Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[Woofer]

You guys are reading too much into it. First off there are too many "leaves". Look a little less tainted at it and you'll see that it's a poor attempt at making the vapor look like a firework. Goes along with the RWB atty/mod. Just overall poor execution of a rather unique idea.

Nope, seven fan leaves is not uncommon at all. I`ll have what you`re vaping.

 

[ENAUD]

You guys are reading too much into it. First off there are too many "leaves". Look a little less tainted at it and you'll see that it's a poor attempt at making the vapor look like a firework. Goes along with the RWB atty/mod. Just overall poor execution of a rather unique idea.

Maybe it was a veiled attempt to compare what is going on with vaping compared to what transpired regarding legislation with another plant other than tobacco, one we cannot discuss here. Though the subject matter is very much different, the practices and objectives contained therein are very much the same...big money, big interests trump the small guy in the end...if history is to teach us anything, it is that money, power and corruption will usually prevail.

 

[nicnik]

All that came from Kodiak's post of the Smoke Free Radio program from Phil Busardo's Taste Your Juice page with seviausa.org, Dimitris and his comments that tobacco companies support Cole/Bishop.

Around 21:40 into the show.

http://www.tasteyourjuice.com/wordpress/archives/12988

So basically, seviausa likely one of our best hopes, Phil, Dimitri et al are "naïve" or worse, according to many here.

They were saying that BT did not write HR2058 or the Bishop/Cole ammendment. The "naive" comment in this thread was regarding the writing of the regulations.

In that show you linked to, Dimitri says "Big Tobacco wants to squeeze everybody out", and that they have lobbied for HR2058, and are lobbying in favor of HR2058 and Bishop/Cole, though, as he says earlier, around 22:30, he sees social media posts claiming BT wrote that language.

So no implication that "Phil, Dimitri et all" are naive.

 

[Katya]

Oh, no argument from me there. All I'm saying is that they have a very real defense against the "onerousness" of the regulations, they are the tobacco control act regulations, they've simply expanded them to include e-cigs. You and I know and understand what that means, legally though, I'm not sure if there's a case to be made. I'm not a lawyer though.

Yes and no. As Kent pointed out earlier in the thread,

So any President could appoint someone who would wipe out the deeming. In this case, all that would have to be said is that at the time that the Family Tobacco Control Act was passed, ecigarettes were virtually non-existent, there was no discussion in the House or the Senate about them, so there is no way they would have been part of that Act. And they are not, in fact, 'tobacco products'.

Besides, in 2007, cigarettes (as a product) were widely marketed all over the world (no problem finding a predicate) and fully technologically "developed" (there really is not much innovation to be made there), so they were all grandfathered in without any questions asked. Trying to put e-cigs, retroactively, in the same category (as of 2007, where almost no ecigs were on the market) is just absurd and constitutes a de facto ban.

 

[Katdarling]

Maybe it was a veiled attempt to compare what is going on with vaping compared to what transpired regarding legislation with another plant other than tobacco, one we cannot discuss here. Though the subject matter is very much different, the practices and objectives contained therein are very much the same...big money, big interests trump the small guy in the end...if history is to teach us anything, it is that money, power and corruption will usually prevail.

Usually. <thumbs>

Hi E-D.

 

[Katya]

I think he's looking at it wrong. The situation we currently have is that every product now on the market has a death sentence, with an execution date in 2018. If the product maker has millions to put into PMTAs, then then he gets a stay until 2019 and an appeal in an extraordinarily unsympathetic court. Cole-Bishop gives an immediate indefinite stay for everything currently on the market, with some future regulations on batteries. Regulations on batteries are easy to work around. If Cole-Bishop has a prayer of becoming law, we'd be crazy not to support it, especially since HR 2058 seems dead in the water at present.

If someone can make a case that the battery regulation language in Cole-Bishop somehow leads to nothing but closed systems when all the open atties that available today are grandfathered and can be produced and sold forever, I'd sure like to hear it.

Right.

CASAA representatives are meeting with Rep. Cole in a couple of weeks. They are going to issue a new CTA is support of Cole-Bishop.

Who's Mr. Wolf, anyway? Anybody know? I couldn't listen to the entire presentation...

 

[Katya]

was just reading the recent CTA regarding what's going on the the UK - that the law may be repealed. WTH? And then I'm thinking to myself, do the governments of this world have nothing better to do than to give a rat's #$# about vaping? But then I thought, oh yeah, it's all about money.

Wanna sign a petition to help our fellow vapers in the UK?

David Cameron MP: Support Parliamentary moves to block crazy e-cigarette regulations

Also thinking, where is the child-proof safety packaging on cigarettes? Oh, I guess they are exempt from that.

They have been grandfathered in and now enjoy full protection of the federal government!

 

[Katya]

ZM, I just stole the link to "The Letter" from your sig line to share with others. I knew that you would not mind

A link? I don't see people's signatures...

ETA. I changed my settings--nice signature, @zoiDman

 

[Katya]

Do you know if ECF will be changing their name? I'm not sure I could get accustomed to calling it EVF and the "electronic viewfinder" groups may not appreciate the conflation.

 

[Katdarling]

Right.

CASAA representatives are meeting with Rep. Cole in a couple of weeks. They are going to issue a new CTA is support of Cole-Bishop.

Who's Mr. Wolf, anyway? Anybody know? I couldn't listen to the entire presentation...

I don't know who Mr. Wolf is....... but he sure sounds (vocally) like Tom Baker to me. I prolly have that all wrong, but ........

 

[Katya]

I don't know who Mr. Wolf is....... but he sure sounds (vocally) like Tom Baker to me. I prolly have that all wrong, but ........


View attachment 558031

Our Tom Baker?

Anyway, it's really a moot point, because everybody I know of supports Cole-Bishop now. Some still support the original HR 2058 also, which is fine by me. I support everything that might keep us afloat.

 

[nicnik]

Besides, in 2007, cigarettes (as a product) were widely marketed all over the world

I think "2007" was a typo. What year did you mean to type? 2009?

 

[Katya]

I think "2007" was a typo. What year did you mean to type? 2009?

What is the Grandfather Date of the Tobacco Control Act & How Will it Impact the Vapor Industry? - SFATA | Smoke Free Alternatives Trade Association

"the Tobacco Control Act established February 15, 2007 as the “grandfather date,” which is the date for any tobacco product regulated by Chapter IX (including newly deemed products) to be sold on the U.S. market, and avoids having companies submit (and FDA approve) a PreMarket Tobacco Application (PMTA).

 

[Kent C]

They were saying that BT did not write HR2058 or the Bishop/Cole ammendment.
In that show you linked to, Dimitri says "Big Tobacco wants to squeeze everybody out", and that they have lobbied for HR2058, and are lobbying in favor of HR2058 and Bishop/Cole, though, as he says earlier, around 22:30, he sees social media posts claiming BT wrote that language.

So no implication that "Phil, Dimitri et all" are naive.

The "naive" comment in this thread was regarding the writing of the regulations.

The one comment was that BT wrote the regulations with no real evidence, yet anyone who didn't believe that was naïve. But they didn't believe Dimitri when he said they supported Cole/Bishop. The "ain't buying it" - implies either that they are lying or that they are ignorant - naïve. Not many more choices.

 

[The Ocelot]

That was mean.

I thought it was funny.

Stephen Colbert did a nasty attack, seemingly out of nowhere, a while back. ANTZ style misinformation. Rather high on the hypocracy scale, since he often glorifies drinking on his show, and even gets drunk with guests, sometimes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMtGca_7leM

I watched the Colbert clip a couple of days ago, but honestly, it didn't hold my attention. He's a comedian, so I take everything he says as an attempt at humor. He doesn't seem as funny as he used to be.

 

[The Ocelot]

I have some flavor concentrates that haven't suited my tastes for vaping, but are great added to cereal.

You know you're a vaper when, in a pinch, you put ethyl maltol in your coffee.

 

[Steamix]

But might be good for laughs at a party or cause people to stare at you even more than exhaling vapor.

Hm. Weell. Uhm. These refills don't look like they have child resistant packaging.
Storing nicotine laced cartridges in a screw top beaker...

Hey FDA ! Protect them cheeeldrun !

Coming to think of it, we might wanna hold on to that clip. If there is indeed no child-resistant packaging, it might come in handy when arguing FDA's wantonness in court...

 

[englishmick]

I'm all for Oliver doing as he sees fit with His Forum. Should he change it or leave as is, I'm here.

Hmmm. VapeyJoe and the EVF. Whatever, I'll stick around too.

 

[mudram99]

Two things, BT definitely had a hand in writing the regs, because they had a hand in writing the original regs(for cigarettes) that these regs are based on. They also likely had influencing meetings on this draft, though I'm sure they didn't get everything they wanted either. Their closed system products are the most likely to get approved, but there is no guarantee they will be. Vuse may have to lose a few of their new flavors.

Also, I keep seeing comments that the FDA is asking for more than they expect to get. Where is this idea coming from? They're done asking, these aren't another rough draft that has to get approval. The approvals have been received, these are the FINAL deeming regs. Yes, they could be changed by Congressional action, or a lawsuit may bring some things into question, but this is past the negotiating point if there ever was one.

IMO I don't see much point in fighting the regs on the grounds of how onerous they are. They are essentially identical to the cigarette regs, and the tobacco industry survived. The only point of contention that we have is that vapor products do not pose the same public health risks, the FDA admits they don't have sufficient data to prove risk, and therefore should not be subject to the same kind of regulation.

Les, you don't think they knew from the beginning this would come down to a constitutional courtroom brawl, and hence padded the filing so as to have some room to appear to give a little to arrive at a preconceived endpoint?

 

[Spazmelda]

Does anyone remember how I mentioned a few days ago that they'd find a way to blame any rise in smoking after de facto ban on ecigs getting people hooked and them transitioning to combustibles?

Adult Smoking Rate Falling Fast In U.S.