Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[Lessifer]

So, today I saw posted on fb, an ad for a product that is a nicotine inhaler, similar to an asthma inhaler. From what I can tell it's not owned by any BP entity and their ad copy has been very carefully written so as not to make cessation claims. Things like "curb the urge" "smoking alternative" and "break away from the pack." Also, get this, their thing is that it's better than vaping, because no vapor so it can be used anywhere, and no battery so no risk of explosion.

 

[zoiDman]

I didn't lose track - see my reply to bigdancehawk. I know what you're trying to do, Socrates in a vat :- ) .... but if you would recall what I've said before on diacetyl threads - IF a vendor says his eliquids are diketone free and are not - that's fraud and should be handled as such. However they wouldn't be indicted for the breach of the First Amendment.

There happen to be good arguments against fraud statements, libel, slander for upholding Free Speech even, but you wouldn't have a clue or even care, so I won't waste your time.... or mine.

Dude. You are Really Projecting. And seeing Hidden Meanings and Agendas under every bed.

 

[Kent C]

Dude. You are Really Projecting. And seeing Hidden Meanings and Agendas under every bed.

Oh, now Freud in a Vat First you think my post was directed at you alone, and if so, you could have just thanked me for the information.

 

[Rossum]

So, today I saw posted on fb, an ad for a product that is a nicotine inhaler, similar to an asthma inhaler. From what I can tell it's not owned by any BP entity and their ad copy has been very carefully written so as not to make cessation claims. Things like "curb the urge" "smoking alternative" and "break away from the pack." Also, get this, their thing is that it's better than vaping, because no vapor so it can be used anywhere, and no battery so no risk of explosion.

I'm sure the FDA will find some reason to "regulate" this.

 

[Kent C]

Also, get this, their thing is that it's better than vaping, because no vapor so it can be used anywhere

If there's no vapor, then it's not 'better than vaping' Vapor is half (or more) of the habit. Nicotine even less.

 

[Lessifer]

I'm sure the FDA will find some reason to "regulate" this.

I'm pretty sure it already falls under the "other novel and future tobacco products" clause.

If there's no vapor, then it's not 'better than vaping' Vapor is half (or more) of the habit. Nicotine even less.

true, but would Suzy soccer mom rather see you use an inhaler and not expel anything, or see wisps of "smoke" emanating from your mouth?

 

[Kent C]

I'm pretty sure it already falls under the "other novel and future tobacco products" clause.

true, but would Suzy soccer mom rather see you use an inhaler and not expel anything, or see wisps of "smoke" emanating from your mouth?

Right on both accounts. :'-) I expect that first one to be used extensively.

 

[coldgin96]

So, today I saw posted on fb, an ad for a product that is a nicotine inhaler, similar to an asthma inhaler. From what I can tell it's not owned by any BP entity and their ad copy has been very carefully written so as not to make cessation claims. Things like "curb the urge" "smoking alternative" and "break away from the pack." Also, get this, their thing is that it's better than vaping, because no vapor so it can be used anywhere, and no battery so no risk of explosion.

Link to website please! In the name of God, LINK TO WEBSITE...please.

 

[Lessifer]

Link to website please! In the name of God, LINK TO WEBSITE...please.

I'd rather not link, but Google nicosurge inhaler and you should find it.

 

[zoiDman]

Oh, now Freud in a Vat First you think my post was directed at you alone, and if so, you could have just thanked me for the information.

You know what I always say Kent...

"If the Vat fits, wear it."

 

[Mrmik]

So, today I saw posted on fb, an ad for a product that is a nicotine inhaler, similar to an asthma inhaler. From what I can tell it's not owned by any BP entity and their ad copy has been very carefully written so as not to make cessation claims. Things like "curb the urge" "smoking alternative" and "break away from the pack." Also, get this, their thing is that it's better than vaping, because no vapor so it can be used anywhere, and no battery so no risk of explosion.

Nono... c a n n o t b e b e t t e r than vaping.....
I smoked for 35+ years sucking and blowing countless times ev ery day and all of a sudden I can quit easily by this inhaler? Where is the "smoke"? Innovative, yes, and might work for some....
However, it is interesting to know there is such a device.

 

[Kent C]

You know what I always say Kent...

"If the Vat fits, wear it."

I'll take that as a thank you

 

[Lessifer]

Nono... c a n n o t b e b e t t e r than vaping.....
I smoked for 35+ years sucking and blowing countless times ev ery day and all of a sudden I can quit easily by this inhaler? Where is the "smoke"? Innovative, yes, and might work for some....
However, it is interesting to know there is such a device.

Hey now, I didn't say it was better than vaping, that's what they said.

I'm not sure if they think it won't fall under the new regs, I think it will. What was most interesting to me were the comments in the FB post, in a vape group. Some automatically assumed it was a BP product, and others figured it didn't fall under the regs.

 

[Kent C]

I'm not sure if they think it won't fall under the new regs, I think it will.

All the 'workarounds' whether, synthetic nic, no nic and things like this, aren't going to work(around). :- ) Stealthy black market might work ....for a while.

 

[Vandal]

I'm pretty sure it already falls under the "other novel and future tobacco products" clause.

No doubt the FDA foresaw such attempts to skirt The Deeming and aren't about to chance letting anything slip under the radar.

 

[WillyZee]

All the 'workarounds' whether, synthetic nic, no nic and things like this, aren't going to work(around). :- ) Stealthy black market might work ....for a while.

The Black Market will work for as long as the FDA has their head up their ...

once a thriving Black Market starts ... it becomes a runaway train, and very hard to stop.

Sent via iPhone

 

[bigdancehawk]

You mean like shouting "dead cops now"? Doesn't seem to work there either. But if a vendor says his eliquid is 'diketone free' - then that's reason to shut him down

Apples to oranges. In order for it to be a criminal act, the incitement must be calculated to cause violence, violence must be a likely consequence, and the danger of violence must be imminent. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). Prohibiting "diketone free" advertising has not yet been subject to judicial scrutiny. I think it runs afoul of the 1st Amendment.

 

[Kent C]

Apples to oranges. In order for it to be a criminal act, the incitement must be calculated to cause violence, violence must be a likely consequence, and the danger of violence must be imminent.

You said "inciting people to riot or murder pubic officials," and I said like "dead cops now". Which is the apple and which is the orange? Esp. after Dallas where that chant and others were involved in the protests?

As far as advertising, (ie. diketone free, when it's not) there's other laws that handle that type of fraud - which is basically a form of stealing, not a violation of the First Amendment. But I do see problems with the 1st Amendment wrt to where the 'deeming' would censor vendors where there isn't fraud involved. Where studies have shown that vaping can lead to smoking cessation - in fact, more than NRT's where smoking cessation is invoked in ads by manufacturers.

 

[Lessifer]

I think it was more a reference to not being able to advertise your liquid as being "diketone free" even when you have lab tests to prove it, because that would be an implication that your "tobacco product" carries less risk than another tobacco product. In order to do that, you would need to apply for MRTP status.

 

[Rossum]

I think it was more a reference to not being able to advertise your liquid as being "diketone free" even when you have lab tests to prove it, because that would be an implication that your "tobacco product" carries less risk than another tobacco product. In order to do that, you would need to apply for MRTP status.

Am I the only one around here who thinks it's wrong for government to restrict someone from stating an objectively true and provable fact about a product -- that this is indeed an abridgment of free speech?