Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

HigherStateD

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 11, 2019
2,250
5,277
Phoenixville, PA, U.S. of A.
Does anyone know right off hand how long testable amounts of nicotine stay in blood/urine? The hospital up the road uses mouth swabs for testing their employees.
3-5 days, maybe more, depending on metabolism and intake. YMMV.
 

Rossum

Eleutheromaniac
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 14, 2013
16,081
105,232
SE PA
Health insurance companies give employers of non-tobacco product users a better rate.
I'm an employer. I buy group insurance for my employees from Independence Blue Cross. Each adult covered must declare whether they are a tobacco user or not, and the rate for that person reflects their age and whether or not they are a tobacco user. I could easily charge the tobacco users the difference in premium that results from their status, but I don't.

What's interesting is that IBX does not consider vapers to be tobacco users. A couple of years after I switched to vaping, my insurance broker / benefits consultant asked me why I'm still paying that rate for myself since I wasn't smoking anymore. I told him: Because I'm still using this (held up my vape) and the FDA is about to classify it as a tobacco product. He replied: Nope, IBX doesn't consider it tobacco use. I told him: Get that in writing for me, and he did.
 

HigherStateD

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 11, 2019
2,250
5,277
Phoenixville, PA, U.S. of A.
I'm an employer. I buy group insurance for my employees from Independence Blue Cross. Each adult covered must declare whether they are a tobacco user or not, and the rate for that person reflects their age and whether or not they are a tobacco user. I could easily charge the tobacco users the difference in premium that results from their status, but I don't.

What's interesting is that IBX does not consider vapers to be tobacco users. A couple of years after I switched to vaping, my insurance broker / benefits consultant asked me why I'm still paying that rate for myself since I wasn't smoking anymore. I told him: Because I'm still using this (held up my vape) and the FDA is about to classify it as a tobacco product. He replied: Nope, IBX doesn't consider it tobacco use. I told him: Get that in writing for me, and he did.
Someone else posted on this forum... Sorry, can't remember who or where, but the gist was that their insurer didn't classify an occasional cigar smoker, less than 2 a month, to be a smoker for their purpose.
 
Last edited:

Rossum

Eleutheromaniac
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 14, 2013
16,081
105,232
SE PA
Someone else posted on this forum... Sorry, can't remember who or where, but the gist was that their insurer didn't clarify an occasional cigar smoker, less than 2 a month, to be a smoker for their purpose.
I don't have the exact details in front of me, but I would say that's correct. I have one employee who does smoke an occasional stogie, and who will take a dip when he's out in the woods hunting in the fall, but it's infrequent enough that it did not qualify him as a "tobacco user".

ETA: What it boils down to with him is that he won't use tobacco at work, or when his wife or kids are around. :laugh:
 

CMD-Ky

Highly Esteemed Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Sep 15, 2013
5,321
42,395
KY
I'm an employer. I buy group insurance for my employees from Independence Blue Cross. Each adult covered must declare whether they are a tobacco user or not, and the rate for that person reflects their age and whether or not they are a tobacco user. I could easily charge the tobacco users the difference in premium that results from their status, but I don't.

What's interesting is that IBX does not consider vapers to be tobacco users. A couple of years after I switched to vaping, my insurance broker / benefits consultant asked me why I'm still paying that rate for myself since I wasn't smoking anymore. I told him: Because I'm still using this (held up my vape) and the FDA is about to classify it as a tobacco product. He replied: Nope, IBX doesn't consider it tobacco use. I told him: Get that in writing for me, and he did.

Certain Humana plans do not consider vape to be tobacco use and the occasioal cigar is not tobacco use.. The devil is in the definitions.
 

Rossum

Eleutheromaniac
Supporting Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Dec 14, 2013
16,081
105,232
SE PA
The devil is in the definitions.
Yep, that's why I insisted on having it in writing from them before I switched myself to the lower premium classification on their paperwork. The last thing I'd want is to end up in the hospital with some ailment that could be blamed on smoking and then have them deny coverage because I mis-stated my status as non tobacco user.
 

sofarsogood

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Oct 12, 2014
5,553
14,168
My favorite theory about the sick vape kids is they thought they were buying an illegal psychoactive drug. Something bad got in the mix. They had to go to hospital but didn't want to admit they might be breaking a law so they dispose of the evidence and play dumb. Regardless the articles on the story are dishonest. Trump calls it fake news. I call it fake journalism. I look forward to the day when their influence is gone. I'd also like to see future patents on medical drugs banned. Then I would abolish the FDA.
 

stols001

Moved On
ECF Veteran
May 30, 2017
29,338
108,119
Well, as long as you are good with the drugs we have.

I actually do sort of understand the rationale for patenting drugs, although I do think that (even given very conservative estimates of what it costs to "make" a drug) the cost of new drugs are pretty obscene.

I take older drugs over younger ones whenever I can because actually that is the ONLY way their long term side effects are known.

I will also say that since every body/brain meeting each new drug is different-- good luck. You are in your own personal drug study so pay attention.

IDK I guess the vast funds the FDA sucks up could be applied to new drug development or whatever, but something would have to like, give.

I don't really know how to call it whether the FDA does more harm than good.

BUT I can with ABSOLUTE confidence say: Legalize everything. There is not a single country that has done this that has not seen increased tax revenue, decreased crime, and etc.

I mean I'm sure the US would find a way to ruin it somehow, but I'd be interested in FINDING OUT how, I guess I'd like to say. The attempt should be made.

Teens should at least be able to get diverted "regulated' illegal drugs, and be as safe as anyone else.

Anna
 

HigherStateD

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 11, 2019
2,250
5,277
Phoenixville, PA, U.S. of A.
Well, as long as you are good with the drugs we have.

I actually do sort of understand the rationale for patenting drugs, although I do think that (even given very conservative estimates of what it costs to "make" a drug) the cost of new drugs are pretty obscene.

I take older drugs over younger ones whenever I can because actually that is the ONLY way their long term side effects are known.

I will also say that since every body/brain meeting each new drug is different-- good luck. You are in your own personal drug study so pay attention.

IDK I guess the vast funds the FDA sucks up could be applied to new drug development or whatever, but something would have to like, give.

I don't really know how to call it whether the FDA does more harm than good.

BUT I can with ABSOLUTE confidence say: Legalize everything. There is not a single country that has done this that has not seen increased tax revenue, decreased crime, and etc.

I mean I'm sure the US would find a way to ruin it somehow, but I'd be interested in FINDING OUT how, I guess I'd like to say. The attempt should be made.

Teens should at least be able to get diverted "regulated' illegal drugs, and be as safe as anyone else.

Anna
I would once have agreed completely, but with stupid reaching epidemic proportion, and pretty much EVERY thing being MUCH stronger than in the 70s and 80s, I have to say I don't think everything should be legal. I mean, as an example, I don't believe the average citizen should be able to legally posses refined, weapons grade uranium. That is the devestating lethal equivalency that today's compounds are approaching.
 

Dr. Seuss

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Jul 15, 2019
320
1,190
I think she’s speaking on drugs specifically with that statement which to make a long story short I’m in full agreement with. For the most part the illicit drugs are pretty safe, it’s the stuff that gets added along the way that does the damage. You know, clean, no surprises, responsible handling = reasonable safety. All things considered.

Unfortunately, just like with the “education” that is currently taking place with vaping, a good bit of what people believe is incorrect so with that legalization good, honest, accurate education would be a mandatory. There would have to be an “uneducate” and then re-educate that takes place so it would be bumpy for a little while but like anything once you get to the point where the people are in the “grew up with it around their whole lives” timeline it would appear differently.

Right now it’s like a dog that grew up it’s whole life on a leash vs the dog that was never on a leash and grew up “free”. If you take those two dogs and turn them loose in public they’re going to act completely different and one is going to be a risk to itself.

I get it’s a little more complicated than that but right now as it is the drug laws are entirely political and have absolutely zero relation to your safety, and that’s openly spoken in the pharmacy world, it’s really no mystery to anyone except the people who actually believe their brains are eggs in a frying pan.
 

stols001

Moved On
ECF Veteran
May 30, 2017
29,338
108,119
Someone mentioned removing the FDA and what it might do.

I chimed in about that. Including what the FDA's current budget could be used for and why.

It included legalizing illicit DRUGS yes, sorry to not be more specific. It never occurred to me that we should all be allowed to store pure anthrax in our basement freezers, or that someone would take the statement that way. :lol::lol:

Now I know better.

Bedtime SO SOON! Argh!

Anna
 

HigherStateD

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 11, 2019
2,250
5,277
Phoenixville, PA, U.S. of A.
Someone mentioned removing the FDA and what it might do.

I chimed in about that. Including what the FDA's current budget could be used for and why.

It included legalizing illicit DRUGS yes, sorry to not be more specific. It never occurred to me that we should all be allowed to store pure anthrax in our basement freezers, or that someone would take the statement that way. :lol::lol:

Now I know better.

Bedtime SO SOON! Argh!

Anna
Anthrax, no, carfentynil, bromo-dragonfly, scopolomine... No thanks.
 

DaveP

PV Master & Musician
ECF Veteran
May 22, 2010
16,733
42,646
Central GA
Hate for smokers (and dippers).

I had a field service manager once who quit smoking and became an anti-cigarette type. He admitted that sometimes a cigarette smelled wonderful when first lit and made him want one. We all had to go outside the office to smoke when you could still smoke inside in most businesses and stores. We were all tech reps who were in customers offices all day long anyway, so that didn't bother us.

I was still allowed to smoke in my company vehicle until the year I took early retirement at 59 after working there for 36 years. It was a good time to take the package! Shortly afterward, I discovered vaping and quit the stinkies.
 
Last edited:

DaveP

PV Master & Musician
ECF Veteran
May 22, 2010
16,733
42,646
Central GA
June 17, 2019

https://www.tobaccolawblog.com/2019/06/fda-finalizes-ends-pmta-guidance/

On June 11, the FDA finalized its guidance for manufacturers submitting new tobacco product applications through the premarket tobacco application (PMTA) process for electronic nicotine systems (ENDS), including e-cigarettes, vaping devices and nicotine-containing e-liquids. By way of background, when the FDA issued the Deeming Regulations asserting jurisdiction over ENDS in May 2016, it also issued a draft guidance for ENDS PMTAs. The Agency had been promising to finalize that guidance as it proposes to move forward the deadline for these submissions.

There are very few changes between the 2016 draft guidance and the final guidance. Importantly, the final guidance continues to note that nonclinical studies alone generally would not support marketing authorization but it does acknowledge that long-term clinical studies generally would not be required.

The final guidance provides additional recommendations regarding battery safety, including testing certificates for any voluntary electrical standards. The final guidance also provides new recommendations for testing of harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) – some HPHCs were removed from the original draft guidance and some were added – and the Agency also decreased the recommended number of replicates for testing.

Although the ENDS guidance certainly provides valuable information for ENDS companies preparing PMTAs for marketing authorization, it is important to note that the guidance only provides non-binding recommendations. Applicants are encouraged to develop scientific testing programs appropriate for their products in order to meet the statutory standard of whether marketing the products is “appropriate for the protection of public health.”
 

Users who are viewing this thread