Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[crxess]

I think a good angle should be the lost jobs if vape shops have to close up

Sadly this angle was tried by Bar owners when Smoking Ban were forced upon them by State wide Regulations.

A Better angle it to show the Public where the unJust increased Cost of living will be Forced upon those wishing to rejoin a level of Society that no longer supports Smoking.(on their own terms)
*Repeated Banishment to Lower Status
*Artificial Increased Purchasing expense
*Increased Health insurance rates for attempting to live Healthier
*Increased life insurance Rates for attempting to Live Longer(making more premium payments in the process)
*Increased Job oppertunity Loss for attempting to live healthier

I swear, millions of Functional Alcoholics get less Government attention.

 

[WorksForMe]

It seems like it should be possible to have a government that is responsive to the needs of the people,
without overstepping in to this "Nanny State" BS.

It would be nice if this were possible, but I don’t think it is. Whenever you have a lot of highly paid government officials, whose job is to “take care” of the people, they will do everything they can to increase their sphere of influence and power. They will come to believe that they know more about what the general public needs than the people themselves. Also, a lot of the people will come to like being “taken care” of, and always want more. This is where we are now, and it just gets worse every day.

 

[bigdancehawk]

Speaking of vagueness... it just seems like a fishing expedition. "Just show us what you get and we will tell you if it's okay or not (it won't be okay, btw).

My thoughts exactly. There are no objective standards. It is impossible to determine what might be approved and what might not. There are no standards for ingredient purity, e-liquid preparation facilities or procedures, prohibited ingredients, coil materials, tank materials, atomizer characteristics, electronics, and pretty much everything else other than child resistant caps.

In no way am I suggesting that we need government imposed standards, but if they're going to regulate all of these thousands upon thousands of products, each with varied characteristics, and require that each of them be submitted for approval, then they should be required to spell out the criteria. Of course, they are incapable of establishing standards for all of these products. They bit off more than they can chew. So instead, they've created a guessing game for the industry, making the whole process arbitrary and therefore "void for vagueness."

 

[rosesense]

Not sure if you have seen this from Greg Conley but it is very informative. Also talks about why zero nic products won't make it. Info about all levels, PR and legislative importance to the cause. Not sure if this is today but he talks about a webinar in the pm.

 

[SeniorBoy]

Not sure if this has been posted so please humor me. I just love to read articles that among other things, drill down to greed, power, hubris, and of course insanity.

Some of that here and bolded by me:

The fundamental reason FDA placed the public at greater risk of the health problems that come with smoking traditional cigarette was that it cannot pass up on a chance to expand its power. As the tortured language of the regulation shows, the FDA recognizes that e-cigarettes are safer than cigarettes, but refuses to admit their potential positive consequences. Instead, the agency twists congressional intent in its deadly power grab.

But the FDA desperately wanted to bring e-cigarettes under its purview—and who would have expected otherwise? After all, bureaucracies do not gain more power (and increased funding) by passing on chances to expand their scopes of authority. From the tortured—and seemingly contradictory—language of the FDA’s deeming regulations, it is clear the agency understands that e-cigarettes are safer than cigarettes.

Source

 

[zoiDman]

Not sure if this has been Posted here yet? But another Member posted this in another Thread...

Thanks zoiDmen!
So he doesn't seem to be completely powerless. I don't know how many US-polititions are pro-vaping. Maybe not a bad idea to support him? Or listen to him. According to his twitter page he will give an interview this evening. Senator Ron Johnson (@SenRonJohnson) | Twitter

 

[Bronze]

Not sure if this has been posted so please humor me. I just love to read articles that among other things, drill down to greed, power, hubris, and of course insanity.

Some of that here and bolded by me:

The fundamental reason FDA placed the public at greater risk of the health problems that come with smoking traditional cigarette was that it cannot pass up on a chance to expand its power. As the tortured language of the regulation shows, the FDA recognizes that e-cigarettes are safer than cigarettes, but refuses to admit their potential positive consequences. Instead, the agency twists congressional intent in its deadly power grab.

But the FDA desperately wanted to bring e-cigarettes under its purview—and who would have expected otherwise? After all, bureaucracies do not gain more power (and increased funding) by passing on chances to expand their scopes of authority. From the tortured—and seemingly contradictory—language of the FDA’s deeming regulations, it is clear the agency understands that e-cigarettes are safer than cigarettes.

Source

There is this inherent belief that all regulators and politicians who go to Washington are going there to "do something". They're like rogue lions who mark their territory. They get assigned/elected to a position and feel like they have to leave their mark. It's no different than the new corporate executive who comes into the company and enacts new policy and procedures whether they are needed or not. They have to justify their existence. Wouldn't it be refreshing to see one of these people come in and just once say that something was good as is?

 

[DC2]

Oh yeah, what the heck are we supposed to do? What's going on with CASAA? Is ECF the best place for information regarding what to do?

@Antwoord

If you join CASAA you would be getting email alerts with actions you can take...
Become a CASAA Member

It only takes a minute to join and it doesn't cost anything.

If you go to their website they currently have this on the main page...
5 Things You Can Do Right Now To Save Vaping!

That will help make up for having missed the previous alerts.

 

[DC2]

And specifically Fox. I'm certainly not holding my breath waiting for the liberal press to give this favorable coverage. The only one on Fox who has covered vaping with any regularity has been Greg Gutfeld. Beyond him, Fox has dropped the ball too.

John Stossel has spoken up on our behalf at least once...
Now the FDA Is Trying to Kill Smokers

 

[crxess]

Not sure if this has been Posted here yet? But another Member posted this in another Thread...

 

[zoiDman]

Not Sure what that has to do with This?

Senator Ron Johnson (@SenRonJohnson) | Twitter

 

[crxess]

Posted to Late night - John Oliver - For consideration:

How do we get you to Take on the FDA - DEEMING Out of Existence - the First Ever Peoples Choice to Aid in BEATING Tobacco Cigarette Addiction?
Through Careful Manipulation W.H.O., The FDA, Physicians Groups, Health Organizations and Tobacco/Pharma Corporations have Banded together to convince the Public - A possibly Life Saving Alternative to Deadly Tobacco Use is Bad, solely on the Grounds Vapor looks like Smoke. This being done for the singular purpose of Protecting their individual Finances, running into the Billions.
Interview the Users, look at the real science, Follow the money...........

Your attack on Big tobacco was Exquisite!!!! Now, ex-smoker Vapers and Future Ex-Smokers around the World need your Help.
Could there be a better topic than international multi-level Corruption for profit over Life?

1 Billion Lives could be saved, this century alone.
Not sure where we will all live or get our dinner, but that is another matter - lol ........or could Population control come into play......hmmm

 

[frizzy_tyger]

Not all older generation folks

I treated a wide range of people to Vapor school From about 25 to 80yrs

I certainly didn't mean all and may have worded it incorrectly. Just that 9 times out of 10 when I get a negative attitudes about it it's from older generations.

 

[Kent C]

Unfortunately, it's hard to see how nonsmoking, nonvaper would suddenly become concerned over regulation. The strongest argument will not be individual choice or rights, but rather long term harm reduction.

I disagree. Non-smokers/non-vapers also wouldn't be concerned about harm reduction of vapers/smokers. Second-hand smoke may be a concern but they can just avoid it.

If there's a chance that their own personal habits might be affected - sugar, fat, alcohol, caffeine, etc., there's a possibility it may get their attention.

 

[crxess]

Not Sure what that has to do with This?

Senator Ron Johnson (@SenRonJohnson) | Twitter

Nothing.............and everything......

Support Ron Johnson Stance on Accountability!!! FDA Over Reach is a Pathetic attack on the American Public.

 

[Kent C]

Not sure if this has been posted so please humor me. I just love to read articles that among other things, drill down to greed, power, hubris, and of course insanity.

Some of that here and bolded by me:

The fundamental reason FDA placed the public at greater risk of the health problems that come with smoking traditional cigarette was that it cannot pass up on a chance to expand its power. As the tortured language of the regulation shows, the FDA recognizes that e-cigarettes are safer than cigarettes, but refuses to admit their potential positive consequences. Instead, the agency twists congressional intent in its deadly power grab.

But the FDA desperately wanted to bring e-cigarettes under its purview—and who would have expected otherwise? After all, bureaucracies do not gain more power (and increased funding) by passing on chances to expand their scopes of authority. From the tortured—and seemingly contradictory—language of the FDA’s deeming regulations, it is clear the agency understands that e-cigarettes are safer than cigarettes.

Source

I'll see DC2's earlier comment on "best post on the thread" and raise him on this one. :- )

 

[crxess]

I disagree. Non-smokers/non-vapers also wouldn't be concerned about harm reduction of vapers/smokers. Second-hand smoke may be a concern but they can just avoid it.

If there's a chance that their own personal habits might be affected - sugar, fat, alcohol, caffeine, etc., there's a possibility it may get their attention.

I would Disagree on grounds of Family, Relatives, Close Friends being effected by Tobacco Addiction.
Perhaps, not all the public but there is a wide margin that could noticeably have reason to be concerned.

This is not just about Not Smoking lest we forget
Reducing Cancer.........something thousands of Non/Smoker Non/Vapers get involved in annually.
COPD - Lung Disease
High Insurance cost - don't blame smokers, support their choices to quit.

This is not a Flat Line. There are many angles for getting Public Support, just as many angles were used to Demonize Vaping.

 

[Kent C]

There is this inherent belief that all regulators and politicians who go to Washington are going there to "do something". They're like rogue lions who mark their territory. They get assigned/elected to a position and feel like they have to leave their mark. It's no different than the new corporate executive who comes into the company and enacts new policy and procedures whether they are needed or not.

But there's a difference. Someone in the private sector gets fired (or demoted or go bankrupt and lose everything) if they 'make the wrong mark', and profits fall.

In gov't, there's no downside for foolish mistakes. The more they spend, the more demand their is for increasing their budget next year. No profit incentive, and their jobs are safe unless there's some sex scandal - even then, that's not the end for some. There's very little similarity other than the attempt to make their mark. The results are quite different.

 

[Bronze]

There's very little similarity other than the attempt to make their mark

Which is the only point I was trying to make.

 

[Kent C]

High Insurance cost

That's been debunked quite a few times around here and elsewhere - by some of the THR experts as well. Smokers are a net gain for healthcare costs.

I think you're right on the concern of family and friends (some are, some aren't) but some support vaping for the reasons you mention. I was talking more of the support we'd get from strangers - none or very little, UNLESS they have habits that could be next for regulation.