Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[skoony]

I don't see that. The ad, promo would have to be, but not the product, itself. And the ad might have to be on a US internet site vs. say, a Chinese site - although even that would be up for interpretation.

Your right about the ad but, farther down the list there's this,
• dated bills of lading
• dated freight bills
• dated waybills
• dated invoices
• dated purchase orders
• dated customer receipts
and,
• dated distributor or retailer inventory lists

My rule of thumb when things are up for interpretation is to always assume the worst case scenario for the industry in general and the individual vaper in particular.

That would make most of us ecstatic but...if the FDA can magically make computer software a tobacco product it should be a mere parlor trick to regulate nicotine.

That may be their only option but,won't they have to prove that nicotine as we can buy it today
wasn't on the market prior to the grandfather date. Any old timer DIY's out there experimenting
with juice back then? We seem to have a cunumdrum. The FDA clearly says nicotine is a tobacco
product now. Does that make nicotine a non-tobacco product prior to the grandfather date?
Regards
Mike
mike

 

[Kent C]

Your right about the ad but, farther down the list there's this,
• dated bills of lading
• dated freight bills

Of course - marketing can include selling but not necessarily. The key word here is 'may' before the listing.

"Examples of such information may include, but are not limited to, the following:"

It doesn't say it must include all bullet points. And the other thing in legal stuff is that definitions can be taken (if not fully delineated) by common usage, and common usage of 'marketing' is advertising as well as selling and not necessarily must include both. Advertising shows intent to sell, whether or not anything is sold.

 

[jmur]

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/UCM416498.pdf


• dated invoices
• dated purchase orders
• dated customer receipts

I find this troubling in and of itself.

 

[Alexander Mundy]

If the Majority of the Population is Unaffected by something, do we just Look the Other Way?

Human nature.
I think most everyone has heard this one:

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

Martin Niemöller

 

[Katdarling]

Good, I hope she kicks some .....

Just want to add a thought I brought up previously that didn't seem to impress anyone. There are a number of avenues that are underway or in the future which would knock the pins out from under these regulations. Legislatively, there is HR2058 and Cole-Bishop. Legally, there are several lawsuits. And from the executive we have an election this year that changes the current executive. Retired just brought up another possibility from the legal avenue. Folks, there are lots of possibilities out there which can derail these regulations (or the most damaging parts of the regulations). By themselves, they are low odds. In total, they are much better odds. In other words, we need just one possibility to come true. When looked at it in this viewpoint, I like our odds and put them over 50% which makes it likely we will kill the most damaging parts of these regulations. That's not optimism. That's math.

I sure like your abacus a lot more than mine, Bronze.

And that is the point. We should not give up on anything. It's too easy to look at only one thing and get depressed (which I see a lot of on this thread). But that's the wrong way to look at it. We have to look at it in its totality, work toward success in all areas, and be confident at least one will succeed.

I'm encouraged by your posts. For you to step up as a cheerleader really does bolster my confidence that we will prevail.

I still believe (yes, belief) that common sense may somehow, somewhere, rise to the top.

Cream.

 

[Kent C]

I find this troubling in and of itself.

Again, the FDA itself did some checking and they only found one instance that MAY be grandfathered. So for the 2007 date, I think it's pretty much a no-go, but even if one was found, it would be so outdated from anything that we have now, that it wouldn't mean much, except perhaps for non-vaping smokers in the future. Even then, they'd have the need for something better - which would - if the deeming holds up - mean only the black market.

 

[jmur]

What disturbed me was the "customer receipt" part...

 

[Bronze]

I sure like your abacus a lot more than mine, Bronze.

OK, simple math problem. You put a thousand dollars down on a dice game and you're playing the house even money. You find out the game requires you to throw a six in order to win. You're all depressed because you know you have only a one in six chance of rolling a six. But let's just say the house was feeling nice that day and allowed you to roll the dice as many as three times to come up with a six. What's the odds of you getting it on the first roll? 1/6. How about the second roll? 1/6. How about the third roll? 1/6. If you want to know the odds of getting a six after you rolled three times it would be 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6. That equals 3/6 (50% chance). Not quite as depressing when you get three rolls instead of just one, huh?

 

[Katdarling]

Dunno Bronzoid. The odds, from my experience, are always 50/50.

(But I'll take your 50% chance!!)

(What color pom poms would you like? I think you'd look good in blue.)

 

[Bronze]

Dunno Bronzoid. The odds, from my experience, are always 50/50.

(But I'll take your 50% chance!!)

(What color pom poms would you like? I think you'd look good in blue.)

Give my pom poms to someone who could use them. I'm going to bed where I belong.

 

[coldgin96]

Give my pom poms to someone who could use them. I'm going to bed where I belong.

What's a bed?

 

[Bronze]

What's a bed?

That rectangular thing in your bedroom. Or the thing the cat lives on.

 

[nicnik]

If you want to know the odds of getting a six after you rolled three times would be 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6. That equals 3/6 (50% chance).

It's not that simple.
6 rolls of the dice would not give you 100% chance.
2 flips of a coin does not guarantee coming up heads.

ETA: According to my calculations (which are error prone), 6 rolls would give you a 42% chance of rolling a 6 (42.12962963% as far as my calculator takes it).

 

[Mazinny]

OK, simple math problem. You put a thousand dollars down on a dice game and you're playing the house even money. You find out the game requires you to throw a six in order to win. You're all depressed because you know you have only a one in six chance of rolling a six. But let's just say the house was feeling nice that day and allowed you to roll the dice as many as three times to come up with a six. What's the odds of you getting it on the first roll? 1/6. How about the second roll? 1/6. How about the third roll? 1/6. If you want to know the odds of getting a six after you rolled three times it would be 1/6 + 1/6 + 1/6. That equals 3/6 (50% chance). Not quite as depressing when you get three rolls instead of just one, huh?

I agree with your premise and share your cautious optimism that the deemings will not stand as is, just a quick correction to the math though. The odds of rolling a six in three tries is 42 % not 50 %

 

[Mazinny]

Let's say there are six separate and independent challenges to the deemings. If each has a 10 % chance of success, the odds that at least one of them will be successful is about 47 %. 1 - ( .9 x .9 x .9 x .9 x .9 x .9 ) .

 

[nicnik]

Let's say there are six separate and independent challenges to the deemings. If each has a 10 % chance of success, the odds that at least one of them will be successful is about 47 %. 1 - ( .9 x .9 x .9 x .9 x .9 x .9 ) .

That's the way to set it up. The part in paretheses multiplies the odds against success for each individual challenge, to calculate the odds of no success for any. Subtract that from 1 (or IOW, 100%) to get the odds of success, since the odds for and against need to add to 1 (100%).

 

[Mazinny]

That's the way to set it up. The part in paretheses multiplies the odds against success for each individual challenge, to calculate the odds of no success for any. Subtract that from 1 (or IOW, 100%) to get the odds of success, since the odds for and against need to add to 1 (100%).

Yes, thanks for the explanation. I was too lazy, and in any case couldn't have done it as well as you. I'm better with numbers than i am with words.

 

[Lessifer]

This isn't a game of chance though.

I'm actually very optimistic about the fact that vaping will win out in the end. I'm just not too confident about the timeframe.

 

[Mazinny]

This isn't a game of chance though.

I'm actually very optimistic about the fact that vaping will win out in the end. I'm just not too confident about the timeframe.

Well it depends what you mean by a " game of chance ". If you mean a random outcome, where skill and rational decision making don't play a roll, then you are right, it's not a game of chance. But in a specific context i.e the odds of successfully challenging the deemings, probabilistic thinking and decision making is quite useful, for example in allocating resources. It's the sort of decision making the lawyers at Keller and Heckman employ in deciding what specific charges to bring against the FDA for example.

And from a consumers point of view it is useful in deciding where to pour ones time resources in advocating.

 

[Lessifer]

Well it depends what you mean by a " game of chance ". If you mean a random outcome, where skill and rational decision making don't play a roll, then you are right, it's not a game of chance. But in a specific context i.e the odds of successfully challenging the deemings, probabilistic thinking and decision making is quite useful, for example in allocating resources. It's the sort of decision making the lawyers at Keller and Heckman employ in deciding what specific charges to bring against the FDA for example.

And from a consumers point of view it is useful in deciding where to pour ones time resources in advocating.

Yes, that is what a game of chance is. This, however is much more complex and there can be influencing factors from both sides for all of the actions in play. Which is why we need to continue putting pressure where we can.