Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
Thanks. Bookmarked it.
It would take a long time and a lot of words to do an adequate job. Maybe I'll do a few installments and see how far I get before everyone gets sick and tired of reading my stuff or I get sick and tired of writing it. And I'm leaving for a vacation tomorrow, so it may be awhile.
First off, the FDA goes to great lengths explaining why they are empowered to regulate every "component and part" which is "intended" to be used in or on an e-cigarette, advocating the most expansive possible interpretation of the FSPTCA. Beginning at the bottom of p. 4 they even present a distorted and disingenuous argument that the statute's use of the word "intended" in the phrase "intended for human consumption" gives the FDA license to add that word to other portions of the statute, i.e.: they say a component or part doesn't actually have to be part of a tobacco product, it just has to be "intended" for that.
To compound this little slight of hand and in an attempt to rebut Nicopure's argument that the FDA will require premarket approval for vast numbers of components, they say, on p. 16, that they plan to "'limit enforcement . . . to finished tobacco products' as packaged for consumers." But the statute has a circular definition of tobacco products which includes "components or parts of tobacco products." As we've just seen, the FDA interprets that to mean that a component or part that's intended to be made part of a tobacco product is, in fact, a tobacco product.
The FDA hasn't defined "finished," yet they say they're going to regulate components and parts. So how do we determine whether a part is a "finished tobacco product," particularly if it doesn't have tobacco or something derived from tobacco in it? It's impossible to do without resorting to guesswork and speculation. And I submit that the way it's "packaged" is or should be irrelevant to that determination.
In short, on the one had we have the FDA trying to expand its scope of regulatory power by resorting to "intended use," and on the other hand, 12 pages further on, saying it won't be necessary to submit a premarket authorization request for too many products because it will decide what to regulate based on whether its "finished" and how its "packaged," neither of which, IMO, requires assessing intended use.
Last edited:
Seems to me the FDAs tactic in all this is to get through the lawsuit unscathed and then go on with plundering the industry.
Actually the company that bought it tried suing other ecig makers and lost...
I am stunned to learn that my Rep signed on as a cosponsor to H.R. 2058 yesterday!
I wrote often and called his office, but I never got a reply that offered any hope. The closest he came to showing support was when he said that he saw nothing wrong with an adult enjoying a premium cigar.
I wrote often and called his office, but I never got a reply that offered any hope. The closest he came to showing support was when he said that he saw nothing wrong with an adult enjoying a premium cigar.
Thankyou, Bigdancehawk. I read the words, but I do have a harder time comprehending what they say and what it means.
I am really appalled at the enormous amount of material available online from vapers and professionals about vaping products. It would really take someone totally ignorant , a group beyond ignorance, or a group of tax supported officials not doing their job. So in essence our tax money goes to support a system that fakes knowledge, has no proof, and bases their regulations on negative here say.
From various articles I've read online, between 4 and 14 million vape . Out of a sample, 75% state that they would find a way to continue vaping. I don't think BT has ever come up against a competitor that can actually beat them. The FDA has had 10 years to research vaping and vaping products. But their arguments show that they have done hardly any research on the products, and more time researching how best to eliminate the vaping industry.
I know many people who vape and have an interest in vaping as a subject and probably all of us on this thread can spot anyone who knows nothing about vaping within their first sentence. The FDA has yet to say anything that demonstrates any knowledge of vaping products aside from heresay.
I am really appalled at the enormous amount of material available online from vapers and professionals about vaping products. It would really take someone totally ignorant , a group beyond ignorance, or a group of tax supported officials not doing their job. So in essence our tax money goes to support a system that fakes knowledge, has no proof, and bases their regulations on negative here say.
From various articles I've read online, between 4 and 14 million vape . Out of a sample, 75% state that they would find a way to continue vaping. I don't think BT has ever come up against a competitor that can actually beat them. The FDA has had 10 years to research vaping and vaping products. But their arguments show that they have done hardly any research on the products, and more time researching how best to eliminate the vaping industry.
I know many people who vape and have an interest in vaping as a subject and probably all of us on this thread can spot anyone who knows nothing about vaping within their first sentence. The FDA has yet to say anything that demonstrates any knowledge of vaping products aside from heresay.
Thank you bigdance. Any additional light, time and effort you wish to shine on the subject, I know myself and others will greatly appreciate.
Now have a fantastic vacation.
I thought that I would drop by with something good for a change.
Vaping can help people kick the tobacco habit, a review finds
Vaping can help people kick the tobacco habit, a review finds
More and more of this stuff will turn up over the next several years, and unless we start growing second heads or something, long term safety should be established. Which means a vaping industry v2 reboot, as by then much of the current vaping market will have been killed off by the FDA.
Yes, that gives they time to get appropriate tax codes in place.
Does anyone know what the mod all the way to the right is? This photo is in that great article that @seminolewind linked.
I could use a second head.
This one has gotten a bit ugly and does not work as well as it once did.
Good read...
Letter to Mitch Zeller on FDA e-cigarette rules | R Street
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
Letter to Mitch Zeller on FDA e-cigarette rules | R Street
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
The whole blanket "intended use" thing really grates my nerves. Before the FDA should have any authority on "intended use" of ecig products, a judge or lawmaker should define that the "intended use" of the FSPTCA was for ecigarettes. Which can't be done because it never was intended for a product that didn't exist.
Similar threads
- Locked
