Possibly RE-Classifying products?

Status
Not open for further replies.

TheRussianVaper

Senior Member
Apr 22, 2016
191
170
Something just came to mind, when I ran a business I had to do similar things in order to avoid crippling costs and crippling regulations.

So will it be possible for vaping products to reclassify under say "Aromatherapy" "essentail oil Vaporizers" and such? This will mean that us as vapers will still get to use the products, except it will be "not under intended use," and possibly avoid all of the new regulations? hen "not under vaping," use, then companies can possibly avoid having to go to FDA all together. This will keep us supplied and companies will have the funds to continue fighting. I have done similar things in order to avoid certain regulatory departments all together, as in I didnt even have to ask them for a permission.

For E-juice: just as a thought, the juice can be sold without nicotine, and the nicotine as a separate product sent to consumers in a small vile, and we as consumers will just mix it in. Flavored PG/VG solution without nicotine will not fall under these regulations for sure, and the one product nicotine might cost a bit more but will still be doable, since most nicotine is already approved and used by agriculture and pharma.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bnrkwest

ENAUD

Resting In Peace
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 23, 2013
9,810
64,089
Bordertown of ProVariland and REOville
That kind of misses the whole point of "intended use". If they deem that the "intended use" is to vaporize eliquid whether it has nicotine or not, it will still be deemed a tobacco product. Whether or not the courts agree with how far they are allowed to "deem" things, remains to be seen. I, for one, hope that there is some semblance of sanity in the judicial side of this equation...
 

Rickajho

ECF Guru
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Apr 23, 2011
11,841
21,763
Boston MA
Don't really know. I expect Court challenges over the FDA's over-use of the sloppy concept of "intended use" just on technical merits. Regardless, even if the hardware gets a pass for whatever reasons the problem would be the FDA having more legitimate arguments to exercise regulation over or prohibit the sale of nicotine. What good is the "aromatherapy" device without being able to purchase nicotine?
 

TheRussianVaper

Senior Member
Apr 22, 2016
191
170
That kind of misses the whole point of "intended use". If they deem that the "intended use" is to vaporize eliquid whether it has nicotine or not, it will still be deemed a tobacco product. Whether or not the courts agree with how far they are allowed to "deem" things, remains to be seen. I, for one, hope that there is some semblance of sanity in the judicial side of this equation...
The point is this, if they deem herbal to be vaping, then the whole of Supplement industry falls under these new regulations, and FDA doesnt want this supplement fight again, they have already lost to them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bnrkwest

ENAUD

Resting In Peace
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Jul 23, 2013
9,810
64,089
Bordertown of ProVariland and REOville
Don't really know. I expect Court challenges over the FDA's over-use of the sloppy concept of "intended use" just on technical merits. Regardless, even if the hardware gets a pass for whatever reasons the problem would be the FDA having more legitimate arguments to exercise regulation over or prohibit the sale of nicotine. What good is the "aromatherapy" device without being able to purchase nicotine?
Therein lies the crux, "somebody" will definitely be able to sell nicotine. They don't want to kill the cash cow, just cripple and reign it in...
 
  • Like
Reactions: bnrkwest

skoony

Vaping Master
ECF Veteran
Jul 31, 2013
5,692
9,953
69
saint paul,mn,usa
The point is this, if they deem herbal to be vaping, then the whole of Supplement industry falls under these new regulations, and FDA doesnt want this supplement fight again, they have already lost to them.
I would like to point out that what happens to us eventually will be used as a template
by The FDA and other agencies to further increase the scope of regulatory restrictions.

The FDA lost to us in 2009. The supplement industry has dodged some bullets.
The government as a whole was and still is roundly chastised for the 'for the use with
tobacco only' stickers that keep drug paraphernalia on the market when every body knows
(;),;),nudge,nudge) that they will never be used for tobacco. IMHO one of the underlying
reasons (and there are always underlying reasons) that FDA is dropping the hammer on us so hard is that if they are successful the precedents set would eventually be copied and used
by any other agency to expand their regulatory power. To many people that are vapers
or in the general public are lulled into believing it's just about vaping. It's about everyone
eventually.
:2c:
Regards
Mike
 

TheRussianVaper

Senior Member
Apr 22, 2016
191
170
I would like to point out that what happens to us eventually will be used as a template
by The FDA and other agencies to further increase the scope of regulatory restrictions.

The FDA lost to us in 2009. The supplement industry has dodged some bullets.
The government as a whole was and still is roundly chastised for the 'for the use with
tobacco only' stickers that keep drug paraphernalia on the market when every body knows
(;),;),nudge,nudge) that they will never be used for tobacco. IMHO one of the underlying
reasons (and there are always underlying reasons) that FDA is dropping the hammer on us so hard is that if they are successful the precedents set would eventually be copied and used
by any other agency to expand their regulatory power. To many people that are vapers
or in the general public are lulled into believing it's just about vaping. It's about everyone
eventually.
:2c:
Regards
Mike
I approach this with a very sober mind, I have been dodging regulations for more than a decade (annoying, frustrating and tiring). You are absolutely correct in saying that this is not just about vapers, regulators have long made it clear that they want to rule without being elected. The point of my proposition is for companies to stay in business with incoming cash flow to continue fighting and to have a "war chest" to continue the fight. As far as I am concerned, the last straw happened a very long time ago, total dismantling of FDA and similar regulatory agencies is long overdue.

Essentially, we as taxpayers are paying for; life saving medications to be prohibited and delayed to make it too late for some, for our taxes to go up to the nth degree, for our products to be prohibited while we line their pockets and pay their salaries and so on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread