H.R. 1256 Passes Congress...Here we go!
- Thread starter truthseeker
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
They can't ban them if they were introduced for commercial sale before February of 2007 (if they are seen as a tobacco product). I don't know when the electronic cigarette became commerically available in the United States. Maybe some suppliers can answer that for us.
If they were introduced after that date, they will have to run tests and prove that they are a reduced harm tobacco product or they will have to apply to have them seen as a smoking cesation medical delivery device. Which is sooner or cheaper...I don't know.
Last edited:
Looks like they're trying to corner the market hoping no one will notice lol.
E cigarette; FDA APPROVAL; OEM design are welcome,
CE, ROHS, FCC and MSDS are approved.
It's all speculation at this point. We will unfortunately have to wait and see what the true effects of this bill are and what areas they decide to concentrate on first. I personally don't expect sweeping changes (to the e cig market) in the forseeable future, but hell, thats just speculation too...
They were available in the U.S. before 2007 because I saw both the pen style and bottles of liquid in a wholesale shop in Denver in 06 or 05 (I forget which - even if i'm mistaken and it was '07, it was in January because I would have been in town for the Denver Rodeo). But, of course, proving it is another matter. Ideal, imho, would be finding an ecig advertisement in a magazine or newspaper from before feb 2007.
Timeline:
The bill will dramatically affect how tobacco is marketed as the bill's provisions are phased in:
Immediately, tobacco makers can no longer make claims that their products pose fewer health risks.
Within three months, candy- and fruit-flavored cigarettes are banned, and the FDA can extend that ban to cigars and moist snuff, where such flavorings are more common. Menthol is exempt.
Within nine months, the FDA must publish marketing restrictions that will take effect six months later.
Within 12 months, new warning labels will be placed on smokeless tobacco products.
Within 15 months, tobacco companies must disclose the ingredients in their products.
Within two years, the FDA must issue rules on graphic warrnings for cigarettes that will cover half the pack. The labels will take effect 15 months later.
The bill will dramatically affect how tobacco is marketed as the bill's provisions are phased in:
Immediately, tobacco makers can no longer make claims that their products pose fewer health risks.
Within three months, candy- and fruit-flavored cigarettes are banned, and the FDA can extend that ban to cigars and moist snuff, where such flavorings are more common. Menthol is exempt.
Within nine months, the FDA must publish marketing restrictions that will take effect six months later.
Within 12 months, new warning labels will be placed on smokeless tobacco products.
Within 15 months, tobacco companies must disclose the ingredients in their products.
Within two years, the FDA must issue rules on graphic warrnings for cigarettes that will cover half the pack. The labels will take effect 15 months later.
Guyver VI - welcome! If you're new to e-cigs there's loads (and I mean LOADS) of fascinating stuff in the Newbie stickies. If not new to it - get stuck in - there's more info on e-cigs here than you can read in a week (even if you're a speed-reader!)
Have fun!
Have fun!
deleted, my google produced the wrong results. See post 52.
Last edited:
I agree. Just because the bill passed today does not mean that e-cigs will just "vaporize" overnight. The market is way too big now (and given the fact that this forum server crashes on occation because theres no less than 10,000 on at any given time) with hundreds of new people joining every day. Given this fact, and the fact that there are litterally hundreds (if not thousands) of independant distributors in the world (with hundreds in the US alone), the FDA will be real hard pressed to make them totally unavailable anytime soon.
The best thing they can do, outside of an occational seasure by customs, (they will never be able to catch them all) would be to create an enforcement arm if owning the PV turns into a felony, much like they do with owning illegal drugs, which gets the ATF involved. This in turn gets the Department of Justice involved, local and state police to enforce the law (and I'm pretty sure a lot of police officers own their own PV), it'll just turn into yet another law enforcement money pit that the government and states will have to face.
Worse case scenario, stock up for what you need for the month, because at worst, your order will take a bit more time to arrive.
Greenworld products are for sale at nHaler.com
Drewsworld - a member of the forum - is the owner and he's in the supplier forum.
Interesting thing about Greenworld - check the pricing.
And in all seriousness, who here is going to be surprised when PM comes out with their own version of the e-cig in a year or two, and the cost is on par with Smoking Everwhere? Their liquids will be like $50 for 20ml, and the devices/kits will be in the $100-$200 range...if not more.
Drewsworld - a member of the forum - is the owner and he's in the supplier forum.
Interesting thing about Greenworld - check the pricing.
And in all seriousness, who here is going to be surprised when PM comes out with their own version of the e-cig in a year or two, and the cost is on par with Smoking Everwhere? Their liquids will be like $50 for 20ml, and the devices/kits will be in the $100-$200 range...if not more.
bruce... I believe the new sugary tax you are talking about is a tax on on-diet soft drinks. I also believe that (and many other idiotic taxes) are being proposed by Mr. David Patterson, who is seeking to take care of the states budget by taxing New Yorkers to the point of poverty.
The gun laws on the other hand, to my knowledge, are coming down from the White House under the Obama Administration. So it is him we can thank for being on our way to communism/socialism.
My best,
-VP
Wow. Not only is that amazingly off topic, but it's such a flatly partisan statement, coming practically word for word from the talking points, that it seriously calls into question your assertion that you don't follow politics or take a particular stand to one side or the other of the political spectrum.
I don't mean to derail this thread or force you to defend your statements. Obviously you're free to believe anything you want. But since this goes directly to something you said to me earlier I wanted to make note of it.
That's all I'll say on the subject.
Umm...how is that amazingly off topic? I was responding to a poster who was blaming Chuck Schummer for gun control. The gun reform I've seen have been coming from the white house, not a NY senator.
I really dont care if you call my assertions into question. I have nothing to hide. Im telling you, I do not follow politics to the point where I can speak ad nuseum about it. I can speak about religion all day...not politics. I am also open to any correction about politics that I post. If my statements happen to fall on one side or the other of the political spectrum, then so be it. I claim no favor to any political side.
I favor gun ownership... thats one side. But I also believe a women has the right to choose abortion... thats the other side. So you tell me which side of the spectrum I fall on.
My best,
-VP
The media is part to blame here, I feel anyhow, for their treatment of Senator Burr and his differences with this bill. Every article I read said that well, he just biased because of the tobacco interests in his state... HELLO - THE BILL WAS CO-SPONSORED BY ALTRIA - any mention of that in those article - NONE WHATSOEVER!! And even now, we have witchhunt articles like this one demonizing those who came out against the bill due to their tobacco industry ties: http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090611/pl_mcclatchy/3250739 And yet there is no mention whatsoever of the fact that this bill is co-sponsored by Altria. That is grossly irresponsible and, in my opinion, inexcusably biased journalism! But ethics and honesty don't matter in journalism anymore. If you write for CNBC (large list here really, but they stood out in my mind due to their presidential election coverage,) you slam republicans, If you write for Fox (besides AM radio, seems to be the only conservative mainstream news source,) you slam democrats.
Last edited:
You're missing a couple of critical facts.
First, Burr made his comments knowing full well that the bill would pass.
Second, Altria didn't just co-sponsor the bill, their lobbyists authored most of it.
Third, Burr is from North Carolina. Altria is based in Virginia. Know which tobacco company is based in North Carolina? R.J. Reynolds... makers of... you guessed it: SNUS, Orbs and Camel Flavored Cigarettes. R.J. Reynolds opposed the bill because it basically sets up an anti-competitive situation where their new products are outlawed and Altria's (the largest manufacturer of menthol cigarettes) is protected.
Getting the picture now? Burr practically got on the Senate floor and ran an infomercial about SNUS and Orbs. He mentioned e-cigarettes only in passing. This wasn't a battle between anti-smoking Senators and pro-smoking (or pro smoking alternatives) Senators. It was a battle between Altria and R.J. Reynolds, brought to you in cooperation with the US government.
First, Burr made his comments knowing full well that the bill would pass.
Second, Altria didn't just co-sponsor the bill, their lobbyists authored most of it.
Third, Burr is from North Carolina. Altria is based in Virginia. Know which tobacco company is based in North Carolina? R.J. Reynolds... makers of... you guessed it: SNUS, Orbs and Camel Flavored Cigarettes. R.J. Reynolds opposed the bill because it basically sets up an anti-competitive situation where their new products are outlawed and Altria's (the largest manufacturer of menthol cigarettes) is protected.
Getting the picture now? Burr practically got on the Senate floor and ran an infomercial about SNUS and Orbs. He mentioned e-cigarettes only in passing. This wasn't a battle between anti-smoking Senators and pro-smoking (or pro smoking alternatives) Senators. It was a battle between Altria and R.J. Reynolds, brought to you in cooperation with the US government.
I'm not missing anything. I'm fully aware of the fact that Senator Burr received funds from RJ Reynolds and was defending their interests. He was also defending the interests of his state and his constituents and doing EXACTLY what he should be doing as a Senator in the process - representing his constituents, not rolling whichever the party whip asks him to. My point is that it is totally unfair dismiss his objection due to his ties to RJ Reynolds and not simultaneously criticize the bill itself as a construction of Altria.
I agree with that. However, I saw reporting that pointed out the Altria connection, so I'm not sure where the problem is. Burr gets lauded by some, smeared by others. Same for the bill itself. Lauded by some, smeared by others.
Guys ... Smoore (Makers of M-series ecigs) is simply a *Registered Company* with the FDA. They tried to pass off a shipment of mine as *FDA Approved Devices* and that's the one now sitting in the hands of US Customs because it was complete bull****. The sad part is, I didn't find out what they put on the importation documents until AFTER the fact ... Smoore is simply trying to trick the average joe ...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
