I must agree. It's a well written and persuasive comment. Very focused and lawyer-like.
FDA Lorillard comments to the FDA deeming regs
- Thread starter skoony
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I must agree. It's a well written and persuasive comment. Very focused and lawyer-like.
I have, for many years, represented contractors dealing with the federal government. The successful ones always add 50-100% to any bid they submit to account for the hassle of dealing with the feds.
It's pretty well documented in another thread... Not sure which sub forum.
Search and it will come up I'm sure.
In a nutshell they've always had a policy against supplying PG for tobacco products... They've just decided to include eCigs in that definition.
This thread:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ly-propylene-glycol-e-cigarette-industry.html
I don't know what he's talking about with the batteries though.
Funny thing, there's a thread concerning just how ignorant so many of the submitted comments are...
I have never read on any of the flashlight or radio control forums anything like that at all. As a matter of fact, a lot of the battery information that these people have, and experience with them, has been brought over to vaping forums.
the *battery guys* over on those forums are extremely knowledgeable. So not sure where you get the abuse idea?
That is not true at all. There have been many posters here who did not make that assumption.
How convenient to commit fraud (crime) and use the excuse that "the feds are a hassle to deal with."
Yes. Our federal government relies heavily on contractors to supply it with goods and services. Fraud by contractors costs the government billions of $$ every year. Since so many are inflating bids, our government has to pay their prices if they want the services/goods. I knew somebody had to be benefitting. It's certainly not the taxpayer. We are paying for that. Just another form of thinly-disguised corprorate malfeasance.
You call them successful. I call them criminals.
The guy got his request submitted to P&G for samples denied, P&G stating they stopped supplying to the tobacco industry in 1995, long before e-cigs were even in the market place. Refusal to supply the e-cig industry simply followed their tobacco policy - hardly a shock factor. Dow has the same policy, we just don't know the date they started it. Can we dial down "the death of e-cigs" conspiracy theories a notch?
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/diy-e-liquid/570209-rejected-vg-sample-request.html
Last edited:
Not really funny, and just as broad a sweeping generalization serving little purpose.
that story has changed since yesterday. apparently Sony has said the recent shortages of their batteries are do to the tsunami damaging there plant in Japan. those shortages are now catching up with the e-cig industry. their new plant is up and running so these shortages will disappear quickly.the whole story is maybe a week old since its been popping up on the net. the threads i've seen all had what appeared to be legitimate reference links so i and apparently others believed it to be true. both companies however had made disclaimers against the use of their products in the vaping industry.
regards
mike
the first thing you learn when you get into R/C cars is how to over charge your batteries. thats abuse according to the manufacturer. the second thing you learn is how to overcharge them safely.(pun intended) in a lot cases hobbyist are running these type batteries in a way the manufacturer considers abuse. i am not saying anyone knowledgeable in their hobby is being reckless. with proper safety precautions they get amazing performance out of their equipment. a lot of their knowledge was gained through trial and error with a modicum of common sense. testing methodologies have now improved over the years to the point of being very dependable. no more,"hook that load up to it and see what it does." whomever you are if your if your running the batteries over recommended operating parameters the manufacturers consider it abuse and do not condone it. its a liability issue with them.they are not saying do not buy our stuff. i have been to and read posts from these sites and know these guys are on the ball. none however can point you to a manufacturers product sheet that says its ok to run our batteries that way. but due to the fact batteries as most electronic devices are actually made at a higher spec than labeled. a built in safety margin if you will. the percentages vary depending on the type of product.there is method in their madness i have some reference material buried around here some where from back in my school days. i will have to drag it out one day. none of this is a bad thing if ones careful and knowledgable. from a non-hobbyist point of view these things still have to be considered when accounting for safety.
regards
mike
I have read through quite a few of the comments. They did more harm than good...
For the people who put time and thought into their comments before submitting them (like Lorillard did), I don't see how stevegmu's commentary applies. In some ways, you are bolstering what stevegmu was saying.
How convenient to commit fraud (crime) and use the excuse that "the feds are a hassle to deal with."
Yes. Our federal government relies heavily on contractors to supply it with goods and services. Fraud by contractors costs the government billions of $$ every year. Since so many are inflating bids, our government has to pay their prices if they want the services/goods. I knew somebody had to be benefitting. It's certainly not the taxpayer. We are paying for that. Just another form of thinly-disguised corprorate malfeasance.
You call them successful. I call them criminals.
My clients are "criminals"? Ordinarily, I'd take the time to write a rebuttal. However, I learned a long time ago that unreasonable people are immune to persuasion by facts or logic.
Dow knows whats best for us. I guess they prefer to focus their efforts on their healthy products--successors to dioxin and Agent Orange.
Do you think Dow's position is based on Health Concerns. Or in Shielding themselves from Potential Legal Liability?
Or maybe a little from Column "A" and a little from Column "B"?
- Status
Similar threads
