Mr. Godshall, Presenting erroneous conclusions, as unquestionable fact is problematic, especially when offered as if anyone else must be a liar.
Either my arguments on the facts of the matters I comment on have merit, or not. Full stop. While I appreciate some of your past efforts, it does not relieve you of a same duty to present factual matters, understand the laws, rather than leading in a false direction. I am not lying to you, even if you think I am wrong. I am, capable of being honestly wrong, I shouldn't need to convince you of the same.
I would like to respond to your post below, and hopefully you will re-engage with substance.
Its been several years since your "stickies" and their prediction have not come to pass. You assert things like APV hardware is about to be controlled by the FDA, where it simply can not. A clearomizer, and a battery, empty, is simply not under the hospices of any law the FDA has at its disposal.
You have already said that nothing in chapter 9 would allow the FDA to ban flavoring within E-Cigs, that it would take an entirely new regulation, yet many Vapers believe this is the biggest risk, with what the FDA will do. This is why I am talking about what laws are on the books, not selling fear that Coffee e-Liquid will be yanked because it tastes like coffee. This is why I am far more concerned about what localities can do, rather than a theoretical battle with the FDA, which is crippled by the Sottera decision, without the abilty to deem a ban E-Cigs. So what would "They can, and will" verses "they can not" look like? Something like year after year of nothing. 2011 gone, 2012 gone, 2013 gone.
Regarding SE applications, it is important for vapers and e-cig companies to submit comments to FDA urging them to quickly act on the 4,000+ SE applications (by cigarette, smokeless and RYO companies) that have already been submitted to FDA, to sharply scale back the agency's ever growing demands for additional information and its arbitrary decision making process (i.e. it can deny any application by simply saying "inadequate information provided by applicant" for SE approvals (and for exemptions from SE).
Of the 4000 submission, 3500 are for products that are currently being sold. These new rules being asked for public comment (the OP) are helpful to clear the backlog of analogs, but who cares about analogs, these proposals will make it much easier for E-Cigs to be deemed SE (equivalent).
FDA's policy on SE applications since 2009 has been to indefinitely delay the processing of SE applications, and to demand more and more information from applicants (costing them ever increasing amounts of money) in order to prevent new tobacco products from being marketed in the US. By failing to process SE applications in a timely manner, FDA has prohibited several hundred new but SE tobacco products from being marketed since 2011.
Again, unless you are concerned about analogs of Tobacco companies, who cares if those 500 analogs products are inside of red tape, not like smokers can not smoke all they want. Several hundred are backloged true, but 3500 are on the market and not waiting.
Regarding the deeming regulation, unless FDA exempts e-cigs from the 2007 and 2011 deadlines in Section 905(j) and Section 910, ALL e-cig products will be banned.
Its a simple mis-portrayal of what can happen, based upon the premise that the FDA will do multiple things outside of the law. E-Cig companies who are okay with regulations, are telling you the same thing, but you don't want to listen to them either. The 2009 prohibits banning of specified classes of tobacco products, you have to understand that. That 5 year old law is the only law that gives the FDA any sway on E-Cigarettes. But currently E-Cigarettes are not within the law, because the FDA still has to deem them in. Yes they said the would, 2 years ago, but the still have not. Any day now, rinse and repeat.
Mr. Godshall do you really think to ban clearomizers, and regulated batteries, and everything else? This what you keep saying.
ALL e-cig products will be banned
To believe this notion you have to believe that suddenly the FDA has the power to act in ways that they have never had on analogs. That E-Cigs are wildly different from each other, not SE.....that that the courts have not already weighted in, and said the FDA does not have the authority. You have to have not read the 2009 law, read that it is addressing marketing to youth as is primary goal. You have to pretend that while the FDA currently has not deemed E-Cigs as part of the 2009 act, that the grandfather date is going to be the same for all things, always, even thought the Act never had them inside them. You have to think that the FDA wants to have its rules stayed by the courts while it fights a long legal battle it will lose.
You have to believe that the courts would not stay the action until it would be fully heard, because the economic hardship would not be obvious.
All of the E-Cigs on the market today, are being sold legally. Without any guidance from the FDA, as to what they may have to do. Just the same way all the other 3500 products are being sold are, which are "undocumented" products still being sold, legally.
Nobody should believe the theory that the FDA will put out a deeming regulation, got through all the public hearings, and immediately the stormtrooping booted feds, come into all the stores and start confiscating goods.
And the proof is simply that if the FDA could do that, the would, with the 3500 analogs. Do you follow the logic, yes or no?
But even if the FDA exempts e-cigs from the 2007 and 2011 deadlines to avoid losing another lawsuit (e.g. by extending those dates to 2013 and 2015), the deeming reg would still require every manufacturer of every single e-cig product to submit SE applications or New Product applications to FDA, and FDA would have to approve, before those products can be marketed. That's why the deeming and other e-cig regs will give the e-cig industry to Big Tobacco.
As I said above, the FDA can not stop all the products being sold legally today, from being sold, because they don't process the paperwork. All APV hardware is already outside of the scope of anything the FDA can do. Anyone saying the FDA can ban a tank or a battery, is just not in touch with the reality of the law.
Vapers need to be concerned about BLU e-cigs why? Because they sell a legal product and V2 can not compete?
What is this theory of big bad bad bad Tobacco, as it relates to Vapers? The SE paperwork is going to be a breeze for E-Cigs, its all the same, electric coil, liquid, vapor unfiltered. How is that going to be hard to PROVE as equivilant. It wont be, read the links of the OP. The ingredients of the E-Liquid, all the same, from all the same classes. Food grade food ingredients, already passed muster, as a CATEGORY.
Who cares if big Tobacco owns BLU? Why should anyone? How about V2? V2 sells their own E-Liquid, if they can, EVERYONE can, there can be no legal basis that their juice is substantially different.....BECAUSE IT IS NOT. The math is not very hard. 3 elements and one category of food approved flavoring. And that category of flavoring has been around since 2007, not a new category.
On another matter, in the past ten days, tombaker has posted nearly half of all the comments he's ever posted on ECF on this thread and on another thread (that I created describing my meetings several weeks ago with the White House OMB, and staff of House E&C Cmte and Reps. Pitts and Murphy regarding the FDA deeming and other e-cig regs).
In those postings, tombaker has made dozens of totally inaccurate statements about FDA's administration of SE applications and approvals, the impact of the deeming regulation on e-cigs, CASAA and many other e-cig legal and legislative issues.
What are these dozens and dozens of things? How about just 10 of these things. I expressed concern ou were presenting made up information to those DC folks that APV vapors are documented to be much more successful that Cig-a-like devices. That nobody starts vaping that is not already a smoker. Tossing around 99% as if its a fact, when its just pulled out of thin air.
My concern is if you just make up stuff like that with no supporting studies, you discredit all vapor advocacy. Similarly I call out folks that call people working with FDA, as people that don't care if people die. Kritin from CASAA does that, and that is pure zealotry which is not productive, or credible.
Tell me where I am wrong, I will respond, I clearly am saying Mr. Godshall, that the facts of your posts about what the FDA can do, are wrong, and am able to show you why. 2 years ago, you were saying it just about to happen, wrong then, for sure. Now you are saying in no uncertain terms that the FDA can just ban everything, and take them off the shelves. I am saying that shows a complete disassociation with the law, and certainly E-Cig companies have told you the very same thing.
It appears that tombaker's sole purpose of coming to ECF was/is to lie about FDA tobacco regulation and the agency's forthcoming deeming and other regs for e-cigs, and to attack leaders of our now five year campaign to keep e-cigs legal to manufacture/import/sell/use.
That is pure inside the echo-chamber talk. I point out that you are wrong on the law, that you are leading people in a wrong direction, instead of looking at it, you just want to tell followers that I am liar. When companies like Njoy is fully handling the FDA, you want to think that its your efforts and not Sottera, that dealt the FDA its huge loss. I am not offering Kool-Aid, and dont think you are either, but I find it remarkable to suggest that anyone who has a different understanding than you must as a LIAR. discrediting. It is not hard to peel apart assertions of FUD.
What things am I saying that are wrong?
If anyone wants to know about the impact of the FDA deeming regulation, I suggest ignoring everything written by tombaker, and instead reading the sticky posts regarding FDA deeming regs (at the top of the legislative news section).
If you dont have the facts on your side, tell everyone the other guy should be ignored, and to re-read a stickie that has been posted for years? Where am I wrong, what are these lies. TIA for your reasoned response.
CASAA holds member meetings twice a month and discusses the issues and gives tips for advocacy. Our Calls to Action are designed to give folks "talking points" for engaging the government. We frequently coach people who are planning to testify or meet with the media. We participate in online forums and social media to try to help vapers understand the situations we are facing and how to handle them. We've created cards and handouts for vapers and vendors to give out to the public and vendors.
