FDA Proposed regulation is available
- Thread starter Jake6731
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
That's where the courts come in. In the text of the new regulatory framework, the FDA has made the positive assertion that no evidence exists to prove e-cigs are safer than smoking. This was a grievous error on their part, since it's an assertion that is plainly the opposite of the truth (and there's a sufficient body of scientific evidence to prove it), and they're going to have to defend it in a court of law.
Of all the dubious rules in this new document, I predict that the one about e-cig makers being prohibited from marketing their products as less hazardous than smoking will be the first one that doesn't survive legal scrutiny. It's the first piece of low-hanging fruit I'd go after if I was one of the lawyers getting ready to attack this thing.
Question:
You cannot buy cigarettes online, which I assume is due to the regulations placed on them by the FDA. Do the regulations regarding ID's for people over 18 apply to the online websites as well? From what I understand just entering your credit card information in at purchase does not account for age verification. Do you think if they do apply the +18 standards to websites, we will see a massive closure of web sales?
You cannot buy cigarettes online, which I assume is due to the regulations placed on them by the FDA. Do the regulations regarding ID's for people over 18 apply to the online websites as well? From what I understand just entering your credit card information in at purchase does not account for age verification. Do you think if they do apply the +18 standards to websites, we will see a massive closure of web sales?
If we do see a massive closure of online vendors, I doubt it will be because of age verification. If your budget doesn't allow you to use a third-party online age verification service, the worst-case is that you just have to send out your orders Adult Signature Required. It's an inconvenience for your customers, and places an extra burden on USPS/UPS/FedEx, but it's enough to satisfy any regulatory requirement.
North Carolina currently has age verification requirements for online sales. They're cumbersome but not impossible.
PLEASE STOP!!!
(1) We were asked to WAIT for CASAA to issue some guidance on what we should do and when.
(2) The petition contains false statements. The very first sentence is FALSE. The FDA has only PROPOSED regulations.
(3) The petition is poorly worded and contains spelling, grammar, and syntax errors. It doesn't help us if it reads as if it was written by a third-grader.
I understand how you feel; we're all _____ (nervous, scared, angry). But we can't go off half-cocked on our own with a petition here and a letter there. We need to put forth a unified effort and we need to do it intelligently.
Please don't sign the petition. WAIT for CASAA's guidance.
If you're not a member of CASAA, please join. If you are a member, please donate!
(1) We were asked to WAIT for CASAA to issue some guidance on what we should do and when.
(2) The petition contains false statements. The very first sentence is FALSE. The FDA has only PROPOSED regulations.
(3) The petition is poorly worded and contains spelling, grammar, and syntax errors. It doesn't help us if it reads as if it was written by a third-grader.
I understand how you feel; we're all _____ (nervous, scared, angry). But we can't go off half-cocked on our own with a petition here and a letter there. We need to put forth a unified effort and we need to do it intelligently.
Please don't sign the petition. WAIT for CASAA's guidance.
If you're not a member of CASAA, please join. If you are a member, please donate!
Yes..skeptical only because we have seen what kind of down hill slide they can create from something that began as 'not so bad'
{{Mytappitytapatalk}}
I'm not sure how making it harder for people to get e-cigs is supposed to make things better at all. Also you can count on it that it's going to be very hard for any small business to get anything approved at all. Not sure which is worse the regulations or the people on this site who agree with them.
When Fascism comes to America it will be holding a sign. "It's for the Children"
When Fascism comes to America it will be holding a sign. "It's for the Children"
i don't know why signing the petition is a bad thing. yes, it's badly worded, etc but it's only an informal petition. it's not as if we're going to be penalized for it, as if it's a test and laws will go into effect if the syntax is not correct.
i figure it's just a show of how many people are ...... off and what they'll be dealing with if they decide to make new regulations.
It's badly worded and most of the statements/claims are FALSE - or at least unsubstantiated.
not trying to start an argument. so i'll just say once more:
for me, it's just a numbers thing. not a grammar test or a scientific theory. this petition is not going to go down in any book. it's just a show of how many people are upset about it. the white house can do with it what they will. laugh at it, make fun of the spelling/grammar/claims/syntax but if the numbers are high enough they'll take notice. people vote regardless if they can spell correctly or make their point succinctly.
KODIAK;12948935 said:When was the last time you saw a bench full of judges (or jurors) all having backgrounds in any kind of science?
or even sanity? (oops)
I agree that the petition is poorly developed, but I signed it anyway and I'll sign anything else that comes along to slow down the FDA. A poorly written petition signed by millions will get more attention than a perfect one signed by a hundred thousand.
From the Petition website helpful hints: Creating a duplicate or similar petition will make it harder for you to get an official response. Instead, sign and help promote the one that has already been created. If a better worded petition is drafted Many who had signed the first one might not sign the newer, better drafted one, as they may think "oh I signed already...."
if it's too much trouble for people to click on another petition created later or don't bother to take the time to read that you can sign as many petitions as you want regardless of their similarities then they're not really serious about the issue anyway and wouldn't be much help in later endeavors.
Last edited:
The one thing I see ZERO people commenting on is how these regulations will raise the cost of vaping from the manufacturers.
In a free market, costs of doing business are rolled into the cost. If manufacturer A. has to now buy childproof tops, new labels, change their website to meet the age restriction (the current method cannot be acceptable with the new regs) and apply with the FDA; this will increase the cost of business and likely increase the cost of your gear.
In a free market, costs of doing business are rolled into the cost. If manufacturer A. has to now buy childproof tops, new labels, change their website to meet the age restriction (the current method cannot be acceptable with the new regs) and apply with the FDA; this will increase the cost of business and likely increase the cost of your gear.
you forgot the biggest cost they will have to pass on to us:
An estimated 5,000 hours of labor to prepare EACH Substantial Equivalency application.
What I don't get:
eCigarettes were not deemed to be "tobacco products" until 2014. How on earth does that require them to meet the 2007 definition and rules related to tobacco products?
Think of it this way:
If eCigs were introduced TODAY, instead of 2006; The FDA with this Demeing Reg, would have banned all of them, outright.
Or further: if any new "tobacco Product" is ever developed in the future... it will be illegal, because it didn't exist in 2007.
That includes any product that does not actually contain tobacco... all that is required is that the FDA decides its a "Tobacco Product"... and it's illegal.
eCigarettes were not deemed to be "tobacco products" until 2014. How on earth does that require them to meet the 2007 definition and rules related to tobacco products?
Think of it this way:
If eCigs were introduced TODAY, instead of 2006; The FDA with this Demeing Reg, would have banned all of them, outright.
Or further: if any new "tobacco Product" is ever developed in the future... it will be illegal, because it didn't exist in 2007.
That includes any product that does not actually contain tobacco... all that is required is that the FDA decides its a "Tobacco Product"... and it's illegal.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
