BTW - I wonder if when the FDA Finalizes their Authority on e-liquids, if this Guy would consider doing a Series about Nicotine Extraction?
Ol' Skool Biker Nicotine!
FDA FDA regulations and the impact on small juice vendors | another side
- Thread starter vapero
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Ol' Skool Biker Nicotine!
Not really strange, considering that FDA is IN BED with big pharma, but guess who gets screwed? The consumer. I used to be really gung-ho patriotic, but now I have no choice but to concede that the ideals this country was founded on have been subverted and perverted by those who have enough money to buy the government they want, and it just makes me sick, not that they're that rich, but that this government is willing to sell out at ANY price. It hasn't been that long, a few years at most, since the republicans were all "free market! laissez faire!" but do they REALLY want a free market? Of course they don't, they want more money in their own pockets, period. If they wanted a free market, they wouldn't be trying to suppress the e-cig market, where the CONSUMER has decided to spend money, rather than on poisonous death sticks or poisonous pills to get off the poisonous death sticks. Bunch of lazy, no-good, evil HYPOCRITES.
Andria
Very True.
But what the Court Reminded the FDA in the reference that you made was that the FDA has to Operate within the Laws that Congress gives them.
If you want to sell a something as a Finished Tobacco Product, like a Pre-Filled Carto, or if you want to Advertise something as being used to with a Tobacco Product, like a Clearo with a Picture of it Attached to a PV, then Yes, the FDA is going to Require that it be FDA Approved.
But if the Item you want to sell is Not a Finished Tobacco Product or has Not References to Tobacco Products or e-Cigarettes for Intended Use, then the FDA Doesn't have any Legal Grounds to Seize or Restrict the Item.
Most probably saw My Post #130 as being Tongue & Cheek, but it was Really to Illustrate the Point about Intended Use.
I Don't think Most people understand what the FDA wants to Accomplish by having the Indented Use verbiage their deeming. It Isn't so much that they Feel they can Stop Items from being sold. They know that Many Can't be.
It's there to Stop the Marketing of Items as e-Cigarettes. And to Break the Web Search engine being able to Easily point a person to Something that the FDA would Not Like someone to Buy.
But Please don't Take this as that Everything is Going to Remain just like it is Today. And please Do Not wait until 2020 to start consider Stocking Up and Hardware.
Last edited:
Yep, our lawmakers are generally well off. One is worth $464M - Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).
The Majority of Congress Are Millionaires - TIME
Problem becomes can you afford to defend yourself in court for a few years against an adversary with unlimited funds for lawyers? While you're defending yourself, your stock may be seized, the DOJ has your bank denying you loans (Operation Choke Point) and closing your bank accounts.
The court slapped them down in their first try to snuff out vaping, but pointed them to a route to accomplish their aim. To think their ultimate goal has changed, their views softened, not likely, just a bit more complicated.
I would also fear the bureaucratic "death by 1,001 paper cuts". You did submit form MBt-BSDE-100485/g in triplicate, certified and notarized with copies to your local and state offices? No, slipped your mind, oh, well - see you in court....
The deeming regulations are the very first baby step, the "intended" language in there to give them wiggle room for more expansive regulations. Comes down to who defines and how the word "intended" is defined, both at the federal and state/local level. Do they have to prove it is "intended" or do you have to prove it's not "intended", a few years in court will smooth that out.
Bet you can't name one regulation coming out of D.C. that has become progressively simpler over the years....
The court slapped them down in their first try to snuff out vaping, but pointed them to a route to accomplish their aim. To think their ultimate goal has changed, their views softened, not likely, just a bit more complicated.
I would also fear the bureaucratic "death by 1,001 paper cuts". You did submit form MBt-BSDE-100485/g in triplicate, certified and notarized with copies to your local and state offices? No, slipped your mind, oh, well - see you in court....
The deeming regulations are the very first baby step, the "intended" language in there to give them wiggle room for more expansive regulations. Comes down to who defines and how the word "intended" is defined, both at the federal and state/local level. Do they have to prove it is "intended" or do you have to prove it's not "intended", a few years in court will smooth that out.
Bet you can't name one regulation coming out of D.C. that has become progressively simpler over the years....
Problem becomes can you afford to defend yourself in court for a few years against an adversary with unlimited funds for lawyers? While you're defending yourself, your stock may be seized, the DOJ has your bank denying you loans (Operation Choke Point) and closing your bank accounts.
The court slapped them down in their first try to snuff out vaping, but pointed them to a route to accomplish their aim. To think their ultimate goal has changed, their views softened, not likely, just a bit more complicated.
I would also fear the bureaucratic "death by 1,001 paper cuts". You did submit form MBt-BSDE-100485/g in triplicate, certified and notarized with copies to your local and state offices? No, slipped your mind, oh, well - see you in court....
The deeming regulations are the very first baby step, the "intended" language in there to give them wiggle room for more expansive regulations. Comes down to who defines and how the word "intended" is defined, both at the federal and state/local level. Do they have to prove it is "intended" or do you have to prove it's not "intended", a few years in court will smooth that out.
Bet you can't name one regulation coming out of D.C. that has become progressively simpler over the years....
All Good Points Stosh.
And I'm pretty Much in Agreement with Most of what you are Saying.
One thing I would mention though is Todays Market is Vastly Different than what things looked like in when the FDA ordered Customs agents to Seize Shipments at LAX and at the Port of LA/Long Beach.
e-Cigarette Aren't perceived as some kinda Fad that only Kids are Doing. It's grown into a True Harm Reduction tool that people can use who Smoke. There has Also be some Studies Done that Show that the Risk to Users is Much Smaller than Combustible Tobacco. And the Risk to People around e-Cigarette users is Extremely Small.
Is the FDA going to Pull some Stunts and do some Nuisance Actions. I'm Sure they will. But for the Most Part, they are going to Operate inside the Authority that Congress has Given them.
Because today there is a degree of Legal Precedence regard what happens when the FDA Oversteps it's Powers.
I've seen the swift changes in e-cigs over the years, the change in perception (for the general public) have been slower coming, but encouraging.
The studies and surveys are encouraging but in the 194 citations in the deeming dreck, the FDA didn't include even one....it makes my "spider-sense" tingle a bit .......
The non smoking public generally views ecigs in three ways, IMO.
One, they see it as a possible safer alternative to tobacco, but with a cloud over its head in terms of medical acceptance.
Two, they want to know more about it so that they can buy one for their relative who can't stop smoking.
Three, they view it as an acceptable substitute and a way off of tobacco without having to deal with the stark reality of cravings after quitting tobacco.
ANTZ sees it as a barrier to stopping smoking and nicotine use in the world once and for all. The don't mind Nicorette products, but the electronic cigarette LOOKS like smoking and they don't want the icon to continue.
I think the FDA and the CDC would rather that cigarettes go away, driven off by the switch to electronic cigarettes.
Congress needs tobacco revenue, so they are against ecigs that could eventually take that away. Watch out for revenue transfers to occur in the form of taxation of ecigs.
One, they see it as a possible safer alternative to tobacco, but with a cloud over its head in terms of medical acceptance.
Two, they want to know more about it so that they can buy one for their relative who can't stop smoking.
Three, they view it as an acceptable substitute and a way off of tobacco without having to deal with the stark reality of cravings after quitting tobacco.
ANTZ sees it as a barrier to stopping smoking and nicotine use in the world once and for all. The don't mind Nicorette products, but the electronic cigarette LOOKS like smoking and they don't want the icon to continue.
I think the FDA and the CDC would rather that cigarettes go away, driven off by the switch to electronic cigarettes.
Congress needs tobacco revenue, so they are against ecigs that could eventually take that away. Watch out for revenue transfers to occur in the form of taxation of ecigs.
Last edited:
That's already happening at a state level: MN, NC, and now RI (hearing tomorrow on a tax of 80% of wholesale value!!)
I wonder what would happen if COFFEE were substituted for ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES in the legislation? The coffee party would rise up and overturn the evil politicians. It happened with tea over taxation.
Small juice mixers and sellers are not my friends. I don't care if they are driven out of business. I can mix my own. The right to buy juice without knowing what is in it is a right not worth having and certainly not worth fighting for. CASAA, please don't fight for that right on my behalf. I don't want it. I don't need it. It is not in my best interest.
And you are not a "friend" of the vaping community. You are also completely ignorant on the ramifications of the Deeming Regulations or else you have a completely different motive for being on ECF than most other members.
Seriously?
"Small, independent restaurants are not my friends. I don't care if they are driven out of business. I can cook my own food. The right to eat in a restaurant without knowing what's in the food they're serving is not a right worth having and is certainly not worth fighting for. I don't need it, it's not in my best interest."
Is that the America you want to live in?
If one value's the hot air put forth by the Harkins, Dubins, Pelosi's, Waxman's and Glantz's of this country, I would have to surmise that is exactly the America they want to live in. The gospel for these so-called citizens is George Orwell's 1984.
It would be in my best interest, and yours, if the restaurants were inspected occasionally for the presence of rats, roaches, and salmonella. I wouldn't fight for their right to not be inspected.
Before this gets ugly and political - let me try to broker a peace.
I think there are definitely small juice manufacturers out there with little concern for production standards. Just look at the Cuttwoods fiasco. For all we know, there are hundreds of vape stores selling similarly dangerous product - and I've got great sympathy with anyone who's worried about that.
The solution to this is a regulation that's proportionate to the issues. Unfortunately, the regulators heads are in the wrong place, and they think GMP is the way to go - GMP wipes out everything at a stroke.
Food manufacturing is not a bad model - it's a set of regulations proportionate to the issues. And I don't think anyone would be particularly upset by that (except people who shouldn't be in the game to being with). But, what's also needed are some good standards for acceptable ingredients. These are being worked on internationally as we speak, but that in and of itself is going to be a long and arduous process...
But the whole issue comes down to harm reduction - that in the end the point of reference is the product that this is designed to replace: Smoked tobacco.
I think there are definitely small juice manufacturers out there with little concern for production standards. Just look at the Cuttwoods fiasco. For all we know, there are hundreds of vape stores selling similarly dangerous product - and I've got great sympathy with anyone who's worried about that.
The solution to this is a regulation that's proportionate to the issues. Unfortunately, the regulators heads are in the wrong place, and they think GMP is the way to go - GMP wipes out everything at a stroke.
Food manufacturing is not a bad model - it's a set of regulations proportionate to the issues. And I don't think anyone would be particularly upset by that (except people who shouldn't be in the game to being with). But, what's also needed are some good standards for acceptable ingredients. These are being worked on internationally as we speak, but that in and of itself is going to be a long and arduous process...
But the whole issue comes down to harm reduction - that in the end the point of reference is the product that this is designed to replace: Smoked tobacco.
There is no license required to sell tabacco products over the internet and you only need one at the retail level if you sell over a certain amount, the exact stipulations are below but I'll be honest I couldn't be bothered to read everything.
TTB | Tobacco | FAQ
There's a big difference between inspecting a place occasionally and requiring said place to file an application for "Product Approval" (at a 6-figure cost) for every item on their menu. The former is what restaurants are subject to. The latter is what the FDA appears to be proposing as a requirement for juice manufacturers.
This is Correct. The Sale of Tobacco Products over the Internet is the Same as if you Opened up a B&M.
From the FAQ you linked to...
and
Wouldn't this be highly dependent on who is proposing to do the inspections and to what end? Would you want organization that claims vegan lifestyle is above all others inspecting a steak house?
If you ever share your DIY mix with anyone, would it not be grounds for inspecting your DIY set up? Let's say you claim that you never will, but someone else claims you have. You are now having to be inspected which ought to be non-issue from what you are saying. And why wouldn't you be okay with ANTZ-leaning group of regulators inspecting your DIY set up?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
