Long-time Lurker, First-time Caller

[E squire]

Hey all! I just wanted to say "hi" and such so I can hit my 5 posts and put my in on a thread or two. vape on!

 

[Nermal]

So, what kind of thread are you interested in - once you get out of the playpen.

By the way, responding to someone else's thread also counts.

 

[Warpigs]

Welcome to ECF!

 

[E squire]

So, what kind of thread are you interested in - once you get out of the playpen.

Well, at this very moment I'd like to share what I submitted on FreeToVape.org on the final countdown for FDA comments thread (which I can't link to because I'm a noobie... sigh). I don't want to go and spoil it too soon here but I think I offer an interesting perspective as a young attorney.

 

[dhramman]

Welcome. Im also new and tryin to get my 5 in too. And thank you cuz this makes 5. What are you vapin on?

 

[E squire]

Thanks Warpigs! I'm clearly not the only night-owl on ECF, eh?

 

[E squire]

Im also new and tryin to get my 5 in too. And thank you cuz this makes 5.

You're welcome!

What are you vapin on?

At the moment I'm vaping Space Jam's Omega on a Kanger ProTank2 (cotton rebuild) on an eGo-CTwist. My birthday's coming up and I should have some nice vapemail to take the next step into mods and RDAs

 

[E squire]

Well, at this very moment I'd like to share what I submitted on FreeToVape.org on the final countdown for FDA comments thread (which I can't link to because I'm a noobie... sigh). I don't want to go and spoil it too soon here but I think I offer an interesting perspective as a young attorney.

So... maybe I'm missing something, but I can't seem to reply to that thread yet. Before I ctrl+c something else, I'm just going to post what I submitted here now (perhaps to later make its way into that thread?):

Although I am a PV (personal vaporizer) user, I am also an attorney admitted to practice in the states of Ohio and Illinois as well as the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. As an attorney, I find the proposed deeming provisions problematic, particularly in how the FDA proposes to consider PVs as falling within its definition of "tobacco products" and how it plans to draw distinctions between "accessories" and "components" in the context of PVs.

First and foremost, many PV users do not utilize any product made or derived from tobacco. Some choose to vaporize "e-liquid" or "e-juice" containing no nicotine whatsoever. This means that not only would the products they vaporize not be considered "tobacco products" as defined under Section 201(rr) of the FD Act (21 U.S.C. 321(rr)), as amended by the Tobacco Control Act, but neither would the components or parts included as part of a finished product or intended for consumer use in the consumption of zero-nicotine liquids. Furthermore, it would appear that the proposed regulations would not cover liquids containing synthetic nicotine, as synthetic nicotine is not derived from tobacco, and thus the components or parts included as part of a finished product or intended for consumer use in the consumption of synthetic-nicotine liquids would not be covered by the proposed regulations either.

Second, assuming for the sake of argument that all e-liquid (including that containing no nicotine or synthetic nicotine) may be considered a "tobacco product" (it should not be, as explained above), it will prove difficult--if not impossible--to draw distinctions between unregulated accessories and regulated components and parts in the context of PVs. For example, the regulations cite lighters as an accessory. However, lighters are intended for consumer use in the consumption of tobacco products. By analogy, the batteries and heating elements of PVs, although intended for consumer use in the consumption of e-liquid, should also be treated as accessories. This problem becomes even more complex when considering to variety of materials that are "are included as part of a finished" PV: Which batteries will be considered "intended for consumer use in the consumption of tobacco products"? Which wires? Which switches? Which tubes? Which cotton? Which screws? Does it depend on the manufacturer? The marketing? The actual use by consumers? It is worth noting that some of the first advanced PVs were simply modified flashlights, and that today's advanced PVs vary more in their form than their substance and function.

I do feel that regulation of PVs and e-liquid is important and that further studies should be done to determine how vaporizing can be made as safe and as enjoyable as possible. However, it is inappropriate and simply untenable to do so under regulations covering tobacco products. To try to fit this "square peg in a round hole" will lead to confusion, inconsistency, and (as I suspect many others have noted in their comments) the crippling of a quickly-growing, innovative industry made up of small businesses. The FDA should reconsider regulating PVs and e-liquid under the proposed rule and wait to regulate this area until our elected representatives in Congress have expressly granted the FDA the authority to do so by legislative enactment.

What do the rest of you noobies think?

 

[Rat2chat2]

to ecf E squire. So glad you are here. Just a wonderful place to be. Heck it doesn't take long to get 100 posts around here. Good luck to you and happy vaping.

 

[Nermal]

So... maybe I'm missing something, but I can't seem to reply to that thread yet. Before I ctrl+c something else, I'm just going to post what I submitted here now (perhaps to later make its way into that thread?):

You posted at 12:10 MDT. Aha! The system updates at 25 after the hour, or so I'm told. Bet'cha you can post it now.

 

[NealBJr]

So... maybe I'm missing something, but I can't seem to reply to that thread yet. Before I ctrl+c something else, I'm just going to post what I submitted here now (perhaps to later make its way into that thread?):



What do the rest of you noobies think?

It won't stop the ban or restirction on the same lines as glass tubes (with roses in them) are banned because of their "illegal use" or certain medical devices need prescription like corrective contact lenses. Some devices require registration and licensing. Many people may not remember the time when it was legal to have a device that would X-ray the foot to check for shoe size. These were called Fluoroscopes. It took a while, but eventually these were banned as well, and yes, the FDA regulates radiation emitting machines now.

Personally, the more I look into the FDA, the more I don't like the idea of nationwide blanket regulation. It's starting to get out of hand. I feel it must be left to the individual states for regulation, and the FDA delegated to the "advisory" role instead. I doubt anything like that will happen in my lifetime, if at all.

 

[E squire]

to ecf E squire. So glad you are here. Just a wonderful place to be. Heck it doesn't take long to get 100 posts around here. Good luck to you and happy vaping.

Thank you!

You posted at 12:10 MDT. Aha! The system updates at 25 after the hour, or so I'm told. Bet'cha you can post it now.

Brilliant!

It won't stop the ban or restirction on the same lines as glass tubes (with roses in them) are banned because of their "illegal use"

I don't think that's exactly comparable. The FDA issue is about regulation of PVs and e-liquid as a tobacco product, which would require prohibitively expensive registration fees for product manufacturers out there right now. The rose thing isn't about regulation, it's about drug paraphernalia under criminal laws. Think of it this way: the police in that news story are busting corner-store sellers, but the FDA wants the manufacturer or producer to cough up multiple-thousands of dollars for permission to make the product, well before it ends up at a B&M.

Some devices require registration and licensing. Many people may not remember the time when it was legal to have a device that would X-ray the foot to check for shoe size. These were called Fluoroscopes. It took a while, but eventually these were banned as well, and yes, the FDA regulates radiation emitting machines now.

Sure, because Congress passed the federal law giving the FDA authority to regulate "drugs" and medical devices. My point is that PVs and e-liquid are somewhere in between: they're not a "drug" since they're not intended to treat a medical condition (same thing with supplements), but neither are they "tobacco products." Congress drew specific lines for the FDA to regulate within, and I'm of the opinion that the FDA has overstepped its bounds.

Personally, the more I look into the FDA, the more I don't like the idea of nationwide blanket regulation. It's starting to get out of hand. I feel it must be left to the individual states for regulation, and the FDA delegated to the "advisory" role instead. I doubt anything like that will happen in my lifetime, if at all.

Nationwide regulation of things that are bought and sold among and between the states (especially on the internet) is Constitutionally permissible and perhaps inevitable. I'd prefer that it was a state-by-state decision, but, like you, I don't see that happening.

 

[asabase]

Hey man, I'm sayin hi and trying to knock out my five posts too lol.