Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
Seriously. /lol Your talking apples and oranges with the 5P reference. It's also OFF TOPIC in THIS THREAD. We have a couple of other threads specific to 5P where your post is appropriate. Billon dollar industries that don't effectively self regulate themselves ALWAYS get regulated by the government. I'm referring to "claims". Weather it's the FTC and or the FDA. I'm also fine with the "impurities" just like you, and have a couple of liters of NIC that has the delightful vape when only using the NIC base. This however, doesn't mean that "WE" shouldn't carefully examine the "claims" from all angles.
EDIT: thanks mattiem. Forgot to take my meds. Funny also and clarified other thoughts for the "nit pick pickers. /lol /joke
Last edited:
But I don't think Angels would lie to usSeriously. /lol Your talking apples and oranges with the 5P reference. It's also OFF TOPIC in THIS THREAD. We have a couple of other threads specific to 5P where your post is appropriate. Industries that don't self regulate themselves ALWAYS get regulated by the government. I'm referring to "claims". Weather it's the FTC and or the FDA. I'm also fine with the "impurities" just like you, and have a couple of liters of NIC that has the delightful vape when only using the NIC base. This however, doesn't mean that "WE" shouldn't carefully examine the "claims" from all angels.
I know you meant angles but at this point I will take even the smallest bit of levity and run with it
Well, until retirement anyway You know, that would be a good underground movement action to take.
Everyone go to your grocery stores..
And slap a label on as many eggplants, tomatoes, and potatoes as you can...
(before they kick you out of course)
That's how you get attention to your cause.
So who's with me?
idk, I still say it's a very tough sell. The final deeming regs are essentially the original FSPTCA with cigarette replaced with ENDS. The only reason they didn't devastate the cigarette industry at the time, is because of the grandfathering.
Who knows, maybe the whole thing will get thrown out, I just don't see that as the likely outcome. We have to hope that something will help though, and keep supporting efforts from all angles.
I'm inYou know, that would be a good underground movement action to take.
Everyone go to your grocery stores..
And slap a label on as many eggplants, tomatoes, and potatoes as you can...
(before the kick you out of course)
That's how you get attention to your cause.
So who's with me?
I tend to agree. The suit does bring up what they see as conflicts with FSPTCA - parts 'as written' esp. with regard to 'flexibility' and to "banning" (not allowed in the Act), and that the deeming is a virtual ban. Another one of which was ecigs were basically 'unknown' at the time and no mention of them in the Act.
I remember a response/comment from FDA (not sure where, now, after how many hours of docs, threads, and webcasts), where they justified the 2007 grandfathering date for "ENDS" (still hate the term, still intend to use quotation marks and air-quotes for it indefinitely) because one of the things they were looking for during the comment phase, and did not receive, was sufficient grounds that they could choose a different date for these newly deemed products.
I understood their position to be that, once they were deemed tobacco products, then that's what they were, and always had been. In turn, all the products they included in the deeming became "tobacco products" that had just gone unchecked since their introduction to the market- they were all "tobacco products" last year, and the year before, just no one knew it yet.
Since the FSPTCA grandfathered "tobacco products" prior to 2007, and anything they so deemed was, also, now a "tobacco product", trying to assign a different grandfather date would have put them in a position where they were applying the law unequally to products in the same category.
Specifying a different grandfather date for vaping would have opened them up to legal action from BT, and I bet they'd rather face our lawyers than theirs- especially since most of the plaintiffs would eventually be working for the FDA.
I understood their position to be that, once they were deemed tobacco products, then that's what they were, and always had been. In turn, all the products they included in the deeming became "tobacco products" that had just gone unchecked since their introduction to the market- they were all "tobacco products" last year, and the year before, just no one knew it yet.
Since the FSPTCA grandfathered "tobacco products" prior to 2007, and anything they so deemed was, also, now a "tobacco product", trying to assign a different grandfather date would have put them in a position where they were applying the law unequally to products in the same category.
Specifying a different grandfather date for vaping would have opened them up to legal action from BT, and I bet they'd rather face our lawyers than theirs- especially since most of the plaintiffs would eventually be working for the FDA.
Does FDA have a definition of what Tobacco is? To regulate a product made from a source don't they need to define it first?
I recall that discussion elsewhere. And it likely comes from this comment in the doc pg 108:
(FDA notes that the proportion of products that may qualify as grandfathered is likely
to vary for different product categories. For example, the ENDS product category, for which the
market has changed dramatically since 2007, is likely to have a smaller proportion of
grandfathered products than some other product categories.)
Funny thing is I can not find a definition of tobacco, the plant, on either USDA or FDA. They don't define what these products are made from. Plants have Latin names and there is nothing anywhere I can find on their definition of the plant. How can all this control be on something they have not even defined properly? I find things about dried cured leaves, but not the plant.
Also FDA either sees nicotine as a drug or as a tobacco product. No wiggle room anywhere. A product that is harm reduction is a drug. We are screwed coming and going here.
Didn't I read somewhere in the FDA regs ... if it looks like smoking ... we have the right to skrew vapers over?
Sent via iPhone
Sent via iPhone
I am sorry but...I don't think defining what a plant is ..is not what they do. Science has already done that.
Here is what I found on Wiki
Tobacco - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not trying to be funny.....but they do describe 'what is a cigarette' in Public Law. Just have to trace it back.
You know, that would be a good underground movement action to take.
Everyone go to your grocery stores..
And slap a label on as many eggplants, tomatoes, and potatoes as you can...
(before they kick you out of course)
That's how you get attention to your cause.
So who's with me?
California with their Prop what ever number better get on the ball and smack all those stores for not labeling that stuff properly !
Similar threads
- Locked
