Except it is not a change of a Deeming Regulation, but a change of the allowed scope of Deeming Regulations.
FDA Rep Tom Cole introduces bill (HR 2058) to change SE date from 2007 to 2015 for newly deemed products
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Except it is not a change of a Deeming Regulation, but a change of the allowed scope of Deeming Regulations.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 68
Nobody should endorse the Deeming Regulation when urging Congress to support HR 2058.
While HR 2058 would grandfather nicotine vapor products now on the market (i.e. would allow them
to remain on the market), it would still require new vapor products (i.e. those not on the market
when the Final Rule is issued) to be approved by FDA (via a PreMarket tobacco Application).
While HR 2058 would grandfather nicotine vapor products now on the market (i.e. would allow them
to remain on the market), it would still require new vapor products (i.e. those not on the market
when the Final Rule is issued) to be approved by FDA (via a PreMarket tobacco Application).
In short, only those with very deep pockets will be able to move forward with innovative technology. Do you suppose that concerns the traditional tobacco industry?
I’m thinking that the “Deeming” is going to happen no matter what we say or do, so moving the grandfather date to 2015 would be a lot better than losing vaping as we know it. OTOH, we might be better off in the long run without HR 2058.
It seems like lawsuits would be easier to win if hundreds of businesses were going to go bankrupt, thousands of people were going to lose their jobs, and thousands of others were going back to smoking cigarettes. I’m not saying I want any of that to happen, but it might be hard for anyone to prove “damages” in court if they can still make, sell, or buy all the same vapor products that they can right now.
I think it would be better for congress to vote to disapprove the “Deeming” after it’s been announced. Of course, the President would probably veto that bill, but he’ll probably veto this bill if it passes too.
J.R.
It's similar to what a poster from CASAA said, that in a way stocking up ahead of regulations is a mistake, owing to the disadvantage of having a lot of vapers not needing to fight back (my wording for what was stated more competently).
The more people that successfully switch to vaping, the better off we are politically, and I believe, like others have stated, that that is where our main focus should be. FDA regulations, depending on what they end up going with, have the potential to slow down the rate of new people switching, so I can see importance in fighting to hold the FDA back, but then again...this interesting take from WorksForMe, as you described it.
I don't think stocking up is a mistake but I also don't think it's all that widespread. You may see some people here or on other forums doing it, I doubt it amounts to much. The vast majority of vapers aren't posting on forums, doing DIY or even know about/understand what may be coming with the deeming regs.
That said, I'm really curious about those deeming regs, even moreso than before. Considering Zeller said they were on track for the June finalization, you'd think he would pretty much know what all it's going to be at this point. But he still seems to be hedging and, well, conflicted.
There are all kinds of ways of fighting back, and a thriving black market is one of them.
I know I'll continue stockpiling as long as possible -- while also making as much noise to my lawmakers and anywhere else I can, about the value and safety of e-cigarettes, PVs, and tank systems, and the relative uselessness of cigalikes -- they're only good as a gateway -- to vaping. I don't know how effective my noisemaking or any of this noisemaking may be, in the face of all that money opposing us; I know how effective my stockpiling will be, in allowing me to continue vaping as *I* see fit, without going broke. Hope for the best, agitate for the best... but prepare for the worst. It's the only sane way of dealing with all this BS we're facing.
Andria
I asked my grandson where his vaping buddies are on the regs. He said they know about it, but they aren't worrying about it. It's like the weather, oh, so it's going to rain next week.
I just haven't been able to accept that the FDA would actually go through with what they said they intended to, when they announced their deeming scheme last year. I agree that Zeller seems conflicted. I'm guessing, or at least hoping, that he's anticipating huge backlash from the tobacco control people for what he thinks should be done.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 68
Worksforme wrote
we might be better off in the long run without HR 2058.
That's like saying "we might be better off playing Russian roulette".
As one who was actively involved in the 2009 lawsuits SE and NJOY filed against FDA, and who filed an amicus brief
with the DC Court of Appeals in support of the plaintiffs, I think only a fool would rely upon someone else spending lots of their money filing a persuasive lawsuit against the FDA, and then relying upon many federal judges to not only rule against the FDA, but to also strike down the entire Deeming Regulation.
Lawsuits are the last remedy available, and should never be relied upon (especially when legislation to keep e-cigs legal has been introduced in Congress).
we might be better off in the long run without HR 2058.
That's like saying "we might be better off playing Russian roulette".
As one who was actively involved in the 2009 lawsuits SE and NJOY filed against FDA, and who filed an amicus brief
with the DC Court of Appeals in support of the plaintiffs, I think only a fool would rely upon someone else spending lots of their money filing a persuasive lawsuit against the FDA, and then relying upon many federal judges to not only rule against the FDA, but to also strike down the entire Deeming Regulation.
Lawsuits are the last remedy available, and should never be relied upon (especially when legislation to keep e-cigs legal has been introduced in Congress).
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 68
nicnik wrote
I just haven't been able to accept that the FDA would actually go through with what they said they intended to, when they announced their deeming scheme last year.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of vapers and vapor companies seem to share that blissful foolishness.
The deeming regulation will ban >99.9% of all e-cigarette products now on the market (including all e-liquid).
In sharp contrast, HR 2058 will keep thousands of e-cigarette products (including many e-liquids) on the market.
I just haven't been able to accept that the FDA would actually go through with what they said they intended to, when they announced their deeming scheme last year.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of vapers and vapor companies seem to share that blissful foolishness.
The deeming regulation will ban >99.9% of all e-cigarette products now on the market (including all e-liquid).
In sharp contrast, HR 2058 will keep thousands of e-cigarette products (including many e-liquids) on the market.
@Bill Godshall – I guess I was just thinking out loud, so to speak. I know that if we get the worst case scenario with the Deeming Regs, the chances of someone winning a lawsuit against the FDA that kills the Deeming are fairly low. Having said that, I also tend to think that if HR 2058 passes the House and Senate, the President will just veto it and the FDA will do whatever they want to do anyway.
ETA : We should all still encourage are Reps to pass this bill(I have). At the very least congress' intention will be known if it does go to court.
Last edited:
Now that HR 2058 has been referred to the E&C Comittee, perhaps Congressman Michael Burgess would be a good person to contact. He's the Chairman of the Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade subcommittee of the E&C and prior to the FSPTCA has previously supported Bills that would recognize the need for harm reduction in tobacco products and the relative risk of products. Joe Pitts who is the Chairman of the Health Subcommittee would also be a good person to contact. Both are also Republicans which may help.
U.S. Congressman Michael C. Burgess : 26th District Of Texas
Welcome to Congressman Joe Pitts | Congressman Joe Pitts
U.S. Congressman Michael C. Burgess : 26th District Of Texas
Welcome to Congressman Joe Pitts | Congressman Joe Pitts
If I understand correctly, for those not in their districts it's best to contact them via postal mail.
Rep. Michael C. Burgess
Washington, D.C. Office
2336 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-7772
Fax: (202) 225-2919
Lake Dallas District Office
2000 S. Stemmons Frwy., Ste.200
Lake Dallas, TX 75065
Phone: (940) 497-5031
Fax: (940) 497-5067
Rep. Joe Pitts
Washington, DC Office
420 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2411
Fax: (202) 225-2013
Lancaster County Office
150 N. Queen St. Suite 716
Lancaster, PA 17603
Phone: (717) 393-0667
Fax: (717) 393-0924
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 68
All House E&C Cmte members should be contacted, as well as all other US House members.
Republicans will be more likely to cosponsor HR 2058, but we also need some Democrat cosponsors (to make it a bipartisan bill).
Even the House members who don't cosponsor HR 2058 will be less likely to urge the FDA to impose the Deeming Regulation or vote against the bill if/when it comes up for a vote (if they are told by many vapers that the deeming reg will ban >99.9% of vapor products, including the ones used by nearly all vapers on ECF, 24 months after the FDA issues a Final Rule).
If HR 2058 passes and becomes law, how will products be documented as being grandfathered? Will they still have to go through the SE process?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
