Does this seem right to you?
- Thread starter khalidmna
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Me either.
I just drive one.
To be fair, a dump truck can have any even number of wheels what with the crazy configurations, dummy axles and what not.
Tapatyped
Yes. It had dual 3 set on one side... I assumed the front had duals but maybe had singles. It was a big *** one. It put my little Honda Pilot to shame.
Ok I haven't caught up with this whole thread but Mike your definition is flat out wrong and you need to stop repeating it. Derived from tobacco means tobacco is the source the product came from. Just like gas/deisel are derivatives of crude oil. The Russian 91 is a derivative of the kayfun concept. Mechs are derivatives of flashlights. Regulated circuits in mods are derivatives of amps, dimmer switches, etc. Hell the whole atomizer idea is a derivative from several concepts.
The biggest marketing mistake made ever no one mentions anymore and we probably wouldn't be here if it wasn't made. That was calling the first design an e-cigarette and saying its a smoking replacement
I am just curious but does this have to be set in stone or can this industry rebrand calling them PV's or another name that separates them from cigs? I ask because I understand why they were marketed as such in the beginning and don't see it as a mistake. Now more and more people are aware of what they do so I can see a rebranding working. I am not too savvy with what this would take. I never refer to my vape as an e-cig. The same I think would apply to e-juice (liquid). Could we somehow rebrand it in a way that doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with nicotine to save it from regulation? Again, I don't know the money side of this so it all could be a pipedream I have in my head.
There's a thread somewhere that explains why we call it an e-cigarette, but the gist of it is that it is the most commonly used and recognized word and we need to be sure our friends, relatives, co-workers, etc. know that we are e-cig users when they are watching tv, reading news, or most importantly, voting, because it is called an e-cig by the media and politicians.
If they know a politician is against e-cigs, but they think you don't use them because you use a PV, then they may support the politician without realizing they are voting against your best interests.
I hate the term too, but I still use it for these reasons. There were more reasons but this was the one that stuck in my mind as most important.
If they know a politician is against e-cigs, but they think you don't use them because you use a PV, then they may support the politician without realizing they are voting against your best interests.
I hate the term too, but I still use it for these reasons. There were more reasons but this was the one that stuck in my mind as most important.
plastic ( a finished oil product) is a derivative of oil. a plastic bag is made from plastic and
is also a derivative of oil.
a biodegradable plastic bag does not contain plastic (a finished product of a oil) a derivative of oil
but,is derived from the plastic bag (the source).
this is the definition found in the Food,Drug and,Cosmetic act.
rr)(1) The term ‘‘tobacco product’’ means any
product made or derived from tobacco that is intended
for human consumption, including any
component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product
(except for raw materials other than tobacco
used in manufacturing a component, part, or accessory
of a tobacco product).
(2) The term ‘‘tobacco product’’ does not mean
an article that is a drug under subsection (g)(1),
a device under subsection (h), or a combination
product described in section 353(g) of this title.
(3) The products described in paragraph (2)
shall be subject to subchapter V of this chapter.
(4) A tobacco product shall not be marketed in
combination with any other article or product
regulated under this chapter (including a drug,
biologic, food, cosmetic, medical device, or a dietary
supplement).
from the tobacco control act.
a) DEFINITION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS.—Section 201 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(rr)(1) The term ‘tobacco product’ means any product made
or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption,
including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product
(except for raw materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing
a component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product).
‘‘(2) The term ‘tobacco product’ does not mean an article that
is a drug under subsection (g)(1), a device under subsection (h),
or a combination product described in section 503(g).
and this is from the deeming proposal.
Deeming Provisions—Option 1 for the
proposed rule would deem all products
meeting the statutory definition of
‘‘tobacco product’’ except accessories of
a proposed deemed tobacco product to
be subject to FDA’s tobacco product
authorities under chapter IX of the
FD&C Act. FDA considers accessories of
proposed deemed products to be those
items that are not included as part of a
finished tobacco product or intended or
expected to be used by consumers in the
consumption of a tobacco product, and
we expect that they will not have a
significant impact on the public health.
In addition, FDA considers accessories
to be those items that may be used in
the storage or personal possession of a
proposed deemed product. Therefore,
items such as hookah tongs, bags, cases,
charcoal burners and holders, as well as
cigar foil cutters, humidors, carriers,
and lighters would be considered
accessories and would not fall within
the scope of this proposed rule. Section
201(rr) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
321(rr)), as amended by the Tobacco
Control Act, defines the term ‘‘tobacco
product’’ to mean ‘‘any product made or
derived from tobacco that is intended
for human consumption, including any
component, part, or accessory of a
tobacco product (except for raw
materials other than tobacco used in
manufacturing a component, part, or
accessory of a tobacco product).’’ 1
Products that meet the statutory
definition of ‘‘tobacco products’’ can
include currently marketed products
such as certain dissolvables, gels,
hookah tobacco, electronic cigarettes,
cigars, and pipe tobacco. Components
and parts of tobacco products, but not
their related accessories, would also be
included in the scope of this proposed
rule. Components and parts are
included as part of a finished tobacco
product or intended for consumer use in
the consumption of a tobacco product.
Components and parts that would be
covered under this proposal include
those items sold separately or as part of
kits sold or distributed for consumer use
or further manufacturing or included as
part of a finished tobacco product. Such
examples would include air/smoke
filters, tubes, papers, pouches, or
flavorings used for any of the proposed
deemed tobacco products (such as
flavored hookah charcoals and hookah
flavor enhancers) or cartridges for ecigarettes.
The proposed rule also deems
any future tobacco products that meet
the statutory definition of ‘‘tobacco
product’’ except accessories of such
product to be subject to FDA’s
authorities under chapter IX of the
FD&C Act. For example, FDA envisions
that there could be tobacco products
developed in the future that provide
nicotine delivery (e.g., via dermal or
buccal absorption), similar to currently
marketed medicinal nicotine products,
but which are not marketed for
therapeutic purposes. Such products
would be ‘‘tobacco products’’ and
subject to FDA’s chapter IX authorities
should the deeming rule be finalized.
regards
mike
Last edited:
Both very good posts. Angles I hadn't thought of. I knew the reason for origin of name but hadn't thought of the continued use angle that is. Maybe someday then we will be able to rebrand away from cigs. I don't really even know how I feel about the name having cig in it. On one hand I can never deny being a past smoker of cigs, but even though I would never make a smoker feel like less of a person for their addiction I no longer want to associate myself with that habit. My husband duals and I teasingly call him old smokey but he knows I love him and understands his struggle is different then mine. I bring him up because I was doing the food shopping and he asked me to pick him up cigs... I had my vape with me in store (I don't use it, but don't want to leave it in my car that does not lock). Anyway the kid at the counter looked at me confused and started to say "Isn't that an...." I cut him off and said, "Yes, I quit those cigs about 10 months ago. those are not for me...This is my version of a cigarette". So I guess I still use the term e-cig if speaking with somebody that would not relate to calling ita vape or PV.
We already gave them what they need to tax. Cig- alikes sold for a long time as being equivalent to X amount of cigs and that's all they need to base taxes off of.
Actually it would cost more. First a committee would need to be started to see if the name "rose" was accepted. Then there woudl need to be a committee to see under what branch it would slated. Then bids would have to go out. Another committee would need to be formed to look over said bids, of course on an unbiased view. After a couple years, it would need to sit to be subject for reviews. Then a separate committee would need to be formed on how to implement the word to the public.
Of course a marketing blitz would then ensue.
So it would cost a lot more.
Unfortunately even if it was not an ecig, we woudl still be in the same crunch. We could call it a newfangled breath freshener. Once the tax from smokes dropped.. they would be all over it.
Y'all happy now? They changed ALL of the artwork to just text and color.
Juices by Brand - G2 Vapor - Giant Vapes
Juices by Brand - G2 Vapor - Giant Vapes
I was happy before. I have been happy for around 50 years after I first saw the hospital room light and cried for joy.
The label looks a helluva lot better.
While I totally agree...
It would also get a smaller percentage of the public to hate us before knowing us.
I am on the fence about the whole thing, but just wanted to point that out.
Playing Devil's Advocate, if you will.
I agree, and that's why I've started to use vapor products, etc. for public perception but I think even if it had never been called an electronic cigarette, the FDA and the tax monkeys would still go after it.While I totally agree...
It would also get a smaller percentage of the public to hate us before knowing us.
I am on the fence about the whole thing, but just wanted to point that out.
Playing Devil's Advocate, if you will.
Somewhat unrelated, but still related, I just had a phone survey asking about some local measures to fund after school programs. I do support the idea of after school programs, I know when I was a kid they gave me something to do and mostly kept me out of trouble, while they were available. The problem is, the two measures to fund the programs are planning to do so either by taxing local "card room" business, or local "other stuff" dispensaries. I can't support taxing a sub group, which has nothing to do with what is being funded, to fund something that would benefit the general population. If the community agrees they want the programs, the community as a whole should fund them.
If only the rest of the public had your moral conviction...
Unfortunately, moral conviction is not human nature.
We are selfish creatures at heart.
Doing what is right is something that many struggle with.
And something many don't give a crap about.
Much easier. A govt agency deems roses to be tobacco products. The public at large doesn't care. Govt raises taxes, prohibits public display and use of roses. Public at large still doesn't care. Professor Rantz declares roses to be machinations of big tobacco. Lessifer and Rossum stock on roses. Govt raises tax again. Public at large still doesn't care.
So unfortunately true. The last place we lived, before we bought this house, I knew at our housewarming party that we needed to get away from our landlady ASAP... when discussing idiot cashiers, who give back too much or too little change... our landlady said if she got back too much, she'd keep it -- and nevermind that poor cashier who might lose the job and/or have to make up that difference from their own money. That's just low.
Andria
- Status
Similar threads
