Tweezers, fingernail clippers, small scissors, magnifying glass, screwdrivers...LOL This whole regulation thing is a complete joke.
Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
Tweezers, fingernail clippers, small scissors, magnifying glass, screwdrivers...LOL This whole regulation thing is a complete joke.
These regulations show one of two things (maybe both)
1) The FDA is totally ignorant of the way modern vaporizer systems work, and/or
2) They intend to utterly crush the market for open tank vaporizer systems.
(OK it's both)
EVERY possible battery/tank/coil combination could potentially be deemed a unique device, subject to it's own PMTA requirements. The way (An XCube mini, with a TFV4? OK. How many different coils do they make for that? You can use a Triton on there? Hmmm... You need to test that, too...)
There could well be more possible combinations of components than there are vapers in the US
1) The FDA is totally ignorant of the way modern vaporizer systems work, and/or
2) They intend to utterly crush the market for open tank vaporizer systems.
(OK it's both)
EVERY possible battery/tank/coil combination could potentially be deemed a unique device, subject to it's own PMTA requirements. The way (An XCube mini, with a TFV4? OK. How many different coils do they make for that? You can use a Triton on there? Hmmm... You need to test that, too...)
There could well be more possible combinations of components than there are vapers in the US
Tweezers, fingernail clippers, small scissors, magnifying glass, screwdrivers...LOL This whole regulation thing is a complete joke.
Bags, lots of bags. Different bags for different things. Oh, and storage bins.
Markey is another fascist. They're everywhere these days.
My suggestion would be to liason with CASAA and get their input.
And liason with Oliver and get his input.
If either one says we should move on that, then let's get a banner up.
I'm not sure why we wouldn't want to though.
But there are only so many banners you can put up.
And figuring out the BEST way to martial our "forces" might take a few days.
Thankfully, there are a lot of options to consider.
Excuse me for a minute...
Heading over to donate to CASAA...
BRB
EDIT: Question.
EDIT: Is a CASAA donation tax-deductible yet?
EDIT: Not that it matters as the donation is already made.
EDIT:
Last edited:
My laptop will be considered a tobacco product because I sometimes spill e-liguid on it. Seriously though the DIY crowd will be left alone except for nicotine.
I can't see a cigarette successfully completing a PMTA application either, right? How can they prove a new cigarette will benefit the public health? I would think those newer brands would also have to disappear in a few years too if the regulations remain as written.
Hmmm, these lists look surprisingly like my Amazon recommendations, ever since I looked at wire and Coilmaster stuff on Amazon. Which makes Amazon's software a tobacco product as well.Tweezers, fingernail clippers, small scissors, magnifying glass, screwdrivers...LOL This whole regulation thing is a complete joke.
Traditional Cigs won't have the same burden, there's a second path that can be used for products that are significantly the same as a pre-2007 product.
Overview
A substantially equivalent tobacco product has been found by FDA to either have the same characteristics as a predicate tobacco product; or has different characteristics than the predicate tobacco product but the information submitted demonstrates that the new product does not raise different questions of public health.
A predicate tobacco product is one that was commercially marketed in the United States (other than in a test market) as of Feb. 15, 2007, or a product previously found to be substantially equivalent by FDA and in compliance with the requirements of the Food Drug & Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
If the new product raises different questions of public health, the product is not substantially equivalent. However, a tobacco product that is modified by adding or deleting a tobacco additive, or increasing or decreasing the quantity of an existing tobacco additive, may be considered for exemption from demonstrating substantial equivalence.
A substantially equivalent tobacco product has been found by FDA to either have the same characteristics as a predicate tobacco product; or has different characteristics than the predicate tobacco product but the information submitted demonstrates that the new product does not raise different questions of public health.
A predicate tobacco product is one that was commercially marketed in the United States (other than in a test market) as of Feb. 15, 2007, or a product previously found to be substantially equivalent by FDA and in compliance with the requirements of the Food Drug & Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
If the new product raises different questions of public health, the product is not substantially equivalent. However, a tobacco product that is modified by adding or deleting a tobacco additive, or increasing or decreasing the quantity of an existing tobacco additive, may be considered for exemption from demonstrating substantial equivalence.
cigarettes are not substantially equivalent to a tobacco product...they are a tobacco product and therefore exempt.
Credit given for the obvious effort put in to craft the reply.
But this sentence, found in all such replies, betrays the real truth.
He wants to placate you, but he will do what he will do.
The only question that remains is whether or not you will hold him accountable.
The vast majority of the public don't even bother, so neither do they.
Thank you Robin! I was going to do something like this when I woke up, but that's not looking very likely today, waking up that is. lol
What irritates me about this is that both bills have democrat co-sponsors, even if they're small in number, while there isn't a single dem co-sponsoring HR 2058.
Great timing for this to have aired. Last night, I guess.
Important, really funny, and highly relevant to our crisis.
Yes and No. They define any changes to an existing tobacco product as being a new tobacco product unless the change is so minor (determined by them) that it doesn't have to go through the SE path. It certainly would never go through a PMTA path. For example, Stinkies that have the snap menthol thing in them would probably be considered a new tobacco product, but it has a predicate the standard ole stinkie. So, it would probably go through the SE path. Although that is all to be determined by the FDA's interpretation of their own rules.
"
How does FDA define a new tobacco product?
A new tobacco product is defined under Section 910(a)(1) of the FD&C Act as “any tobacco product (including those products in test markets) that was not commercially marketed in the United States as of February 15, 2007; or any modification (including a change in design, any component, any part, or any constituent, including a smoke constituent, or in the content, delivery or form of nicotine, or any other additive or ingredient) of a tobacco product where the modified product was commercially marketed in the United States after February 15, 2007.”"
You just ended this entire thread in one fell swoop.
I'm surprised it took so long for someone to drop the microphone.
Similar threads
- Locked
