Who?
Name one person.
When you correctly name one we can continue this "perspective" conversation.
Tapatyped
Does this seem right to you?
- Thread starter khalidmna
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Who?
Name one person.
When you correctly name one we can continue this "perspective" conversation.
Tapatyped
I'm going to put this on the table. This is my fear, and this is the reason why I favor fighting the FDA regs in their entirety.
I believe the proposed regulations will not be as draconian as many of us fear. They may not even mention characterizing flavors, mg/ml limits, or say much about e-liquid at all. They will probably sound like something we can actually support. Most importantly though, they will deem vapor products as tobacco products. What that means is, at a later time, the FDA can issue whatever policy guidelines it wants, in regards to vapor tobacco products, because they will already have the authority. Those policy guidelines do not go before congress. By then it will be too late.
Man Lessifer.
I wish I could Believe this. And I Sincerely hope you are Right.
But I think the Proposed Deeming Rules are going to be a Punch in the Gut with a 20lbs Sledgehammer.
And make All these should Little Mis Chainsaw or Mr. Cookie be on Labels seem Trivial.
Why come wielding a sledgehammer? Why not knock, be invited in, and then rob the place? Remember what has already been said. When asked why they didn't go after flavors more stringently in the proposed deeming regs, the answer was, "we have to deem it a tobacco product FIRST."
I think if you Gave the Proposed Deeming Rules some thought, that you would see that the Vague and Incomplete rules that were Purposed for e-Liquids were by Design.
If I was Spearheading the FDA's Deeming of e-Liquids, I would have said as Little and have been as Vague as possible regarding e-Liquids that Contain Nicotine.
Seeing that there was a Mandatory Comment period that was to Follow.
The FDA talking more about Hardware let the Forums Boil Over with threads about Grandfather Dates and Significant Equivalents. Whereas the Real Effect to Vapers will be in the e-Liquids.
Zoid, I think you and I are saying the same thing. I just don't think this next released version will be as strict as we fear either, because it doesn't need to be. It's like all the local fights, why do we fight a ban on vape vending machines(especially when there are no vape vending machines)? Because the law banning them also classifies vapor products as tobacco products, opening the doorway to taxation as tobacco products.
The FDA doesn't have to spell out every restriction and regulation it wants to subject vapor products to, all it has to do is successfully deem vapor products as tobacco products. After that, they have the authority to set whatever policy guidelines they want, without review, within the scope of the FSPTCA, and they only way to stop them is in the courts.
I really Don't think we are Saying the Same Thing. But if you think we are, that's Cool.
Why would someone Have a problem Banning the sale of e-Liquids that contain Nicotine from Vending Machine? Kinda hard to Check for ID when you are a Vending Machine? LOL
And there Is NO ONE that I know that Feels e-Liquids that contain Nicotine that comes from Tobacco Plants Can't be Deemed a "Tobacco Product".
I Also Disagree that All the FDA needs to do is to "Deem" e-Liquids that contain Nicotine to be a "Tobacco Product" and then it has a Blank Check to do Whatever it Wants. The FDA Does not have the Unlimited Power to make Any Policy they Want. I think we all saw that in 2009 with the Failed attempt to Seize e-Cigarette Shipments.
And actually, the FDA has to Spell Out in Great Detail what it Plans to do with e-Cigarettes to Congress. (That is part of why this is Taking so Long) Because their Only Authority come from Laws passed by Congress. So Congress is Going to want to know How Exactly the FDA Plans to use the FSPTCA.
---
BTW - If I put this on the End of a Mech Mod...
... and then Market/Sell the Assembly as a 18650 Flashlight, can the FDA do anything about it?
My understanding is that any new regulations would have to go through a similar process.
There would be a proposed rulemaking, comment period, etcetera, etcetera...
I'm pretty sure I remember Zeller saying that in response to questions about going after flavors.
The vending machines don't exist in CA, and CASAA and CA vapers did support the ban, mainly because it didn't matter, but only after the wording was amended to remove the classification as a tobacco product. You know who was against that ban, after the amendment? Public Health groups.
I think they CAN deem it a tobacco product, I just don't think they should. Much as caffeinated sodas are not coffee products. As tobacco control regulations are incredibly strict by design, and are meant to curb innovation, I think vapor products deserve their own category.
They also did seize shipments back in 2009. They lost in court because they were using medical device guidelines, but the vapor products were not designated as medical devices.
This is how they tighten the noose after "reasonable" regulations are passed.
From: Tobacco companies sue FDA over label approvals| Reuters
"Although the FDA has framed the guidelines as non-binding recommendations, they create "specific legal obligations with clear and draconian consequences for violations,” including civil or criminal penalties, the lawsuit said.
The companies said the guidelines violated First Amendment protections for commercial speech by presumptively blocking certain labeling statements until they receive FDA approval. They also accused the FDA of depriving stakeholders of the chance to weigh in on the directive by issuing it as guidance and not through formal rulemaking."
I think they CAN deem it a tobacco product, I just don't think they should. Much as caffeinated sodas are not coffee products. As tobacco control regulations are incredibly strict by design, and are meant to curb innovation, I think vapor products deserve their own category.
They also did seize shipments back in 2009. They lost in court because they were using medical device guidelines, but the vapor products were not designated as medical devices.
This is how they tighten the noose after "reasonable" regulations are passed.
From: Tobacco companies sue FDA over label approvals| Reuters
"Although the FDA has framed the guidelines as non-binding recommendations, they create "specific legal obligations with clear and draconian consequences for violations,” including civil or criminal penalties, the lawsuit said.
The companies said the guidelines violated First Amendment protections for commercial speech by presumptively blocking certain labeling statements until they receive FDA approval. They also accused the FDA of depriving stakeholders of the chance to weigh in on the directive by issuing it as guidance and not through formal rulemaking."
And this is Exactly why, I believe, that the FDA will want to write as an Inclusive Rule Set as Possible.
Sure, if something is left out, it can be Added Later. But then much of the Process would have to be Repeated. So would the FDA or the HHS want to do that?
I also believe that Every Month that goes by, the Case for More Restrictive e-Cigarette/e-Liquids Policies gets harder to Justify in the Court of Public Appeal.
So better to Get as much done Now. Then to have to do it Down the Road when there is More Published Studies. And Less Public Resentment towards Adult e-Cigarette use.
I didn't Support the Ban on Vending Machines because it Didn't Matter.
I Supported it because I think it is a Good Idea.
My understanding is that if they write vague rules now, they can write clarifications, answers to frequently asked questions, guidelines, etc. later that do NOT have to go through the same process. Or did I read that article wrong?
Regardless of what the article says that's how it's going to happen...it's our governments MO...
I thought they already did. Instead of medical it was a tobacco product. I am now confused. Well I am on my 4th guineas happily vaping away poolside.
Here is a Pretty Good FDA e-Cigarette Timeline.
The FDA and Electronic Cigarettes, a Timeline Part 1
The other thing to consider, is that once vaping is deemed a tobacco product, whether it is just eliquid or all products for the intended use of vaping (and is still quite likely to be anything to do with vaping like mods and tanks), it will be immediately subject to federal (and most likely state) tobacco tax laws for tobacco products and I think it will be pretty much automatic that taxes will be levied. After all, it will BE tobacco at that point if the regs pass.
Thanks mate. I skimmed over it. My eyes aren't that great on this stupid tablet. From my casaa link on the Previous page.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in Sottera, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration, 627 F.3d 891 (D.C. Cir. 2010), issued a decision with regard to e-cigarettes and other products “made or derived from tobacco” and the jurisdictional line that should be drawn between “tobacco products,” “drugs,” “devices” and combination products, as defined in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).2 The court held that e-cigarettes and other products made or derived from tobacco can be regulated as “tobacco products” under the FDCA and are not drugs/devices
unless they are marketed for "therapeutic purposes." 3
Ahhh maybe it's the derived by point.
- Status
Similar threads
