Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
One Question:
Raising the Age limit is Based - once again - on a Meta Study. As stated in the Study, Raising the Age limit will <likely> curtail Teen smoking by 10-12%?.
Now in Math, Teen is any number from 13 to 19
So, my question is why is the Magic number always 21?
Is it the universal inverse of 12?
Is it an Odd number next Restriction?
Do governments go by 3's?
Some strange Core Math?
20 is not a Teen figure.................... {Well, some are}
I Vape
I Vote
I'm not sure why they always pick 21, it seems random. Also in my experience more people in that 18-20 range will do something because they aren't supposed to. Many of my peers when we were under 21 drank heavily, because they weren't "allowed" to, and that made it fun. Now that I'm 25, I still know some heavy drinkers but more of my peers drink 1-2 on weekends and don't take it to the extreme they did when we were younger.
My paranoided side believes CA raised the tobacco use age, just to make tobacco use appealing to more young adults. I seriously hope I'm wrong though.
That precedent was set when most drinking ages were raised from 18 to 21.
One of the great disappointments in my life- I walked into a bar on my 18th birthday, fully prepared to whip out my ID. I was devastated when I was served without any ID request.
Yesterday my 31 YO daughter accompanied me to a bar to listen to live music. She got carded
Such a lawsuit would be summarily thrown out.
The US Government has sovereign immunity unless is has expressly consented to being sued. It has consented to being sued for a narrow range of things, chiefly breach of express contract and certain torts. This would be a tort. Consent to suits based on tort can be found in the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Lawsuits "based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused" are expressly excluded from the kinds of things the federal government can be sued for. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2680(a)(emphasis added).
With each state conjuring its own special restrictions/requirements/conditions/taxes I can only imagine how confusing/difficult/labor intensive and costly it will be for vendors who intend to continue doing business.
I can understand that but you would think it would be in their (the vendor's) best interest to understand what the law covers. First it was AR, which only covers e-liquid, but a lot of vendors just quit selling to them period and as this continues to expand to other states pretty soon, if vendors keep responding this all or nothing way, they will have no one left to sell to.
That precedent was set when most drinking ages were raised from 18 to 21.
One of the great disappointments in my life- I walked into a bar on my 18th birthday, fully prepared to whip out my ID. I was devastated when I was served without any ID request.
Yesterday my 31 YO daughter accompanied me to a bar to listen to live music. She got carded
I was almost 40 when they finally stopped Carding me...on that day, I realized the Party was over.
Actually, that will be Michigan.Cali will be the First Country to Secede from the U.S.
They have so many they play and it is the same blond haired woman. I am seriously not kidding you, I saw one the other day that said. Did you become a compulsive gambler due to taking abilify? And that was the only thing for that one. I'm thinking what the hell? Someone who is not a compulsive gambler takes abilify and is just sitting there on their couch thinking damn! I have to get to casino as soon as possible and also call my bookie. I'm sure that the only people who turned i to compulsive gamblers were compulsive gamblers to begin with. It really seemed like a satire skit. Smh
Absolutely true. Vendors who actually intend to stay in business post 2018 will ultimately need to deal with individual state requirements because all 50 states will ultimately end up regulating e-liquids before it's said and done. Vendors will need to hire (or retain the services of) "specialists" to ensure they bottle, label, ship, report and comply with each state's unique requirements. Any number of these states will be changing their requirements on an annual basis so the rules of compliance are fluid not static. When you're talking about the requirements of 50 different states in addition to the FDA's rules, it's going to get complicated and expensive to stay in business. The costs of compliance will simply be added to the product's retail price as will the FDA application costs, license fees, permits and any applicable sales or excise taxes (federal and or state) due. This is where/why I believe the price of e-liquids will double or triple in the next few years. Unfortunately, anytime the government gets involved with anything this is the end result. Vendors who don't intend to stay in business post 2018 will just sell to whomever they easily can, while they can, but will likely close shop when it gets too complicated or difficult. I suspect many small vendors (but not all) may just close their doors and call it a day.
The official excuse is, 21 year olds are less likely to have 18 and 19 year old cohorts than 20 year olds. So, the 20's just get caught in the crossfire.One Question:
Raising the Age limit is Based - once again - on a Meta Study. As stated in the Study, Raising the Age limit will <likely> curtail Teen smoking by 10-12%?.
Now in Math, Teen is any number from 13 to 19
So, my question is why is the Magic number always 21?
Is it the universal inverse of 12?
Is it an Odd number next Restriction?
Do governments go by 3's?
Some strange Core Math?
20 is not a Teen figure.................... {Well, some are
I Vape
I Vote
I said it before, I'll say it again, 18, 19, and 20 year olds can vote; hopefully they'll express their discontent over being relabeled children. If they're even aware.
Since they won't be able to make any changes to their packaging/labeling after August 8th, they had better pick the most strict rule now, get in compliance, and hope that's enough for the future.
Look at it this way, states that Do not want to deal with Vaping will make simple regulations countering FDA Compliance.
FDA approves Sale in 15 ml and 30ml Bottles, State can restrict Sales to 10ml sizes only. oops, another PMTA!
next year - 18ml only.
But the FDA has mandated certain labeling changes by May 10, 2018--warnings and so forth. So, I can foresee a judicial ruling that state regulation of the same thing has been superseded by the federal regulations. And don't the child-resistant packaging requirements enacted by Congress in January go into effect some time late next month?
Sounds about right
.. always above the law 
Thought it would be TexasActually, that will be Michigan.
For The Children
Something for those to young to know or to old to remember. How Propaganda works.
I'm thinking that part of reality may never end
Something for those to young to know or to old to remember. How Propaganda works.
I'm thinking that part of reality may never end
It's a practical thing. It would be impossible to build enough courthouses and hire enough judges to handle all the lawsuit brought by citizens who have been harmed by idiotic federal regulations.Sounds about right
Last edited:
Look at it this way, states that Do not want to deal with Vaping will make simple regulations countering FDA Compliance.
FDA approves Sale in 15 ml and 30ml Bottles, State can restrict Sales to 10ml sizes only. oops, another PMTA!
Or... if a state steeped in tobacco tradition (like Virginia, N. Carolina, Kentucky etc..) were to require some off the wall labeling requirement next September they would in effect be placing a de facto ban on all e-liquids without actually doing so outright.
States like NY could do the same but for a paltry $2 per ml fee, would be willing wave those requirements...
Federal law/rules -instantly- supersedes state law but only in instances where the two conflict. States are free to add additional requirements as long as those requirements don't conflict or impinge upon the federal rules. Example: a state could require each bottle carries a certain sized warning label (yellow with black skull and crossbones and the words "contains poison" in bold red lettering) in addition to the federally required content labeling....
Similar threads
- Locked
