Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[ZeroedIn]

Well, I had fun leaving a comment on the FDA's Facebook page. So apparently did many other vapers.

https://m.facebook.com/FDA/photos/a...0597299/?type=3&p=10&ref=m_notif&notif_t=like

FDA = Facilitating Death Administration

 

[coldgin96]

No, an ECF member who posts on this thread. Said my claim was 'Nonsense".

 

[Bronze]

Who in the (heck) told you BT was on our side?

Here you go...

Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

 

[Lessifer]

Has the tobacco industry evaded the FDA's ban on ‘Light’ cigarette descriptors?

That is the most ridiculous piece of I have read in awhile. There is a HUGE difference between being able to recognize your brand, and being mislead to think that one type is "healthier" than another. Of course, there are those who think that any kind of branding on cigarettes is a detriment to public health...

 

[classwife]

I ran across this gem last night: Reynolds executives express optimism, rather than gloom, with new FDA rules

Analysts have said it could cost millions of dollars for each product to go through the heightened regulatory requirements. The FDA estimates it would cost about $500,000.

In any case, analysts and vaping advocacy groups say the new regulatory cost could be cost-prohibitive for most small vaping companies, leaving e-cigs and vaping in the hands of Big Tobacco.

Debra Crew, president and chief operating officer of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. said the company “feels confident in our ability to meet these requirements and met (sic) consumer requirements.”

“We were, and are, well prepared for regulation for these vapor products, such as being a closed system, and we’ve already done much of the steps required for the regulation process.”

NOT ANOTHER DIME !!

Not ONE dime of mine will go to them.

 

[Lessifer]

Here you go...

Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

To be fair, it is entirely possible, in fact highly likely, that BT both had a hand in writing the regs AND supports the Cole-Bishop amendment. They are fully aware that being grandfathered in does not necessarily mean allowed to stay on the market.

 

[crxess]

It's what we said. The only ones who can afford the regs are BT but I was slammed for saying this and told that BT is on our side. What do I know?

Nope, I said Big Tobacco is Supporting Cole-Bishop..... Tobacco Products are at stake. They know full well, FDA can still eventually lock down Vaping, in their favor.

 

[Bronze]

To be fair, it is entirely possible, in fact highly likely, that BT both had a hand in writing the regs AND supports the Cole-Bishop amendment. They are fully aware that being grandfathered in does not necessarily mean allowed to stay on the market.

No, it was unfair. I simply stated that one would have to be naive to think BT/BP didn't write those regs. I said nothing about Cole-Bishop. I was just told my claim was "nonsense".

 

[Bronze]

Nope, I said Big Tobacco is Supporting Cole-Bishop..... Tobacco Products are at stake. They know full well, FDA can still eventually lock down Vaping, in their favor.

You're not Kodiak. I never had any problem with anything you said.

 

[crxess]

That is the most ridiculous piece of I have read in awhile. There is a HUGE difference between being able to recognize your brand, and being mislead to think that one type is "healthier" than another. Of course, there are those who think that any kind of branding on cigarettes is a detriment to public health...

But I think it answers the question

 

[classwife]

pot stirring...nope

 

[crxess]

You're not Kodiak. I never had any problem with anything you said.

, Yea.........I agree, BT has no use for us............unless some switch to their CRAP.
...............which will never happen in my case............EVER!!!

 

[Lessifer]

No, it was unfair. I simply stated that one would have to be naive to think BT/BP didn't write those regs. I said nothing about Cole-Bishop. I was just told my claim was "nonsense".

Unfair to you, you're right, I meant that it is understandable that someone would have the disconnect in their mind that BT could both support the regs as they are AND support moving the grandfather date.

This actually speaks to a broader issue. Many see changing the predicate date as "saving" vaping. It won't, it might delay the death a bit, but the PMTA process is just one aspect of the FSPTCA that is onerous and will lead to the death of vaping.

I've seen a lot of small vendors on FB who think that if the predicate date changes, it will be business as usual for the foreseeable future, that they'll be able to continue mixing to order in their shops.

 

[Bronze]

pot stirring...nope

It thought it was pot stirring when it was first said but I don't recall anyone pointing that out.

 

[zoiDman]

pot stirring...nope

Hey we gotta do something for the Next 70 Days.

 

[Lessifer]

But I think it answers the question

Which question? The language for MRTP is in the original FSPTCA passed in 2009, but they didn't choose to enforce the "light" issue until 2010, and there's no mention of whether or not the tobacco companies had to submit SE applications in order to change the branding on their products.

 

[Bronze]

Here are my recent observations of ECF in general and especially this thread most recently. I see lots of replies that have sharp edges on them. Someone makes a statement and then someone replies with a less-than-flattering comment...as if their primary goal is to prove the commenter wrong instead of exploring the topic that was raised. I generally don't get defensive. It's not my personality and I'm too old to fight with people. But over the last few months I have seen more and more of this kind of practice on ECF and especially on this thread. It's disturbing. And like a hockey fight, it isn't the perpetrator who is exposed, it is the one who retaliates defending themselves. Honestly, this happens way too much on ECF and at rates I haven't seen in my nearly four years on this forum. I'm at a point where I'm thinking my time is better spent doing other things. If I got kicked off of ECF for getting in someone's face I have to say I really wouldn't lose any sleep over it. It would seem to me when someone makes a statement there is nothing wrong with disagreeing with them but it IS wrong to be a snot about it. Yes, it is possible to disagree and be respectful at the same time. ECF needs more of this.

 

[KODIAK (TM)]

Kodiak. After I said you'd have to be naive if you didn't think BT/BP didn't write those regs.

Listen son, I really don't know why you get so bent when I, a lowly messenger merely points to the fact about Altria supporting HR2058. Do I know why? No. And if you'd have followed the conversation many threads ago... nobody else can really figure it out either.

But there it is.

So why would BT be responsible for lobbying against the regulations you naively insist they authored?

 

[Bronze]

Listen son, I really don't know why you get so bent when I, a lowly messenger merely points to the fact about Altria supporting HR2058. Do I know why? No. And if you'd have followed the conversation many threads ago... nobody else can really figure it out either.

But there it is.

So why would BT be responsible for lobbying against the regulations you naively insist they authored?

Case and point ^^^^

 

[classwife]

Mostly people get along really great here...but sometimes people need to learn when to just drop it, let it go and get over it instead of acting like a gorilla thumping it's chest.