Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[The Ocelot]

We interrupt this serious discussion to bring you a brief video intermission...

I wish the video was available without his opening. I like it, but I know some of the people I would like to send the video to wouldn't get it and wouldn't watch it passed a few seconds.

 

[salemgold]

I don't think it's automatic. The PACT Act of 2010 specifically exempts e-cigarettes and cigars. They (the Congress) would have to amend PACT first.

I guess that we should be thankful for the small things and take what we can get at this point

 

[bigdancehawk]

Now they have a rule that says that basically if they do not rule within 1 year it is an automatic fail.
Why do you think they put that in there?

Rhetorical question, but raises an interesting legal point. I'm seeing a denial of due process. Administrative agencies can't simply pocket veto an application, IMO. Applicants are entitled to a reasonable process leading to approval or denial.

 

[StormFinch]

I just said exactly that elsewhere this evening. Double whammy. First the FDA. next, the states are going to slam us with most likely even worse.

I mentioned elsewhere the other day that the only thing I found hilarious about this is the states that have already taxed vaping. BT helped write those and most give a free pass to closed systems and/or amounts of a mL or less. If we lose everything, the only ones that will be left are closed systems of 1 mL or less, and the states' dreams of making sin taxes off vaping are done. Well played, RJR.

 

[nicnik]

It's scary and uncanny how accurately De Tocqueville predicted what has happened to this country.

OK, I finally looked up who the guy was. Sounds very cool. Looks a bit like Robert Cromwell.

 

[StormFinch]

You'd think USPS would be standing with us, we sure give them tons of business!

Government controlled, they'd probably try otherwise, even if things probably have dropped off since brick and mortars came into being.

 

[The Ocelot]

i thought i had a grip on the whole derived from,derivative of mumbo jumbo.
I haven't a clue now.

Nicotine is a derivative of tobacco as it is made from tobacco in whole or in part.
e-liquid with nic is a derivative of tobacco becuase it is made in whole or in part of tobacco.
The part being the nicotine.
E-liquid with out nic is derived from tobacco as it substitutes for a derivative of tobacco the
tobacco leaf sans the nicotine. The FDA has said this is not under its regulation
because it contains no tobacco or nicotine.
The hardware in a assembled personal vaporizer is a derivative of a components
derived of a finished tobacco product the paper and or filter. The FDA considers this
under the purview of the regulations as a tobacco product if it is to be used with
a tobacco product as described in the regulation.even if no tobacco product is in it.
If not used for this purpose I haven't a clue what it is. The same for the individual parts.

Any part of this in whole or part can change with the phrase "reasonably expected to be used
with" at any time. Well, that was easier than I thought. (NOT!)
Regards
mike

It can be reasonably expected that coffee will continue to be consumed by individuals while using tobacco and it's derivatives.

 

[Katya]

Now they have a rule that says that basically if they do not rule within 1 year it is an automatic fail.
Why do you think they put that in there?

Because they don't want the legal process to take place. They know that they can't possibly review all the applications and they never intended to--from the get go. They don't have the funds or manpower. This little gem gets them off the hook and protects them from lawsuits. This is outrageous and possibly illegal. Like the rest of this steaming pile.

 

[Katya]

OK, I finally looked up who the guy was. Sounds very cool. Looks a bit like Robert Cromwell.

He's brilliant.

And everything he warned us about 200 years ago has come to pass...

 

[nicnik]

Since as of right now vaping products are considered tobacco, it is illegal to mail vape products through USPS.

Glad you posted that. Not good. So vaping has already gotten more expensive for me.

Also, I wasn't sure exactly when the tobacco designation was to begin.

 

[StormFinch]

Because they don't want the legal process to take place. They know that they can't possibly review all the applications and they never intended to--from the get go. They don't have the funds or manpower. This little gem gets them off the hook and protects them from lawsuits. This is outrageous and possibly illegal. Like the rest of this steaming pile.

Poor Tweety, she gets mad and stomps off to bed but then can't sleep cause she's mad so she comes back.

 

[Katya]

Poor Tweety, she gets mad and stomps off to bed but then can't sleep cause she's mad so she comes back.

Yes Ma'am. That pretty much describes my current situation...

 

[mcol]

Sigh.
Just sigh.

 

[bigdancehawk]

He's brilliant.

And everything he warned us about 200 years ago has come to pass...

I wonder what he'd say now if he were alive. It would probably be something more insightful than "You screwed the pooch."

 

[Kent C]

It's about this "clever" slice of verbiage which is used numerous time in the Final rule.

"...intended or reasonably expected..."

Weasel words indeed. Similar stuff for an earlier case where they got someone selling balloons at a concert, that were then filled with nitrous oxide (but not by the balloon vendor). Using this 'rationale':

They can use - “any . . . relevant source,” including but not limited to the product’s labeling, promotional claims, and advertising"

And:
"To establish a product’s intended use, FDA is not bound by the manufacturer or
distributor’s subjective claims of intent, but rather can consider objective evidence, which may
include a variety of direct and circumstantial evidence. Thus, FDA may also take into account
any circumstances surrounding the distribution of the product or the context in which it is sold.

 

[Katya]

It can be reasonably expected that coffee will continue to be consumed by individuals while using tobacco and it's derivatives.

and thus deemed a covered tobacco product?

 

[bigdancehawk]

Glad you posted that. Not good. So vaping has already gotten more expensive for me.

Also, I wasn't sure exactly when the tobacco designation was to begin.

Hold on a sec, please. Let's not get alarmed until it's established that the definition of "tobacco product" in the FSPTCA and FDA regs applies to laws and regs governing the USPS.

 

[StormFinch]

Weasel words indeed. Similar stuff for an earlier case where they got someone selling balloons at a concert, that were then filled with nitrous oxide (but not by the balloon vendor). Using this 'rationale':

They can use - “any . . . relevant source,” including but not limited to the product’s labeling, promotional claims, and advertising"

And:
"To establish a product’s intended use, FDA is not bound by the manufacturer or
distributor’s subjective claims of intent, but rather can consider objective evidence, which may
include a variety of direct and circumstantial evidence. Thus, FDA may also take into account
any circumstances surrounding the distribution of the product or the context in which it is sold.

 

[Kent C]

Isn't it?

He also said:

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”

So, it died around 1935-1937.

 

[nicnik]

Hold on a sec, please. Let's not get alarmed until it's established that the definition of "tobacco product" in the FSPTCA and FDA regs applies to laws and regs governing the USPS.

How in the world can anybody establish that, or much of anything, with the mess of text FDA dumped on us?