FDA FDA's leaked guidance for PMTAs confirm deeming reg would ban >99.9% of nicotine vapor products

[zoiDman]

You're being intelligent and rational, neither of which we can expect from the Govt or FDA.

My guess? Because its detrimental to BT and BP. It would solve the tax situation perhaps, but not those 2 big players unless they became heavily invested in producing better vape products themselves.

Like I said, I dunno? You might be Right.

I think if this was 2012, or even 2013, I could see it More. But I think Now that the Genie is kinda Fully Out of the Bottle. And Studies like the UK Health Ministry Study has given some Serious Pause.

I think the FDA will set a Bar High enough so that Only the Select Few can Jump Over it. But not Too High so that a Significant Vacuum is formed Enhancing a Larger Black/Grey Market that currently Exists for Regular Cigarettes.

 

[Shameless]

.

 

[roxynoodle]

Like I said, I dunno? You might be Right.

I think if this was 2012, or even 2013, I could see it More. But I think Now that the Genie is kinda Fully Out of the Bottle. And Studies like the UK Health Ministry Study has given some Serious Pause.

I think the FDA will set a Bar High enough so that Only the Select Few can Jump Over it. But not Too High so that a Significant Vacuum is formed Enhancing a Larger Black/Grey Market that currently Exists for Regular Cigarettes.

I don't know either. I find it difficult to think like a corrpt person.

 

[nicnik]

Who regulates the regulators?

I think that would be the President. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Kent C]

I think that would be the President. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

They are part of the executive branch, so yes, but all three branches can intervene. The courts are who they fear the most though.

 

[zoiDman]

I think that would be the President. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

In the Grand Scheme of things, The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services oversees the FDA.

 

[Rossum]

Agree with your take on this. It is prohibition in many real ways, regardless of the regulators. If industry regulators (non-government) were to prohibit products say with with diacetyl in them, then that is prohibition. Plain and simple.

No sir, it wouldn't be. You see compliance with non-government industry regulation is voluntary because there are no men wearing badges, guns, and body armor enforcing it. E.g.: "Industry regulation" currently prohibits WTA based juices, yet there are several vendors offering such.

 

[Kent C]

No sir, it wouldn't be. You see compliance with non-government industry regulation is voluntary because there are no men with with wearing badges, guns, and body armor enforcing it. E.g.: "Industry regulation" currently prohibits WTA based juices, yet there are several vendors offering such.

It's semantical - as are many posts from certain people, including Phillips 'not regulation but prohibition' piece. "Regulate" can mean control and/or adjust.

What some of the THRers are doing is attempting to make the case that this isn't regulation but prohibition. It's not a bad tactic but it obliterates the part of the definition of regulation that includes 'control'. Complete control over the use or disposal of something is 'ownership'. Regulation takes over that ownership from the rights of individuals and puts it into the hands of government. It can 'adjust' how things are used, or it can 'control' how or IF things are used. In this last sense is what is meant by 'regulated out of existence' - prohibition.

Even using the 'adjust' part of the definition - when applied to certain aspects of a product, it is a 'prohibition' of that aspect of a product, where a cigarette isn't "prohibited" but certain flavors of cigarettes are "prohibited" - that's regulation.

Prohibition is a form of regulation. Regulation is the senior concept. Prohibition of certain aspects or all aspects is regulation

 

[Kurt]

OT, but thought I would jump in.

The only "industry regulation" currently in the US is AEMSA, but that represents a relatively small percent of the US e-liquid market. That said, yes, AEMSA does currently prohibit WTA for its members to sell, mainly because none of the WTA manufacturers will divulge lab tests showing the contents, including solvents, heavy metals, etc. Lab tests which are mandatory for nicotine. AEMSA (and I) were publicly attacked for not allowing WTA in AEMSA, but when we offered to consider WTA if it could meet the same quality control and assurance as regular nicotine must meet, no manufacturer was interested...and yet one in particular continued to attack us online. I for one was very interested in seriously considering WTA for AEMSA, and had been in contact the chemist who first developed it (DVap), but the manufacturer would not even get standard nic tests done. And we don't like products with such a high degree of uncertainty. We are not a gov't regulating body, we do not pass or enforce laws, so if people want to vape WTA, and they don't care what they are inhaling, that is fine, its not illegal as yet ...it just can't be AEMSA certified just yet...however much weight that carries.

As I said, OT from the thread topic, but I just wanted to clarify the WTA/regulations thing.

 

[Kent C]

That said, yes, AEMSA does currently prohibit WTA for its members to sell, mainly because none of the WTA manufacturers will divulge lab tests showing the contents, including solvents, heavy metals, etc.

Is there anything stopping you from doing the tests in your labs and reporting?

The only "industry regulation" currently in the US is AEMSA

If you mean only ecig industry, I'd agree. As far as the VG and PG and some of the flavorings and nic used - those are regulated by the US (and elsewhere).

 

[radiokaos]

OT, but thought I would jump in.

The only "industry regulation" currently in the US is AEMSA, but that represents a relatively small percent of the US e-liquid market. That said, yes, AEMSA does currently prohibit WTA for its members to sell, mainly because none of the WTA manufacturers will divulge lab tests showing the contents, including solvents, heavy metals, etc. Lab tests which are mandatory for nicotine. AEMSA (and I) were publicly attacked for not allowing WTA in AEMSA, but when we offered to consider WTA if it could meet the same quality control and assurance as regular nicotine must meet, no manufacturer was interested...and yet one in particular continued to attack us online. I for one was very interested in seriously considering WTA for AEMSA, and had been in contact the chemist who first developed it (DVap), but the manufacturer would not even get standard nic tests done. And we don't like products with such a high degree of uncertainty. We are not a gov't regulating body, we do not pass or enforce laws, so if people want to vape WTA, and they don't care what they are inhaling, that is fine, its not illegal as yet ...it just can't be AEMSA certified just yet...however much weight that carries.

As I said, OT from the thread topic, but I just wanted to clarify the WTA/regulations thing.

That's interesting...I for one offered to open my doors to AMESA and the public. IN fact we have a open door policy. We can go back to when AMESA first launched and your president declined our offer to tour our facility or to even communicate with me. I think AMESA wanted specific details on exact process of WTA. I for one am hesitant to give out trade secrets since AMESA was formed by fellow competitors.

 

[Jman8]

No sir, it wouldn't be. You see compliance with non-government industry regulation is voluntary because there are no men wearing badges, guns, and body armor enforcing it. E.g.: "Industry regulation" currently prohibits WTA based juices, yet there are several vendors offering such.

Agreed with your technical take. And is why I say paying taxes (of all kinds) is technically voluntary.

Difference between industry regulation and government is nobody will offer it legally with government (though it for sure will be available) while with industry regulation, it's set up for those who desire that type of product / regulation.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Prohibition is a form of regulation. Regulation is the senior concept. Prohibition of certain aspects or all aspects is regulation

Agree with your take on this. Regulation as defined by current operations is control.

And even voluntary industry standards can be coercive as well in their favoritism to certain clients.

At some point Americans are going to have to take a stand as to whether they're going to let the obligation of definition and control trickle down to the bureaucratic administrative level such that we do end up with a unitary executive model in force and effect, i.e. no legislative limits. Here [with FDA] Congress permits it.

Good luck all.

 

[AndriaD]

Agree with your take on this. It is prohibition in many real ways, regardless of the regulators. If industry regulators (non-government) were to prohibit products say with with diacetyl in them, then that is prohibition. Plain and simple.

So, while it is accurate to say that the FDA will allow some vaping products in the legal market, it is also accurate to say they will (very likely) prohibit a whole bunch of other things. And on the whole, compared to the under regulated market, it will be more prohibition, than not.

Though I'm fairly certain the FDA will allow product with diacetyl in it. How you like dem apples?

Just as they allow food mfrs to use sulfites -- which do NOTHING except preserve color (which sulfur dioxide could do just as well) -- and which can KILL asthmatics, or at the very least, cause them such a bad asthma attack that they have to go to the emergency room for a shot of epi.

Oh yeah, that FDA, they're a real safety net. /sarcasm

Andria

 

[AndriaD]

No sir, it wouldn't be. You see compliance with non-government industry regulation is voluntary because there are no men wearing badges, guns, and body armor enforcing it. E.g.: "Industry regulation" currently prohibits WTA based juices, yet there are several vendors offering such.

And thank god they are! But I foresee that WTA will be one of the first casualties -- because not only does it dismiss cravings, it even helps with depression and anxiety -- BP will not tolerate that! Nuh uh! They might not sell as many toxic SSRIs!

Andria

 

[snork]

And thank god they are! But I foresee that WTA will be one of the first casualties -- because not only does it dismiss cravings, it even helps with depression and anxiety -- BP will not tolerate that! Nuh uh! They might not sell as many toxic SSRIs!

Andria

I foresee myself vaping my beloved WTA long after AEMSA membership has been crushed by the FDA.

 

[AndriaD]

I foresee myself vaping my beloved WTA long after AEMSA membership has been crushed by the FDA.

Well I hope you're right, god knows there are those of us who wouldn't be able to quit and stay quit without WTA. I have a just-in-case bottle in my freezer, but I'm almost done with it in my regular vape; down to 1.4% now, next week I'll be dropping to 1.2%.

But it really seems to me that BP would zero in on WTA as a competing product, with those hellish SSRIs. This is the industry that thinks chantix is a better way to quit smoking than vaping. Really their entire gameplan seems to be that every product they sell is *meant* to cause some other problem, so you'll need another of their products... which will cause some other problem, so you'll need another of their products... which will cause some other problem, so you'll need another of their products... to infinity...

Andria

 

[benjamind2013]

My guess? Because its detrimental to BT and BP. It would solve the tax situation perhaps, but not those 2 big players unless they became heavily invested in producing better vape products themselves.

Since that market has already been created and there isn't a whole lot for them to improve on...

...so they have to destroy it. It's no different than the ....... market. Or the opiate market. They came, they saw the market, they ....ed it over, that was their plan. Then they introduced their OWN product, while controlling who has access to that product. Mother....ers.

Boy am I glad cannabis is being legalised. We'll need it to deal with the stress of this whole FDA/US GOV shenanigans!!!

 

[benjamind2013]

those hellish SSRIs

Yeah, the ones that rob you of your sexual function...sometimes permanently.

SSRIs are for those who circumcision didn't do a good enough job of ruining their sexuality...as that was the whole idea behind it, and please pay NO attention to the medical "justifications". That's just ....ing bull...., and anyone who can see past it knows damn well it is.

 

[B2L]

For anyone who hasn't seen it yet

CASAA: National Call to Action! Stop the FDA from banning nearly ALL vapor products from the market!

This is a new CTA in addition to last weeks with a new tact.