FDA FDA deeming regulation proposals

[thanswr]

I agree we are fighting for HONEST vendors no matter where from (getting around regulations being inherently dishonest). As for the FDA my whole point was when they decide we are gone they will be exactly that contrary and likely have the backing of every ANTZ group around.

I am not saying roll over and give up here but I am saying we are up against a pretty big wall here and let us NOT underestimate it.

I think the FDA painted themselves into a corner with so much emphasis on "e-cigarettes" and "tobacco". Is an APV an "e-cigarette" if it doesn't contain any "tobacco" product via nicotine in vape liquid? Is every product that contains nicotine a "tobacco" product? Is a tomato a "tobacco product". Is an eggplant a "tobacco" product? Is zero nic vape liquid a "tobacco" product?

I think the APV and vape liquid industry will dodge the bullet on a technicality. The FDA may overreach, but I think they will ultimately fail whether in court or the court of public opinion.

 

[EddardinWinter]

Juices being sold now are in an unauthorized market. We all knew that would not last. But yet it continues. FDA has said it'll continue, and in a sense has authorized its continuation for 2 or so more years. Nobody knows what will be legal to sell as "approved by the FDA" in 2.5 years, including the FDA. Including ANTZ. Including wisest people walking the planet right now.



I don't trust 'them.' I trust the process. That process is bigger than FDA, POTUS, WHO, ANTZ, CASAA, so on and so forth. That process may entail my, and others, willingness to participate in an unauthorized market for obtaining products that I desire, while fighting political battles dealing with truth, science and politics of the day. I don't see black market as inevitable, but I accept that it may be part of the process going forward, and if you are willing to participate in Wild West right now, then I might have trouble understanding why you would be scared to participate in the black market.

Innovation will continue. To me, this is a fact.

Because the "Wild West" doesn't make me a criminal, Jman. It's that simple.



Roaring thunderously via Tapatalk...

 

[Jman8]

The "fear mongers" seek control of....what?

That's a tough question to answer in way that is satisfying. For me, it becomes a philosophical diatribe. Not sure if we are having that discussion now, nor if appropriate for this thread. Perhaps PM is better?

But if sound bites could work in an attempt to satisfy, I would say fear seeks to control that which it claims/believes is attacking itself.

Fear mongers believe there is an 'end to vaping' and have expressed as much. That is the chief attack, the basis of which is something to rally around and seek allies who can be controlled and help fend off that precluded occurrence.

I don't believe anyone anywhere is actually a fear mongerer, as in the label doesn't define the person. But the label of fear mongering does, I believe, align with certain messages and possible (calls to) actions.

 

[Jman8]

Because the "Wild West" doesn't make me a criminal, Jman. It's that simple.

Wild West could plausibly be making you out as something worse than a criminal: A lawless rebel who plays by his own rules.

Kids who vape once regulations go into effect will be, by simplistic definition you are going with, criminals. Which is very interesting, and if we stuck to black and white thinking, makes for interesting landscape. That there will be plenty of criminals around in the vaping world, and they are all kids.

 

[Lessifer]

Wild West could plausibly be making you out as something worse than a criminal: A lawless rebel who plays by his own rules.

Kids who vape once regulations go into effect will be, by simplistic definition you are going with, criminals. Which is very interesting, and if we stuck to black and white thinking, makes for interesting landscape. That there will be plenty of criminals around in the vaping world, and they are all kids.

Technically I think it's whoever gave/sold it to the kids who would be criminals. Not the kids themselves.

 

[Myrany]

I think the FDA painted themselves into a corner with so much emphasis on "e-cigarettes" and "tobacco". Is an APV an "e-cigarette" if it doesn't contain any "tobacco" product via nicotine in vape liquid? Is every product that contains nicotine a "tobacco" product? Is a tomato a "tobacco product". Is an eggplant a "tobacco" product? Is zero nic vape liquid a "tobacco" product?

I think the APV and vape liquid industry will dodge the bullet on a technicality. The FDA may overreach, but I think they will ultimately fail whether in court or the court of public opinion.

Possibly after a long fight in court.

I think it the deeming proposal is written how it is because the intent IS to go after all our liquids and devices. It might require later action but I have no doubt that is what many at the the FDA and in the ANTZ crowd would chortle with glee over.

I also have no doubt that the FDA and ANTZ are counting on the fact that many small and medium ecig businesses would not be able to afford the application process much less a prolonged legal action.

 

[EddardinWinter]

Wild West could plausibly be making you out as something worse than a criminal: A lawless rebel who plays by his own rules.

Kids who vape once regulations go into effect will be, by simplistic definition you are going with, criminals. Which is very interesting, and if we stuck to black and white thinking, makes for interesting landscape. That there will be plenty of criminals around in the vaping world, and they are all kids.

So you simultaneously argue for and against the "Wild West".

I embrace the Wild West market we enjoy. You may welcome this regulation, I reject it. I also welcome others to use the label "playing by my own rules". I consider that a compliment.



Roaring thunderously via Tapatalk...

 

[neutrontech]

So you simultaneously argue for and against the "Wild West".

I embrace the Wild West market we enjoy. You may welcome this regulation, I reject it. I also welcome others to use the label "playing by my own rules". I consider that a compliment.



Roaring thunderously via Tapatalk...

I agree. I really don't need the government to protect me from myself. I'll make my own choices about what to consume and use, thanks. As long as I'm not hurting anyone else, I should be free to vape / smoke / whatever I please. If something is risky, it should be my choice, and mine alone, whether or not to take that risk.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

[aikanae1]

That's a tough question to answer in way that is satisfying. For me, it becomes a philosophical diatribe. Not sure if we are having that discussion now, nor if appropriate for this thread. Perhaps PM is better?

But if sound bites could work in an attempt to satisfy, I would say fear seeks to control that which it claims/believes is attacking itself.

Fear mongers believe there is an 'end to vaping' and have expressed as much. That is the chief attack, the basis of which is something to rally around and seek allies who can be controlled and help fend off that precluded occurrence.

I don't believe anyone anywhere is actually a fear mongerer, as in the label doesn't define the person. But the label of fear mongering does, I believe, align with certain messages and possible (calls to) actions.

I'd say fear mongering was saying that a drop of nicotine could kill you or "it's in anti-freeze" or claiming they don't know what's in eliquid. Esp from "trusted" public health authorities and doctors like Dr. Oz or Web MD. These statements are knowingly made to create generalized fear and paniic without any evidence required - often they are stated once in an interview as an opinion, then requoted again and again as a matter of fact.

I don't think it's possible to create an objective opinion of a policy, politician, regulatory agency or corporation based on what they say alone. What they say always need to be put into context of what have they done in the past and frequently, what they have done out weighs what they are saying in the present.

Zeller has been interviewed a number of times over the course of this past month. He repeats that the "FDA is a scienced based organization" over and over and over. Blu has also been interviewed, also praising the FDA for "science based decisions". That's usually a good clue they are not science based and don't intend to be and don't want to be questioned on it.

That's true for about everything if they have to tell you what they want you to think of them.

CASAA has more experience with the FDA over a longer period of time. That's why their opinion is so important.

Right now I can tell from interviews that tobacco are not concerned with the vaping industry as competition and they have no intention of entering the tank and mod market. I tend to believe they probably helped write the regulations and made it nearly impossible for tanks and mods to get approval. The tobacco companies consider pharmaceticals their competition, "it's about time they got a piece of the pie" meaning NRT products.

Once these regulations go into effect, it will literally take "an act of Congress" to change them. There is no trial and error with these. That raises the stakes to an extreme level to get them right - right now.

The FDA has volumes of regulations they have to follow that we don't know about. The fact they are looking for suggestions to expedite the process means they have no intention of changing what they are requiring.

 

[mkbilbo]

Possibly after a long fight in court.

I think it the deeming proposal is written how it is because the intent IS to go after all our liquids and devices. It might require later action but I have no doubt that is what many at the the FDA and in the ANTZ crowd would chortle with glee over.

I also have no doubt that the FDA and ANTZ are counting on the fact that many small and medium ecig businesses would not be able to afford the application process much less a prolonged legal action.

True but they may underestimate how stubborn we all are. Vapers are clinging to this like cats on curtains because, as former smokers, this stuff may save our freaking lives. And with the small shops being started and run by vapers, well, "trade association" anyone? Heh, what's the old saying? Divided we fall... etc. Existential threats do tend to unify.

I think the FDA believes they're dealing with "industry". People in boardrooms. Not stubborn, cantankerous, plain old Americans. People who are just not fond of being told what to do.

It's going to get... interesting...

 

[Bobbilly]

This question in response to post #261?

I see where you are going with this, but feel it is a wait and see for what I feel you are getting at. Not, wait, be fearful, listen to fearful messages only, and witness to that fear mongering come to fruition. At least not for me. I wish the same for you.

How many small eCig vendors are currently authorized to legally sell an eCig (tobacco) product?

Yes. It is. The point is it's not fear mongering to recognize the end game of the tobacco act is to severely handicap any tobacco product and anti smoking is to marginalized anyone who still uses. As far as I am concerned if the law says an extract is a tobacco product then the law needs to be changed. Let vaporing fall under the Tobacco act and all the anti smoking .... WILL follow. Perhaps the best way to go is make premium vaporizers to go with the cigars. How many are authorized it appears to me, all of them as it's a Wild West and no regulation.

 

[Myrany]

True but they may underestimate how stubborn we all are. Vapers are clinging to this like cats on curtains because, as former smokers, this stuff may save our freaking lives. And with the small shops being started and run by vapers, well, "trade association" anyone? Heh, what's the old saying? Divided we fall... etc. Existential threats do tend to unify.

I think the FDA believes they're dealing with "industry". People in boardrooms. Not stubborn, cantankerous, plain old Americans. People who are just not fond of being told what to do.

It's going to get... interesting...

Oh dear. I must have given the wrong impression.

I have NEVER advocated sitting on our hands and NOT fighting. I have never said, "We can't win."

I do think some people are vastly underestimating what we ar up against and that these proposed regulations are not as good as those people think they are.

 

[aikanae1]

Actually, I think they are thinking that local and state bans will take care of the average folks and with 34 states facing various legislation, restrictions and taxes, they could be right.

Illinois has a statewide ban against the sale of nicotine under "safe packaging to protect children" until ... forever? Who knows when their health dept will get around to writing those regs up. I guess based on past performance, it took a lawsuit and a few additional years to get as the closest example.

Calif, Ny, Chicago .... They (ANTZ) almost got an amendement passed with less than a 12 hour notice in Florida that would have eliminated online sales (Wizard Labs?). It was tacked on the last minute by the sponsor of the original bill, so it's a fair guess it was no acciedent.

True but they may underestimate how stubborn we all are. Vapers are clinging to this like cats on curtains because, as former smokers, this stuff may save our freaking lives. And with the small shops being started and run by vapers, well, "trade association" anyone? Heh, what's the old saying? Divided we fall... etc. Existential threats do tend to unify.

I think the FDA believes they're dealing with "industry". People in boardrooms. Not stubborn, cantankerous, plain old Americans. People who are just not fond of being told what to do.

It's going to get... interesting...

 

[Katya]

I was being flippant and snarky about Glantz there, not doing analysis of nothin'.

I know, dear. I should have used my blue winly at the end of the paragraph.

 

[Danoman]

I expect there to be an underground establishment or the Black Market as there are some really good businesses that produce the juice are just too small to cover the cost of an application to the FDA and the necessary time it takes to get a return on an FDA approval. And, i'd believe that these are good people that know what they are doing and would hold up to levels of quality that would still be beyond the requirements that the FDA ruling would put in place. Another reason I believe this will happen eventually is because if a company that produces the juice HAS to pay to get their lines of flavors in alignment with the FDA rulings, that cost would HAVE to be passed off to the customer, very much like it did with the tobacco companies when it all came down on their heads before. This to me looks exactly like a redo of what the government and FDA did to the tobacco companies in the first place. So, I think we'll prolly have a longer time than 2 years to figure out what and how we are all going to be dealing with it as consumers. I remember all the litigation that went on... and it seemed to take forever to get through. I see the same arguments coming with businesses in the vaping world and those that consume their products. I think a HUGE battle is about to ensue, because it's about the consumers rights that is going to be hit directly and this includes the cost hike because of the FDA regulations that they will have to in turn pay to get the products that vapors use... when this time comes, I believe it's going to get nasty.

 

[mkbilbo]

My first comment to any one who asks is they work. I then go on to explain that I'm a 53 year smoker who quit cigarettes by accident when I tried to cut down by using e-cigarettes. Seems to get their attention.

Ah, another accidental quitter! I bought my first disposable on a lark, just curious what the hoopla was about "electronic" was. Then forgot to light up for the next nine hours. I mean, I went and checked the time stamp on the receipt I was so stunned.

I thought was buying a "toy". Something to just play around with. Not something that would have me "forgetting" to get the pack, lighter, and ashtray off the counter and carry them into the office (well, room of chaos where the desktop lives).

I did NOT forget cigs. Not me. I was the type that had two lighters in my pocket in case one failed. And an extra pack in the pickup so I couldn't run out unexpectedly when the carton was at the house and outta reach. And didn't leave the house without patting pockets to make sure everything was in place.

It was weird...

 

[patkin]

I see the attempted capture of hardware/components as "tobacco products" going to law suits... no doubt all the way to high courts. Syringes weren't captured as delivery devices for controlled substances only.

 

[Jman8]

So you simultaneously argue for and against the "Wild West".

Where have I argued against it?

I embrace the Wild West market we enjoy. You may welcome this regulation, I reject it. I also welcome others to use the label "playing by my own rules". I consider that a compliment.

Where have I welcomed it? I see it as tame, thus far. Virtually guaranteed to be rather tame for 2 more years or so.

I embrace the Wild West market.

And I feel realistic in noting that it will not go on indefinitely. I embrace position of vape everywhere, and am yet to find a reasonable exception to that position. You know this about me. But current reality is there are many regulators making lots of exceptions on that front. I still advocate for vaping everywhere, with respect.

Paint me as more willing to give into regulations if that suits your thinking. But engage in open debate on this, and I believe, in principle and in rhetoric, I will be more open on most things concerning eCig freedoms than you appear.

 

[mkbilbo]

Oh dear. I must have given the wrong impression.

I have NEVER advocated sitting on our hands and NOT fighting. I have never said, "We can't win."

I do think some people are vastly underestimating what we ar up against and that these proposed regulations are not as good as those people think they are.

Oh no, not the wrong impression at all. Rather, it occurred to me that the ANTZ have ideology. We're fighting for our lives. If they think vapers will roll over because "the FDA has spoken", well, think again.

And I don't think the FDA actually has a clue. They show no awareness that this something completely different from the tobacco industry. What I've seen so far of the proposed regs, they seem to think they're dealing with a handful of big companies with set product lines. Like cigs are. No, it's not like that. It's something else entirely.

It occurred to me early on that there's a weird opening in there for us all to take a step to the left and say, "E-cig? What's that?" Yeah, oversimplifying but, still, I look at my VTR and think, I don't see any tobacco. I see a shiny rectangle of metal. Cigarettes? No thanks, I quit.

Legal issues often turn on small, even loony sounding technicalities. The FDA's last attempt to call e-cigs "medical devices" got slapped down. Without a clear idea of what this vapor thing is, they could trip over their own clown feet.

If they had just asserted authority over nicotine, that might have made some sense. But "e-cig"?

Nevah heard of it.

 

[mkbilbo]

Actually, I think they are thinking that local and state bans will take care of the average folks and with 34 states facing various legislation, restrictions and taxes, they could be right.

Illinois has a statewide ban against the sale of nicotine under "safe packaging to protect children" until ... forever? Who knows when their health dept will get around to writing those regs up. I guess based on past performance, it took a lawsuit and a few additional years to get as the closest example.

Calif, Ny, Chicago .... They (ANTZ) almost got an amendement passed with less than a 12 hour notice in Florida that would have eliminated online sales (Wizard Labs?). It was tacked on the last minute by the sponsor of the original bill, so it's a fair guess it was no acciedent.

Ya know, when you have to sneak legislation past the public, you may not be the hero in the drama...