Does the FDA, at this point, have the Authority to write Any Regulation they want?
Does this seem right to you?
- Thread starter khalidmna
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Does the FDA, at this point, have the Authority to write Any Regulation they want?
You've used the exact phrase "deadly p o i son o us liquid" (I added spaces 'cuz I don't want to use this phrase!) FIVE TIMES so far in this thread. I think that's what Andria is taking issue with -- this type of repetition is how you can get google to rank a site or page for the phrase. Why would you want to do that?
If it was unintentional, ok, but please stop! But usually when we see this, it IS intentional.
I come from a position of history repeats itself.
In other words don't tread on me.
Band together and tell them what their opinion is.
Just like gun owners, we're the people doing this thing. We're the people with intimate knowledge. We're the ones who'll be subject to the restrictions.
We're the ones without the balls and common sense to band together and force the issue.
That's why they're capable of not hearing truth...
Tapatyped
I'm not supporting a damn thing. They're going to take a mile for every inch because of the combination of those conditioned to roll over for it and the sedentary condition of the rest.
Support winning. Get friends and family involved. Lives are at stake. Every restriction lowers the success rate.
The flip side is the grandmother with arthritis has to have her grandkids open her child proof joose or continue smoking and breathing pure oxygen...
Tapatyped
i believe it was Zeller who said that at an interview at the time the deeming
proposal was released. he is the director of The Center For Tobacco Products.
he is not writing the regulations,he just heads a department.
i read the FDA proposal for the deeming reg.'s. it is very
convoluted and contradicts itself at several points.
when it says they have the authority to regulate tobacco,
tobacco products or derivatives of tobacco or tobacco products is what
gives them the authority to regulate all juice and all
hardware as a tobacco product. prior to this interpretation
it was to regulate tobacco or a tobacco product or anything
derived from tobacco or a tobacco product.
this is not a distinction with out a difference.
the latter pertains to cigars,cigarettes,chewing tobacco, snuss
loose tobacco,rolling papers etc.
the former means any thing that takes the place off,mimics,apes,
copies or is a facsimile of tobacco or a tobacco product. your ego C,
iclear16 and,the juice in the tank are a derivative of a cigarette
and as such are a tobacco product.
nowhere in the deeming proposal did i see a distinction concerning
with or with out nicotine.if it looks like smoking it is smoking,ergo
zero nic is on the menu.
regards
mike
i have read the deeming proposal. as near as i can tell yes.
despite what Zeller said. he's a department head.
he's not writing the reg.'s.
regards
mike
All am say'n is the FDA can Write Anything they want. But whatever they write will come under Congressional Review.
So some Rules the FDA writes Congress and or the Office of the President may find to be Not Restrictive enough. And some Rules may be considered Too Restrictive.
The FDA has No Power to really do Anything completely on its own. Only use the power Congress has given it thru enacting laws like the FSTPA.
yes your right. if Congress elects to review it.
if not it will be the law after the waiting period.
regards
mike
I buy juice for the flavor, based on recommendations, reviews or personal experience - labeling means NOTHING to me. All I (and I'm pretty sure most adults) need is the name, nicotine level, vg/pg ratio and the creation date. There's NO practical value to some pretty label; and if people are buying juice because of the labeling, they aren't mature enough to be vaping, smoking, drinking or voting.
No doubt, manufacturers have EVERY right to choose their own labeling. However, in today's environment and given all the attacks based on childish candy-like labeling, IF I HAD A JUICE COMPANY, I would stick with a very simple label. Something like Dr. Crimmey's uses. I'd let my recipe be my sales gimmick rather than some imagery that means nothing and is only important and appealing to the most immature segment of the market/population. What's the point in giving the anti's more ammo for something that's got no practical value. Yep, they're perfectly within their rights. Unfortunately, just because something is within one's rights, does NOT mean it's the "right" or smart thing to do. Sometimes picking ones battles makes more sense than simply falling back on the fact that something is within your rights.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No doubt, manufacturers have EVERY right to choose their own labeling. However, in today's environment and given all the attacks based on childish candy-like labeling, IF I HAD A JUICE COMPANY, I would stick with a very simple label. Something like Dr. Crimmey's uses. I'd let my recipe be my sales gimmick rather than some imagery that means nothing and is only important and appealing to the most immature segment of the market/population. What's the point in giving the anti's more ammo for something that's got no practical value. Yep, they're perfectly within their rights. Unfortunately, just because something is within one's rights, does NOT mean it's the "right" or smart thing to do. Sometimes picking ones battles makes more sense than simply falling back on the fact that something is within your rights.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is 85% True. The other 15% is that if you Package with some Hardware to be used with a "Tobacco Product" (include a 510 Battery with a Blister Pack of Pre-Filled Cartos) or if you Market a Product as an "e-Cigarette", to be used as an e-Cigarette.
The FDA has No Authority under the FSTPA to Regulate/Restrict 0mg e-Liquids. And Very Little Reglator Power if you do Not Market your 0mg for Human Consumption.
---
You know what is My Freezer.
And if they Wiped e-Cigarettes off the face of the Earth today, it Wouldn't Effect me in the Least. Who I think the Fight is Really for are those who Haven't even used an e-Cigarette yet.
How Many Smokers could be Saved if we could get Moderate Regulations in Place? Verses, how many Smokers will be Saved if this just turns into a BT Give-a-Way program?
Last edited:
I definitely think they Will Review it.
And I'll bet Rossum's next 3 Pay Checks that Hardcore Senators like this...
... and those we saw in that e-Cigarette Marketing Hearing will say the FDA has Not Done Enough to Implement the Laws that Congress has passed.
i think we have to wait and see.I definitely think they Will Review it.
And I'll bet Rossum's next 3 Pay Checks that Hardcore Senators like this...
... and those we saw in that e-Cigarette Marketing Hearing will say the FDA has Not Done Enough to Implement the Laws that Congress has passed.
if the regulations are overly restrictive and i believe they will be,
the ANTZ might just bide their time and wait for some future
opportune moment for the mercy killing. more likely they will
have a hefty tax proposal on the table next session.
regards
mike
i am not aware of any distinctions between zero nic and nic added juiceThis is 85% True. The other 15% is that if you Package with some Hardware to be used with a "Tobacco Product" (include a 510 Battery with a Blister Pack of Pre-Filled Cartos) or if you Market a Product as an "e-Cigarette", to be used as an e-Cigarette.
The FDA has No Authority under the FSTPA to Regulate/Restrict 0mg e-Liquids. And Very Little Reglator Power if you do Not Market your 0mg for Human Consumption.
---
You know what is My Freezer.
And if they Wiped e-Cigarettes off the face of the Earth today, it Wouldn't Effect me in the Least. Who I think the Fight is Really for are those who Haven't even used an e-Cigarette yet.
How Many Smokers could be Saved if we could get Moderate Regulations in Place? Verses, how many Smokers will be Saved if this just turns into a BT Give-a-Way program?
in the deeming proposal.
"The FDA has No Authority under the FSTPA to Regulate/Restrict 0mg e-Liquids. And Very Little Reglator Power if you do Not Market your 0mg for Human Consumption."
they most certainly do have authority if its ultimate use is e-juice.
they are not going to leave that door opened.(again)
regards
mike
i think we have to wait and see.
if the regulations are overly restrictive and i believe they will be,
the ANTZ might just bide their time and wait for some future
opportune moment for the mercy killing. more likely they will
have a hefty tax proposal on the table next session.
regards
mike
I am Pretty Confident that the Rule Set that the FDA submits will lean towards More Restrictive Regulations than Less Restrictive Regulations.
Given the Tone of things like those FDA Shams (I mean Workshops) and the Backing of Very Negative/Biased Reports of the CDC.
BTW - The FDA has made it Very Clear that the Deeming is a Foundation. And in No Way Rules Out the Addition of Future Regulations.
The Distinction is 0mg (as long as it is Not Marketed as a e-Liquid) can Not be Legally Defined as a "Tobacco Product" via Deeming.
So the FDA has No Authority to Regulate it using the FSTCA.
don't you think they would have to come out the corner
swinging with both fist's?
with more and more people switching to vaping at a
rate not even hoped for 5 years ago their window of
opportunity may be closing.(hopefully)
every time i read the revenue forecasts concerning
vaping the are always higher than anticipated in
previous forecasts. and its not from cigalikes.
regards
mike
I don't think they Need or Want to come out "Swinging Both Fists".
e-Liquids will be Taxed. So that levels they lost State/Federal thing. Make Regs Overly Oppressive and that just Promotes More Gray and Black Markets. Which leads to More Uncontrolled e-Liquids being inhaled. Which moves the FDA farther from their Goal of Regulating what Ever Vaper Inhales.
There is also the Concept, that is Many Times overshadowed in all this, that e-Cigarette ARE Viable HRT. And there are Many in Public Health who agree that e-Cigarettes are the Only Thing since the 1st Cave Man rolled up tobacco and smoked it that has this kinda of Cessation Rate.
The Make up of the Senate has Also Changed since the FSTPA was Passed.
So it's kinda a Balance.
I truly LOATHE child-proof bottles. I just bought 5 cobalt dropper bottles from WizLabs WITHOUT the child-proof annoyance, so if I ever need to deal with child-proof bottles again, I'll have a nice 30ml bottle into which to pour it! My "child" is 27 yrs old!!!!!!
Really glad I don't buy pre-made ejuice anymore. I completely agree with artistic freedom, with vendors having the right to put any stupid thing on their labels that their little hearts desire... but that doesn't mean I have to buy it, and I certainly don't buy things based on what's on the label -- I buy it for the TASTE -- but nowadays I don't buy it at all, because *I* make better ejuice than any of them have apparently ever thought of.
And the 4 yr supply of nicotine in my freezer means I can keep doing it for quite a while, and even longer if, at some point, I lower my nic level. Which I won't do for the satisfaction of anyone other than myself.
Andria
But the point is... it's NOT deadly poisonous. If a child (or anyone else, probably) drank it... they'd throw up. Copiously. End of problem. It might be deadly to an infant... but an infant is not capable of removing ANY caps, child-proof or otherwise.
If someone left some ejuice out, OPEN, where an infant could get it and drink it... well that is not the fault of the ejuice, that is the fault of the STUPID PARENT, and I will not take responsibility for it, nor the knives they leave out, or the uncovered electrical sockets.
If anyone got hold of my 100mg in the freezer, then ok, we'll allow "deadly poisonous"... but most people don't deal with that concentration.
ETA: PS, it didn't anger me... it made me suspicious of someone deliberately attempting to put those concepts together in people's minds.
Andria
Last edited:
but there is no distinction for zero nicotine and no distinction for juice
not labeled as e-juice. the singular ingredients in e-juice when mixed
together has only one purpose. that's for use as e-juice.
they will regulate items intended to be used whole or in part for use
in an e-cigarette.
i can't see them leaving such a hole un-patched.someone with
high school shop knowledge would make a killing selling PV's.
e-juice is so incredibly easy and safe to make its insane.
remember its not just BG. there's BP and,BT whose playing on
both sides of the fence. we have been left out of the picture
and or marginalized to be of no account in this mater.
regards
mike
- Status
Similar threads
