New FDA Ruling / Regulation / Guidance

[reverser]

I would like to understand from those with some knowledge on the subject:

What is expected to come from the FDA rulings / regs / guidances that will come out in April?

• Are we expecting it to affect online nicotine base or prefab liquid distribution?
• Are we expecting the regulations to cover the "delivery devices" as well? mods? Prefab atomizers / cartomizers / etc?
• Are we expecting it to cover other ancillary products related to the industry (i.e. tobacco extracted flavorings, prefab wick materials not necessarily for ecig, RBAs, etc.)?

To what degree will these affect us?

• Can't buy affected items / products anywhere?
• Can't buy them online, but can at brick and mortar?
• Can't be sold in the US, but stealthy import may be possible?
• Taxation?
• Tighter controls on vendors / manufacturing?

How immediately will these effect us?

• Regulations take effect immediately, shuting down all operations until vendors achieve "compliance"?
• Slow process with transition beginning in April?
• Nothing in April, later regs that actually effect the industry to begin at a later / unknown date?

I've not seen this sort of information concisely detailed based on what we know.

I will update the post with responses if it seems like there is enough information to put the pieces of the puzzle together so it's all in one place.

Alternatively, if such a thread already exists, please point me in it's direction.

Thanks in advance.

 

[mmsjs5]

Nobody knows anything yet. We won't know what the FDA has up their sleeve until April, and may not happen then. Here are a couple of threads on what people think could happen.....

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...2013-e-cigarettes-other-tobacco-products.html

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...e-products-eliminate-many-most-companies.html

 

[darkhood]

Just my opinion but they'll impose regulations on the nic juice so they can tax it and "make it safe" (for our benefit of course cuz they care so much about us). But that's it. Don't know what that means as far as buying it online but they're not gonna decimate an entire industry when there's so much $ to be made.

 

[darkhood]

And yes I'm aware the FDA doesn't actually tax anything...it's besides the point...

 

[reverser]

Nobody knows anything yet. We won't know what the FDA has up their sleeve until April, and may not happen then. Here are a couple of threads on what people think could happen.....

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...2013-e-cigarettes-other-tobacco-products.html

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...e-products-eliminate-many-most-companies.html

Does "propose" mean that it won't take effect immediately?

Anyone have any insight into that selection of verbage and how it's use in the past played out?

 

[darkhood]

bureaucratic jargin is fun! i'd assume propose means it'd go into effect a couple months later if it's passed but that's just an assumption.... others may have some better insight for ya...

 

[reverser]

I happen to work a Phase I Clinical research facility, so we work with the FDA all the time - but I have not been involved directly with the regulatory process.

I just walked into the office of our regulations specialist, and it is his estimate the the verbage used means that after this "proposed regulation" there will be another period of comment and review (likely 3-6 months, but can vary from case to case) before any of the "proposed regulations" might start to take effect.

 

[JusticeKnuckles]

It may suck to have things regulated by the FDA as far as freedom goes but think of the research and knowledge we can obtain from such attention. It is going to be absolutely necessary for us IF vaping is something we truly want to be a main stream thing... The FDA shows how horrible smoking is for you, yet it's a huge industry that stimulates our economy and brings in money. From regulation can come growth in production and in advertising and in reaching out to a mass market.. And may potentially become safer. As long as our product is not being banned and as long as it will still be easily accessible (with regulation) I will still be happy, even with paying a (reasonable) tax on it. In the long run, it really could be worth it if our goal is to leave a very small niche and to expand.

 

[Fizzy-Penny]

I hear that all the time: about taxes and the FDA. Is that true that the states will not tax ecigs, eliquid, etc. until and unless the FDA regulates it? I don't think so. I think the states will tax whatever their state congressional (lawmakers) decide they want to tax. I could be wrong, but that's what I think.

I also hear people saying they are willing to pay a "reasonable" tax on it. Well, what's reasonable to you? In Texas, the current tax on cigarettes is $1.41/pack. Me? I think that's outrageous and I have no faith at all they won't do the same to vaping. ymmv

to verify: Cigarette Tax

 

[JusticeKnuckles]

I am aware that the FDA does not tax things but their research and regulation is the first step to getting to that point. What I'm saying is I'm more than willing to have an agency evaluate something because that means funded research for something that really needs it. Everybody needs to play by the rules, even if those rules are unfair. Even a ban on the products isn't the end of the world... Head shops all across American sell bowls and bongs labeled "tobacco/water pipes." A ban on ecigs (worst case scenario mind you) would not be the end of our craft

 

[mostlyclassics]

Said JusticeKnuckles,

What I'm saying is I'm more than willing to have an agency evaluate something because that means funded research for something that really needs it.

The FDA does virtually NO research on its nickel: their budget for research is really tiny. The cost of testing our hardware and e-liquids will fall fully on the manufacturers and vendors, which really means that we, the consumers, pay for it.

Everybody needs to play by the rules, even if those rules are unfair.

Why would you want your government to promulgate unfair rules? Governments enforcing unfair rules is one path to revolution. Then no one wins.

 

[p-doze]

Ban on juice flavors that could be viewed as appealing to minors is my biggest concern. They were successful with doing this to vanilla, orange, and any other fruit flavored cigarette flavor back in the early 2000s.

 

[Fizzy-Penny]

Yeah. Well, the FDA and the Antz are certifiable and that's a fact. They think it's the sweet flavors that entice teens to smoke and I think that's bs. I didn't take up smoking because I could buy those little candy cigarettes when I was a little kid. I took up smoking because I was told it was something I wasn't supposed to do. It was like waving the proverbial red flag in front of the bull.

Admittedly, this was back in the dark ages and anybody could buy a pack out of a vending machine for $.25/pack. Still, the point holds: kids are kids. Tell 'em it's off limits and you've only upped the fascination to try it.

 

[JusticeKnuckles]

I wasn't promoting unfair rules, I'm just saying we need to accept what is. I'm saying this deserves research, whether that is government or tax payer dollars it is necessary.

 

[p-doze]

Yeah. Well, the FDA and the Antz are certifiable and that's a fact. They think it's the sweet flavors that entice teens to smoke and I think that's bs. I didn't take up smoking because I could buy those little candy cigarettes when I was a little kid. I took up smoking because I was told it was something I wasn't supposed to do. It was like waving the proverbial red flag in front of the bull.

Admittedly, this was back in the dark ages and anybody could buy a pack out of a vending machine for $.25/pack. Still, the point holds: kids are kids. Tell 'em it's off limits and you've only upped the fascination to try it.

but those vanilla flavored camels came in those badass tins! the heart of my dilemma is that i can only easily get e-liquid over the internet, and if they ban the sale of that, while still allowing the purchase of the delivery system and all the attachments, it will slightly inconvenience me.

 

[Abe_Katz]

Yeah. Well, the FDA and the Antz are certifiable and that's a fact. They think it's the sweet flavors that entice teens to smoke and I think that's bs. I didn't take up smoking because I could buy those little candy cigarettes when I was a little kid. I took up smoking because I was told it was something I wasn't supposed to do. It was like waving the proverbial red flag in front of the bull.

Admittedly, this was back in the dark ages and anybody could buy a pack out of a vending machine for $.25/pack. Still, the point holds: kids are kids. Tell 'em it's off limits and you've only upped the fascination to try it.

I agree completely with this. I didn't start smoking because some cigarettes could be bought in flavors (we are talking about the 1990s here). In fact flavored cigarettes (or any other tobacco for that matter) has never interested me, particularly not when I was 13 and starting to smoke. I went straight for full flavor Marlboros and Camels.

Why? Because my father told me to not smoke when he clearly was smoking. Little more than a middle finger to him. Youth take up smoking because it is "cool". Why is it cool? Because of cherry flavored cigs? NO! It is "cool" because mom and dad don't want you to smoke. Every person I've ever met if they seriously think about how and why they started smoking did so as an act of rebellion against parental authority.

The fact that the chemical combination in tobacco is addictive keeps people smoking.

 

[oh u mad]

its all about $$$, they couldn't give a rats ... if it's healthy or if it gives us cancer.

 

[DC2]

I would like to understand from those with some knowledge on the subject...

This was my best shot at answering similar questions in the past...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ettes-other-tobacco-products.html#post8278313

I wasn't promoting unfair rules, I'm just saying we need to accept what is.

No, we need to CHANGE what is.

And that starts with joining CASAA...
Become a CASAA Member

 

[budynbuick]

I agree completely with this. I didn't start smoking because some cigarettes could be bought in flavors (we are talking about the 1990s here). In fact flavored cigarettes (or any other tobacco for that matter) has never interested me, particularly not when I was 13 and starting to smoke. I went straight for full flavor Marlboros and Camels.

Why? Because my father told me to not smoke when he clearly was smoking. Little more than a middle finger to him. Youth take up smoking because it is "cool". Why is it cool? Because of cherry flavored cigs? NO! It is "cool" because mom and dad don't want you to smoke. Every person I've ever met if they seriously think about how and why they started smoking did so as an act of rebellion against parental authority.

The fact that the chemical combination in tobacco is addictive keeps people smoking.

although some kids smoke from issues of anxiety. They try one & feel 'less anxious' & have another. Just saying, but for the most part you are correct. I started out of 'the desire to do that which is forbidden' (rebellion LOL) but continued,in part cause it had a calming effect.

 

[Cool_Breeze]

Nobody knows anything yet. We won't know what the FDA has up their sleeve until April, and may not happen then.

Speculation and drum-beating is at this time is a waste of energy...unless racheting up ill-will among vapers is a vapor screen for what the powers that be around ECF and in the ecig realm may have up their sleeve.