Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
In 2015, the FDA issued 16,924 "Warning Letters" to cig retailers, stating that they'd been caught violating some regulation. Mostly it's selling to a minor, but this also can include carrying an un-approved product.
in 2015, the FDA issued 3799 "Civil Money Penalties" which is what you get if you are caught again. Mostly for $250 (see below for escalating fines)
In 2015 they issued 8 "No Sale Orders". That can follow 5 violations - but each visit they usually write you up for several violations, so they can stop you from selling tobacco after watching you do something against regs just twice: 1 - selling to a minor and 1 - Failing to verify age. That's two violations. Who knows what they'll do if your stores full of unapproved e-liquid?
Ah well, that's good, they can only ding a vape shop for about $1 million at a time then.
in 2015, the FDA issued 3799 "Civil Money Penalties" which is what you get if you are caught again. Mostly for $250 (see below for escalating fines)
In 2015 they issued 8 "No Sale Orders". That can follow 5 violations - but each visit they usually write you up for several violations, so they can stop you from selling tobacco after watching you do something against regs just twice: 1 - selling to a minor and 1 - Failing to verify age. That's two violations. Who knows what they'll do if your stores full of unapproved e-liquid?
- I. in the case of the first violation, $0.00 together with the issuance of a warning letter to the retailer;
- II. in the case of a second violation within a 12-month period, $250;
- III. in the case of a third violation within a 24-month period, $500;
- IV. in the case of a fourth violation within a 24-month period,$2,000;
- V. in the case of a fifth violation within a 36-month period, $5,000; and
- VI. in the case of a sixth or subsequent violation within a 48-month period, $11,000 as determined by the Secretary on a case-by-case basis.
- o Violations of other FDCA requirements relating to tobacco products. In general, penalties for violating other FDCA requirements relating to tobacco products may not exceed $15,000 for each violation or $1,050,000 for all violations adjudicated in a single proceeding.
Ah well, that's good, they can only ding a vape shop for about $1 million at a time then.
From the FDA'S page on tobacco products-
"Pathways to Market – Legally Marketing New Tobacco Products
FDA does not “approve” tobacco products, but the Tobacco Control Act provides legal ways for tobacco products to be marketed. If FDA determines a new tobacco product meets the relevant legal requirements, we will issue a written notification permitting the marketing of the new tobacco product."
Protecting the Public Health through Tobacco Regulation
"Pathways to Market – Legally Marketing New Tobacco Products
FDA does not “approve” tobacco products, but the Tobacco Control Act provides legal ways for tobacco products to be marketed. If FDA determines a new tobacco product meets the relevant legal requirements, we will issue a written notification permitting the marketing of the new tobacco product."
Protecting the Public Health through Tobacco Regulation
that's awesome...when I was delivering for fedex there was a "Glory Hole" street in Winnemucca, NV. They could never keep a street sign on it eitherIn the early 80's I lived in an apartment complex The address of my building was 1221. The numbers were constantly being stolen and any time you gave out directions you had to tell them which building it was because there was never any numbers on it.
I do believe...
And how can I NOT...
>
We’ve taken care of everything -
The words you read, the songs you sing.
The pictures that give pleasure to your eye.
One for all and all for one -
Work together, common sons.
Never need to wonder How or Why...
that's awesome...when I was delivering for fedex there was a "Glory Hole" street in Winnemucca, NV. They could never keep a street sign on it either
I used to trust the media To tell me the truth, tell us the truth
But now I've seen the payoffs Everywhere I look
Who do you trust when everyone's a crook?
Queensryche - Revolution Calling - Operation Mindcrime - 1988
Seven years of power, The corporation claw
The rich control the government, the media the law
To make some kind of difference Then everyone must know
Eradicate the fascists, revolution will grow
Queensryche - Speak - Operation Mindcrime - 1988
But now I've seen the payoffs Everywhere I look
Who do you trust when everyone's a crook?
Queensryche - Revolution Calling - Operation Mindcrime - 1988
Seven years of power, The corporation claw
The rich control the government, the media the law
To make some kind of difference Then everyone must know
Eradicate the fascists, revolution will grow
Queensryche - Speak - Operation Mindcrime - 1988
just keep thinkin it's all my fault,
and stay an inch or two out of kicking distance,
mankind has got to know it's limitations
Sweating Bullets - Megadeth
not particularly relevant but a damn good song!
and stay an inch or two out of kicking distance,
mankind has got to know it's limitations
Sweating Bullets - Megadeth
not particularly relevant but a damn good song!
About the only institution I trust less than our federal government is the news media. They no longer report news. They select news.
just like the pied piper led rats through the streets,
we dance like marionettes,
swaying to the symphony of corruption
we dance like marionettes,
swaying to the symphony of corruption
There's a reason why the Wall Street Journal continues to make a profit and retain a solid subscriber base.
It is The Last Great News Outlet.
I hope it can survive the onslaught.
@bobwho77 ,you are quite right. I have been consistently poo-poo'ed in the
past for insisting that vapers should vape everywhere and very often.
I personally do not even care which style of vaping is used because it is
irrelevant to the issue.
Vaping bans are not about health or what might harm or offend anyone.
That was never the intent the same as smoking. Bans are for one reason
and one reason only. Control (conformity) and,controlling public opinion.
It's banned in public,ergo, it must be bad. Pre-smoking bans public opinion
was against bans. Post smoking ban ,especially as we see it today public
opinion is overwhelmingly for smoking bans. The powers that be are using the
same play book. Society must not be allowed to make up its own mind.
If smoking in public was allowed to prevail sooner or later the public would
figure out all the second hand crap was bunk. The long term studies are baring
this out. The public does not know nor in all probability care because second hand
smoke kills,right? This is why vaping in public absolutly with out a doubt must be banned.
Just one encounter between a vaper and non vaper must be avoided if at all
possible. Vaping compared to smoking in every aspect is so benign anyone
who was exposed to it just might come to the immediate conclusion that
the government is full of it. People enter or pass by candle stores,herb and aroma
stores all the time with no ill affects. Not even fake coughing. They know the smell
can't hurt them. They have experienced this in the past with no ill effects.
The biggest dirty little secret is society has,can and,will work out the issues
of vaping etiquette just as they had with smoking before the bans.
This must not be allowed.
Regards
Mike
past for insisting that vapers should vape everywhere and very often.
I personally do not even care which style of vaping is used because it is
irrelevant to the issue.
Vaping bans are not about health or what might harm or offend anyone.
That was never the intent the same as smoking. Bans are for one reason
and one reason only. Control (conformity) and,controlling public opinion.
It's banned in public,ergo, it must be bad. Pre-smoking bans public opinion
was against bans. Post smoking ban ,especially as we see it today public
opinion is overwhelmingly for smoking bans. The powers that be are using the
same play book. Society must not be allowed to make up its own mind.
If smoking in public was allowed to prevail sooner or later the public would
figure out all the second hand crap was bunk. The long term studies are baring
this out. The public does not know nor in all probability care because second hand
smoke kills,right? This is why vaping in public absolutly with out a doubt must be banned.
Just one encounter between a vaper and non vaper must be avoided if at all
possible. Vaping compared to smoking in every aspect is so benign anyone
who was exposed to it just might come to the immediate conclusion that
the government is full of it. People enter or pass by candle stores,herb and aroma
stores all the time with no ill affects. Not even fake coughing. They know the smell
can't hurt them. They have experienced this in the past with no ill effects.
The biggest dirty little secret is society has,can and,will work out the issues
of vaping etiquette just as they had with smoking before the bans.
This must not be allowed.
Regards
Mike
Regarding the Snus "Modified Risk Tobacco Product Application" - here's what you're getting into if you want to get an approval for, say, your iStick as an approved product:
Prior to submission, Swedish Match met with the FDA to discuss the application six times, beginning on June 27th, 2012.
Submission Date: June 2014.
Status: Still under review today...........
There's an eazy-reading 848 page SUMMARY to save you some time...
Here's an excerpt from page 515, so you get the idea of what's involved.
Basically, if you hire a good lawyer, full time, specializing in tobacco regs, they may be able to get your nifty new tank approved. Possibly before you die, but certainly no sooner than 3 or 4 years. So tack on at least half a million bucks for the attorney to the costs of the analyses and reports you'll have to pay for.
...Products reduces the individual risks of harm and tobacco-related disease associated with cigarettes and other commercially available tobacco products.
As shown in Table 6-12 (Table 7:13 in SM GOTHIATEK Report 2013), the Snus Products’ average concentrations (on a dry weight basis) of constituents on CTP’s abbreviated list of HPHCs for smokeless tobacco products are as follows:
• Three HPHCs (i.e., arsenic, benzo[a]pyrene and crotonaldehyde) are present at concentrations so low that they were below the limit of quantification (LOQ).
• Two TSNAs are present at extremely low concentrations, around 0.6 ppm for NNN and around 0.2 ppm for NNK. In no case did the addition of the two exceed 1 ppm.
• Cadmium concentrations are consistently around 0.6 ppm, probably reflecting “naturally occurring soil components and materials that are added to the soil” (Borgerding et al. 2012).
• Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde are present consistently at approximately 20 and 12 ppm, respectively. It is difficult to present comparative information on these two materials, since there appears to be very little published information available. In addition, since both materials are largely gases at ambient temperatures, the likely dose presented to smokeless tobacco users is questionable.
• Nicotine concentrations are effectively 1.5% for each product, with calculations of “free” nicotine resulting in concentrations of approximately 1.3%. The exception was for General Dry Mint Portion Original Mini, where much lower free nicotine concentrations were reported. The pH of this particular product may be an important factor here.
The data presented in Table 6-12 for non-tobacco-specific HPHC (rows 1 to 6) are broadly similar to concentrations that have been recorded for foodstuffs, and are therefore toxicologically acceptable. A specific analysis comparing estimated HPHC intakes from snus consumption compared to dietary intakes is presented in the following subsection.
The tobacco-specific items (rows 7 to 10) present data on robust nicotine deliveries, in the absence of significant deliveries of TSNA. The total concentrations of (NNK+NNN) at less than 1 ppm are well below suggestions made by various regulatory authorities (SCENIHR 2008; WHO 2009) for smokeless tobacco products that could be considered to be acceptable-risk MRTPs.
Prior to submission, Swedish Match met with the FDA to discuss the application six times, beginning on June 27th, 2012.
Submission Date: June 2014.
Status: Still under review today...........
There's an eazy-reading 848 page SUMMARY to save you some time...
Here's an excerpt from page 515, so you get the idea of what's involved.
Basically, if you hire a good lawyer, full time, specializing in tobacco regs, they may be able to get your nifty new tank approved. Possibly before you die, but certainly no sooner than 3 or 4 years. So tack on at least half a million bucks for the attorney to the costs of the analyses and reports you'll have to pay for.
...Products reduces the individual risks of harm and tobacco-related disease associated with cigarettes and other commercially available tobacco products.
As shown in Table 6-12 (Table 7:13 in SM GOTHIATEK Report 2013), the Snus Products’ average concentrations (on a dry weight basis) of constituents on CTP’s abbreviated list of HPHCs for smokeless tobacco products are as follows:
• Three HPHCs (i.e., arsenic, benzo[a]pyrene and crotonaldehyde) are present at concentrations so low that they were below the limit of quantification (LOQ).
• Two TSNAs are present at extremely low concentrations, around 0.6 ppm for NNN and around 0.2 ppm for NNK. In no case did the addition of the two exceed 1 ppm.
• Cadmium concentrations are consistently around 0.6 ppm, probably reflecting “naturally occurring soil components and materials that are added to the soil” (Borgerding et al. 2012).
• Acetaldehyde and formaldehyde are present consistently at approximately 20 and 12 ppm, respectively. It is difficult to present comparative information on these two materials, since there appears to be very little published information available. In addition, since both materials are largely gases at ambient temperatures, the likely dose presented to smokeless tobacco users is questionable.
• Nicotine concentrations are effectively 1.5% for each product, with calculations of “free” nicotine resulting in concentrations of approximately 1.3%. The exception was for General Dry Mint Portion Original Mini, where much lower free nicotine concentrations were reported. The pH of this particular product may be an important factor here.
The data presented in Table 6-12 for non-tobacco-specific HPHC (rows 1 to 6) are broadly similar to concentrations that have been recorded for foodstuffs, and are therefore toxicologically acceptable. A specific analysis comparing estimated HPHC intakes from snus consumption compared to dietary intakes is presented in the following subsection.
The tobacco-specific items (rows 7 to 10) present data on robust nicotine deliveries, in the absence of significant deliveries of TSNA. The total concentrations of (NNK+NNN) at less than 1 ppm are well below suggestions made by various regulatory authorities (SCENIHR 2008; WHO 2009) for smokeless tobacco products that could be considered to be acceptable-risk MRTPs.
Yes, the WSJ is one of the few remaining press organizations who at least attempt to keep it straight.
Alas this too as sad as it seems is another joy in life that may fall by the wayside.that's awesome...when I was delivering for fedex there was a "Glory Hole" street in Winnemucca, NV. They could never keep a street sign on it either
GPS Tracking Software Used to Track Road Signs in NE | GPS News by Rocky Mountain Tracking
Don't hate me. I'm just the messenger.
Mike
OMG where where they 50ish years ago. Ok maybe not that long, but my first cigarettes were pall mall reds....unfiltered. And its my dad's fault. He was having me go light him a smoke while playing cards. It became a weekly thing until he noticed when he got them back they were already half gone. Then he just started buy me a pack. Of course, back then, tobacco did not have all the chemicals that they add now. Big difference to when I started smoking to where I ended.Geesh!
I'm still trying to figure out if all of the Camel Crush flavors are banned, but I came across a site that goes into detail about how to smoke cigarettes!
"DO NOT start on non-filter cigarettes. Try one after you get a few packs down."
Similar threads
- Locked
