FDA opens comment periods on two issues regarding Substantial Equivalence Requirements

[Pickleskunk]

I have a question.

If a manufacturer specifies in their design documentation, instruction manuals, advertising materials, and other literature that a product was built expressly to be used for inhaling a mixture of unflavored PG/VG with NO nicotine or flavorings added, how would that impact the FDA's ability to classify that product as a tobacco product? Consumers inserting flavorings and nicotine on their own into a device that was not expressly designed and sold for that purpose, would seem to remove the manufacturer from the equation. Rolling papers marketed for the purpose of rolling tobacco cigarettes have been used for years by consumers for "other" purposes yet the FDA has never intervened to remove them from the market. Top (insert rolling paper manufacturer of your chioce here) never claimed that their products were designed to be used for recreational purposes not related to the smoking of tobacco.

PVs with a 510 connection are simply power supplies. If manufacturers include a .50 cent LED flashlight head in the package, and make no mention of e-liquid, vaping, inhaling, etc., the FDA has no power to touch them. The FDA has zero regulatory power over flashlights. The fact that we can slap any of the available clearomizers, tanks, RDAs, etc. on it really does not matter if the manufacturer does not indicate that their product was built for that purpose. The plastic, glass, and metal parts used to make our "toppers" clearly do not fall under the FDA's domain until after they are sold as a complete unit, and documentation is written describing how to assemble and use them as "vaping" products. Consider that Kanger could develop a small base with an air pump that could be plugged into a wall outlet, and a pro tank screwed into it. If they marketed the base, as well as the Pro Tank as devices to be filled with a "vaporizing material designed for solely olfactory purposes using scented liquids to simulate the olfactory satisfaction of cooking, melting scented wax pellets, or the burning of incense or candles." and called it an "electronic candle", how would the FDA rules apply to it?

“Smoke” means the gases, particles, or vapors released into the air as a result of
combustion, electrical ignition or vaporization, when the apparent or usual purpose of the
combustion, electrical ignition or vaporization is human inhalation of the byproducts,
except when the combusting or vaporizing material contains no tobacco or nicotine and
the purpose of inhalation is solely olfactory, such as, for example, smoke from incense.

The term “Smoke” includes, but is not limited to, tobacco smoke, and electronic cigarette
vapors.

Clearly, the local requlation indicates that the hypothetical "Kanger electronic candle" would not be banned from the market, but it would still apply from the usage ban perspective if consumers added eLiquid to it and started vaping. Could the FDA actually prevent Kanger from selling those products as the intended use was not vaping? How is that different from the Top paper analogy?

Food flavorings are already FDA approved and sold as food products without any mention of vaping. Is the FDA likely to stop craft stores, cake shops, grocery stores, etc. from selling them because "some" consumers use them for something other than flavoring food products? I don't see how that would be possible. What if eLiquid companies started manufacturing their products without nicotine and marketing them as "scent packs" to be used in the "Kanger electronic candle"? Consumers could still add their own nicotine, attach the tank to a battery with a drip tip, and vape it if they wish. Kanger would be able to claim that they did not design the product for that use and do not endorse using the product in that manner. The FDA can't stop a company from manufacturing a product just because consumers are disassembling it and using some of the component parts for other purposes.

PG and VG all have valid non-vaping uses. I suspect that they would likely remain readily available as they are now.

Nicotine, on the other hand, is clearly a tobacco product until a manufacturer develops a way to make it entirely via synthetic means, or produce it in mass quantities using only eggplant. Then, it would be somethign other than a tobacco product. Wouldn't that put the FDA back to square one?

Finally, smoking bans work because the evidence that someone has been smoking is apparent long after the smoker extinguishes the cigarette. I have vaped in many places where it is not allowed. The "evidence" either never appears (stealth vaping), or dissipates within seconds if I do it where nobody can see me do it. In reality, if I pull out my PV in a bar in NYC, inhale, and hold the vapor until it is gone before I exhale, can the ban on vaping be enforced? It becomes nothing more than a "flavor dispenser" if I exhale no vapor. Where there is no visible vapor, there is no vaping. Do we honestly think that the college campus bans are having any effect at all? I'd bet that the students at these colleges who vape are still doing it as much as they like, as often as they like, wherever they like. They just understand that they can only let trusted friends and associates know that they are doing it, just as they have always done with the "recreational" non tobacco product.

It is my belief that there will always be a way to vape from today forward. The cat is out of the bag, and there is no putting it back in. It just might become a little more difficult. Nicotine availability and usage bans are my only concerns at this time.

My government cannot force me to go back to smoking. I will excercise civil disobedience at every turn in order to save my own life.

I agree with most of what you say. My biggest fear is that the government will limit nicotine percentages and/or regulate the sale of nicotine and e-liquids to the point that it is VERY costly to manufacture and sell, and only companies(BP BT) with deep pockets will be able to sell them. All devices have workarounds for laws, as you point out. If the government does limit nicotine or costs go way up, or it is banned outright, a black market will develop and thrive. Limiting flavors has a workaround too, you can always just add your own flavoring. The whole thing is stupid and only serves as another example of how the government has gotten too big and invasive upon our freedom.

 

[Jman8]

Sigh. Much of this "quoting existing tobacco regs" is a moot point. Not all of it, but a lot of it. Example:

Vendors sell flavor vials WITH NO NICOTINE (not a tobacco product). Along side they also sell unflavored nic base in whatever PG/VG ratio.

PG/VG/Nic are already approved. Or would be the only thing that needed approval. Once. For everyone.

Agreed. Except for part about "only thing." See below.

That solves all the content problems with "tobacco derived juice". It doesn't solve the total ban issue.

Summary: Flavoring is not an issue here. Other aspects, sure. But not flavoring. Or any regs that restrict flavoring.

Here is where I disagree. I see flavor as the #1 issue. If we were only vaping flavoring, then it is a non-issue likely. But mix flavoring with anything, well specifically with the PG/VG/Nic ingredients and sell that, and I see FDA desiring to make special rules that govern that. Desiring paperwork that essentially regulates each and every commercial product which has those base ingredients plus an additive (flavoring).

Couple that desire to regulate with people (non-vapers) who don't get why you could 'enjoy' tobacco flavor for umpteen years, but now need bubble gum and cotton candy flavors for your e-liquid enjoyment, especially when anti-vapers are preaching, "they don't need it. It's just a marketing ploy from those manufacturers to get kids hooked on liquid nicotine. That's the 'only' reason they make those flavors.'

Then add in all the vapers who don't use those flavors and all the rest of the vapers who would be willing to concede that certain 'kiddie flavors' only hurt the cause, and suddenly it is like the usage bans argument where even (so called) pro-vapers are willing to concede on portions of the argument (general principle) and it is possible we face uphill battle on ALL flavors other than tobacco. Cause, if I were opposition, I'd tackle say 20 flavors today that I know I could win on, then 20 more that I'm not sure, but if first one worked, even among vapers, I'd go for it. And keep that strategy going until there are like 2 to 5 base flavors left. By this time, I'd hope my brethren would have made inroads in banning use of vaping in every place possible, and wake up to a world where vapers are put in their proper place, as shameful nic addicts that deserve no respect from anyone.

If I was a vendor right now, I'd consider having two on-line store fronts: e-cig hardware and flavoring as one, and nic base as another.

And if I were local law enforcement that is anti-vaping, I'd advocate for laws that say if we find consumers who have mixed nic base with flavoring, we will confiscate those products and go after any local companies that are trying separate the two that we have determined is rather easy to combine. Then I'd use my local power to appeal to state and national bodies and shut down any operations that sell nic base.

Yet, as I am pro-vaper in reality, I'm going to continue to advocate for vaping everywhere/anywhere, and availability of all flavors, even if they should happen to appeal to minors.

 

[Sundodger]

And if I were a manufacturer that was interested in commercially marketing my e-liquid product, I'd send that required paperwork, record my actions and keep on selling knowing that I followed the guideline. Would be interesting for them (FDA or other governmental body) to try and go with enforcement when I have met the requirement from my end. I may not be aggressive to sell the next day after I send in paperwork, but for sure no more than 90 days, I'd go that route and feel I was the one being most reasonable in the situation, so much so that I'd welcome a US court to take up the case to determine exactly, precisely what it is I was doing that was completely inappropriate given the wording of the act as it is, or was, written.

If you went forward without their blessings you could take it to court and maybe win, but you would still be found in violation of going forward without their approval. And the small eliquid manufactures WILL have to go by the same rules or the big boys will file suit against the FDA showing unfair enforcement of regulations toward one or more competitors in the same market.

Even just trying to get the OK for a Hot Dog cart is crazy. FDA approved food source, FDA approved equipment, the you get the state and local restaurant regulations to jump through. All of this KNOWING what the regs are. The eliquid manufactures right now have NO guidance to go by, just ideas as to what MIGHT be from what the FDA has done before.

Will the FDA do the right/best/good thing for vapers? No one knows, that's the problem. They need to know we are out here watching, not just sitting around waiting to go by every rule they think is a good idea from their perspective. Their history with the vaping industry thus far is not good, why would it change now?

 

[Jman8]

It is my belief that there will always be a way to vape from today forward. The cat is out of the bag, and there is no putting it back in. It just might become a little more difficult. Nicotine availability and usage bans are my only concerns at this time.

My government cannot force me to go back to smoking. I will excercise civil disobedience at every turn in order to save my own life.

Bolded part is IMO, biggest consideration going forward. Yes, regulations (galore) would make this wild west / golden era we've been enjoying a thing of the past. But I don't see it as possible to eliminate what vapers enjoy doing from the market place. The vaping community already has many workarounds lined up and so it would hurt potential users, which we all say we care about, though between potential user and own choice, I'd be surprised if there is a vaper alive that is concerned more with potential user than own usage. Possible to be concerned with both, but then also possible to acknowledge that some potential users are minors today. The long term future of eCigs relies on people not even born yet, and determinations made by those who are currently under 18.

Flavors is still my #1 issue and then usage bans. Everything after that is something I'm interested in and is concerning when it is topic of the day and it appears threatened in that moment.

I currently enjoy being a moderate smoker so government won't be forcing me to do anything as I see it. But the practicality of making the market so heavy on regulations and how that will play out (black market methods alive and well) are enough reason for me to practice civil disobedience on eCig issues, in way that I feel is still respectful and not causing any undue harm to others.

 

[kristin]

Burning the night oil I see. The one saving grace on flavoring that I've thought about is that there should be nothing stopping a vendor from selling unflavored nicquid. From there, all options become possible.

Agreed and have often put this possibility forward to people freaking out over the possibility that the FDA could create rules for e-liquid that prohibit "fruit and candy" flavors. Vendors can sell unflavored liquid and sell the flavors on the side (or other companies will fill the need.) Just like those "Tasty Puff" flavorings. Unfortunately, that only helps the small portion of consumers who are willing to DIY a little and not the millions buying pre-filled cig-a-likes sold on every corner. We could only hope that as the word spreads of available flavors that smokers learn of the option.

But there is still nothing stopping the FDA from issuing a special rule for e-liquid that it cannot be sold in bottles or that e-liquid sold directly to the public must be packaged in pre-filled cartridges that are sealed to prevent tampering. That would be devastating to the mom & pop e-liquid and mod industries.

The FDA would not need an act of Congress to make such rules. The FSPTCA allows the Secretary to deem rules that "protect public health." Just as they got flavored cigarettes banned without any scientific evidence they cause harm or increase youth use, the FDA can use the same process to issue rules on e-liquid that it can claim will be "proactive" in helping reduce the risk of youth abuse.

Again, (and this is directed anyone specific) we don't bring these possibilities up just to unnecessarily scare people, but to just make them aware of just that - these are possibilities we need to be alert for in case we have to act quickly. We need to have arguments prepared for why such actions would be bad for consumers and be prepared for as many people and companies to submit comments. If we pretend that everything will be just fine and the FDA wouldn't do anything to damage the effectiveness, availability and affordability of e-cigarettes then we will be woefully unprepared in a worst-case scenario. While we are busy running around the country stopping indoor use bans in small towns, the FDA could be issuing proposed rules that could have far greater reaching impact than even 1,000 city use bans. While we still fight them, realistically most vapers can work around public use bans. But they wouldn't be able to get around what the FDA could do to us nearly so easily.

The irony is that while we were fighting mostly local bans, people complained we weren't doing enough being proactive on the national level and now that we are being proactive on the national level, we are accused of creating FUD about it and not doing enough on the local level. All we can do is what we can to handle BOTH issues as best we can. We simply won't be able to make everyone happy.

 

[kristin]

FDA has not even put E-Cigs into the Act, even thought for a full 2 years, they have said it is coming annnnnnyyyy day now. Deeming.....you realize that Deeming just means that the are part of the 2009 act, it is not a whole new creation of the act itself, it is not a set of specific rules, other that what the act currently provides for. Ayyyy yiiii yiiiii yiiiiii its just not registering. At least Kristin has given up on the 2007 date set in stone. Poof, vaporized theory of doomsday prep

A) For the past two years the FDA hasn't presented anything to the OMB either, but now they have. That means things are moving forward now. Yes, deeming "just" means that e-cigs are a part of the Act and not a whole new creation. THAT is the problem you fail to comprehend. And I have never said the 2007 date was set in stone. I've discussed what would happen IF the FDA chose to stick to that date. Stop putting words in my mouth.

B) How on earth do you not get that CASAA is and has been fighting as many of the bans as possible WHILE we were alerting people to the possible ramifications of FDA deeming e-liquid tobacco products? You act like CASAA has been completely ignoring the local bans and telling people the FDA is the only issue and that is clearly NOT true.

 

[MD_Boater]

“Tobacco products” marketed as of February 15, 2007, which have not been modified since then are considered “grandfathered” and are not subject to premarket review as “new tobacco products.” A “tobacco product” that is not “grandfathered” is considered a “new” tobacco product, and it is adulterated and misbranded under the FD&C Act, and therefore, subject to enforcement action, unless it has received premarket authorization or been found substantially equivalent. FDA has already developed draft guidance explaining how manufacturers can request a determination from FDA that a “tobacco product” is “grandfathered.”

In red... Liquid nicotine has been sold for decades (I think, correct me if that is wrong). By definition a chemical has absolute properties and structure that cannot be changed. Substantial equivalence is easilty proven in the chemical world. Either the chemical is what you say it is, or it isn't. That sounds silly but carbon monoxide samples taken from a tailpipe, a forest fire, a volcanic erruption, or a cigarette will be identical to each other. Not only "substantial", but "absolute" equivalence. Nicotine has chemical properties (duh). Nicotine A aways equals nicotine B. Anything else in the sample is a contaminent. Going by the exact verbage in red, Nicotine, would absolutely be considered "grandfathered tobacco product". I am certain that some manufacturers had unflavored PG/VG/Nic mixtures for sale prior to 2007. With nic already grandfathered, those of us that vape flavorless are golden. You will be able to vape forever with no changes. PG and VG. Even if the FDA classifies as tobacco products, absolute chemical equivalence to that sold in 2007.

Next issue: Flavored liquids. I think this is going to get very complicated. I would think that the key to grandfathering in them is finding out what flavorings were used in eLiquids prior to 2007. I assume that there were some flavorings that were used in eLiquids sold prior to 2007, they should also be grandfathered. Right?

I'm thinking that juice manufacturers might simply be forced to change their business model a little, but it seems doable. If PG, VG, and nic are grandfathered, pre mixed eLiquid base will be easy to come by. You might need to buy them seperately, from different vendors and mix them yourself, but easy, nonetheless. Say that a popular juice called "Wunderjuice" was sold by "Fred's e-Liquid Wonders". Now assume that the FDA acts in a way that would make it impossible for Fred to continue selling eLiquid. What would stop Fred, from premixing the flavors to make "Wunderjuice" without the PG, VG, or nic? It would not be a "tobacco product in any way, shape, or form. Fred could market it as a drink flavoring like the ones that you put in a glass of water. Diluted with water, the flavorings should be safe (if not, bad Fred...), and some might actually be quite tasty. We could then buy the mixture of flavors and add them to our own grandfathered nic bases. I'm not sure if this would work for a Boba's Bounty or such, but we gotta shoot for the majority.

I'm no expert. It's just the engineer in me looking for the next way to solve a problem...

Edit: I type very slow. I see Kristin and Jman8 got all that covered already.

 

[kristin]

Jman,

I finally got the pdf of the FSPTCA opened.

This part:

not require any small tobacco product manufacturer
to comply with a regulation under subparagraph
(A) for at least 4 years following the effective
date established by the Secretary for such regulation.

refers specifically to subparagraph A directly above it:

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In applying manufacturing restrictions
to tobacco, the Secretary shall, in accordance with
subparagraph (B), prescribe regulations (which may differ
based on the type of tobacco product involved) requiring
that the methods used in, and the facilities and controls
used for, the manufacture, preproduction design validation
(including a process to assess the performance of a tobacco
product), packing, and storage of a tobacco product conform
to current good manufacturing practice, or hazard analysis
and critical control point methodology, as prescribed in
such regulations to assure that the public health is protected
and that the tobacco product is in compliance with
this chapter. Such regulations may provide for the testing
of raw tobacco for pesticide chemical residues regardless
of whether a tolerance for such chemical residues has been
established.

This means that small manufacturers will have 4 years to implement special rules. It does not exempt them from other requirements, such as marketing approval. When you read subparagraph B, it discusses exactly what we've been saying - that the FDA must go through TPSAC and open the proposed regulations for public comments. THAT is what we are trying to prepare people for.

The good news is, should the FDA decide to propose any of our worst-case scenarios, we would have an opportunity to once again present testimony to TPSAC (hopefully, although it's a long shot, we'll actually have a seat on TPSAC!), submit comments opposing any bad proposals AND any proposals that pass and small companies (however that is defined) will have 4 years to become compliant.

 

[AttyPops]

Agreed. Except for part about "only thing." See below.



Here is where I disagree. I see flavor as the #1 issue. (snipped for brevity)

Yeah, it could be a real problem for juice makers/vendors. But for vapers, I guess not. After all, it's candy flavoring. I guarantee you I'd become an instant candy-maker and have several flavors on hand.

That's not to say we don't worry about it or fight. Just that it doesn't make any sense for them to ban it...it would be totally ineffective anyway. Useless law. Wouldn't be the 1st time a useless law was imposed though.

Confiscation? Who knows. Lots of other stuff becoming legal lately......even while still Federally banned. The irony! The irony!

 

[LaraC]

<snipped> B) How on earth do you not get <snipped>....

This may be "how":

Ferrous Cranus

Kristen -- you, Bill, Elaine, and so many others have been working tirelessly on ALL fronts, on behalf of vapers. Thank you.

Many very well informed posters here have patiently tried to reason with the guy and educate him. Over and over and over. Ain't gonna happen, imho.

I think an attorney's convention must have been held a few months ago at a Holiday Inn Express.

 

[kristin]

In red... Liquid nicotine has been sold for decades (I think, correct me if that is wrong). By definition a chemical has absolute properties and structure that cannot be changed. Substantial equivalence is easilty proven in the chemical world. Either the chemical is what you say it is, or it isn't.

The "tobacco product" is not just the ingredients but the product as a whole. Liquid nicotine mixed with PG/VG and flovrings is the product as a whole and that has not been sold to the general public in the US before 2006.

A "new" tobacco product is a product that has ANY modifications, including level of nicotine and different flavorings. If a company was selling tobacco and menthol before the deadline (and therefore "grandfathered" as an existing product) then introduced strawberry after the deadline, the company would have to submit a report to the FDA describing that change and wait for the FDA to say it agrees that it is substantially equivalent.

The FDA defines substantially equivalent as :

"with respect to the tobacco product being
compared to the predicate tobacco product, that the Secretary
by order has found that the tobacco product":

1) "has the same characteristics as the predicate
tobacco product "
("characteristics" is defined by the FDA as "the materials, ingredients, design, composition, heating source, or other features of a tobacco." Would the FDA consider tobacco flavoring, with it's own chemicals to be "the same" as strawberry flavoring, that contains different chemicals? We don't know, but suspect the answer would be "no.")
product )

OR

2) "has different characteristics and the information
submitted contains information, including clinical
data if deemed necessary by the Secretary, that demonstrates
that it is not appropriate to regulate the
product under this section because the product does
not raise different questions of public health."
(This means, if the strawberry flavoring IS considered a "different characteristic," then the company has to submit information, including clinical data if the FDA asks for it, that proves the strawberry flavor "does not raise different questions of public health." Does the FDA consider flavors such as strawberry in tobacco products to "raise different questions of public health?" Based on the fact that it banned such flavors in cigarettes already, the answer would be "yes." So, it is reasonable to conclude that a different flavor would NOT automatically be considered "substantially equivalent.")

 

[Jay-dub]

I've always wondered why this place is so dysfunctional. When the Executive Director of CASAA appeared I got my hopes up because I assumed that a person of that position would not only rise above the fray, but set an example to inspire others to do so. Now, it appears that discrediting everyone you disagree with, including fellow members, is not only permissible, but encouraged by example from the very top. Between all the organizations, institutions, members and non-members that have been discredited as corrupt or self-serving or ignorant or liars (seen 'em all) by CASAA, there aren't many out there we can trust. Except, we can trust CASAA-deemed liars, cheats and sell-outs when they're cited by CASAA members for saying something advantageous to their perspective. I feel I'm viewed as unreasonable but if past experience has shown me that the person telling you "the whole world is out to get you but you can trust me" deserves some skepticism.

Has anyone figured out why the e-cig industry is willing to invest in new products and marketing if the industry is as threatened as we are lead to believe? If so, I missed it so it'd be kind to direct me to the post. On that note, do you think people considering a start up vape venture should not? Do you think some have already seen enough here to scare them out of opening a vape shop?

Bill, if you can't debate with someone here without insinuating that a member is a paid shill how are we supposed to have faith that you can do so where it matters? If you were giving testimony about vaping and treated critically would you insinuate that the chair is being hard on you because he's in someone's pocket?

 

[Rossum]

Has anyone figured out why the e-cig industry is willing to invest in new products and marketing if the industry is as threatened as we are lead to believe?

Because the US only represents a small fraction of the world-wide market? Remember that most of that industry is NOT located here. Even if an outright ban on e-cigs in the US was announced tomorrow, this would only be a minor set-back for the industry as a whole.

 

[kristin]

I've always wondered why this place is so dysfunctional. When the Executive Director of CASAA appeared I got my hopes up because I assumed that a person of that position would not only rise above the fray, but set an example to inspire others to do so. Now, it appears that discrediting everyone you disagree with, including fellow members, is not only permissible, but encouraged by example from the very top. Between all the organizations, institutions, members and non-members that have been discredited as corrupt or self-serving or ignorant or liars (seen 'em all) by CASAA, there aren't many out there we can trust.

CASAA does not even have an "Executive Director." Bill Godshall serves only in an advisory capacity to CASAA, does not sit on the board nor make policy decisions or official statements for CASAA.

CASAA Board of Directors

Bill is the Executive Director of Smokefree Pennsylvania.

Except, we can trust CASAA-deemed liars, cheats and sell-outs when they're cited by CASAA members for saying something advantageous to their perspective. I feel I'm viewed as unreasonable but if past experience has shown me that the person telling you "the whole world is out to get you but you can trust me" deserves some skepticism.

Please give an example of when a CASAA director has ever done the above accusation, other than as an example of irony or their hypocrisy.

Anyone can become a CASAA "member" simply by adding their email to our contact database. That does not mean those who do so speak for the organization, because they don't. You cannot expect CASAA to be accountable for every personal opinion expressed by people who have given us our email and say they are members. "Member" means "supporter" not "official representative."

 

[DC2]

Agreed. I've got enough high-test nic (packaged for long-term storage in the freezer) to last me many years. But this isn't about you or me; it's about the 40 million or so smokers whose ability to switch to vaping could be dramatically reduced if the FDA does the wrong thing.

This. Exactly this. Thank you for caring.

 

[DustyZ]

I've always wondered why this place is so dysfunctional. When the Executive Director of CASAA appeared I got my hopes up because I assumed that a person of that position would not only rise above the fray, but set an example to inspire others to do so. Now, it appears that discrediting everyone you disagree with, including fellow members, is not only permissible, but encouraged by example from the very top. Between all the organizations, institutions, members and non-members that have been discredited as corrupt or self-serving or ignorant or liars (seen 'em all) by CASAA, there aren't many out there we can trust. Except, we can trust CASAA-deemed liars, cheats and sell-outs when they're cited by CASAA members for saying something advantageous to their perspective. I feel I'm viewed as unreasonable but if past experience has shown me that the person telling you "the whole world is out to get you but you can trust me" deserves some skepticism.

Has anyone figured out why the e-cig industry is willing to invest in new products and marketing if the industry is as threatened as we are lead to believe? If so, I missed it so it'd be kind to direct me to the post. On that note, do you think people considering a start up vape venture should not? Do you think some have already seen enough here to scare them out of opening a vape shop?

Bill, if you can't debate with someone here without insinuating that a member is a paid shill how are we supposed to have faith that you can do so where it matters? If you were giving testimony about vaping and treated critically would you insinuate that the chair is being hard on you because he's in someone's pocket?

And you seem that all you can do is to ride the Tom wave and continue to post on his behalf. We are talking about someone that has been asked time and time again what his qualifications are to make the LEGAL Determinations that he continues to expound on and has yet to show any real grasp off the real facts that are presented to him and when they are he goes into the same tired rhetoric on and on and whenever someone disagrees with him there you are jumping to his defense as though is the second coming. If someone is going to make legal assessments, they had better have a legal background, anyone that follows someone so blindly is sure one day going to walk off that same cliff! This whole thing is absurd and yet it just is like a big Merry Go Round, nothing new, SSDD. Offer some new insights with facts and perhaps people will at that point take it to heart instead of the constant, it's not legal, it's legal BS without having the credibility to makes those statements. Geeez, you all have fun, this is just gotten really tiring watching all the spitting in the wind here.

 

[Sundodger]

I've always wondered why this place is so dysfunctional. When the Executive Director of CASAA appeared I got my hopes up because I assumed that a person of that position would not only rise above the fray, but set an example to inspire others to do so. Now, it appears that discrediting everyone you disagree with, including fellow members, is not only permissible, but encouraged by example from the very top. Between all the organizations, institutions, members and non-members that have been discredited as corrupt or self-serving or ignorant or liars (seen 'em all) by CASAA, there aren't many out there we can trust. Except, we can trust CASAA-deemed liars, cheats and sell-outs when they're cited by CASAA members for saying something advantageous to their perspective. I feel I'm viewed as unreasonable but if past experience has shown me that the person telling you "the whole world is out to get you but you can trust me" deserves some skepticism.

Has anyone figured out why the e-cig industry is willing to invest in new products and marketing if the industry is as threatened as we are lead to believe? If so, I missed it so it'd be kind to direct me to the post. On that note, do you think people considering a start up vape venture should not? Do you think some have already seen enough here to scare them out of opening a vape shop?

Bill, if you can't debate with someone here without insinuating that a member is a paid shill how are we supposed to have faith that you can do so where it matters? If you were giving testimony about vaping and treated critically would you insinuate that the chair is being hard on you because he's in someone's pocket?

I find it hard, after all that a certain poster said about CASAA and Bill Godshall that you now think that somehow CASAA and Bill Godshall need to rise above the fray. Many posts were written dissing them before anyone fired back.
Prior to anyone firing back at the poster, the poster took quotes from others and changed them, YOU trust that type of person and stand up for them here?
Good grief, IMO this has gone long enough. All I see here is matching wits with an unarmed poster, or should I say posser?

 

[kristin]

Has anyone figured out why the e-cig industry is willing to invest in new products and marketing if the industry is as threatened as we are lead to believe? If so, I missed it so it'd be kind to direct me to the post. On that note, do you think people considering a start up vape venture should not? Do you think some have already seen enough here to scare them out of opening a vape shop?

Hedging their bets? Bad advice? Ignorance? It could be any number of reasons.

I've been contemplating opening a little shop in my small town when my term is up with CASAA, but there's no way in hell I'd do it before seeing what happens with the FDA and how the state and local governments react to the FDA deeming rules. I think anyone investing now is a lot more daring than I. If anything, it may have scared people from opening a shop before the FDA plays its hand. That doesn't mean they never will.

 

[DC2]

I am certain that some manufacturers had unflavored PG/VG/Nic mixtures for sale prior to 2007.

I seriously doubt it.

 

[DC2]

Yeah, it could be a real problem for juice makers/vendors. But for vapers, I guess not. After all, it's candy flavoring. I guarantee you I'd become an instant candy-maker and have several flavors on hand.

That's not to say we don't worry about it or fight. Just that it doesn't make any sense for them to ban it...it would be totally ineffective anyway. Useless law.

How many remaining smokers are going to switch to electronic cigarettes in that scenario?
It makes plenty of sense for them to ban it.