think a billion dollar industry will just go belly up? They'll be an Al Capone of e-liquids and the corporations in China will be filing lawsuits. I myself will vape BECAUSE the FDA tells me not to.

What if packaged to be "vaped with nicotine free e-liquid" then it is not regulated, correct? I mean they can not regulate something that has nothing to do tobacco?

What does everyone think?

Scott


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[rosesense]

I think we do need some sort of campaign to the effect of 'One Life Matters'.

By her own admission, 30% have stopped smoking via vaping. Even if that is accurate (which it isn't), don't we 30% matter to anyone? One percent should matter, imo

 

[rosesense]

What if packaged to be "vaped with nicotine free e-liquid" then it is not regulated, correct? I mean they can not regulate something that has nothing to do tobacco?

What does everyone think?

Scott


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Yes, they can. I will let these smarter folks on here elaborate on that.

 

[Kent C]

Do you know how it could get stripped? I would assume if someone tried to it would be a Dem. I'm not well versed on this stuff but I would assume it would be very difficult to get a majority vote at this point.

The bill would have to first go through the House Rules Committee. Here's how this works:

United States House Committee on Rules - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Short summary:
"Consideration by the full body can be in one of two forums: the Committee of the Whole, or on the floor of the full House of Representatives itself. Different traditions govern whether the Committee of the Whole or the House itself will debate a given resolution, and the Rules Committee generally sets the forum under which a proposition will be debated and the amendment/time limitations for every measure, too. For instance, there might be a limit on the number or types of amendments (proposed changes to the bill). Amendments might only be allowed to specific sections of the bill, or no amendments might be allowed at all."

This last part is where any changes could be made, or that no changes will be made. That's determined by the Rules Committee. From there it goes up for vote as above - Committee of the Whole....

Committee of the Whole (United States House of Representatives) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

.... or the full House. But:

"It (Committee of the Whole) allows bills and resolutions to be considered without adhering to all the formal rules of a House session, such as needing a quorum of 218. All measures on the Union Calendar must be considered first by the Committee of the Whole." ....and:

"The majority of modern bills that are reported will contain provisions for public expenditures of funds. Therefore, more bills reported by House committees are placed on the Union calendar and committed to the Committee of the Whole than are placed on other calendars."

Since the Rules Committee and the Committee of the Whole both have a Republican majority, I would think that any attempt to strip the Cole/Bishop amendment by a maverick Republican or a Democrat would not be successful. So, it is likely that the Appropriations bill (perhaps with other modifications) with the Cole/Bishop amendment intact will make it through the House.

What needs to happen is that some Senator in the Senate's Appropriations Committee, sponsors a similar amendment (or uses the language of Cole/Bishop) as an amendment of the Senate's Appropriation Bill. And this is where emails to your Senators would be appropriate and good - to urge them to add the Cole/Bishop amendment's wording to a Senate amendment to the bill.

If such an amendment is passed in the Senate Appropriations Committee - a similar but simpler process goes on in the Senate - Senate Rule Committee:

United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The committee is not as powerful as its House counterpart, the House Committee on Rules as it does not set the terms of debate for individual legislative proposals, since the Senate has a tradition of open debate."

There's no "Senate Committee of the Whole" - just the full Senate. Which is where the bill would go next. If passes and if it is different than the wording of the House bill, it goes to a "Joint Committee" made up of both House and Senate members to iron out any differences and then from there, to the whole House and whole Senate for passage and if passed to the President for signing.

 

[Kent C]

The media is most definitely complicit in the campaign against e-cigarettes. If it was otherwise, there would have been some actual journalism accomplished with investigations into these so called "studies".

But no, journalism is a dead art and the media has lock stepped into a social agenda, facts be damned.

Totally agree. They are complicit - they have the same mindset - going to the same liberal universities, as those who go into gov't. And to instill fear - which sells - and they support big gov't to 'handle' those fears through regulation.

 

[zoiDman]

I posted this a few minutes ago in another thread...

BTW - I received this e-Mail from a Retailer that I have purchased from...

This is the Kinda of Involvement EVERY OEM/Supplier/Retailer should be Doing.

Anyone who Buys from an On-Line Retailer should contact them and ask why they are Not Including e-Mails such as this if they are not doing so Already?

 

[Bronze]

There's no "Senate Committee of the Whole" - just the full Senate. Which is where the bill would go next. If passes and if it is different than the wording of the House bill, it goes to a "Joint Committee" made up of both House and Senate members to iron out any differences and then from there, to the whole House and whole Senate for passage and if passed to the President for signing.

Here is some confusion. Budget items (appropriations) in the senate are not subject to a cloture vote and, therefore, need only a simple majority to pass. The confusion is will the senate vaping amendment (whatever it looks like in the senate) require cloture before it can be put to a full senate vote? This could make all the difference in the world.

 

[YoursTruli]

I saw a post somewhere, maybe here or maybe facebook, where a vape shop had provided letters, envelopes, and stamps and were collecting letters from customers to send off. I know that form letters aren't as memorable, but I thought this was a good idea to drum up letters from people who might not normally write their reps. We all might consider talking to our local shops about doing something similar.

This One Letter Can Save Our Entire Industry

 

[nineironman]

I just received another email from Sen Cantwell. Here is one snippet from that: Note--Unfortunately---

"As you may know, Representative Tom Cole has introduced legislation, the FDA Deeming Authority Clarification Act of 2015, H.R. 2058. Unfortunately, this legislation would reverse the FDA’s decision to review e-cigarettes and tobacco products introduced on the market after February 2007. A companion legislation has not been introduced in the U.S. Senate."

God, I hate that woman!

 

[Lessifer]

What if packaged to be "vaped with nicotine free e-liquid" then it is not regulated, correct? I mean they can not regulate something that has nothing to do tobacco?

What does everyone think?

Scott


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Only if it is a closed system, pre-filled with certified 0mg liquid. If there is any way to add nicotine liquid to it, it is a tobacco product. According to the FDA.

That doesn't mean people won't find loopholes, but that's not a sound business strategy.

 

[zoiDman]

This One Letter Can Save Our Entire Industry

That's a Great One-Stop-Shop site YT.

Thank you for Posting it.

 

[Kent C]

Here is some confusion. Budget items (appropriations) in the senate are not subject to a cloture vote and, therefore, need only a simple majority to pass. The confusion is will the senate vaping amendment (whatever it looks like in the senate) require cloture before it can be put to a full senate vote? This could make all the difference in the world.

A Senate amendment would be added in the Senate Appropriations Committee to the Senate Appropriations committee bill. But of course, the amendment would have to be passed by the committee first before going to the full Senate.

And it is there where the idea of cloture may ensue. It's a bit confusing but this is the best source I have:

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=&*2<4RLO8

 

[crxess]

Yes, they can. I will let these smarter folks on here elaborate on that.

Actually, they may not be able to. This may need to be decided in a Court of law, however there is a Good case for FDA over Reach even within the structure of Government which may effect change in FDA action. Challenges to Validity are being made by agencies charged with oversight.

The FDA has attempted to build a wall of Public Protection through Propaganda Campaigns Defrauding the Public with Misinformation and Falsified data(cherry picking) This thin Egg Shell of protection is already starting to Crack.

Never before in the history of this country have the people had the ability to become informed and have the Lies exposed as rapidly as today. Social media has Stormed the attention of Just Causes at moments notice.

This is the time for some with the skills to put a plan into action.

If Vapor Products are allowed Forced to remain DEEMED as Tobacco Products(which they clearly are NOT) they Will Forever be Demonized as Tobacco that is the Cause of XXX Millions of Deaths, Cost XXXXX Millions in Health care Expenses, and Addict our Children to Smoking.

Every Effort must be made, through LAW to Separate Vapor Products From Tobacco Products, regardless of BT involvement in VP development and sales.

I do not Support Smoking or Whole Tobacco use and I'll be Damned if I will allow myself to be Arbitrarily thrown under the bus with them. However like any Good Preacher would do with Sinners, I'll Gladly take their contributions to a Just cause.
If the American Lung Association Can do it(big Pharma) why can't we.

* Shortly after finding Vaping and ECF I said, and have continued to say

Naming it an E-cigarette was the Stupidest thing that could have been done!

I understand the Promotional purpose but look at the Condemnation that has followed.

 

[Bronze]

A Senate amendment would be added in the Senate Appropriations Committee to the Senate Appropriations committee bill. But of course, the amendment would have to be passed by the committee first before going to the full Senate.

And it is there where the idea of cloture may ensue. It's a bit confusing but this is the best source I have:

http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=&*2<4RLO8

I don't worry as much about it passing the committee (made of a majority of Republicans) near as much as I worry about a cloture vote that will require Democrats. I just don't know if adding an amendment to a spending bill classifies it the same as a spending bill and, thus, not subject to a cloture vote.

 

[Bronze]

* Shortly after finding Vaping and ECF I said, and have continued to say

Naming it an E-cigarette was the Stupidest thing that could have been done!

I understand the Promotional purpose but look at the Condemnation that has followed.

It's like Johnson Creek (one of the early e-liquid pioneers) calling their products "smoke juice". They still call it smoke juice.

 

[nicnik]

What needs to happen is that some Senator in the Senate's Appropriations Committee, sponsors a similar amendment (or uses the language of Cole/Bishop) as an amendment of the Senate's Appropriation Bill. And this is where emails to your Senators would be appropriate and good - to urge them to add the Cole/Bishop amendment's wording to a Senate amendment to the bill.

The Senate Appropriations Committee passed their agricultural bill yesterday. How does that fit in, at this point?

 

[crxess]

The Senate Appropriations Committee passed their agricultural bill yesterday. How does that fit in, at this point?

The Bill is still at House level, I believe.

 

[Bronze]

The Bill is still at House level, I believe.

The senate appropriations committee is debating it. Just don't know the outcome of the regs.

 

[Bob Chill]

I don't worry as much about it passing the committee (made of a majority of Republicans) near as much as I worry about a cloture vote that will require Democrats. I just don't know if adding an amendment to a spending bill classifies it the same as a spending bill and, thus, not subject to a cloture vote.

Makes one ponder if this amendment is controversial (or juicy) enough to meet much if any opposition at this point. It hasn't received any real negative press that I've seen so far. Only articles showing opposition quote Zeller's take. Of course he's going to say it's a bad thing. But other than that there really is no opposition. Maybe common sense prevails and Congress doesn't make a big deal out of it. It's possible it seems.

From the 10k foot view that congressmen take, is it a big deal to just leave what's on the market alone? The FDA still gets to control the market. The sensible part of the regs aren't touched either way. Whether people are for or against vaping, it's becoming pretty normalized. Everybody has seen plenty vapers in action and everybody probably knows somebody who traded cigs for vape products.

 

[crxess]

How does Government win when people object?

PEOPLE LOSE INTEREST!!!

Why is it I am the only one that has Slammed the FDA on their PUBLIC Facebook page since Early May?





Guess I should start looking for Black Helicopters