That's just stupid. My DIY costs about 1€ per 30ml, and that's only because Capella and TFA flavours are expensive. NIC and PG/VG are almost free.
On the 8th....
- Thread starter Zeusvapes
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
C'mon dude, you live in Lake Tahoe.
That might be the only place better than San Diego.
Where you gonna go?
C'mon dude, you live in Lake Tahoe.
That might be the only place better than San Diego.
Where you gonna go?
Still Lake Tahoe on the Nevada side of the line since their state also wrote e-cig regulation... that said sales tax only. Or Vape Town, would much prefer Vape Town.
There are a ton of new laws and I do not have the time to go in to them all. If you have not seen this document, you might want to take a look at it, comment where you need help.
Many vaping shops make money by making their own eliquids and rebottling of large bottles in to smaller bottles. They cannot do that unless they register with the FDA as manufacturers.
Shops can no longer make a coil for you or build/assemble the vaping gear unless they register as manufacturers.
Shops can no longer sell vaping devices as smoking cessation devices.
All of your questions should be answered in the doc I pointed you too. Vape on!
FDA DEEMING RULES AND WHAT THEY MEAN TO YOU
--Vape goods being sold before 2007 can remain available indefinitely at this point in time
--After August 8, 2016 no new products or changes to existing products are allowed
--Manufacturers of ALL e-liquids or vaping related products will have up to two years to submit FDA PMTA applications for products that have come to market after April 15, 2007 (KNOWN AS THE PREDICATE DATE) so that they may be reviewed for fitness within the market in accordance with FDA intents and purposes for tobacco products.
--The FDA PMTA review process is estimated to take a year and cost as much as $1 million per product
--There will be very few PMTA applications submit with most (if not all) coming from Big Tobacco
--There is no way of knowing if the FDA will approve any PMTA applications, as in the past few new tobacco products have been allowed to be marketed as tobacco products after the initial set of FDA regulations became law
--For products not passing the PMTA process, they must be withdrawn from the market
--It is expected that scarcity or the lack of vaping products will occur across all segments of the market
THE RESPONSE
--Remove tobacco classification because vaping products are primarily 100% tobacco free
--Change the predicate date from April 15, 2007 to the current date in (2016/2017/...) for the Pre-Market Tobacco Applications process (PMTA).
--Requesting a Substantial Equivalence (SE) Report instead of PMTA, so that all products that are essentially similar in operation to that which has already been accepted to also be accepted and allowed to be sold
--Overturn the ban on FREE SAMPLES so that vendors can send samples out to vapers
THE WHY
ECF: @Mazinny, "By 2010, eighteen states, the District of Columbia, and three U.S. territories securitized some or all of their revenue entitlements from the MSA (TOBACCO: Master Settlement Agreement) payment schedule into bonds. The issued bonds totaled $40 billion and are backed by expected future MSA payments." (These bonds would eventually be worthless to the states if vaping continued to grow as it has b/c it is demolishing the market for cigarettes and has so far not been aggressivly regulated or taxed.)
Many vaping shops make money by making their own eliquids and rebottling of large bottles in to smaller bottles. They cannot do that unless they register with the FDA as manufacturers.
Shops can no longer make a coil for you or build/assemble the vaping gear unless they register as manufacturers.
Shops can no longer sell vaping devices as smoking cessation devices.
All of your questions should be answered in the doc I pointed you too. Vape on!
FDA DEEMING RULES AND WHAT THEY MEAN TO YOU
--Vape goods being sold before 2007 can remain available indefinitely at this point in time
--After August 8, 2016 no new products or changes to existing products are allowed
--Manufacturers of ALL e-liquids or vaping related products will have up to two years to submit FDA PMTA applications for products that have come to market after April 15, 2007 (KNOWN AS THE PREDICATE DATE) so that they may be reviewed for fitness within the market in accordance with FDA intents and purposes for tobacco products.
--The FDA PMTA review process is estimated to take a year and cost as much as $1 million per product
--There will be very few PMTA applications submit with most (if not all) coming from Big Tobacco
--There is no way of knowing if the FDA will approve any PMTA applications, as in the past few new tobacco products have been allowed to be marketed as tobacco products after the initial set of FDA regulations became law
--For products not passing the PMTA process, they must be withdrawn from the market
--It is expected that scarcity or the lack of vaping products will occur across all segments of the market
THE RESPONSE
--Remove tobacco classification because vaping products are primarily 100% tobacco free
--Change the predicate date from April 15, 2007 to the current date in (2016/2017/...) for the Pre-Market Tobacco Applications process (PMTA).
--Requesting a Substantial Equivalence (SE) Report instead of PMTA, so that all products that are essentially similar in operation to that which has already been accepted to also be accepted and allowed to be sold
--Overturn the ban on FREE SAMPLES so that vendors can send samples out to vapers
THE WHY
ECF: @Mazinny, "By 2010, eighteen states, the District of Columbia, and three U.S. territories securitized some or all of their revenue entitlements from the MSA (TOBACCO: Master Settlement Agreement) payment schedule into bonds. The issued bonds totaled $40 billion and are backed by expected future MSA payments." (These bonds would eventually be worthless to the states if vaping continued to grow as it has b/c it is demolishing the market for cigarettes and has so far not been aggressivly regulated or taxed.)
Opinionated has it about right. When you legislate for "them" you legislate for all of us. Political party has nothing to do with this. There are nannies and control freaks in every political spectrum.
Hold on just 24 hours and you'll know for certain. Not much to ponder over anymore. If we haven't prevented it by now; just a little more patience to see what Vaping will look like from then on.
Simple
Simple
Keep telling yourself that. That's what got us here. I know it has been vogue to deny responsibility... but it really is falling out of style. We can actually name pretty much every single person who has had a hand in this to date. And, yes. They have political party in common. That's just reality. You can be mad about folks telling you the truth or whatever, but at this point, it doesn't do any good. ... At this point, you absolutely must apply pressure on the political party at fault. The only way to apply pressure is to deny them your support. If you refuse to deny them your support, then this particular issue wasn't important enough to you to do anything about. It's simple.
Every state that has passed draconian regulations has been an R sad to say. Both parties have lobbying interests that are anti-vaping sad to say.
California regulations are mild compared to Pennsylvania , Indiana and Utah.
Technically the only current law in California is 21+ for smoking. Their letting the voters decide on a $2/pack cig tax packaged with an unknown vape tax. Either way... at least it's going to be a vote.
My hope for the future of vaping is not so much with politicians, but more with the courts and litigation. I read there are already around 11 lawsuits challenging the FDA using some points which seem logical and valid.
The FDA's capricious violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Regulatory Flexibility Act seem to be a common citation. I will be contributing to the Right to Be Smoke Free Coalition to aid these lawsuits.
I started out on 30 mg, on a Joyetech 510 kit. I cut down to 24 mg about the time I started using eGo batteries I think. 18 mg would not have cut it for me, at all. I haven't bought e-liquid in years (I DIY), so I never paid attention to what strengths are being sold these days. I think it's mistake to remove higher levels, for the same reason you do.
Also deserving of support in my opinion is Virginia state representative Larry Faircloth who has a legit vaping lawsuit going against the FDA per the Public Health Law Center. Google him. And of course CASAA which is always deserving of a contribution. Having recently had the experience of the courts upholding my rights when politicians did not, I just feel the courts are vapers' best hope.
About Mt Baker discontinuing the 18 mg liquid, they discontinued ALL unflavored base of all strengths. I don't think the 18 mg had anything to do with it. Thank goodness I have been laying in 100 mg nicotine base liquid.
- Status
Similar threads
