While its very helpful tobacco companies and large cigalike companies are establishing a lobbying and PR presence in DC, their goal is to prevent FDA from banning their products and marketing practices, and aren't trying to prevent FDA from banning or severely restricting e-liquid, flavorings, mods, Internet sales or squeezing most smaller competitors out of the industry.
Agreed. But I used an injection machine for years along with pipe tobacco (mercifully, IN was not one of those states like TX which decided to apply cigarette tobacco taxes to pipe tobacco). So I was able to get my own tubes (not FSC paper) and order pipe tobacco over the 'net ... for some reason that wasn't covered under PACT, nor banned by IN - I've never figured out why that was.
Whether the FDA can get away with banning MODs outside of the therapeutic context is unclear. I wonder if they have the authority (of course Congress does). Looks a lot more to me like the case with injection machines, maybe MODs aren't as much of a threat to BT either. DIY and e-liquids ... that's another story. Perhaps there will be a black market (if only to evade taxation) in high-% nic. juice. The gov't can't effectively stop us from getting PG and VG (well I suppose it could if it wanted to put enough effort into it, but it would be awkward since they have so many other applications. Flavorings -
fuggedit, those are gone no matter what.
But that's a whole lot better than seeing the Feds and/or state-after-state just ban vaping sales entirely. Which I fear is what we were facing before BT got involved. Vapers and orgs like CASAA just don't have the oomph to take on the big well-funded ANTZ orgs like the ACS, ALA and so forth. So the enemy of our enemy is - in a sense - our friend.
Even if they're not exactly the sort of friends that I personally might prefer vapers to have.
They are candy/bakery flavorings, be more than tough to ban those. 
