The PMTA deadline was moved by the court at the request of the defendant with the approval of the plaintiff. The Executive branch of the govt had no say in it nor did congress.
Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
However, members of the House of Representatives did urge the FDA (April?) to ban the sale of all e-cigarette products "temporarily" because they claimed that "tobacoo use" exacerbates covid-19 complications, but they did not urge the FDA to ban the sale of cigarettes or any other real tobacco product.
"The PMTA deadline has changed several times since the process was first announced in 2016. The original date was Aug. 8, 2018. It was later moved to Nov. 8, 2018. In July 2017, newly appointed FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb announced the agency would postpone the deadline again, until Aug. 8, 2022. Then in March 2019, the FDA announced it would move the deadline for flavored products up by one year, to Aug. 8, 2021. Then, before that change was even finalized, Judge Grimm ruled that the FDA’s process was invalid and said that he would impose a new date, which he did in July 2019."
vaping 360 April, 2020
Scott Gottlieb was nominated by Trump to head the FDA.
vaping 360 April, 2020
Scott Gottlieb was nominated by Trump to head the FDA.
Pfizervape.com, maybe I should register that domain nameHe now is on the board of directors for Pfizer.
All these FDA people are from Pharma. Most all, anyway.He now is on the board of directors for Pfizer.
It would be fascinating to see the details of how that process unfolded. I suspect it would be a very complicated story. Lots of people whispering in other people's ears for all sorts of different reasons. The motives of presidents, industry lobbyists, politicians, bureaucrats, media, Trump advisors, anti-smoking activists, judges, etc, are all going to be different. Some deeply held beliefs, plus all sorts of deals and trade-offs going on and money moving here and there. Even more so than with a lot of issues because vaping isn't a big deal for many of the players.
We'll never know 1% of what happened behind the scenes, so a lot of people fill in the blanks by believing whatever rumours and speculation makes the Good Party look good and the Evil Party look bad.
You know having perused a few boards lately and seeing what some people are saying about things like the current virus situation it's no wonder that we are where we are. People are shaking their fists they're so angry that the United States is ignoring science in relationship to harm reduction and they turn right around and deliver in the same breath some anti-science conspiratorial construct in relationship to a virus. I have a feeling that a lot of people's problems don't actually stem from giving a damn about science and harm reduction but rather their desire to do as they please and yet they're surprised when elected officials on both sides who actually stand to make money via campaign contributions through all of this also ignore science when it doesn't suit their purpose.I’ve said it before in this thread and IMO it bears repeating...
Both sides have it out for vaping. We are a minority who they can easily come after. That’s the fact. One side may have delayed the inevitable for a time but if we’re being honest that ‘time’ would still arrive.
Everyone had more than ample time to stock-up. Years of time.
It is what it is. We are where we are.
You're absolutely right the writing's been on the wall.
And those who are not from Pharma will go to a Pharma Board of Directors when they leave the agency, a reward for a job well done.
Even facts are not enough these days. This is why most of my waking hours are spent thinking I'm living in another universe.
I know things are backwards when my dreams are more real than when I'm awake. Sleeping really does heal the body (and mind).
I've worked with the federal government for some time, and my observation once inside, is that the primary goal of each organization is not to support citizens but to get funding and continue to exist. Not to say all agencies do zero for the people (us), but that their primary mission is first and foremost to exist and grow. When budgets are threatened through political process or other, relevancy becomes the sole goal. It always so.
More than half of my time was spent dealing with edicts to stay relevant and gain more funding. The higher in the GS chain I went, the more the pressure to work the system for funds.
In contrast, my corporate career has been to exist through salable products or services. Irrelevant and unprofitable organizations are excised.
I've been feeling more and more that the same obsession for relevancy, to the point of excluding reason or real production, has been the primary goal of the two political parties.
Competition is a tough thing - it favors the "strong" and like evolution, advances better adaptation. It's not always kind, but I believe it to be the way of things. That the two party system is allowed to exist in a vacuum of true competition (on a somewhat level playing field) is a fascination.
There are no answers here, but vaping is the third interest I've had that is both life changing and threatened by a (seemingly) self serving government.
It's feasible that I gravitate towards such endeavors (vaping, self protection, artistic expression) - but it's just who I am. Living otherwise seems dishonest somehow.
It leads me to think that the rewards for government service aren't right any longer?
AD
More than half of my time was spent dealing with edicts to stay relevant and gain more funding. The higher in the GS chain I went, the more the pressure to work the system for funds.
In contrast, my corporate career has been to exist through salable products or services. Irrelevant and unprofitable organizations are excised.
I've been feeling more and more that the same obsession for relevancy, to the point of excluding reason or real production, has been the primary goal of the two political parties.
Competition is a tough thing - it favors the "strong" and like evolution, advances better adaptation. It's not always kind, but I believe it to be the way of things. That the two party system is allowed to exist in a vacuum of true competition (on a somewhat level playing field) is a fascination.
There are no answers here, but vaping is the third interest I've had that is both life changing and threatened by a (seemingly) self serving government.
It's feasible that I gravitate towards such endeavors (vaping, self protection, artistic expression) - but it's just who I am. Living otherwise seems dishonest somehow.
It leads me to think that the rewards for government service aren't right any longer?
AD
Last edited:
Strong willed, strong minded, strong physically, depending on the type of competition. AND failure or mistakes, also promote 'adaptation' unless some gov't program KEEPS you from learning from the effects of failure - as many are 'designed' to do. That creates victims, which certain gov't agencies need to stay in business.
Gov't, in the case of ecigs, (and other businesses out of favor) can also keep one from competing or succeeding, for either puritanical reasons or for businesses 'in favor'.
I hope not to be a great big bummer, there are also some really amazing things about our government. Town meetings, volunteers, competitive industry bidding programs, oh and that Constitution thing A quick hop over to an Uighur camp in the Far East is a great way to come back with a fresh perspective.
A quick hop over to an Uighur camp in the Far East is a great way to come back with a fresh perspective.
It appears to me that the structure and mission of a lot of US government agencies has been carefully designed and constructed by the corporate wielders of big money to advance their interests. The upcoming fate of vaping is a good example of what that leads to.
I put in a few years as a software contractor working for the Civil Service in the UK so I saw it from the inside. Politicians used to complain that the CS ignored them and just went on doing things the way they had always been done, leadership in the CS was a long term career path and they were pretty much untouchable. In the US there are a multitude of political appointees at the higher levels of departments. They move in for short periods, they may or may not be competent leaders, and have to prove themselves quickly to whoever appointed them. A motley crew of political ideologues, donors, and lobbyists. So management styles and policies swing wildly from one extreme to another every few years. I guess both structures have positives and negatives. Tradition and inertia, or the swamp.
Here’s a fun Civil Service story. Back in the 70’s I was working for the Trade and Industry dept. We were due to get a visit from the Minister in charge of the dept, as it happens he was a Lord. Management were in a tizzy for weeks getting ready for it.
The computer team were mostly contractors. We decided to have a bit of fun with our manager. He told us to wear suits and behave. We came in that morning wearing suits but right before the minister arrived we changed into crazy gear to wind up our manager.
The place where we worked was an old WW2 establishment, a series of long narrow one story prefabs. One guy left it too late to get back to the office where our suits were. He decided to climb out of a window and run around the back of the building. He ended up jumping out of the window in fancy dress just as the minister’s convoy was driving in. His Lordship was actually quite cool, when he heard the story he mercilessly ragged our manager about it.
Here’s some of our crew.
I put in a few years as a software contractor working for the Civil Service in the UK so I saw it from the inside. Politicians used to complain that the CS ignored them and just went on doing things the way they had always been done, leadership in the CS was a long term career path and they were pretty much untouchable. In the US there are a multitude of political appointees at the higher levels of departments. They move in for short periods, they may or may not be competent leaders, and have to prove themselves quickly to whoever appointed them. A motley crew of political ideologues, donors, and lobbyists. So management styles and policies swing wildly from one extreme to another every few years. I guess both structures have positives and negatives. Tradition and inertia, or the swamp.
Here’s a fun Civil Service story. Back in the 70’s I was working for the Trade and Industry dept. We were due to get a visit from the Minister in charge of the dept, as it happens he was a Lord. Management were in a tizzy for weeks getting ready for it.
The computer team were mostly contractors. We decided to have a bit of fun with our manager. He told us to wear suits and behave. We came in that morning wearing suits but right before the minister arrived we changed into crazy gear to wind up our manager.
The place where we worked was an old WW2 establishment, a series of long narrow one story prefabs. One guy left it too late to get back to the office where our suits were. He decided to climb out of a window and run around the back of the building. He ended up jumping out of the window in fancy dress just as the minister’s convoy was driving in. His Lordship was actually quite cool, when he heard the story he mercilessly ragged our manager about it.
Here’s some of our crew.
Similar threads
- Locked
