From my understanding of this tangent (the alternative), I don't think of it in terms of what the FDA can/can't do. And the why, from FDA perspective concerns me very little (given my understanding of what). I see 'what' coming from them who wrote/passed FSPTCA. And while they are not the easiest to organize on any issue, much less 'vaping rights,' I do think SBA could literally be an advocate for the alternative, and either exert pressure on Congress, the Executive Branch, or possibly FDA. All of whom may blow off the argument/position, but all of which I think must (absolutely) be brought up by politically aware consumers in the comments to FDA. For that is matter of public record, and depending on how things shake out, it will be well known that FDA had information on how it could've been, before black market took over and reigned supreme. (Hypothetically speaking, on that last point.)
I see FDA as simply going through the motions of the alternative, and likely not really wanting to go in that direction, but also don't see FDA as wanting proposed regulations. They just have 'duty of service' to implement FSPTCA to best of their agency's ability and thus proposed regulations are best they could come up with, based on what they were given.
2007 date is arbitrary, but is also what statute says. From FDA perspective, they probably don't really care what date is in place, but if 'not wasting tax payer money' is of any value to them, I would think the later the date, the better from their perspective. From ANTZ perspective and those who cater to 'ultimate good of public health' perspective, I think 2007 is date to stick with, and ignore any discussions that seek to poke holes in 'ultimate good of public health.'
But a key thing that 2014 as grandfather date does do is make SE many times easier for all businesses. Easy because predicate products will then surely exist and easy because those predicate products are already allowed. Thus denial of applications if done in droves would show up as based zero on science and 100% on politics (of ANTZ). They might get away with that for a few months, but not much longer. Would be grounds for removing that agency from regulation if they went in that direction. I think assuming they will go in that direction is between foolish and defeatism.
Thinking FDA could just ease up on enforcement is interesting, but seems very naive in a world where ANTZ, ACS, ALA and MSM are all calling for tougher enforcement on eCigs. All these people are seemingly less happy with the proposed regulations than consumers, if you can imagine that. Obviously, the alternative would be 'even worse' from their perspective, but as reality of proposed regulations already allows products to stay on market (for 24 months), then all that is really changing is making eCigs have a level playing field with other tobacco products based on the 'predicate product' argument. And as all those organizations I mentioned above appear to be asleep at the wheel, they either knowingly or unknowingly are asking for only BV and BT to be allowed in the game, and somehow they will be better off. Perhaps they are correct, but IMO, they likely haven't thought that far ahead, like we constantly are doing in our discussions since 4/24/14. And frankly, given their public messages on vaping prior to 4/24/14, I think all of them have become poor resources for effective prevention of abusive (hardcore) smoking.
