If push came to shove, I could vape for the rest of my life without ever buying a thing. DIY and wrapping my own coils makes that possible. So I don't worry about me, I could get along just fine. It's the person that still smokes, and can't quit that needs our help because "But for the grace of God .... there go I".
FDA to propose rule on ecigarettes Monday 4-28-2014
- Thread starter paigekoontz
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
If push came to shove, I could vape for the rest of my life without ever buying a thing. DIY and wrapping my own coils makes that possible. So I don't worry about me, I could get along just fine. It's the person that still smokes, and can't quit that needs our help because "But for the grace of God .... there go I".
There's a Daily Action Plan posted here on weekdays as well as on Facebook giving links +info to twitter and email. I not only do it myself but pass them on to non-members. Each of those passes it on also, including their Facebooks, until we have a large network just started from this single member. Its composed of smokers and non-smokers who vape or do not vape including those who have never done either but have loved ones who do. I wish everyone would start up their own networks that way. At first, I had to help with questions and I sent CASAA links to get the facts about vaping passed around so be prepared to do that also.
All well and good there Sonic me boy but remember, the political climate we now live in requires much more. News agencies have their political agendas and miss no opportunity to please the Kidstapo and radical left or right among them. What we really need,(and imo are doomed as a free nation if we do not) is a strong third party. Libertarian that will remove the government intrusions into our lives. Why is it that businesses are outsourcing to foreign countries unless because of unfair taxes and legislations? This administration that is in office now can't even follow the laws that they sign. They sure won't miss a chance to sign away our freedoms.
I post and email about this from Facebook to Twitter and yes, about vaping and what we are up against also. If everyone will just stick together for once, we might have a chance. If not and we are sunk. Hell Idk about you, but I'm sticking with it and will help anyone else vape or get supplies if it dries up.
Nice post btw.
Call it what it is: a fog machine; or a micro fog machine.
Somebody should take a regular sized fog machine to the fda and find out if they're going to define it as a tobacco product.
What i want to know is...
Are there NO state iegislators who are smokers themselves?
Find them.
SAVE THEM, ...ahem... I mean convert them to vaping.
Show them that vaping is the Anti-Tobacco.
Show them that Vapor is the HERO of the story.
That Vapor is fighting FOR the Public Health.
Get smoking state legislators to introduce some bills to give Tax Breaks to Vapor producers, distrubiters, sellers, for the GOOD they are doing.
These bills don't have to pass, just get into the news.
To fight with those other bills for the hearts & minds of the public.
-------------------------
Responces to other posts:
198
"It's the Nicotine Base. Isn't that where the Real Concern should be?"
NO! NO!
It's the Tobacco and the Burning Leaves.
Leave the nicotine alone.
Just whose side are you on?
210
"But how can they put a 300 - 400% tax on the nicotine used for e-liquid, and not on the same nicotine used in NRT's???"
No problem for them, when the markup on patches has gotta be around 1000%.
Just how much does it cost to soak a band-aid in e-juice?
A quick check of Walgreens site shows them selling a box of 14 nic-o-derms for $50.
Over $3 a patch.
Walgreens house brand goes for $30 = $2 a patch.
You could DIY for under two-bits per.
A 4x increse in the nic price would only rase the box on shelf price by only a buck or two. (unless their greed kicks-in)
Are there NO state iegislators who are smokers themselves?
Find them.
SAVE THEM, ...ahem... I mean convert them to vaping.
Show them that vaping is the Anti-Tobacco.
Show them that Vapor is the HERO of the story.
That Vapor is fighting FOR the Public Health.
Get smoking state legislators to introduce some bills to give Tax Breaks to Vapor producers, distrubiters, sellers, for the GOOD they are doing.
These bills don't have to pass, just get into the news.
To fight with those other bills for the hearts & minds of the public.
-------------------------
Responces to other posts:
198
"It's the Nicotine Base. Isn't that where the Real Concern should be?"
NO! NO!
It's the Tobacco and the Burning Leaves.
Leave the nicotine alone.
Just whose side are you on?
210
"But how can they put a 300 - 400% tax on the nicotine used for e-liquid, and not on the same nicotine used in NRT's???"
No problem for them, when the markup on patches has gotta be around 1000%.
Just how much does it cost to soak a band-aid in e-juice?
A quick check of Walgreens site shows them selling a box of 14 nic-o-derms for $50.
Over $3 a patch.
Walgreens house brand goes for $30 = $2 a patch.
You could DIY for under two-bits per.
A 4x increse in the nic price would only rase the box on shelf price by only a buck or two. (unless their greed kicks-in)
I think you are Missing the Concept of the Post.
Not talking about a problem Doesn't make the problem go away. In Fact, it is probably the Worst Thing we can do. To just sit back and Wait for it to Happen.
Then you might want to Get Active and write to Anyone who has the Power to take e-Cigarettes/e-Liquids away from you.
Like you City, County, State and Federal Reps.
I see from your post count that you are new to the forum, but just wanted to give you a heads up, if you click on the little quote box with the + symbol at the bottom of each post you want to respond to it will put your responses in context to make them easier to understand, lol.
Mike
I swear this flavors thing and "the children" drives me nuts! The only e-liquid I have that is not in a child-proof bottle is some that came from Draco in glass bottles. They still make orange cleaners right? Lemon? Others? Sure they do. If the Kidstapo don't watch their children like they should is it us that has to suffer for it? grrrr
That's all they got too. That's what burns me up about his whole deal.
That's all they got too. That's what burns me up about his whole deal.
I swear this flavors thing and "the children" drives me nuts! The only e-liquid I have that is not in a child-proof bottle is some that came from Draco in glass bottles. They still make orange cleaners right? Lemon? Others? Sure they do. If the Kidstapo don't watch their children like they should is it us that has to suffer for it? grrrr
That's all they got too. That's what burns me up about his whole deal.
Flavor/scented/colored:
Air fresheners
Essential oils
Household cleaning: Lemon, Orange, etc.
Chewable vitamins
Flavored Tums
Cherry cough syrups
Kitchen concentrated flavorings: Vanilla, Banana, Strawberry, etc.
BP Flavored NRTs
Energy drinks: High Caffeine, Vitamin, etc.
Fruity splashes/colognes: Melons, Kiwi, etc.
All those pretty candy-like pills.
The enticing list goes on and on.
Years ago my son (just under two years old) ate my MILs tranquilizer-containing estrogen pills she left in my fridge. They were in a non-prescription clear glass bottle she left on a lower door shelf... think it was an old saccharin bottle. She wanted to leave a supply there for future visits but failed to tell me she did. They were a bright, pretty, red and looked like candy to him. He was really too young to open the fridge but somehow did it.
There is so much a kid can get into... stuff happens... but its about parenting, not banning.
Last edited:
What other products are called or flavored makes not a bit of difference when it comes to regulation; neither does the fact that there are other products that are more dangerous or appealing to children. E-liquid and e-cigarettes are the issue. The argument that something else exists that may be worse has never worked, as far as regulation is concerned.
Yes - I agree , and with no intent to offend, I am truly interested as to your certainty of what you state relating to regulation through this thread.
Regardless of flavor or other considerations, the FDA has to overcome
15 USC § 1332 - Definitions
As used in this chapter—
(1) The term “cigarette” means—
(A) any roll of tobacco wrapped in paper or in any substance not containing tobacco, and
(B) any roll of tobacco wrapped in any substance containing tobacco which, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette described in subparagraph (A).
.....
And -
21 USC § 387 - Definitions
(3) Cigarette
The term “cigarette”—
(A) means a product that—
(i) is a tobacco product; and
(ii) meets the definition of the term “cigarette” in section 1332 (1) of title 15; and
(B) includes tobacco, in any form, that is functional in the product, which, because of its appearance, the type of tobacco used in the filler, or its packaging and labeling, is likely to be offered to, or purchased by, consumers as a cigarette or as roll-your-own tobacco.
(4) Cigarette tobacco
The term “cigarette tobacco” means any product that consists of loose tobacco that is intended for use by consumers in a cigarette. Unless otherwise stated, the requirements applicable to cigarettes under this subchapter shall also apply to cigarette tobacco.
.....
As I previously stated, with the exception of pre-filled e-cigarettes, the non-composite or individual component nature of many vaping "parts" used by the vaping community seems to be a large leap for the FDA. The concept of regulating tanks, batteries, wick, kanthal wire to comprise a "cigarette" is a long stretch to me. The e-liquid as an unflavored nicotine base seems beyond the scope of the current premises FDA has put forth. Though, even flavored e-liquid is another non-composite or component article that is not in the scope of the US Code.
I have to say again, the lesser of all evils is vaping and if the intent of the Code and the FDA is to do no harm, then the premises with respect to many vaping device components is surely misguided and not in the best interest of people or harm reduction.
In fact, it is obvious regulation could in fact cause much greater harm than the intent or any proposed regulation.
Last edited:
Vape gear won't be regulated at all on the federal level; some states or localities could call it dual use or paraphanelia, though.
I don't think there can be much regulation at this point, with the exception of caps, labels, and licensing- at least on the federal level. E- liquid does fall under the Tobacco Control Act, however, but other than age restrictions and advertising restrictions, I don't see much in the way of regulation happening in that regard. The reason the FDA hasn't acted yet, is because there isn't a whole lot they can do. The states, on the other hand...
I don't think there can be much regulation at this point, with the exception of caps, labels, and licensing- at least on the federal level. E- liquid does fall under the Tobacco Control Act, however, but other than age restrictions and advertising restrictions, I don't see much in the way of regulation happening in that regard. The reason the FDA hasn't acted yet, is because there isn't a whole lot they can do. The states, on the other hand...
Soon there will be a state tax stamp on every bottle of e-liquid like on a pack of cigs. I know that will happen but it may be sooner than later. This is what they are gearing up to do I'm sure.
Could be, but it would be a logistical nightmare. How would they know how much they can legally tax? There is no scientific data to show mow much ml of juice equals a pack of cigarettes. There's also the question of different nic levels and 0 nic. Internet sales could generate sales tax if the seller has a presence in said state and the buyer resides in that state.
Are the taxes different between the cigs atm? No, the lights and the kings are all taxed the same.
It would most likely be by the ml or a number of mls imo.
The problem with that for the states would mean new legislation would have to be written, rather than encompass e-juice into tobacco taxes. New tax laws can take many legislative sessions to pass.
Aldo, cigars, cigarettes and chew are taxed differently. What category would e-juice fall under? Other than containing an ingredient derived from tobacco, it is none on the above.
I would imagine smokeless tobacco. Hey but great point on the complications of regulations. That's probably what has saved us for so long.
Kudos Steve.
The Tobacco Control Act includes tobacco derivatives for "human consumption" and that appears to be the point where e-liquids get included.
The concept of human consumption is pretty well understood by be as meaning to ingest.
I find only one definition of human consumption in CFR or PL that goes beyond this and this relates to an "illegal drug" - where the term used is "applied" and is defined as cited below so that by applying the substance it would enter the human body.
It is obvious e-liquid is not orally ingested as a normal course nor is it intended to be. As well, it is not intended to be applied to any part of the body.
FAMILY SMOKING PREVENTION AND
TOBACCO CONTROL ACT PUBLIC LAW 111–31—JUNE 22, 2009
TITLE I—AUTHORITY OF THE FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 101. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT.
(a) DEFINITION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS.—Section 201 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(rr)(1) The term ‘tobacco product’ means any product made
or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption,
including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product
(except for raw materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing
a component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product). ...
TITLE 21--FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER II--DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PART 1308 -- SCHEDULES OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
Sec. 1308.35 ...
(3) The termused for human consumption means either:
(i) Ingested orally or
(ii) Applied by any means such that ... enters the human body ...
The concept of human consumption is pretty well understood by be as meaning to ingest.
I find only one definition of human consumption in CFR or PL that goes beyond this and this relates to an "illegal drug" - where the term used is "applied" and is defined as cited below so that by applying the substance it would enter the human body.
It is obvious e-liquid is not orally ingested as a normal course nor is it intended to be. As well, it is not intended to be applied to any part of the body.
FAMILY SMOKING PREVENTION AND
TOBACCO CONTROL ACT PUBLIC LAW 111–31—JUNE 22, 2009
TITLE I—AUTHORITY OF THE FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 101. AMENDMENT OF FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT.
(a) DEFINITION OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS.—Section 201 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321) is amended
by adding at the end the following:
‘‘(rr)(1) The term ‘tobacco product’ means any product made
or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption,
including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product
(except for raw materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing
a component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product). ...
TITLE 21--FOOD AND DRUGS
CHAPTER II--DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PART 1308 -- SCHEDULES OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES
Sec. 1308.35 ...
(3) The termused for human consumption means either:
(i) Ingested orally or
(ii) Applied by any means such that ... enters the human body ...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
