Take 30secs to Save the Vaping Industry!

[Fidola13]

please send an email & tweet to your reps by clicking on the the link to save the vaping industry from the FDAs deeming regulations!!!!

Modernize the Predicate Date for Vapor Products!

“The most important part of the amendment is that it changes to predicate date in the FDA Deeming Rule from Feb.15, 2007 to Aug. 8, 2016. That means that if the Cole-Bishop Amendment passes, all vaping products that are already on the market can continue to be sold without being forced into the FDA’s brutally expensive and difficult premarket tobacco application ....”

 

[LaraC]

Done. Thank you, Fidola, for the reminder.

 

[stols001]

Did so, and thanks for the reminder Sara.

Anna

 

[choochoogranny]

Done !

 

[bacc.vap]

I do'd it.

 

[Ph0t0man]

Done Thank you

 

[Bill Godshall]

The Cole-Bishop amendment (i.e. Section 753 of the 2018 House Agricultural Appropriations Bill
on pages 99-103) would:https://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bills-115hr-sc-ap-fy2018-agriculture-agriculture.pdf
https://appropriations.house.gov/uploadedfiles/bills-115hr-sc-ap-fy2018-agriculture-agriculture.pdf

- Amend 2009 Tobacco Control Act to define and regulate vapor products as tobacco products;

- Codify and amend FDA Deeming Rule into federal law to further regulate/ban vapor products;

- Preserve FDA's 8/8/2016 ban on sales of new vapor products and truthful health claims about vapor products, and FDA’s PMTA and MRTP requirements to market vapor products;

- Require DHHS/FDA to “promulgate a final rule” by March 2021 that imposes TCA authorized tobacco product standards for vapor products "to include but not limited to – (A) characterizing flavors; and(B) batteries" that could ban many, most or virtually all Premium Vaporizers and e-liquid products (17 months before FDA's 8/8/2022 vapor sales ban);

- Require DHHS/FDA to impose a TCA authorized tobacco product advertising regulation limiting vapor ads to primarily adult media, and a TCA authorized tobacco marketing regulation that prohibits vending machines and self-service vapor sales in stores that allow youth access;

- Require DHHS/FDA to “promulgate final regulations” by March 2019 “to require” TCA authorized tobacco product warning labels on vapor products saying "Keep out of reach of children", "Underage Sale Prohibited" and listing the product’s nicotine content;

- Change the predicate date for all FDA Deemed tobacco products (not just vapor products) from 2/15/2007 to 8/8/2016; and

- Protect cigarettes and tobacco companies by making it virtually impossible for vapor advocates to convince Congress or FDA to establish reasonable and responsible standards that allow most very low risk vapor products to remain on the US market (e.g. Duncan Hunter’s bill - HR 2194)
H.R.2194 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Cigarette Smoking Reduction and Electronic Vapor Alternatives Act of 2017

For more details, please see

Bill Godshall: Tobacco industry funding recipients and duped vaping advocates urge Congress to insert Cole-Bishop amendment in 2018 Federal Spending Bill
Big Tobacco funded groups urge Congress to include Cole-Bishop amendment in 2018 Spending Bill

and

Bill Godshall: Clarifying Cole-Bishop’s Impact on the Vapor Industry (January 9, 2018)
Clarifying Cole-Bishop's Impact on the Vapor Industry

 

[WorksForMe]

Hmm...nobody seems to be against Cole/Bishop except @Bill Godshall. This would suggest that he's wrong. Except, that the things he's saying make a lot of sense, and I don't remember him leading us astray before. I'm not sure what to think.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Hmm...nobody seems to be against Cole/Bishop except @Bill Godshall. This would suggest that he's wrong. Except, that the things he's saying make a lot of sense, and I don't remember him leading us astray before. I'm not sure what to think.

Codify and immortalize the ambiguous correlation between vaping and tobacco that is the "deeming" rule, in whatever permutation, and forever empower the same agency that has so harried and horrified us to promulgate even more rules for our own good ignoring how innocuous vaping is in the first place or without any factual justification or foundation whatsoever…what could possibly go wrong?

I don't know who everybody is. But it sure ain't me, or anyone I know.

Extract vaping from tobacco legislation.

Good luck.

 

[WorksForMe]

Codify and immortalize the ambiguous correlation between vaping and tobacco that is the "deeming" rule, in whatever permutation, and forever empower the same agency that has so harried and horrified us to promulgate even more rules for our own good ignoring how innocuous vaping is in the first place or without any factual justification or foundation whatsoever…what could possibly go wrong?

I tend to agree with you and Bill. The details of this stink, but what other realistic option do we have? The Hunter bill doesn't seem to have much support.

I don't know who everybody is. But it sure ain't me, or anyone I know.

Who else has spoken out publicly against Cole/Bishop? Maybe I missed it.

 

[Bill Godshall]

The reason why Hunter's bill hasn't generated a lot of support from vapers and vapor companies is because Cole-Bishop campaigners (including tobacco industry funding recipients) have been trying to destroy Hunter's bill since before it was introduced.

 

[Bill Godshall]

Cole-Bishop wasn't included in the spending bill (because vapor prohibitionist NY Sen. Chuck Shumer wouldn't support the bill as drafted, and said he'd only support Cole-Bishop if the predicate date change (from 2007 to 2016) was removed from the bill, which all Cole-Bishop campaigners knew would likely occur back in December.

 

[MacTechVpr]

I tend to agree with you and Bill. The details of this stink, but what other realistic option do we have? The Hunter bill doesn't seem to have much support.

Perhaps not practical or pragmatic but when did the notion that gov fulfill a useful, accountable and justified course of action expire in our political culture? Well perhaps it has for most everything in the public's mind. But with this new technology we've had a shot. Very optimistically we might still restrain gov to a role more of oversight and of establishing standards, participatory and voluntary, as practiced in various industries. But there's first a simple requirement — the truth. It still exists! To the surprise of many, it's been useful in overturning or blocking some adverse adventures at the state level.

Looking at what happened with the Omnibus this week however one has to wonder if self-government itself has become an illusion after all.

Good luck.

 

[ScottP]

I am with Bill and Mac on this one. No we do not want to be forever limited to 2016 era products, and no we do not want to be forever tied to tobacco regs. Vaping should be treated different, it is different. We should be writing and pushing the Hunter bill.

 

[MacTechVpr]

I am with Bill and Mac on this one. No we do not want to be forever limited to 2016 era products, and no we do not want to be forever tied to tobacco regs. Vaping should be treated different, it is different. Wde should be writing and pushing the Hunter bill.

Thx Scott for the affirmation. I just have this singularly simple expectation that gov justify property, rights and privileges they choose to take from us. Silly me. ...., .... they have all this precedent. Yep, experts at justification of parallel gov. And there's my diff with Hunter. Why are we setting up an admin of e-cig? Where is the gov interest, if such a thing exists? Or a public one? Where is the justification of burden upon this industry that warrants a permanent and differential denial of process?

Good luck.