Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
I was close. The point remains. Given several improbable paths to success the overall probability to success is significantly better when there are more paths. And yes, this applies to the Deeming regulations and doesn't have anything to do with chance, influencing factors or anything else. It's too easy to look at any one path and get depressed. One must raise their altitude and look at the entire picture. If they do, it is not nearly depressing. But if it makes anyone feel better I will gladly put my pom poms away so as not to spoil anyone's misery. 
Please don't put your pom poms away.I was close. The point remains. Given several improbable paths to success the overall probability to success is significantly better when there are more paths. And yes, this applies to the Deeming regulations and doesn't have anything to do with chance, influencing factors or anything else. It's too easy to look at any one path and get depressed. One must raise their altitude and look at the entire picture. If they do, it is not nearly depressing. But if it makes anyone feel better I will gladly put my pom poms away so as not to spoil anyone's misery.
I for one need the encouragement not to give up hope on this. I was really glad you spoke up the other day.
I try to remain upbeat, but sometimes the negatives stick in my ear.
Well, some may feel I am waving my pom poms but I'm not (i'm as far from a rah rah guy as it gets). Instead, I am using basic, unemotional mathematics to make the point that our odds of taking the bite out of these Deeming regulations are pretty good. It's so easy to focus on only one proposal and get down in the dumps. But my point is this is the wrong way to look at it. Got to look at all the proposals in totality while looking to increase the odds of each...no matter how dismal they appear. A burglar has a decent chance of a single bullet missing him but a much lower chance of a shot gun blast missing him.Please don't put your pom poms away.
I for one need the encouragement not to give up hope on this. I was really glad you spoke up the other day.
I try to remain upbeat, but sometimes the negatives stick in my ear.
I tend to agree with the sentiment here. Having a consolidated case is fine. They collectively bring up a whole bunch of valid individual points. It would be hard to imagine a judge disagreeing with them all.
I personally believe the vagueness of the regs makes parts of the package much easier to defeat than if the FDA concisely spelled out actual standards and guidelines. The pure fact that manufacturers have to "guess and submit" isn't how it's supposed to work.
After reading things like juice manufacturers contacting the FDA requesting guidance on how to actually comply and getting no response is telling. Inspections will start happening soon but nobody knows exactly what they are inspecting for. It all seems pretty poorly though out even though they used 500 pages to do it.
I personally believe the vagueness of the regs makes parts of the package much easier to defeat than if the FDA concisely spelled out actual standards and guidelines. The pure fact that manufacturers have to "guess and submit" isn't how it's supposed to work.
After reading things like juice manufacturers contacting the FDA requesting guidance on how to actually comply and getting no response is telling. Inspections will start happening soon but nobody knows exactly what they are inspecting for. It all seems pretty poorly though out even though they used 500 pages to do it.
No, I don't take you as a pom pom waiver, poor choice by me to play on your words.
I agree, the more that gets throw at it, so to speak, the better the chance something sticks.
Like you've said, simple math.
Hard to argue that point, though some will...
There are lot of things in the deeming regs that are just utter nonsense, so I am hoping that some things will have to be removed from it...and just to repeat again...the more the regulations are challenged and brought to the forefront, the better our chances should be.
Indeed there are multiple paths that could lead to easing the federal maelstrom descending upon us. Unfortunately most of them offers to do little more than mitigate an otherwise catastrophic outcome. Even so, a sentence of 10 - 20 at hard labor is far better than an immediate execution. IMO an injunction (a temporary reprieve) will likely be granted and if so our chance for winning a limited victory improves. An injunction might also impede state ambitions for levying excise taxes on an otherwise newly deemed "tobacco product", at least for awhile. Baby steps might not win a marathon but you've got to start somewhere.
Precisely.
And I was thinking the same thing as it relates to the states. Many states will take their cues from the federal law....wherever it ends up.
Yeah. An injunction would buy us time, which is important. It would allow the industry to continue to grow, and allow us to convert more smokers, which should be a top priority, IMO. The bigger vaping gets, the harder it will be to just squash it like a bug. It also gives us more time to get more science on our side.
Maybe they made it so vague and overreaching just to see how hard the push back was going to be. I can't imagine that they were so smug as to think it would really stand as is. I do see glimmers of hope shining through but am prepared just in case
Perhaps the FDA made it so vague, overreaching, devastating to the industry and poorly justified so that it -could- be legally challenged... Why would you claim regulation is needed because the item is harmful but in the next sentence openly admit you have absolutely no evidence that it is? Why would you admit the impact of your regulations will decimate the industry? These two points alone "invite" litigation. A retired fed, I still believe key members of congress "pushed" the FDA to attack/regulate vaping. I'd also bet those same members of congress receive healthy annual bribes from BP and or BT. I'm also aware that many states are losing -major- tobacco tax revenue directly because of vaping's effectiveness as a method of smoking cessation. This being America, the catchphrase "follow the money" always applies and it's trail leads directly to congress... Just a thought.
The FDA is certainly going to be harmful but In the "long term" states are who I fear most in all this.
Yep, couple more years would really make a huge difference. Would also take an even larger chunk out of Big Tobacco. The current regulations only serve to benefit big tobacco.
But vaping will survive, it's just going underground. We'll continue to make Mod's, juice and vape. It'll only slow down a bit and government won't get their sales tax. Big Tobacco and their worthless cigalikes won't go far.
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
That's why I regularly contact my Congressman and representative. I hammer them with real research like from the Royal College of Physicians.
I also state that not only will I not vote for anyone who supports the FDA and excessive regulations and taxes but will actively work to remove them from office.
I Vape, I Vote and I'm damn ......!
Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
If teen smoking continue to drop, and the adult population smoking rates drop another 3% (or more) - which is what happened from 2014 to 2015, that could go against the 'net population' and the 'it's for the children' arguments coming from the FDA.
In the Orwellian world we live in that hasn't worked yet and is unlikely to work even if the smoking rate drops to 1%.
Yeah... For each roll of the Dice after the first roll, one has to take into account that the desired outcome Did Not occur in a Previous Roll(s) if the rolling of the dice Stops when the desired outcome is obtained. There is a Dependency on the previous roll(s) that the desired outcome Did Not occur.
Roll #1: P(a) = 1/6
Roll #2: P(a) = 1/6 + (1/6 * 5/6)
Roll #2: P(a) = 1/6 + (1/6 * 5/6) + (1/6 * 25/36)
.
.
.
Roll #n: P(a) = 1 - (5/6)^n
Yes we are reduced to hoping one person will do the right thing and stick his/her neck out into a meat grinder. . Which will be wildly unpopular with what is now probably a majority of the highly propagandized citizenry. The last time that happened was probably Roe V Wade. And in that case that decision had more support than we do, particularly in the media.
Similar threads
- Locked
