Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
I wanted to point out that RTS price matches. I picked up a couple of liters just this morning from RTS but paid heartlandvapes price (44.99) for it. I have both RTS and MFS nic in my freezer. I personally prefer the taste of RTS nic. I received a small sample of NN and I really couldn't tell the difference between it and the less expensive brands.
Perhaps we should call it an Uninformed study. researchers are behind the ball on this. Gas Station Gear is far from what a Qualified b&M would Recommend or what an Experienced Vaper would suggest to someone ready to take a chance.
The UK Study seemed to be well informed and showed matching success with NRT. Factor in Cost, before STATE and FEDERAL Greed and Vapor Products are a Given.
Those (2) Factors alone, State/Federal Greed, Significantly reduce effective motivational Gains in Successful transition.
Profits over Health!
Dumb
don't see the Reduction(over time) in health cost - According to Their estimates of Smoking related Health Care Burden on Government.
Maybe they do and the numbers are being fudged for Cash Flow.
They should be honest and relabel the deeming as the ....
2016 Keep America Smoking Act
That would eliminate so much speculation here as to intent...
2016 Keep America Smoking Act
That would eliminate so much speculation here as to intent...
Last edited:
Just looked it up, looks like they use regular caps for the 8oz and up size glass bottles. Not droppers. So these may be ok, dont know if they are polycone or not. Wait and see what you get.
I did my review of NicSelect from Nic River in the DIY forum. Don't want to clutter this one up anymore.
Nicotine Comparisons
Nicotine Comparisons
Does the FDA have Authority over other Federal Agencies? Simple answer: No, it Doesn't.
And let me Clarify something I said earlier.
"If it's [ATF/TTB] authority comes from Laws and Definitions that are defined under an Internal Revenue Code, doesn't an Internal Revenue Code have to include e-Cigarettes/e-Liquids in some way for the TTB to have authority over them?"
As I understand it, Authority can be traced back to Specific Law(s)/Act(s) passed by Congress. And there Isn't really the concept of "Implied Authority" in a legal Sense.
For the FDA, look at what transpired in Late 2009 - Early 2010. The FDA felt they had Implied Authority over e-Cigarettes/Liquids but the Courts Ruled that they didn't. And e-Cigarettes/e-Liquids couldn't be Regulated (not Taxed) until they "Deemed" to be a Tobacco Product.
So when I look at the ATF/TTB and they tell me that I have to Fill Out a Form or Pay some fee before I can Sell a e-Cigarette/e-Liquid, I say OK, show me the Definition that includes e-Cigarettes/e-Liquids as a Tobacco Product and Authority under which You can Require me to Fill Out a Form or Pay a Fee.
And If that Definition and Authority comes from a Internal Revenue Code(s), Cool, show me the Internal Revenue Code (or any other Law/Act where you get your Authority) where e-Cigarettes/e-Liquids were Deemed to be a Tobacco Product.
Else, it seems like we are Back to 2009 on this. Only this time the Acronym has changed from FDA to ATF.
Is this Deeming ruling a Full re-write of the Original Deeming Regulations or an Amendment to the Original Regulations?
Do they have explicit power to Modify their original Legal statute?
Is this simply a well crafted Sham to Justify Califf and Zeller being assigned to the FDA?
Isn't it a conflict of interest placing (2) Pharma Lifers in charge of Tobacco Regulation?
I run into soooooo many smokers that say.... "I tried an eCig but it didn't work". And now they are bombarded by gov't propaganda telling them eCigs are WORSE than smoking. It's really amazing so many millions have actually jumped through all the hoops to become ex smoker vapers.That is because we here at ecf were determined to keep looking. If the study wasn't rigged then the ppl referred to either didn't bother to go online to look for more or it was just too inconvenient to be bothered with. And of course they were correct in 'they don't work' because we all know the cig-a-likes don't.
I try to explain the deal but it takes 15 minutes to get past the propaganda and by then they are looking for my Tin Hat.... sigh. just sigh.
I do not believe researchers are behind the ball or stupid or ignorant of the facts. These people have Phd's and all kinds of letters after their names. These are quite brilliant people. They know exactly what they are doing. It is clear by the preponderance of the evidence studying all the US gov't funded studies. They are taking multi-million grants with the express instructions to deliver results as intended.Perhaps we should call it an Uninformed study. researchers are behind the ball on this. Gas Station Gear is far from what a Qualified b&M would Recommend or what an Experienced Vaper would suggest to someone ready to take a chance.
The UK Study seemed to be well informed and showed matching success with NRT. Factor in Cost, before STATE and FEDERAL Greed and Vapor Products are a Given.
Those (2) Factors alone, State/Federal Greed, Significantly reduce effective motivational Gains in Successful transition.
Profits over Health!
Dumb
Maybe they do and the numbers are being fudged for Cash Flow.
I think it is a huge mistake to underestimate the enemy.
Is this Deeming ruling a Full re-write of the Original Deeming Regulations or an Amendment to the Original Regulations?
Do they have explicit power to Modify their original Legal statute?
...
I'm not Exactly sure what you are Asking?
Are you asking if Deeming has been Significantly changed since the 2014 Drafts when Hamburg ran FDA? If so, Doesn't look like much has Changed.
---
Who is "They" in your last question? And what Legal Statute are you referring to?
I have a couple, want one.No, I evolved to Evolv!
There were a LOT of steps along the way, but I admit, I did bypass Provari.
I wouldn't go and over-estimate PhDs either. I work with them on a daily basis. There are plenty that could barely fight their way out of a soaking wet paper bag, and even then it might require a few breaks for them to try and explain how they -think- paper bags work.
...............and that is what keeps them behind the Ball on this. I never said they have not earned their Credentials..........however accepting Parameter driven Studies to fund Fraudulent results shine a Dim light on our Scientific community. Any scientist with a grain of self respect should challenge confounding research which directly opposes Science - Finding Ultimate Finite Answers.
*Sorry, this all started with Glantz and I look at every study now, with an agenda in mind.
(even the positive) I have to find the Study and read.First requirement is full disclosure of actions/parameters of the study and Goals going in.<<<Many cloak or omit a lot of detail.>>>
Lack of detail is usually where the Devil hides and the Agenda is buried.
Glantz, Meta Data inclusive of several unfounded studies
with statements of 50% possibility of inaccuracy - Acceptable to CDC/FDA
No, asking if the 2009 has been fully re-written to include 2016 or is this simply a Tag-on(amendment) to that Regulatory action.
As far as 2014 to 2016, the only changes I note are Hole Plugging actions..........Thanks to our Assistance.
FDA
It's a simple problem: someone offers you a couple million bucks to do a study, and also hands you a fact slick stating that their position now is that vaping is not an effective cessation method. That grant (and the subsequent grants...) pays your mortgage on your new multi-million $ house, buys a $100K car for you, and sends your kids to the Ivy League college of your choice, and fully funds your retirement plan. And you know that if your study contradicts that "fact slick" this will be your last grant you ever get. Sell the house, the car, send your kids to a public college and work as a lab tech somewhere. Not many people would take Plan B................and that is what keeps them behind the Ball on this. I never said they have not earned their Credentials..........however accepting Parameter driven Studies to fund Fraudulent results shine a Dim light on our Scientific community. Any scientist with a grain of self respect should challenge confounding research which directly opposes Science - Finding Ultimate Finite Answers.
*Sorry, this all started with Glantz and I look at every study now, with an agenda in mind.
First requirement is full disclosure of actions/parameters of the study and Goals going in.<<<Many cloak or omit a lot of detail.>>>
Lack of detail is usually where the Devil hides and the Agenda is buried.
Glantz, Meta Data inclusive of several unfounded studies
Just called my senator's office and gave them a good lashing for his support of the FDA's overreach. I feel a little better.
No, asking if the 2009 has been fully re-written to include 2016 or is this simply a Tag-on(amendment) to that Regulatory action.
As far as 2014 to 2016, the only changes I note are Hole Plugging actions..........Thanks to our Assistance.
FDA
I'm Sorry. I'm just not following what you are Saying.
No, asking if the 2009 has been fully re-written to include 2016 or is this simply a Tag-on(amendment) to that Regulatory action.
As far as 2014 to 2016, the only changes I note are Hole Plugging actions..........Thanks to our Assistance.
FDA
What Zoid was saying in the first post was that in 2009/10 there were two things that occurred concurrently, or pretty close to.
1) The FDA tried to stop shipments of e-cigs by smokeeverywhere / njoy by saying that they were incorrectly classified drug products - being marketed and used as smoking cessation aid.
2) the TCA aka FSPTCA aka the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act was passed giving the FDA the authority over tobacco products.
1) was stopped by injunction via judicial process. 2) still remains.
The TCA is what led to the current deeming that we see now, with the first draft being released in 2014 and now enacted with modifications. The TCA from 2009/2010, as far as I know, remains the same as it was when it was passed.
Similar threads
- Locked
