Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[Quantum Mech]

Not FDA but the Euro equiv being debated in UK Parliament

Some strong points/facts that may help your fight

It would appear from watching that the pharmaceutical companies are the driving force for these ridiculous restrictions

 

[wiredlove]

OK super smart ECF peeps. I just received this from my State Rep. I was curious where he stood on this. Here is the response. I need to know if this means ANYTHING. LOL
Rep. Steube supports parity in current law. As you may know, last week, the Federal Food and Drug Administration issued new rules and they can be found below.

Parity would mean equality, which I would take to say that he supports treating e-cigs like cigs, but it's an ambiguous political/legal statement. I would say it has no real meaning, other than to have replied to you.

 

[nicnik]

OK super smart ECF peeps. I just received this from my State Rep. I was curious where he stood on this. Here is the response. I need to know if this means ANYTHING. LOL
Rep. Steube supports parity in current law. As you may know, last week, the Federal Food and Drug Administration issued new rules and they can be found below.

I think he/she means treat ecigs like combustible cigs.

ETA: oops...you wanted to hear from super-smart folks. Sorry. However, I bet I'm right.

 

[Pamawoman]

Parity would mean equality, which I would take to say that he supports treating e-cigs like cigs, but it's an ambiguous political/legal statement. I would say it has no real meaning, other than to have replied to you.[/QUOTE. Yep that's what I thought. I'll write him again.]

 

[wiredlove]

I think he/she means treat ecigs like combustible cigs.

ETA: oops...you wanted to hear from super-smart folks. Sorry. However, I bet I'm right.

I took it that way too, but he's also very conservative. Like I said before, it's ambiguous lawyer speak.

 

[Kent C]

But, but, nicotine, adolescent brain development, but....

My first thought as well. There is another link I didn't post - wiki

"If you are under 18 years of age, you should consult your physician before starting NRT.[15]"

Where note 15 is the FDA:

FDA 101: Smoking Cessation Products

But it wasn't as clear as the links noted but here:

"If you are under 18 years of age and want to quit smoking, you should talk to a health care professional about potential use of nicotine replacement therapies.

OTC nicotine replacement products are approved for sale to persons 18 years of age and older."

So I assume that from the top sentence, it would have to be prescribed.

 

[Sir Kadly]

Protect his own distillery profits?

Well, of course it all depends on the context, and I did a poor job of trying to make my point so I will elaborate. There are some who are convinced that the whiskey tax was being used to eliminate smaller scale whiskey production so that Washington could derive greater profits from the distillery he was planning to open. For them, the context then is that of the little guy fighting the big bad government. Others dismiss this idea as ludicrous, and see the villain as whoever it was that shot the tax collector, so different context.
Technically, Washington didn't have a distillery until after these events so who knows what his plans really were when the whiskey tax was imposed. But there will always be three views on the Rebeliion. One that the rebels were right, one that the gubmint was right, and one that doesn't care.

 

[Lessifer]

OK super smart ECF peeps. I just received this from my State Rep. I was curious where he stood on this. Here is the response. I need to know if this means ANYTHING. LOL
Rep. Steube supports parity in current law. As you may know, last week, the Federal Food and Drug Administration issued new rules and they can be found below.

Parity would mean equality, which I would take to say that he supports treating e-cigs like cigs, but it's an ambiguous political/legal statement. I would say it has no real meaning, other than to have replied to you.

I think he/she means treat ecigs like combustible cigs.

ETA: oops...you wanted to hear from super-smart folks. Sorry. However, I bet I'm right.

What they said. Without qualifying it, it means nothing, because it could mean treat ecigs like cigs, or it could mean give ecigs the same advantage of grandfathering in current products.

 

[wiredlove]

Well, of course it all depends on the context, and I did a poor job of trying to make my point so I will elaborate. There are some who are convinced that the whiskey tax was being used to eliminate smaller scale whiskey production so that Washington could derive greater profits from the distillery he was planning to open. For them, the context then is that of the little guy fighting the big bad government. Others dismiss this idea as ludicrous, and see the villain as whoever it was that shot the tax collector, so different context.
Technically, Washington didn't have a distillery until after these events so who knows what his plans really were when the whiskey tax was imposed. But there will always be three views on the Rebeliion. One that the rebels were right, one that the gubmint was right, and one that doesn't care.

I read all that and all I heard was the word, "revenuers"

 

[nicnik]

It would appear from watching that the pharmaceutical companies are the driving force for these ridiculous restrictions

Do you mean in UK or US? Or both?

 

[Pamawoman]

I guess I should be more specific with him. Any suggestions on questions? I am sure he would love that and after giving me lawyer speak he deserves it. BTW He is my state rep in Florida. Haven't heard back from Bill or Rubio yet.

 

[Jalcide]

This should get you started and this list is contained in the Draft Guidance on PMTA

FDA recommends that you consider the following constituents28 for analysis in e-liquids and 1026 aerosols, as appropriate, for your product: 1027
1028
• Acetaldehyde 1029
• Acetyl Propionyl (also known as 2,3-pentanedione) 1030
• Acrolein 1031
• Acrylonitrile 1032
• 4-Aminobiphenyl 1033
• 1-Aminonaphthalene 1034
• 2-Aminonaphthalene 1035
• Ammonia 1036
• Anabasine 1037
• Benzene 1038
• Benzo[a]pyrene 1039
• 1,3-Butadiene
• Chromium 1042
• Crotonaldehyde 1043
• Diacetyl 1044
• Diethylene glycol 1045
• Ethylene glycol 1046
• Formaldehyde 1047
• Glycerol 1048
• Isoprene 1049
• Lead 1050
• Menthol 1051
• Nickel 1052
• Nicotine, including total nicotine and unprotonated nicotine 1053
• NNK (4-(methylnitrosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone) 1054
• NNN (N-nitrosonornicotine) 1055
• Propylene glycol 1056
• Toluene 1057
• Other constituents, as appropriate

HTH

Thanks. This is the first tiny notion of "good news" I've considered thus far.

If it turns out there's a magic pathway to at least one PMTA acceptance, for something that resembles a modern, temperature control system, there's hope.

Speaking of TC mods as one of the many things we stand to lose (post 2007 innovations), If the FDA finds a way to quash advanced temperature control features, for no good reason, they really will have exposed an ugly, arbitrary agenda and risk losing their talking points.

 

[wiredlove]

I guess I should be more specific with him. Any suggestions on questions? I am sure he would love that and after giving me lawyer speak he deserves it. BTW He is my state rep in Florida. Haven't heard back from Bill or Rubio yet.

Tell him to stop wearing that jacket from the Gulf Coast Builders Exchange's annual dinner, it's terrible.


*unless he's pro-vaping, then tell him it's awesome.

 

[Lessifer]

My first thought as well. There is another link I didn't post - wiki

"If you are under 18 years of age, you should consult your physician before starting NRT.[15]"

Where note 15 is the FDA:

FDA 101: Smoking Cessation Products

But it wasn't as clear as the links noted but here:

"If you are under 18 years of age and want to quit smoking, you should talk to a health care professional about potential use of nicotine replacement therapies.

OTC nicotine replacement products are approved for sale to persons 18 years of age and older."

So I assume that from the top sentence, it would have to be prescribed.

No, if it needed to be prescribed for those under 18, it would say that. I've seen that before.

I think this is just a CYA of "it's really ok, but just so no one sues us, talk to your doctor first."

Just like you should "talk to your health care provider before starting any exercise regiment."

 

[zoiDman]

OK super smart ECF peeps. I just received this from my State Rep. I was curious where he stood on this. Here is the response. I need to know if this means ANYTHING. LOL
Rep. Steube supports parity in current law. As you may know, last week, the Federal Food and Drug Administration issued new rules and they can be found below.

There's kinda an Old Joke when it comes to things Like This.

"If you Can't Understand what a Politician is saying to you... It is Usually By Design."

 

[wiredlove]

There's kinda an Old Joke when it comes to things Like This.

"If you Can't Understand what a Politician is saying to you... It is Usually By Design."

I thought it was ""If you Can't Understand what a Politician is saying to you... It is Usually because they're talking."

 

[nicnik]

What they said. Without qualifying it, it means nothing, because it could mean treat ecigs like cigs, or it could mean give ecigs the same advantage of grandfathering in current products.

To me, it communicates a desire to tax vaping like smoking, rather than pay any attention to "continuum of risk".

 

[Lessifer]

I guess I should be more specific with him. Any suggestions on questions? I am sure he would love that and after giving me lawyer speak he deserves it. BTW He is my state rep in Florida. Haven't heard back from Bill or Rubio yet.

Ask him specifically if he supports moving the grandfather date, either by supporting HR 2058 or the Cole-Bishop amendment to the Agricultural Appropriations bill, which would give the vapor industry the same foundation that the cigarette industry received when the FSPTCA was passed in 2007. Allowing current manufacturers to continue marketing their products without requiring retroactive pre-market approval that was not required of ANY of the combustible cigarette products currently being sold.

 

[sparkky1]

I guess I should be more specific with him. Any suggestions on questions? I am sure he would love that and after giving me lawyer speak he deserves it. BTW He is my state rep in Florida. Haven't heard back from Bill or Rubio yet.

Ya, giv'em this

Ban on e-cigarettes lifted to help smokers give up - Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust
Ask him if he wants to be on the side of risk reduction for future generations, or is known toxic cancer causing carcinogenics forced on to us the way of the future ?

 

[nicnik]

I guess I should be more specific with him. Any suggestions on questions? I am sure he would love that and after giving me lawyer speak he deserves it. BTW He is my state rep in Florida. Haven't heard back from Bill or Rubio yet.

Say you would like clarification - is he in favor of the regulations?

EDIT: Better yet, go with what super-smart Lessifer says, above.