The FDA knows they have no jurisdiction therefor there is no ban.
Edit: Jurisdiction over products not making specific claims.
Edit: Jurisdiction over products not making specific claims.
How do you define a ban?
- Thread starter Kate
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- revolution
- Status
From Electronic Cigarette Myths and Facts | Electronic Cigarette Association :
"Myth: Electronic cigarettes cannot be legally marketed in the US.
Fact: The FDA has not issued any formal guidance on electronic cigarettes.
While it is true that some manufacturers have had the importation of their products stopped, it is also true that the FDA has only provided informal comments about electronic cigarettes through its spokespeople and has not issued any formal guidance on the topic. FDA currently only has jurisdiction to regulate drugs and medical devices, and electronic cigarettes are neither."
"Myth: Electronic cigarettes cannot be legally marketed in the US.
Fact: The FDA has not issued any formal guidance on electronic cigarettes.
While it is true that some manufacturers have had the importation of their products stopped, it is also true that the FDA has only provided informal comments about electronic cigarettes through its spokespeople and has not issued any formal guidance on the topic. FDA currently only has jurisdiction to regulate drugs and medical devices, and electronic cigarettes are neither."
Better to hope for a positive outcome than to prematurely morn the demise -
Lacy's point is valid - Nothing "official" has yet been done and the shipments have been stopped based on the verbal claims made by the distributors - Not based on the items themselves. Wait till the dog is dead before you bury it - Call it a ban all you want - It is not a ban without offical steps - Those steps have not been taken as of yet.
Lacy's point is valid - Nothing "official" has yet been done and the shipments have been stopped based on the verbal claims made by the distributors - Not based on the items themselves. Wait till the dog is dead before you bury it - Call it a ban all you want - It is not a ban without offical steps - Those steps have not been taken as of yet.
So one must choose positive or negative rather than the truth.
The fact is that the FDA have made statements saying that vaping products are new drugs and that they are not allowed. They have been selectively stopping shipments.
Positive or negative outlooks don't change the facts. Official steps have been taken, court cases haven't been decided yet. There is a ban.
The fact is that the FDA have made statements saying that vaping products are new drugs and that they are not allowed. They have been selectively stopping shipments.
Positive or negative outlooks don't change the facts. Official steps have been taken, court cases haven't been decided yet. There is a ban.
No - they do not change the facts - But they do change how you proceed -
A positive attitude leads you to continue working with what you have in front of you to try and mitigate a favorable response - A negative attitude leads you to roll over and give up -
"selectively" is the key word here - What is the selection being based on? Seems to me it is based on the claims made by the distributors - not on the informal statements or opinions of the FDA -
You asked - Is there a BAN? - The TRUTH is NO! - There is no ban as is dictated in accordance with FDA procedure - There is selective shipment holdings based on wording that the FDA currently has jurisdiction over - Lacy tried to point you to the FDA's procedure and wording on this but you refused to read it -
It's a bit unfair to dispute someone who's information you can not even be bothered to read -
A positive attitude leads you to continue working with what you have in front of you to try and mitigate a favorable response - A negative attitude leads you to roll over and give up -
"selectively" is the key word here - What is the selection being based on? Seems to me it is based on the claims made by the distributors - not on the informal statements or opinions of the FDA -
You asked - Is there a BAN? - The TRUTH is NO! - There is no ban as is dictated in accordance with FDA procedure - There is selective shipment holdings based on wording that the FDA currently has jurisdiction over - Lacy tried to point you to the FDA's procedure and wording on this but you refused to read it -
It's a bit unfair to dispute someone who's information you can not even be bothered to read -
There is a ban according to my definition of the word. You may define it differently, that's your prerogative. To me, in fact, there is a ban in the US by the FDA. Pretending there isn't is daft and there's no way to win without realism.
My understanding is that shipments not making dodgy claims have been stopped also so it isn't about that.
I didn't read Lacey's information because there's no point. The FDA have taken action, saying that they can't or shouldn't doesn't change that. Unless they are directed by a higher authority to change their policy you are stuck with a ban, like it or not, agree or not.
My understanding is that shipments not making dodgy claims have been stopped also so it isn't about that.
I didn't read Lacey's information because there's no point. The FDA have taken action, saying that they can't or shouldn't doesn't change that. Unless they are directed by a higher authority to change their policy you are stuck with a ban, like it or not, agree or not.
I think the point is that there is no guarantee that shipments get through, so pick a word other than ban and use that if you like but there have been many many shipments stopped so we will call it an almostban or a quasiban or possibann. It's all verbal fencing.
I agree with you there fenez -
A lot of verbal fencing going on here between ppl who should be working together -
I think the anger is turning inward -
Don't get me wrong - I do agree that there is ban-like activity going on - But when you ask - Is there a ban? - any reasonable person would assume that you mean an OFFICIAL - BAN - Whatever it is they are doing now is not an official or legally binding ban - You say you want truth but are unwilling to accept it -
Go on with you then - It's a ban - It's all over - Roll over and give up - If you are so determined why even bother posting here anymore - If you already know all the answers -Then why do you ask such questions? -
A lot of verbal fencing going on here between ppl who should be working together -
I think the anger is turning inward -
Don't get me wrong - I do agree that there is ban-like activity going on - But when you ask - Is there a ban? - any reasonable person would assume that you mean an OFFICIAL - BAN - Whatever it is they are doing now is not an official or legally binding ban - You say you want truth but are unwilling to accept it -
Go on with you then - It's a ban - It's all over - Roll over and give up - If you are so determined why even bother posting here anymore - If you already know all the answers -Then why do you ask such questions? -
As far as giving up.... I will as well as others always get my stuff from over seas, but by simply saying there is no ban there is no ban doesn't make it so, If even 1 shipment gets stopped without good cause then there is a ------------ well what would you call it?
You seem to be emotionally charged over this issue.
I didn't ask if there was official backing of a ban, I asked if there was a ban. Twist and spin all you like and argue that I'm your enemy, it doesn't matter.
heheh - I don't see anything anymore emotionally charged in my posts than in yours -
I do not conider you an enemy at all - It is possible to disagree on a point without being angry or finding enemies - Sorry if you think I find you to be an enemy - I do not -
Fact remains - You started this discussion by posing this question -
A question that you clearly have already made up your mind about -
You did not come here to discuss this - Or to respect the opinions of others - But to tell anyone who disagreed with your assessment or definition that they are wrong and misinformed - It really looks to me like you just wanted to stir things up - So - Sorry if my opinions are not acceptable to you - Very sorry that you think I view you as an enemy -
Nothing could be further from the truth -
I'm off for supper now-
Peace be with you
Mostly I think I have made my mind up. Nobody has given me reason to think there isn't a current ban in the US.
It's a pity you can't debate rationally but resort to personal attacks, calling me a stirrer is hardly a peaceful statement even if you do offer that at the end of your post. So slap but it wasn't real?
It's a pity you can't debate rationally but resort to personal attacks, calling me a stirrer is hardly a peaceful statement even if you do offer that at the end of your post. So slap but it wasn't real?
I think these "instruments" are certainly on someone's list, imports, inspections, something seems to abosolutely pointing a finger at certain shipments. One would have to have direct access to the prevailing entity to be able to say with any certaintly this is happening. Only question: which entity?
There is no doubt 'someone' with the authority to ban them has banned them. The question now is has that person gone out of the boundaries of their authority or not and only someone with even more authority can decide that.
- Status
Similar threads
