Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[Bronze]

You can hire experts to manipulate what appears in the media. If we vapers had enough money and organization we could have hired those people and seeded the media with pro-vaping stories. We didn't, but the other side did.

The media goes where the money is.

Yes and no. MSNBC is an utter failure of a news organization. Their viewership is near non-existent. They are a one-sided media outfit and clearly they are not interested in presenting the other side. If they were motivated by money they would want more viewers and report the news instead of selecting the news. As it is, they are owned by a much larger, more profitable company (Comcast) who can absorb the loss.

 

[YoursTruli]

Since no one else will say it I will. You need to vote Republican. In general as a party they are for smaller government. Trump has said time and time again that he will reign in the FDA, IRS, DOE, and EPA. A vote for Hillary is just a vote for 4 more years of Obama. Since Obama has taken office he has invoked over 20,000 new regulatory rules. Wake the hell up vapers. Time to cross party lines and give up those broken political beliefs.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk

True but most people are just flying through this process blind. People need to know where their loyalties should reside. The main stream media is just a schill for the DNC. Unfortunately, most people just can't see this.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk

practice what you preach

 

[Bronze]

Been seeing a lot of posts here about how one party wants to destroy vaping, so we should all support the other party. 97% of one party are going to raise their hands, or sit on their hands, to abolish vaping, while only 90% of the other party will do the same. Excuse me while I go set out some yard signs to salute the glorious new revolution.

Not sure I understood that.

 

[OcalaFlGuy]

Actually - and SCARY!!!! - there are 2 Agriculture Bills
House Bill - All bills Must Start in or be approved by the House - C_B Amendment
Senate Bill - Originated in the Senate and Passed through Committee - NO PROVISIONS

If BOTH Bills Pass on their respective Floor:
Senate and House MUST enter session to compare and compromise on a SINGLE FINAL Bill to present to the President for Signing

Hungh? There is no Senate Bill that I know of.

There is HR 2058 That basically just rolled that device date forward to now. That is a House of Rep Bill that PB and Dimitrius said has No Dem support at all. (Though someone here the other day said it Had gotten a couple Dem votes.)

There is the Cole-Bishop amendment. That is an amendment started in the House Appropriations Committee to the Annual Agricultural Appropriations Bill. This Bill HAS TO BE Approved sometime before the end of the year as it basically controls several Federal agencies Funding.

Now, here's what you haven't heard from Anyone else. This is all but done. Over with. At least the Cole-Bishop amendment that changes the vape device date to Now and puts in a few common sense safe guards.

The C-B A has been voted on and Approved 31-19. 18 of 19 NO votes were Dem. Now the Coup de Grace. Republicans control both the Senate and the House. The C-B A IS NOW part of the Agricultural Appropriations bill. The Bill basically MUST be approved by the end of the year as it controls a lot of agency spending. If (When) the Bill passes and is signed, So Is The C-B A.

Now, the Agricultural Appropriations bill may get rolled in with Other Aprop bills for the Vote but it STILL has to Pass one way or the other in the end.

For us to really get screwed here, there would have to be a full blown assault on C-B A in the House or Senate GETTING A MAJORITY for it to be Removed. I haven't heard even a Hint that this kind of organized opposition in Congress to vaping exists. Now the Real Kicker. Again, Rep control Both the Senate and the House. The Republicans ALREADY Voted Resoundingly to Approve C-B A and save Vaping. No One is going to turn that around. This is over with folks. And we won.

We're good to go except that C-B A doesn't deal much with New devices be sold. They either change how the FDA wants that to go or the Companies will have to say the new stuff is Just Like the old stuff, just minor changes. Something probably WILL have to happen here still.

Even if 12/31 rolls around and the Ag Aprop still hasn't been signed, Halo has Hella Court Ammo for an injunction by saying, Hey, there is already Congressional Action on this that has FIXED the problem, it just hasn't taken effect yet.

You heard it here first.
Bruce in Ocala, Fl

 

[deucesjack]

practice what you preach

Oh I do.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk

 

[YoursTruli]

Oh I do.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk

no, you are not, you do not want others, like the government, to tell you what to do, but, you have absolutely no problem telling others what to do

 

[DPLongo22]

Newspapers - if any left -

The last time I checked, The Wall Street Journal was the last remaining national paper still turning a profit.

With fairly good reason.

 

[crxess]

I think he means something like what I posted in this thread eight days ago. Here it is again, slightly revised:
Speaking of the Constitution, and trying to get back on topic, if a statute is hopelessly vague, such that people can't figure out what it covers and what it doesn't so that they can adjust their behavior accordingly, the statute may be declared "void for vagueness" and thus unconstitutional. The FSPTCA, particularly as interpreted and applied by the FDA, may be void for vagueness and I am surprised that neither of the lawsuits filed to date has made this attack.

Specifically, The FSPTCA defines "tobacco product" to mean "any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product (except for raw materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing a component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product)."

This definition is badly flawed. When writing a definition, you must not include the defined term in the definition. This is particularly important when writing statutory definitions. It makes the definition circle back on itself.

In this case, when a "tobacco product" is initially limited to things which are made or derived from tobacco, and then they try to expand the definition to include other things, but those other things must also be "of a tobacco product" as initially defined, then it would seem to me that these other things could only qualify as tobacco products if they were likewise made or derived from tobacco. That might be interpreted to exclude such things as atomizers and battery powered mods.

Under said Definition ALL Pharma NRT NOT WIDELY MARKETED prior to Feb 15, 2007, should By LAW Be required to undergo Strenuous PMTA Application through CTP
Spend it Pharma, Spend it

 

[DC2]

True, but I was unable to find a bell curve for rock-headedness.

The more I let that sink in, the more absolutely hilarious that line is.

 

[Rossum]

Under said Definition ALL Pharma NRT NOT WIDELY MARKETED prior to Feb 15, 2007, should By LAW Be required to undergo Strenuous PMTA Application through CTP
Spend it Pharma, Spend it

Pharma has already spent what's needed to get their NRTs approved by FDA as a pharma product / smoking cessation aid.

 

[crxess]

Hungh? There is no Senate Bill that I know of.

http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/051716-AG-FY17-Subcommittee-Summary-2.pdf

Your welcome

 

[DC2]

For us to really get screwed here, there would have to be a full blown assault on C-B A in the House or Senate GETTING A MAJORITY for it to be Removed. I haven't heard even a Hint that this kind of organized opposition in Congress to vaping exists.

There sure is...
https://www.apha.org/~/media/files/pdf/advocacy/letters/2016/160418_tobaccorider.ashx

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids

The health groups also urged the Appropriations Committee to reject a possible amendment that would weaken FDA oversight of e-cigarettes and cigars already on the market. This amendment would change the so-called “grandfather date” to exempt these products from an important product review requirement to determine whether they appeal to kids or otherwise harm public health. Such an amendment “would significantly weaken FDA’s ability to take prompt action to protect children from the thousands of fruit- and candy-flavored e-cigarettes and cigars that have flooded the market in recent years,” the health groups wrote.

 

[deucesjack]

Says the man that believes the republicans are actually in favor of smaller government. They make that claim alot, but they want just as much governmental interference as the dems, just in different parts of our lives. One example, how many repubs would vote in favor of abolishing the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security?


No, you weren't discussing anything, you were indeed telling everyone what to do.

No, I was having a discussion about the pending regulations. If you can't see that then I am truly sorry for you lack of comprehension. You're actually going to compare the Patriot Act to the Family Tobacco Act. That's so ridiculous that I can't even argue with you. All your points are right out of the liberal playbook. Let's compare vaping to keeping our country safe after 911. Smh!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk

 

[Rossum]

Says the man that believes the republicans are actually in favor of smaller government. They make that claim alot, but they want just as much governmental interference as the dems, just in different parts of our lives. One example, how many repubs would vote in favor of abolishing the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security?

Truth.

But on the one issue that should be uniting us: Look at the list of co-sponsors for HR2051 and tell me how that list breaks down by party. The go look at the vote tally for the Cole-Bishop amendment in the Appropriations Committee and see how that broke down by party. Doing so makes it clear that on this issue, on the national level, one party seems somewhat friendly and the other seems to be our sworn enemy.

 

[YoursTruli]

Truth.

But on the one issue that should be uniting us: Look at the list of co-sponsors for HR2051 and tell me how that list breaks down by party. The go look at the vote tally for the Cole-Bishop amendment in the Appropriations Committee and see how that broke down by party. Doing so makes it clear that on this issue, on the national level, one party seems somewhat friendly and the other seems to be our sworn enemy.

and..... no one debates that here no matter what party they are for.... so why does it have to constantly be swung about like a baseball bat to beat each other with? What purpose does the serve other than to cause further discord here?

 

[crxess]

Pharma has already spent what's needed to get their NRTs approved by FDA as a pharma product / smoking cessation aid.

Sorry, but I disagree with Qualification under CTP and New Deeming Regulations.
Mitch Zeller has made pointedly Clear - the FDA holds Nicotine as ADDICTIVE and ALL NRT contain ADDICTIVE Nicotine.
They have not, under CTP Proven their Nicotine is less or Not addictive compared to other products currently on the market.
Their ADVERTISING Now comes into Question with such claims as to Cessation. I am a FAILED Example of their misleading LABELING.

 

[deucesjack]

and..... no one debates that here no matter what party they are for.... so why does it have to constantly be swung about like a baseball bat to beat each other with? What purpose does the serve other than to cause further discord here?

Because if you refuse to recognize your opponent how can you possibly defeat them?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N915A using Tapatalk

 

[OcalaFlGuy]

http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/051716-AG-FY17-Subcommittee-Summary-2.pdf

Your welcome

The word Vape or E-cigs isn't mentioned once in the 4 page document.
Bruce in Ocala, Fl

 

[Rossum]

Sorry, but I disagree with Qualification under CTP and New Deeming Regulations.
Mitch Zeller has made pointedly Clear - the FDA holds Nicotine as ADDICTIVE and ALL NRT contain ADDICTIVE Nicotine.
They have not, under CTP Proven their Nicotine is less or Not addictive compared to other products currently on the market.
Their ADVERTISING Now comes into Question with such claims as to Cessation. I am a FAILED Example of their misleading LABELING.

Well dang it, you should sue them and the FDA!

 

[The Ocelot]

I hope he has a chance to talk about vaping.