Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[coldgin96]

The official excuse is, 21 year olds are less likely to have 18 and 19 year old cohorts than 20 year olds. So, the 20's just get caught in the crossfire.

I said it before, I'll say it again, 18, 19, and 20 year olds can vote; hopefully they'll express their discontent over being relabeled children. If they're even aware.

Don't forget they can fight and die for our country but can't have a beer, cigarette, or a vape? That's bull.

Shouldn't have to sign up for Selective Service until 21...

Well, I don't believe in the draft anyway, but I digress. How can one fight for freedom when they are made to do it? Didn't have a draft in the 1st American Revolution.

 

[coldgin96]

Thought it would be Texas

Nah, the Confederate flag is flown more in Michigan than Texas. It's all about states rights and they hate the feds around here...

The notion Texas has most of the firearms is highly overrated. We have open carry and always have.

I know, I'm showing bias...

 

[bigdancehawk]

Or... if a state steeped in tobacco tradition (like Virginia, N. Carolina, Kentucky etc..) were to require some off the wall labeling requirement next September they would in effect be placing a de facto ban on all e-liquids without actually doing so outright.

States like NY could do the same but for a paltry $2 per ml fee, would be willing wave those requirements...



Federal law/rules -instantly- supersedes state law but only in instances where the two conflict. States are free to add additional requirements as long as those requirements don't conflict or impinge upon the federal rules. Example: a state could require each bottle carries a certain sized warning label (yellow with black skull and crossbones and the words "contains poison" in bold red lettering) in addition to the federally required content labeling....

Nope, not in this instance. When it comes to labeling and so forth, Congress has expressed a clear intent to preempt the field.
Section 916 of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act provides, inter alia:

"Preemption of certain state and local requirements.--

"No State or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect with respect to a tobacco product any requirement which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement under the provisions of this chapter relating to tobacco product standards, premarket review, adulteration, misbranding, labeling, registration, good manufacturing standards, or modified risk tobacco products."

It appears that some state legislators may be unaware of this provision.

 

[Str8vision]

It's a practical thing. It would be impossible to build enough courthouses and hire enough judges to handle all the lawsuit brought by citizens who have been harmed by idiotic federal regulations.

Funny thing is, we live in a nation that has 151 million people in its workforce, of those 1.1 million are law enforcement. They manage to arrest, convict and incarcerate 1 out of every 115 adult citizens imprisoning a far greater percentage of its population than any other major nation in the world including Russia and China. The U.S. is -addicted- to litigation, prosecution, judicial bullying, punishment and such yet the government is completely exempt from any true form of accountability no matter what it does or whom it harms. It's good to be King.

 

[crxess]

Propaganda



Edit: Dropped this one on CFTFK and simply asked people to know What and WHY they were doing what they do.

 

[Lessifer]

But the FDA has mandated certain labeling changes by May 10, 2018--warnings and so forth. So, I can foresee a judicial ruling that state regulation of the same thing has been superseded by the federal regulations. And don't the child-resistant packaging requirements enacted by Congress in January go into effect some time late next month?

I know that federal trumps state, unless state is more strict. I'm not sure if changes to labeling that are required by either state or federal government get a pass on the PMTA, but I wouldn't assume that they do.

If the FDA requires a warning that takes up 30% of the packaging, and a state requires a warning that takes up 30% and another state requires a different label for 30%...

Are companies going to have different labels for each state, or one label that hopefully fulfills all requirements?

 

[Lessifer]

Nope, not in this instance. When it comes to labeling and so forth, Congress has expressed a clear intent to preempt the field.
Section 916 of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act provides, inter alia:

"Preemption of certain state and local requirements.--

"No State or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect with respect to a tobacco product any requirement which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement under the provisions of this chapter relating to tobacco product standards, premarket review, adulteration, misbranding, labeling, registration, good manufacturing standards, or modified risk tobacco products."

It appears that some state legislators may be unaware of this provision.

so wait, are you saying that now ecigs don't require a prop 65 label in California?

 

[bigdancehawk]

It's good to be King.

Ha! Ain't it so. It's not called sovereign immunity for nuthin'. The doctrine isn't set forth in the US Constitution. It's embedded in the common law we inherited from Great Britain.

 

[Str8vision]

"No State or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect with respect to a tobacco product any requirement which is different from, or in addition to, any requirement under the provisions of this chapter relating to tobacco product standards, premarket review, adulteration, misbranding, labeling, registration, good manufacturing standards, or modified risk tobacco products."

It appears that some state legislators may be unaware of this provision.

This could certainly work to our benefit. That would leave states with things like imposing face-2-face purchase requirements, taxes and such in their arsenal of ill-will. Would ease the logistical Burdon on vendors trying to comply and ship their product nationally....

 

[Ca Ike]

This made me so mad I am literally shaking and my ears are burning from my blood pressure going up. These are the types of shows that just outright ignore science completely and then just lie whenever convenient. I couldn't comment on the video for some reason the comments wouldn't work but I def disliked it. We need to go and dislike this video. Such BS

I couldn't even finish this. I'll be writing the producers to demand they present the full truth and get on guys like godshall, bates, Farsalinos and others as guests.

 

[Str8vision]

so wait, are you saying that now ecigs don't require a prop 65 label in California?

Will certainly be interesting to see, California is a regulation/label happy state, they won't be happy if they don't get to play.

 

[bigdancehawk]

so wait, are you saying that now ecigs don't require a prop 65 label in California?

Well, Les, what do you think? The statute seems clear enough. You can read it just as well as I can.

 

[Katya]

Shipping in that manor would meet FDA regulation, but may not meet Cal tobacco Codes. You might be Assuming under the Wrong set of Laws.

What Cal tobacco codes, exactly? The new bills that Brown signed raise the legal age to buy tobacco products to 21 (military personnel are exempt) and CA now considers vapor products to be tobacco products--again, 21 to buy, you can't vape where you can't smoke, etc. What else is there?

 

[crxess]

What Cal tobacco codes, exactly? The new bills that Brown signed raise the legal age to buy tobacco products to 21 (military personnel are exempt) and CA now considers vapor products to be tobacco products--again, 21 to buy, you can't vape where you can't smoke, etc. What else is there?

Anything already on the books for tobacco product control.........should they Deem using Loose interpretation such as the FDA has done.

 

[Katya]

I saw in the comments there where someone states that the new law only regulates e-liquid but not vaping gear, but MBV is stopping all shipments? If that is true the same thing happened to AR where vendors stopped shipping to them period even though their law only applies to e-liquid, not gear.

There is nothing in the new laws banning e-liquids that I could see. If I'm wrong, could someone please find it? I'm not being argumentative--I'm trying to understand what is going on. Like I said, I placed three orders (2 from out of state vendors and one from a CA vendor) after the law went into effect and nobody refused to take my order.

 

[Katya]

Anything already on the books for tobacco product control.........should they Deem using Loose interpretation such as the FDA has done.

Like what??? What's on the books? I don't understand. Tobacco sales in CA are legal.

 

[Lessifer]

Well, Les, what do you think? The statute seems clear enough. You can read it just as well as I can.

Hmm... maybe that's why cigarettes aren't required to carry a prop 65 warning. I posted a picture I took in Rite Aid the other day to another thread, with a Vuse specific warning, next to the wall of cigarettes.

 

[Str8vision]

The only thing worse than denying CA it's labeling fetish would be if the feds somehow limited state taxes to 100% of the products retail price, the government of NY would go absolutely ballistic.

 

[Lessifer]

There is nothing in the new laws banning e-liquids that I could see. If I'm wrong, could someone please find it? I'm not being argumentative--I'm trying to understand what is going on. Like I said, I placed three orders (2 from out of state vendors and one from a CA vendor) after the law went into effect and nobody refused to take my order.

I think the question, that maybe MBV and others are trying to figure out the answer to, is what constitutes legal age verification in California. I think you said before that they should just require signature upon delivery, but if I remember correctly, law is that age must be verified at time of purchase, at least for face to face transactions. So, do online vendors need to have a copy of your ID?(have already seen people post that some vendors are asking for this) or do they need to use an age verification service? or will adult signature upon delivery be enough?

 

[Katya]

or will adult signature upon delivery be enough?

Les, as you and I know very well, there are no CA state laws that prohibit online sales of tobacco products, period. The only law that restricts online sales of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco is the PACT Act--that's a federal law and PACT doesn't even cover cigars or e-cigarettes. That's the law. So even if CA could somehow amend the federal law to include vapor products, which it can't do and hasn't done yet, BTW, adult signature upon delivery is all that's required.