So, if this new bill passes... How long do we have?

[Jman8]

Why don't you do 3-5 years? Thankfully you give yourself 730 days clearance. Good show mate. Why I stand by no one has a clue. May as well do 5 - 10 years too.

5 to 10 years would be a clue. 3 to 5 years would be a clue. No clue equals - no one anywhere has any idea how long we have after FDA final rule is put into effect.

Another indication of no clue would, for me, be to state that once the deeming is finalized, all products will be removed from the market within a matter of a few days. But if someone provided reasons to support this, then that would indicate they do have a clue.

The 2 to 4 years scenario is the opposite of that and is asserting one of 2 primary reasons why the 2 to 4 years make sense. Because government moves very slow on such things. If look at original proposal from April 2013, it was stated that sometime in 2013 the final rule would come out. Why would anyone doubt that? Other than previous experience with government where they may put forth wording that says "this will happen on specific date" and a couple years later is when it actually happened. But if for some reason that doesn't fit in with your understanding of the issue, then the FDA deeming does state a compliance period or grace period to take existing products and allow them to be approved by FDA. Now, that could change and with state laws, could be significantly reduced. But if still on shelves in say Idaho, West Virginia and 18 other states, while 30 other (blue) states are operating under guidance of "off with their head," then it would still be on shelves and product could still be, rather easily obtained (even in a state where shelves are all clear). But all of this assumes no political fight nor any legal fight is occurring. If FDA were to lose any legal fight, and for sure if they lost a political fight, then 2 to 4 years would be on the low end.

The only antithesis to what I'm saying with 2 to 4 years that I can think of as reasonably occurring is I think right now there are vendors that are getting cold feet and planning on leaving the market shortly after FDA ruling, realizing that (for them) the lucrative market will be dead. So, they may choose to go out while still ahead. I can see that happening with a number of companies within first month of final rule. But even under that scenario, their product wouldn't be removed from shelves, but more like once their inventory is out, they won't be resupplying anyone with more product.

 

[Flt Simulation]

For the home DIY juice maker like myself, glycerin, PG and flavoring will not be effected by any of this nonsense since it's used for so many other products ... and as far a nicotine, I think that will always be available from China.

 

[Tol]

Does this mean there will be Vape-easys? I mean this is not the first time it has come under attack obviously, and it gets worse now I think because of the immense popularity of vaping, it got put into the crosshairs (again). The only upside to that is there are more voices to fight it. I really hope the worst case scenario does not happen, it is going to suck a lot for a lot of people.

Be sure to tell everyone you know, vaper, smoker, or people who do neither to send in their e-mails and make the phone calls. It all helps.

 

[Margucci]

For the home DIY juice maker like myself, glycerin, PG and flavoring will not be effected by any of this nonsense since it's used for so many other products ... and as far a nicotine, I think that will always be available from China.

you can say the same thing about drippers and mech mods. even as a worst case scenario these regulations would just make it as inconvenient as possible to vape. it seems as if that is the entire point. when you look at the basics of what you need to perform the action of vaping there is nothing at all that can be banned. sure, everyone is limited to mech mods, builds, and DIY juice but it would still be possible to vape. so what justifications are there to say that these actions are being taken in the interest in public health or safety?

as a worst case i could also see things similar to 70% firearm receivers. they would be nonfunctional as delivered but with some simple steps would be finished by the user. and how can you regulate the manufacturer or something such as tanks? anyone with a lathe and drill press or mill could make one themselves (same thing with any dripper). unless you implement regulations stronger than those which exist for firearms how do they expect to enforce any of these regulations?

this entire situation isnt well thought out in the slightest. have politicians learned nothing about the effectiveness of prohibitions? how well did it work in the 20's? or for the past 40 years? the war on drugs has cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and what is there to show for it? states are legalizing the recreational use of some substances. and regulating something just makes it more taboo and some people are encouraged to seek it out for that reason alone. if that wasnt the case underage drinking wouldnt be more of an issue in the US than it is in almost all other countries. and once again, there are always drugs.....

 

[Jdurand]

They can pass all the laws and regs they want. I can't wait to see what a debacle enforcement will be. There is no possible way they will be able to do it. With all the enforcement they do to stop the smuggling of all kinds of other stuff and how effective they are at it, do you really think that vaping supplies, including nicotine, will be suddenly unavailable? Not in the least, in fact, depending on who you know, it might get even easier to obtain. This whole thing is prohibition and the war on drugs all over again and will end with the same result.

If I were still a smoker, I could go to any one of about a dozen indian reservations and buy smokes at 30% of the cost, all tax free. I could buy brands that could only be purchased on the reservations, no approval from FDA required on these new brands. All these laws are going to change is who we get our stuff from, PERIOD. The government is powerless to stop that. They have tried multiple times and failed thanks to that little document known as the constitution. I would just start googling where the indian reservations are in your area and be ready to start dealing with them once the government decides they wish to loose even the sales tax they get from vaping now.

 

[Margucci]

i never thought about that. reservation ejuice now would be a great kick in the face. and given how long the shelf life of juice is when stored properly you can just load up on a few months at a time with ease.

 

[bluecat]

5 to 10 years would be a clue. 3 to 5 years would be a clue. No clue equals - no one anywhere has any idea how long we have after FDA final rule is put into effect.

Another indication of no clue would, for me, be to state that once the deeming is finalized, all products will be removed from the market within a matter of a few days. But if someone provided reasons to support this, then that would indicate they do have a clue.

The 2 to 4 years scenario is the opposite of that and is asserting one of 2 primary reasons why the 2 to 4 years make sense. Because government moves very slow on such things. If look at original proposal from April 2013, it was stated that sometime in 2013 the final rule would come out. Why would anyone doubt that? Other than previous experience with government where they may put forth wording that says "this will happen on specific date" and a couple years later is when it actually happened. But if for some reason that doesn't fit in with your understanding of the issue, then the FDA deeming does state a compliance period or grace period to take existing products and allow them to be approved by FDA. Now, that could change and with state laws, could be significantly reduced. But if still on shelves in say Idaho, West Virginia and 18 other states, while 30 other (blue) states are operating under guidance of "off with their head," then it would still be on shelves and product could still be, rather easily obtained (even in a state where shelves are all clear). But all of this assumes no political fight nor any legal fight is occurring. If FDA were to lose any legal fight, and for sure if they lost a political fight, then 2 to 4 years would be on the low end.

The only antithesis to what I'm saying with 2 to 4 years that I can think of as reasonably occurring is I think right now there are vendors that are getting cold feet and planning on leaving the market shortly after FDA ruling, realizing that (for them) the lucrative market will be dead. So, they may choose to go out while still ahead. I can see that happening with a number of companies within first month of final rule. But even under that scenario, their product wouldn't be removed from shelves, but more like once their inventory is out, they won't be resupplying anyone with more product.

Here's the thing. How long has this been in the process? We have a shuffle in the Speaker position. We have an election next week. When does the House and Senate leave for recess. It could be very possible that this gets shoved to the side for another day. Yes, the universe time scale the government moves is appalling. Paper work will need to be done. How long did ACA take before implemented?

My point 2-4 years is just as good as saying 1-3 years or 5-7 years. A clue to me would be "in "365 days from the date of passage/signing". So quite frankly, anybody's guess or no clue is pretty spot on.

 

[bluecat]

The regulations has stated timelines.
Nothing new will come to market without prior approval.
Existing products can remain on the market while applications for approval are being processed.
e-liquids are the scary part. Seems like every e-liquid manufacturer will have to get approval to use the same product, instead of a product being approved for use by any manufacturer that wants to use it.
To approve every flavor made by every manufacturer would pay off the national debt.
Most e-liquid manufacturers will simply fold up their lab coats.

What no one knows is how long the regulation will be tied up in court. It's a safe bet that it will go all the way to the Supreme Court, which could take 10 years or more. (so pray for a favorable injunction)

It will be similar to what is going to happen in Ohio here on the 2nd. Issue 2 and Issue 3. If both pass, what a nightmare for the judges and courts.

BTW, I must have missed the timelines and am too stupid to be able to find them.

 

[Jman8]

Here's the thing. How long has this been in the process? We have a shuffle in the Speaker position. We have an election next week. When does the House and Senate leave for recess. It could be very possible that this gets shoved to the side for another day. Yes, the universe time scale the government moves is appalling. Paper work will need to be done. How long did ACA take before implemented?

My point 2-4 years is just as good as saying 1-3 years or 5-7 years. A clue to me would be "in "365 days from the date of passage/signing". So quite frankly, anybody's guess or no clue is pretty spot on.

And if it happened on the 366 day from the date of passage, would it then mean that the person who said 365 days was clueless?

I would love to think it is 90 to 100 years from date of passage rather than 2 to 4. You are presenting it like I'm conveying arbitrary information. If I instead said, it will be 2 years, or 730 days, would that make you think I am speaking like I have a clue?

 

[Butch]

Hopefully we can use the tactics of the left. Find a sympathetic judge, get a court odrered stay, then tie it up in the legal system until the hot place freezes over.

 

[AndriaD]

Hopefully we can use the tactics of the left. Find a sympathetic judge, get a court odrered stay, then tie it up in the legal system until the hot place freezes over.

I thought it did that when the Eagles got back together?


Andria