This will impact a lot of small outfits and quite honestly, I'm fine with it. How many people are buying juice from someone making it in their garage or kitchen? That's not safe. I just hope there are enough operations out there doing things the right way to keep things competitive. My biggest concerns have been and always will be local and federal legislation...not FDA regulation. I've cried the cry of worrying about public opinion for a long time and feel like few have listened. The FDA stepping in is a good thing, within reason; however, it's our elected officials that will have the last say in this fight.
FDA Proposed regulation is available
- Thread starter Jake6731
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
And what about local bake sales at churches and fairs? That's how eliqid should be treated in my opinion.
Why should you or the FDA be the ones to decide if folks should be able to buy ejuice from folks mixing in their bath tubs if that is what they wish to do? Why do adults need others to make these decisions for them?
Most adults are quite capable of making their own decisions. the ones that are not should be under "other" supervision.
Trying to remain cautiously optimistic about all of this while waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Nothing will stop people from buying juice from makers mixing it in their bathtubs. Regulation won't stop that. Some regulation is needed because people should be able to make informed decisions and feel reasonably comfortable with them. The fact that you and I vape are perfect examples of our limited ability to control said decisions. Whether we like it or not, the FDA is in place for exactly that reason. The FDA isn't perfect, but there isn't a market model out there that considers safety before profit. I say that with a grain of salt. The FDA isn't perfect, but yes, as unpopular as it might sound, they exist to add protections because the individual is limited in their own ability to protect themselves. You're suggesting I should just stop vaping if this is a concern of mine. Well, as far as I'm concerned, the alternative is to just let them do their jobs and fight to make sure my opinion within the regulations are heard. That's why CASAA and other organizations exist, to make an impact on guaranteed regulation. No one is ignorant enough to believe regulation would never happen. At least I hope not.
Last edited:
How am I supposed to respond to that? If you're attempting to bait me by cherry picking a small piece of my post that misses the entire point, it's not going to happen.
The problem with the current FDA regulations, is the FDA's reputation. They have a reputation of looking out for those with the biggest purse, not the general health or welfare of the general population.
There is nothing wrong with reasonable regulations. However, the term reasonable means different things to different people. Why should people trust their health and welfare to a political entity that is as corrupt as the government? How can "reasonable" regulations be trusted from such an entity? So, the big question is one of trust.
There is nothing wrong with reasonable regulations. However, the term reasonable means different things to different people. Why should people trust their health and welfare to a political entity that is as corrupt as the government? How can "reasonable" regulations be trusted from such an entity? So, the big question is one of trust.
You should trust the regulations if they are themselves reasonable and enforced reasonably. If not, then don't, of course.
From what I've read so far, this is extremely reasonable. The FDA will enforce basic ingredient approval, just as they do with many other things. Sales to those under 18 are banned, as they should be for a neurologically-active chemical. The indications are that the FDA intends a pretty light hand on the industry as it stands so far.
Future regulations may differ, but those are in the future, will undergo another approval and comment period, and all are open to challenge in court.
Now if the FDA refuses approval for every item sent to them, that would be unreasonable and open to criticism. Not to mention open to a big honking court case since new cigarettes come out without issue.
It is too early to tell if these regulations are reasonable. Do I trust the FDA? The answer is no.
The future of internet sales(if we are lucky):
Mods=flashlights
Atomizers=incense burners
PG/VG/flavorings= incense
Nicotine=dietary supplement
Welcome to the grey market.
Mods=flashlights
Atomizers=incense burners
PG/VG/flavorings= incense
Nicotine=dietary supplement
Welcome to the grey market.
I disagree with your sentiments nitwit. If I want to buy juice not made in someone's kitchen, I can easily find hundreds of vendors to buy from where that would not be an issue; Mount Baker, Five Pawns, etc.. However; small businesses need to be able to start up. I have no problem buying juice from a small vendor making it in their kitchen as long as the kitchen is clean, they properly store, handle, and transport their ingredients, and that they use clean equipment. Can I easily verify that they do that? No, but my guess is that if they don't do those things, their juice would most likely not be worth buying anyway.
There is no need to get the nanny state involved with that when the basis of your concern is so easily avoided by sticking to the popular commercial vendors.
There is no need to get the nanny state involved with that when the basis of your concern is so easily avoided by sticking to the popular commercial vendors.
That's nice, but you're stuck with them as it currently stands. It'd be wisest for you to read the regulations--or allow a neutral party to do so--and decide if they're reasonable from that. A court is going to do so in the (nearly inevitable) event of a challenge and having issued a set of regulations, the FDA is now bound by them.
Please don't even consider a slippery slope argument. If the slope slips, it's because the FDA issues further regulations--which are now years in the future, and themselves open to comment, approval processes, and court challenges.
It's not impossible that there's something on page 214 or so that nobody's read yet, but so far nobody's seeing an indication of that. Plus obvious time bombs are great court fodder.
Exactly. Plus, there is no reason to believe that placing ecigs under FDA control is going to make them any safer at all. Just take a look at their past record with the drugs that they have approved.
I am too impatient to read the fine print, so I decided to let Yahoo do it for me here: E-cigarettes to be regulated under new US plan
Any other restrictions besides age verification, disallowing free samples and false ads attesting to safety of e-cigs?
Any other restrictions besides age verification, disallowing free samples and false ads attesting to safety of e-cigs?
Not really that we can find yet. Component products--in our case, toppers, batteries, and tubes--are questionable at this point, but I don't think it'd pass even the most basic court challenge.
It does look like liquids will undergo approval, which is a bit of a sticky wicket. We'll see how that plays out.
It's a big document, though, so something might be hiding there.
Cigarettes now fall under the FDA are they now safer? So why would anyone truly believe the FDA will make e-cigs safer? If the FDA had won the court battle how many of us would still be smoking?
Technically, yes. Any cigarette manufacturer submitting approval for the "lead and arsenic added" cigarette would be turned down. A really extreme example, but just insert any of ten thousand questionable elements and chemicals as it pleases you.
If they do it behind the FDA's back and get caught, they not only have civil lawsuits flying at them, they have a government agency that's not going to be pleased and that does have considerable teeth.
Standards of basic cleanliness aren't anything most of us are against--and those that are...well, I haven't too many kind things to say.
Many of us would still be smoking. That's why we have more than one branch of government, and why they cross-check each other.
In this case, the push-pull iteration worked pretty well. The new rules are, as far as we've gotten in them, reasonable.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
