True, however you neglected to mention its still illegal by Federal law.
The Elephant in the Room
- Thread starter Plastic Shaman
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
True, however you neglected to mention its still illegal by Federal law.
i dont think the parents should be responsible at all unless it can be proven that they are supplying something to a minor that has been forbidden by law for a minor to have (and yes i am in favor of no sales to/use by minors) because we dont live in a time anymore where minors stay at home with their parents all the time. most of what they do the parents dont even know about. unless they are directly involved, holding them responsible is like somebody gets shot and you arrest the first person you see just so you dont have to go through the trouble of finding who actually did it. in my opinion blaming the parents is just extreme laziness
You also might be surprised that things might not turn out as bad as you think.
I'll give you an example. I recently had to do an analysis of a rule that had been finalized. The rule was passed by the DoT and dealt with mandatory backup camera systems that will be implemented in a few years. So, the majority of the auto industry was opposed to this. The proponents were consumer safety groups and private individuals.
Now, the auto industry has a lot of money and influence. The consumer groups, probably not so much. Mostly non-profits. Who do you think the DoT sided with? My mind was blown when I saw that the DoT approved the camera requirements despite the protests of an incredibly powerful industry. I don't know how this situation will pan out. I'm a very cynical person, but that made me realize that money and power do not always make the difference in these types of issues. Yes, the FDA is corrupt, but situations are always a little more complex than we tend to look at them.
Also, the statute that authorizes this isn't really that expansive. I don't know what the limits of it will turn out to be, but a lot of anti-tobacco activists were unhappy about how limited it was. This made me think about the Soretta case. Why did the FDA claim that they had the power to regulate under the FDCA when they clearly had a much better argument that they could regulate under the Tobacco Control Act? I can only speculate, but my guess is that the FDCA would have given them a lot more power and room to work. Instead, they are stuck with the much more restrictive statute.
Didn't you see this part of the deeming regulations? They are not only talking about it, they are asking for help in how to do it:
I think my sarcasm was very accurate and well deserved! We have people suggesting that children be charged with felonies for have an e-cig. That is so absurd that sarcasm is the only response.
From a PBS interview of Mitch Zeller after the deeming regulations were proposed:
MITCH ZELLER: Well, the senator is obviously entitled to his position.
What we have done today with this proposed rule is foundational. We can’t get to issues like advertising on television or what to do about the flavors in e-cigarettes until we have jurisdiction over them. And we can’t have jurisdiction over them until we complete this rule-making. This is a very important first step.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So are you saying this was as far as you could have gone right now?
MITCH ZELLER: This is as far as the regulatory science can take us.
Think of it as a foundational step that will enable to us address all the other aspects of e-cigarette sales, cigar sales, etcetera.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And I ask that because another – another part of Senator Durbin’s comment, he talked about the fact that you — there’s still going to be marketing of these candy-flavored electronic cigarettes that children, young people will be exposed to.
And he basically said — in fact, again, quoting — “Parents across America — across America lost their best ally in protecting their kids from this product.”
MITCH ZELLER: Well, I really respect the senator’s point of view.
But there needs to be an understanding that in order to ban flavors in e-cigarettes, that requires an entire separate rule-making, which we can’t do until we have regulatory authority over these products. We are concerned about the marketing and the appeal of e-cigarettes to kids. We need the regulatory authority over the products in the first place to address those kinds of issues.
FDA cracks down on
So, they want to ban flavors, they just can't... yet.
MITCH ZELLER: Well, the senator is obviously entitled to his position.
What we have done today with this proposed rule is foundational. We can’t get to issues like advertising on television or what to do about the flavors in e-cigarettes until we have jurisdiction over them. And we can’t have jurisdiction over them until we complete this rule-making. This is a very important first step.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So are you saying this was as far as you could have gone right now?
MITCH ZELLER: This is as far as the regulatory science can take us.
Think of it as a foundational step that will enable to us address all the other aspects of e-cigarette sales, cigar sales, etcetera.
JUDY WOODRUFF: And I ask that because another – another part of Senator Durbin’s comment, he talked about the fact that you — there’s still going to be marketing of these candy-flavored electronic cigarettes that children, young people will be exposed to.
And he basically said — in fact, again, quoting — “Parents across America — across America lost their best ally in protecting their kids from this product.”
MITCH ZELLER: Well, I really respect the senator’s point of view.
But there needs to be an understanding that in order to ban flavors in e-cigarettes, that requires an entire separate rule-making, which we can’t do until we have regulatory authority over these products. We are concerned about the marketing and the appeal of e-cigarettes to kids. We need the regulatory authority over the products in the first place to address those kinds of issues.
FDA cracks down on
So, they want to ban flavors, they just can't... yet.
Seriously? Did you miss my post earlier? While they might have said that, they explicitly stated that e-cigs are not cigarettes under 900(3). This language was not aimed at e-cigs. Remember, there are a whole range of products that are about to be regulated by this rule. The whole thing doesn't revolve around this industry.
I'm sure they'll get it softened or struck down on appeal. Look what's happening with Net Neutrality right now. Comcast and Verizon have taken three separate runs at that one so far, and the books still aren't closed on it yet. All you have to do is stall until you get the right administration and the right appointees, and then *poof*. No more law.
The difference here is that BT and BP are both in favor of the e-cig bans. In particular, BT is against "open systems," for obvious reasons, and BP is against anything that hurts the sales of FDA approved NRTs. So, the money is on the other side now. "Thin end of the wedge."
Look at what happened with CISPA. People are massively against it, so they keep bringing it back every couple of years under a new name, hoping that people will be too tired to fight, or just not paying attention.
Notice how you can list the questionable ingredients, and choose to eat or not eat them? Do you believe people knew what was in the food they bought before the FDA existed or before labeling? Yes people still get sick under the FDA's watch. I'd argue that at least there are some protections in place. Believe what you want. I keep stating the same thing over and over. No regulations and no oversight doesn't make the world a better place.
If there was no labeling and you had a food allergy...........well I guess you just guess about it. Like we are today. Makes me feel real confident.
I'm not an idealist. That's the only point I have been trying to bring out. Do I think oversight will make it perfectly clear? Nope. If there's chemicals that are already known to be unsafe to vape at certain levels, then it would be nice to have the option not to vape it . How do I know those levels? I don't see many vendors voluntarily disclosing them.
Did Big Tobacco voluntarily disclose what they were putting into cigarettes?
the way im thinking this might go is that cigalikes or anything produced by BT will be considered tobacco products and regulated thus. maybe even egos too. but mods and other more advanced things like that, i think those will be more of a "buyer beware" kind of product, just like alcohol, chemicals, power tools, cars, etc all things that can and often do cause serious bodily harm if misused though e-cig products will be on the very low end of possible harm
Who caught them? Hint: It wasn't government.
Yep, we need expert nannies (who aren't vapers) to "look out" for us.
It boggles my mind that some of you actually think that way.
Yes. That's what he said. They will have to a lot more findings and work before they do this. He did not say that they were trying to do it right now or that they have grounds to do it when the proposed rules pass. I have never said that it's impossible for it to happen. All I've said is that it isn't at issue right now. They asked for comments on a lot of things. They might be looking at in the future. They examine a lot of things for future purposes. Doesn't mean they are trying to do it at this moment.
Yes it boggles your mind until your the one in the hospital or extremely sick or worse cause you thought you were vaping your trusted sellers best juice and they promised you it contains no harmful chemicals, you know cause they told you so, lmao, please.
And that's comforting? To parrot the painfully obvious?
We need your help figuring out how to do it by definition means we can't do it at this very moment... BUT we have big plans...
Sent from my device.
I'd like to see if anyone can answer this. A lot of people are claiming that big tobacco is going to use it's money to make sure that it will be the only one able to sell e-cigs. They also maintain that the FDA will ban all flavors, destroying the industry. However, big tobacco knows these products won't sell without flavors. How can you reconcile these two positions?
As for who caught SB, it doesn't matter much the who, what's more important is they were caught yet still continue sales and I would argue most aren't even aware of the chemicals it contains.SB is certainly still available at all my local stores and they aren't warning anyone.
easy. tobacco and menthol arent considered "flavors" in tobacco cigarettes, so if BT gets all the vape rights, they wont be considered flavors for them either.
- Status
Similar threads
