Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[crxess]

FDA Facebook page on Deeming
my post of the day

Today's Lesson about Highly Addictive Nicotine -
Vegetable Nicotine in ng/g g per 1µg nicotine
Cauliflower 16.8 59.5

Wait until I post EggPlant, Black Tea and Capsicums



6 Common Foods with Nicotine Content

 

[Lessifer]

Maybe it was a veiled attempt to compare what is going on with vaping compared to what transpired regarding legislation with another plant other than tobacco, one we cannot discuss here. Though the subject matter is very much different, the practices and objectives contained therein are very much the same...big money, big interests trump the small guy in the end...if history is to teach us anything, it is that money, power and corruption will usually prevail.

There would be at least two situations where the comparison makes sense to me. One, like you said, would be highlighting the growing acceptance of one while the other(vaping) is being demonized. The other would be to point out the "...... madness" type insanity and zeal with which the FDA is going after vaping. Problem is, I don't know anyone who's actually read it.

Yes and no. As Kent pointed out earlier in the thread,



Besides, in 2007, cigarettes (as a product) were widely marketed all over the world (no problem finding a predicate) and fully technologically "developed" (there really is not much innovation to be made there), so they were all grandfathered in without any questions asked. Trying to put e-cigs, retroactively, in the same category (as of 2007, where almost no ecigs were on the market) is just absurd and constitutes a de facto ban.

Excellent reason to move the predicate date for new products, kind of, but not really an argument against the regulations themselves. Remember what the FSPTCA was intended to do. Prevent tobacco companies from bringing new potentially deadlier products to market without review. Imagine we weren't talking about vaping, and instead we were just talking about new heat not burn tobacco cigarettes. Would you want those to go through PMTA?

The reason it doesn't make sense for vaping, is that there's no tobacco. That and we already know the FDA won't accept any of the current science, because they haven't.

Les, you don't think they knew from the beginning this would come down to a constitutional courtroom brawl, and hence padded the filing so as to have some room to appear to give a little to arrive at a preconceived endpoint?

Nope, I think they literally expanded the cigarette regulations to envelop vaping products. Sure, they tried to cover any potential loopholes, but the reason we see them as overly harsh(and I believe this too) is because without burning tobacco there isn't the same baseline risk, and there's no acknowledgement of that.

 

[Bronze]

Washington is ALL about the $$, and we have very little to throw at them.

And this is what we must be mindful of at all times as we formulate our response to these regulations. There really is only one weapon to fight with. And that is our votes. Pols use money to get votes. That's why they covet money. But not all votes are bought. Nothing scares a pol more than a voter revolt. And those are free.

Jennie (Johnson Creek Enterprises)

May 23, 8:47 AM

Thank you for your email. We understand. We started using the term "smoke juice" in 2008 long before this debate started. At that time we felt it was important to use a different term. "E-liquid" meant juice coming from overseas and our product was manufactured in the USA. We were the first to make it here. Additionally, vaping hadn't been accepted as its own thing. It was just an alternative to smoking. Vaping terminology was rudimentary and highly variable. If it wasn't clearly presented as alternative to smoking, then consumers didn't get it. This is why ECF went with "electronic CIGARETTE forum" and SMOKtech used "SMOK", and many others who were formed pre-2010 used that kind of terminology. Interestingly, when we first started operating, vaping was so new that people would contact us asking how they'd use our e-liquids in their meat smokers. We spent a lot of time explaining what vaping was.

Times have changed. Vaping is now vaping in and of itself and the terminology has homogenized. We started the transition away from the word "smoke" roughly a year ago. You can read more about the transition here: http://smokejuice.tumblr.com/post/121672624614/the-spirit-of-johnson-creek

It takes a while to shift branding. If we do it too abruptly then customers get confused and we've dealt with some confusion and anger from our regular customers already. Some social media sites allow users to change their names and we've done that. Some don't allow that kind of change and we may be stuck with the old username. We're switching all e-mail addresses and the URL of the website to JCVC (Johnson Creek Vapor Company) and we're rolling out a variety of new labels.

You can see a new label here: https://www.johnsoncreeksmokejuice.com/shop/e-liquid/jc-white-russianhtml

When a flavor gets a new label we're updating the graphics. If you see "smoke juice" on a page, let me know. I've not updated all of the copy yet, but I think I've fixed most of it. I think there are some pages related to cartomizers that may still use the term. Cartomizer users are very reluctant to change.

Know that we are completely rebranding and it's going to take some time, but we'll get there.

Do you know if ECF will be changing their name? I'm not sure I could get accustomed to calling it EVF and the "electronic viewfinder" groups may not appreciate the conflation.

Please let us know if there is anything else we can do for you. Have a great rest of your day!
Customer Relations Specialist

Johnson Creek Enterprises, LLC
Office: (800) 280-0775
Email: support@smokejuice.com
Web: www.smokejuice.com

Nice work! I see "Smoke Juice" on their e-juice photos used on their website. Plus (as you can see on her contacts) they even refer you to SmokeJuice.com

 

[WharfRat1976]

I can imagine BT buying a company like Vapor Shark and rebranding their devices.

Lol, not even close. Why buy a company that's been wiped off the face of the earth?

 

[zoiDman]

I don't know who Mr. Wolf is....... but he sure sounds (vocally) like Tom Baker to me. I prolly have that all wrong, but ........


View attachment 558031

Our Tom Baker?

...

Ding Ding Ding.
Winner Winner
Chicken Dinner

LOL

Go to 15:51

The One With Ed Wolff

 

[SeniorBoy]

Lol, not even close. Why buy a company that's been wiped off the face of the earth?

Because they are CHEAP. Think fire sale! Think "consolidation"! Happens in other industries all the time. Not sayin for sure. Just guessing. And the patent on VW? Held by Evolv. IMHO!

 

[crxess]

Root Beer..........for the Chillin's?

We have at least TWO Inventors that Developed Devices, SIMULATING SMOKING, to help Smokers Transition away from Traditional Tobacco......FDA
1, Hon Lik, Succeeded in Bringing his Dream to life.
It was not about the Money, it was about HEALTH - HARM REDUCTION

 

[bigdancehawk]

I like the way you talk. Marry me!

Please PM pictures and your current financial statement.

 

[Spazmelda]

Root Beer..........for the Chillin's?

We have at least TWO Inventors that Developed Devices, SIMULATING SMOKING, to help Smokers Transition away from Traditional Tobacco......FDA
1, Hon Lik, Succeeded in Bringing his Dream to life.
It was not about the Money, it was about HEALTH - HARM REDUCTION

This is one of the real travesties of this whole thing.

 

[Bronze]

Quick, turn on Fox News....report on cigarette smoking and why it is dropping so fast.

EDIT: Well, that was useless. Segment lasted 20 seconds and they credit anti-smoking promotionals and smoking bans as the reason why smoking decreased 2% last year. No mention of e-cigs.

 

[Robino1]

Quick, turn on Fox News....report on cigarette smoking and why it is dropping so fast.

Just missed it. What did they say?

 

[Bronze]

Just missed it. What did they say?

Quick, turn on Fox News....report on cigarette smoking and why it is dropping so fast.

EDIT: Well, that was useless. Segment lasted 20 seconds and they credit anti-smoking promotionals and smoking bans as the reason why smoking decreased 2% last year. No mention of e-cigs.

 

[crxess]

Quick, turn on Fox News....report on cigarette smoking and why it is dropping so fast.

EDIT: Well, that was useless. Segment lasted 20 seconds and they credit anti-smoking promotionals and smoking bans as the reason why smoking decreased 2% last year. No mention of e-cigs.

Vaping

Yea, I know

 

[zoiDman]

...

EDIT: Well, that was useless. Segment lasted 20 seconds and they credit anti-smoking promotionals and smoking bans as the reason why smoking decreased 2% last year. No mention of e-cigs.

No big Surprise.

Harder to Justify Funding for Anti-Smoking Promotions if you Can't show some Results.

Even if the Results were Non-Related.

 

[Sir Kadly]

Root Beer..........for the Chillin's?

Nah, the rum flavor was for the Chillins.

 

[nicnik]

EDIT: Hi katya! Never mind my reply below. I'll let you know when I come up with an excuse for misreading your post.

What is the Grandfather Date of the Tobacco Control Act & How Will it Impact the Vapor Industry? - SFATA | Smoke Free Alternatives Trade Association
"the Tobacco Control Act established February 15, 2007 as the “grandfather date,” which is the date for any tobacco product regulated by Chapter IX (including newly deemed products) to be sold on the U.S. market, and avoids having companies submit (and FDA approve) a PreMarket Tobacco Application (PMTA).

Here, I'll quote more of what you said:

Besides, in 2007, cigarettes (as a product) were widely marketed all over the world (no problem finding a predicate) and fully technologically "developed" (there really is not much innovation to be made there), so they were all grandfathered in without any questions asked. Trying to put e-cigs, retroactively, in the same category (as of 2007, where almost no ecigs were on the market) is just absurd and constitutes a de facto ban.

The first 2007 you typed must have been a typo, and I figure you meant to type 2009. You replied to me as though I had quoted the 2nd 2007 in your paragraph, but I had quoted the first one (bolded above).

So, no, they weren't marketed widely all over the world in 2007, and yes there is a problem finding a predicate, and no, they weren't fully technologically developed at that time.

 

[nicnik]

You know you're a vaper when, in a pinch, you put ethyl maltol in your coffee.

I've tried that, but I couldn't get it to taste sweet, only weird.

 

[Robino1]

Here, I'll quote more of what you said:

The first 2007 you typed must have been a typo, and I figure you meant to type 2009. You replied to me as though I had quoted the 2nd 2007 in your paragraph, but I had quoted the first one (bolded above).

So, no, they weren't marketed widely all over the world in 2007, and yes there is a problem finding a predicate, and no, they weren't fully technologically developed at that time.

Actually she is correct. Once Ecigs were deemed a tobacco product, which is what they just did, they automatically fell under the 2007 date just as cigarettes are. That is the 'reason' that the FDA Claims they cannot change the date and it has to go through congress to get changed.

 

[Kent C]

Here, I'll quote more of what you said:

The first 2007 you typed must have been a typo, and I figure you meant to type 2009. You replied to me as though I had quoted the 2nd 2007 in your paragraph, but I had quoted the first one (bolded above).

So, no, they weren't marketed widely all over the world in 2007, and yes there is a problem finding a predicate, and no, they weren't fully technologically developed at that time.

I think in the bolded part you're reading 'cigarettes' as ecigarettes. Even though the Tobacco Act was passed in 2009, the regulation gave 2007 as the grandfather date for which ANY tobacco product needed a precedent - including cigarettes which were widely marketed all over the world. And including ecigarettes which were not.

 

[nicnik]

Does anyone remember how I mentioned a few days ago that they'd find a way to blame any rise in smoking after de facto ban on ecigs getting people hooked and them transitioning to combustibles?

Adult Smoking Rate Falling Fast In U.S.

Just the usual expression of worry that vaping could become a gateway to smoking. Same stuff they've been saying for years, even though statistics absolutely do not bear that out.