FDA FDA deeming regulation proposals

[Danoman]

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

And, sneak it is what I believe they are gonna' do... at the last moment, before it's passed. No, I don't trust them for many reasons. Because, in the end it's about the money that's being lost in the "taxation" area that gets deeper and deeper the more smokers switch to vaping. It's about the money, not about what's healthier or better for society.

 

[mkbilbo]

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

Ah, no worries. I refuse to get too worked up this early in the game. We knew something was coming. What arrived isn't the darkest possible scenario (even if it don't look pretty). Running around with my hair on fire sounds like a lotta work and I ain't 25, I'm 52. I mean, ouch, my back!

And we're talking bureaucracy. We're looking at a trench war. This could drag on for who knows how long.

In the meantime, if Glantz is having a tantrum, ima gonna point and laugh.

 

[mkbilbo]

And, sneak it is what I believe they are gonna' do... at the last moment, before it's passed. No, I don't trust them for many reasons. Because, in the end it's about the money that's being lost in the "taxation" area that gets deeper and deeper the more smokers switch to vaping. It's about the money, not about what's healthier or better for society.

Well, with the ANTZ it's more ideology. Quasi-religious. They feel justified in overriding democratic process "for your own good".

But the operative phrase is: "useful idiots". Like fun the people financing the frothing at the mouth minions are concerned about public... well anything, much less health...

 

[Jman8]

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.

My apologies, but I'm not understanding second part of this after "and anti smoking...."

I don't see it as fear mongering to consider what you are saying in first part. But to state it as matter of fact, and change "severely handicap" to language that reads as "will kill vaping" (period) is what I am calling the fear mongering.

I'm okay getting away from label of fear mongering, if we can all agree that such assertions are counterproductive to where we are right now. Actually, that is too challenging to establish (that we all agree) but I'm mainly saying that we can discuss/debate a position that says, let's consider what current proposed regulations are saying (exactly, via quotes) and how that relates to severely handicapping eCigs as tobacco products going forward. I believe most, if not all, are willing to engage in that discussion, and some of us may have strong disagreements. But the side that says, there is no discussion to be had, these regulations will kill vaping, are the people I am applying that label to.

Regulations will surely change the landscape. And regulations won't be a one time thing. Let's say they go into full effect on 1/1/18 (just hypothetically speaking), then I imagine government regulators who still feel authority from Tobacco Act, plus all people in the ANTZ camp will be pushing for harsher regulations than what exists at that moment. And will not let up on being as absolutely harsh as possible toward vapers/vaping industry.

Even if FDA's scientists, lawyers and leaders fully agreed with vaping rights, I don't see our opposition sitting back and concluding that there isn't a fight to be had. Even under this made up, and entirely wishful scenario, I find our future to be troublesome.

But given our momentum, our political will, the science and truth of vaping, I have attitude of "we can handle this."

We don't accept any regulations on vaping that are unreasonable. Read as zero. We really really ought to not accept any bans on vaping (including, and especially to the kids). Read as zero bans are okay.

And yet, some bans are apparently okay for our side, as noted in what I just said above. So, we learn to accept what makes most sense to us going forward, and which is realistic with in current political landscape, and we persevere with attitude of "we can handle this."

I see vaping industry, 3 years from now, being in better position financially than it is today, and I see that including products that BT doesn't market, produce or have anything to do with. Yet, it does include an industry that is being regulated. And is constantly being threatened with political items that are arguably far more scary than what this current proposal seeks to regulate.

But even then, I hope I'm on side of "we can handle this."

 

[Danoman]

This was posted 4 hours ago on Grimmgreen's Facebook page if you haven't already seen it...

CASAA's assessment of the FDA deeming regulations

 

[CES]

Some say 'wild wild west', i think 'golden age'.

The amount of innovation over the past 4-5 years is simply staggering. Many of these innovations have arisen when members here on ECF identified problems, experimented and designed fixes and improvements. Mods, carto tanks, fillerless cartos, RBAs and WTA liquid to name some of the bigger innovations. (I hope people will forgive me if i don't include the blue foam mod as one biggest innovations )

This was without external regulation. E-liquids are now being considered unauthorized, but that only works if you assume on some level that they really are pharmaceutical or tobacco products. If e-cigs and components are considered as recreational consumer products, then it's a completely different set of regulatory arguments.

I wish we had the opportunity to make that other set of arguments, or the reduced harm arguments...and i hope that our comments and voices will allow us to keep as much of the innovation and creativity as possible. I switched successfully using a kr808d...but i'd really prefer not to go back to it when out and about.

 

[EddardinWinter]

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.

I don't seek to paint you in any way. Your posts speak for themselves. I have only challenged your use of "fear monger" in an apparent attempt on your part to shape the language of this discussion.

I wish you would stop accusing people of fear mongering...oh wait, you are just accusing their posts of fear mongering...

Problem with that is, posts don't seek to control issues...fear mongers, on the other hand (according to you) do.

So which is it?



Roaring thunderously via Tapatalk...

 

[Jman8]

I wish we had the opportunity to make that other set of arguments, or the reduced harm arguments...and i hope that our comments and voices will allow us to keep as much of the innovation and creativity as possible.

I kept thinking when reviewing FDA proposal, why can't eCigs have the "Option 2" scenario? The one that says this product doesn't fall under Tobacco Act and its regulations

And then I kept thinking, they pretty much opened the door to an Option 2, by including that language repeatedly, in the first major proposal to regulate eCigs, while also admitting they don't have any clear cut/heavy handed ways to make harsh regulations work.

 

[Jman8]

I don't seek to paint you in any way. Your posts speak for themselves. I have only challenged your use of "fear monger" in an apparent attempt on your part to shape the language of this discussion.

Your posts speak for themselves and you have painted me as one arguing against the Wild West, and as one who welcomes the regulations.

I wish you would stop accusing people of fear mongering...oh wait, you are just accusing their posts of fear mongering...

Problem with that is, posts don't seek to control issues...fear mongers, on the other hand (according to you) do.

So which is it?

Both. People seek control. People's messages / expressions can advocate for control.

 

[CES]

I kept thinking when reviewing FDA proposal, why can't eCigs have the "Option 2" scenario? The one that says this product doesn't fall under Tobacco Act and its regulations

And then I kept thinking, they pretty much opened the door to an Option 2, by including that language repeatedly, in the first major proposal to regulate eCigs, while also admitting they don't have any clear cut/heavy handed ways to make harsh regulations work.

They left a teensy hint that they might be open to options/streamlining. But if they really are open, why promulgate the regulations as is? It's not like they haven't been given information in listening sessions. And they do have a track record of ignoring information they don't want to receive, and of ignoring the consumer in the stakeholder process.

Oh, BTW, i also don't think that the age limit is necessary.

(IMO, it's ill-advised to pass laws, rules, or regulations that one doesn't have the capability to enforce)

 

[Rossum]

I kept thinking when reviewing FDA proposal, why can't eCigs have the "Option 2" scenario? The one that says this product doesn't fall under Tobacco Act and its regulations

And then I kept thinking, they pretty much opened the door to an Option 2, by including that language repeatedly, in the first major proposal to regulate eCigs, while also admitting they don't have any clear cut/heavy handed ways to make harsh regulations work.

I suspect they are under too much pressure from the ANTZ, BT, and BP to have included an "Option 2" for eCigs. Cigars that cost $10 or more each aren't considered much of a problem by any of those special interests.

 

[CES]

I suspect they are under too much pressure from the ANTZ, BT, and BP to have included an "Option 2" for eCigs. Cigars that cost $10 or more each aren't considered much of a problem by any of those special interests.

But..but...but.. I have mods that cost way more than that
Could we go for a specialty PV exemption on that basis?

 

[Rossum]

Juices being sold now are in an unauthorized market.

Wait, "unregulated" equals "unauthorized"?

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

When government takes away the ability of peaceable, honest people to live their lives the way they see fit, then it should not be surprised when quite a few of them become "lawless rebels who play by their own rules".

 

[EddardinWinter]

Your posts speak for themselves and you have painted me as one arguing against the Wild West, and as one who welcomes the regulations.



Both. People seek control. People's messages / expressions can advocate for control.

In the same way that you seek to squelch any message that you deem as 'fear mongering'? Is that the sort of control you speak of?

I now call you out...I mean...I call your posts that use of that term out for what they are in my eyes: thinly-veiled attacks on a fellow vaper's honest reactions to bad regulations placed on us all by unelected bureaucrats.

I think their reactions, even if some are positions l disagree with, are heartfelt and genuine expressions of vapers. They are not attempts to control anything, in my opinion.



Roaring thunderously via Tapatalk...

 

[Jman8]

Wait, "unregulated" equals "unauthorized"?

In effect, yes.

When government takes away the ability of peaceable, honest people to live their lives the way they see fit, then it should not be surprised when quite a few of them become "lawless rebels who play by their own rules".

Agreed.

Also shouldn't be surprising to see these same people become, by choice, criminals when Wild West officially disappears.

 

[Jman8]

In the same way that you seek to squelch any message that you deem as 'fear mongering'? Is that the sort of control you speak of?

I do not seek to squelch the message. I'm not sure how it could be squelched. Perhaps this is you painting me as something again?

I now call you out...I mean...I call your posts that use of that term out for what they are in my eyes: thinly-veiled attacks on a fellow vaper's honest reactions to bad regulations placed on us all by unelected bureaucrats.

Cool! Quote where fellow vaper's have expressed honest reactions and I have then referred to those as 'fear mongering.' I welcome your intellectual honesty on this matter.

I think their reactions, even if some are positions l disagree with, are heartfelt and genuine expressions of vapers. They are not attempts to control anything, in my opinion.

I think vast majority of expressions, by vapers, on ECF, since 4/24/14 on the topic of FDA proposed regulations have been heartfelt and genuine expressions. Others have been in vein of fear mongering. I have specified about 5 times now what I mean by this.

Have I once accused you of engaging in fear mongering since 4/24/14? I would say no. Of the dozens of posts I've written since that date, most do not call poster's commentary out as fear mongering. Some have. For now, those that have, I stand by what I said, and have explained numerous times why I see it as such.

I kinda sorta don't get how anyone doesn't see a message that reads as, "x will be a factor that leads to end of vaping" as not being one of fear mongering. If same poster / messenger had said, "I'm really concerned about x. I find it very troublesome. I hope we can address this collectively cause that one makes me very nervous," then I'm not / have not been calling that fear mongering, even while fear certainly appears to be present in that second set of statements.

The way in which I currently understand how people don't see it as fear mongering is because an 'expert' is saying it and therefore they give lots of benefit of any doubts (that vaping will end very soon) and rather remain quiet than ask questions / address that sort of rhetoric. If non-expert, otherwise labeled misinformed outcast, made exact same statement, then I'm feeling pretty confident we'd be all over that message/poster for engaging in fear mongering.

 

[classwife]

Can y'all quit picking each other apart please.

 

[EddardinWinter]

I do not seek to squelch the message. I'm not sure how it could be squelched. Perhaps this is you painting me as something again?



Cool! Quote where fellow vaper's have expressed honest reactions and I have then referred to those as 'fear mongering.' I welcome your intellectual honesty on this matter.



I think vast majority of expressions, by vapers, on ECF, since 4/24/14 on the topic of FDA proposed regulations have been heartfelt and genuine expressions. Others have been in vein of fear mongering. I have specified about 5 times now what I mean by this.

Have I once accused you of engaging in fear mongering since 4/24/14? I would say no. Of the dozens of posts I've written since that date, most do not call poster's commentary out as fear mongering. Some have. For now, those that have, I stand by what I said, and have explained numerous times why I see it as such.

I kinda sorta don't get how anyone doesn't see a message that reads as, "x will be a factor that leads to end of vaping" as not being one of fear mongering. If same poster / messenger had said, "I'm really concerned about x. I find it very troublesome. I hope we can address this collectively cause that one makes me very nervous," then I'm not / have not been calling that fear mongering, even while fear certainly appears to be present in that second set of statements.

The way in which I currently understand how people don't see it as fear mongering is because an 'expert' is saying it and therefore they give lots of benefit of any doubts (that vaping will end very soon) and rather remain quiet than ask questions / address that sort of rhetoric. If non-expert, otherwise labeled misinformed outcast, made exact same statement, then I'm feeling pretty confident we'd be all over that message/poster for engaging in fear mongering.

I have no idea who/what expert(s) you are referring to, Jman. I've read the whole thread. I am not gonna re-read it to decipher your reference, nor to cite your inappropriate (in my mind) use of the term "fear monger".

I have already clearly stated my objections to its specific use twice, by my replies to your specific posts responding to others using that expression.

I have not said, nor implied, that you have accused me of fear mongering. I doubt you could make a case for it, and we both know why. I hope you know me well enough to count on the fact that I will do exactly what I promise.

I promise you this. If you keep using that term in ways I disagree with, I will continue to call the posts out that use it...every time I see it.



Roaring thunderously via Tapatalk...

 

[Devonmoonshire]

To: JMan8 and Edardinwinter

Classwife has spoken, I strongly recommend reading what she wrote. I failed to do so once upon a long time ago..... ONCE the penalty box sucks trust me.

There is a lot to be discussed on this topic. It does in fact effect everything we all hold dear. However, that being said we do have a great ally in CASAA. They will fight for us. What we can and should do is to await their call to action and do what is necessary to support the action that their legal analysts deem worthy and the best course of action to remedy this situation.

I for one have been doing a lot of research and will continue to do so regarding the possibility of legal actions to be taken against the FDA for False representation, false official statements as well as unfair prosecution and unwarranted regulation.

If you really want to do something to make a difference I strongly suggest you crack the books and get busy reading and researching yourself. In their haste to put these rules out to appease the ANTZ they have overlooked a lot of important things and left open enough loopholes to send a regimen of our finest lawyers through without any resistance whatsoever.

So look deep, read long and educate yourselves rather than sitting and bickering about something you have the power and duty to change.

That is all I have;
Sincerely;
Nate

 

[Danoman]

Been doing that very thing all day... we have a really good chance to prove some things that the CASAA has pointed out, one day and step at a time. I have very deep concerns too and it's in every direction that's been stated on here. Only as a WHOLE can we get the truth out and win it all and educate those who have misinformed and lied to...