The Elephant in the Room

[PapaSloth]

Also, all of my nicotine comes from potatoes, not tobacco. I grow them myself in the backyard, and harvest the nicotine myself using a secret proprietary process. So, while the rest of you chumps are all worried about the FDA regulating tobacco products, I'll be vaping away on my potato ejuice.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

I think it's gone way past the OP topic now and you've learned how a lot of us feel about these things. I'm really curious to hear what you've learned from the discussion.

Thanks

Mainly, I learned that people here have a lot of passion about this subject, for better or worse. I'm glad that there are so many people on this forum who have an open mind, but there are also many who do not. Passion is great, but I think that it has to be tempered with an acceptance of the way things are and an ability to see beyond one's own interests. Those are just my feeling though. Thanks for asking!

 

[FlamingoTutu]

"Natural and artificial flavors is all you get on food labels. Besides off you get watermelon juice it's going to have the same flavoring as watermelon candy.

On food they are supposed to label the "big 8" allergens. Never had a problem with it. Obviously Beckdg's experience is different. It can be a life or death issue for some people and should be treated that way voluntarily.

 

[ScottP]

Your second point is really interesting in the context of the proposed rules. I talked about this in my thread where I talked about the legal issues in the proposed rules and SFATA brought up the zero nic issue. Here's the thing, the statute says that tobacco products include all components, parts, and accessories. So, does this bring pg, vg, and flavorings that could be used into their jurisdiction? I doubt it, but the FDA needs to do more to their definitions. They actually asked comments about their definitions, but I have yet to see any of the comments about the definitions.

Here's the really weird part. The FDA has an exception for tobacco products that do not contain nicotine. Now, the FDA has said that they are not aware of any tobacco products that do not contain any nicotine. If there are, the product can be exempted from the warning label requirement. However, they still have to apply for the exception by virtue of being a tobacco product. So, if components of the e-liquid, like flavors, are tobacco products, do they need to apply for the exception?

Wow that is some seriously messed up logic they are using. If mixing pg, vg, and food flavoring can be considered a tobacco product even though none of the ingredients came from tobacco, then literally anything can be considered a tobacco product. Milk? Yep that logic means it's a tobacco product. Your iPhone? Yep this logic makes that a tobacco product too. /boggle.

 

[PapaSloth]

Mainly, I learned that people here have a lot of passion about this subject, for better or worse. I'm glad that there are so many people on this forum who have an open mind, but there are also many who do not. Passion is great, but I think that it has to be tempered with an acceptance of the way things are and an ability to see beyond one's own interests. Those are just my feeling though. Thanks for asking!

You do realize that most of us (most definitely including me) are addicts, right? You're talking about the government potentially limiting our access to the chemical we're addicted to. If you were addicted, you would be passionate as well, I'm guessing.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

Also, all of my nicotine comes from potatoes, not tobacco. I grow them myself in the backyard, and harvest the nicotine myself using a secret proprietary process. So, while the rest of you chumps are all worried about the FDA regulating tobacco products, I'll be vaping away on my potato ejuice.

The issue of nicotine from other sources or synthetics has been raised before and I don't know how the FDA will respond, but it's an interesting problem. My guess is that they would eventually have to punt back to Congress considering the way title 21 defines tobacco products. I just learned how to do my own cigar extracts, so I guess I could always just resort to that in the worst case scenario!

 

[PapaSloth]

Wow that is some seriously messed up logic they are using. If mixing pg, vg, and food flavoring can be considered a tobacco product even though none of the ingredients came from tobacco, then literally anything can be considered a tobacco product. Milk? Yep that logic means it's a tobacco product. Your iPhone? Yep this logic makes that a tobacco product too. /boggle.

Don't worry, my potato ejuice is not considered a tobacco product by the FDA. That's exactly what I'll tell the police when they bust me for drug possession once eliquid is banned. I'm sure they'll believe me.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

You know, this is something that always bothers me about public health surveys. The questions seem to be poorly defined. If one child brought an e-cig to school and let 5 of his or her friends try a quick puff, the number has increased 5 fold, but so what?

I was with you right up until "so what?' You're going to be a lawyer and you don't care if someone is stacking the deck?

 

[PapaSloth]

I was with you right up until "so what?' You're going to be a lawyer and you don't care if someone is stacking the deck?

It's OK if they stack the deck, as long as you're still winning

It's only when you have all your money in the pot that them stacking the deck becomes a bad thing.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

The issue of nicotine from other sources or synthetics has been raised before and I don't know how the FDA will respond, but it's an interesting problem. My guess is that they would eventually have to punt back to Congress considering the way title 21 defines tobacco products. I just learned how to do my own cigar extracts, so I guess I could always just resort to that in the worst case scenario!

Or you could buy your nic and put it away in the freezer like a normal person.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

Wow that is some seriously messed up logic they are using. If mixing pg, vg, and food flavoring can be considered a tobacco product even though none of the ingredients came from tobacco, then literally anything can be considered a tobacco product. Milk? Yep that logic means it's a tobacco product. Your iPhone? Yep this logic makes that a tobacco product too. /boggle.

Yeah, read the parts of the proposed rules that define things. It's insane. Hookah tongs are considered parts, as are rolling papers and pouches, but bags and lighters are not. No idea what to make of it. I don't think that it's the biggest deal in the world, but the FDA will really need to slim down their definitions. It would be interesting to bring a mod, atty, kanthal, battery, cotton, bottle of vg, pg, flavoring, and nicotine before them and see which things should be regulated. Even if it's everything, I don't know how they would pull that off. The problem stems, I think, from their understanding of an e-cig being something that you buy at a drug store with replaceable cartridges. Maybe this would be a good way to argue that more advanced items and custom liquids should have a different submission process, kind of like the option they are proposing for premium cigars.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

I was with you right up until "so what?' You're going to be a lawyer and you don't care if someone is stacking the deck?

My point was that the number becomes meaningless when you ask a question that has such broad parameters. When I write legal papers and go to court and all, I don't say things like that

 

[PapaSloth]

Most likely, they'll just do what they did with "the herb that shall be nameless." Classify anything that's specifically used for consumption as paraphernalia, and make possession or sales of any of that illegal.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

Or you could buy your nic and put it away in the freezer like a normal person.

I wasn't interested in the nic. This was a decent cigar and I wanted a juice that tasted like it. It was actually really successful.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

I wasn't interested in the nic. This was a decent cigar and I wanted a juice that tasted like it. It was actually really successful.

Good deal! Glad it worked for you. And soon you will be a lawyer with an illegal lab.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

Most likely, they'll just do what they did with "the herb that shall be nameless." Classify anything that's specifically used for consumption as paraphernalia, and make possession or sales of any of that illegal.

I believe their plan is to take it back to what was available in 2009. (We really need that barf smiley.) A couple of months ago i could have pointed you to that information but not now. DC2 could.

Oh, and I'm sure you missed one "some" in that post but I'll have to reread it tomorrow.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

Most likely, they'll just do what they did with "the herb that shall be nameless." Classify anything that's specifically used for consumption as paraphernalia, and make possession or sales of any of that illegal.

This would work for the atty and the mod. But what about the cotton, wire, kanthal, vg, ect? Furthermore, there are probably some work around, kind of like how said paraphernalia is sold as glass art or herbal infusers.

Also, I think SFATA's comments got at this, but there is a loophole with the liquid. If I mix vg, pg, and flavors, in other words, zero nic juice, couldn't I fall into an exception? Then I could buy nic from a distributor and sell it separately. Since the statutes only apply to tobacco manufacturers, and I haven't really manufactured tobacco, I think that you can argue that I should be exempted from the application process. Then, the only one who would need to apply would be the nic manufactures.

 

[FlamingoTutu]

This would work for the atty and the mod. But what about the cotton, wire, kanthal, vg, ect? Furthermore, there are probably some work around, kind of like how said paraphernalia is sold as glass art or herbal infusers.

Also, I think SFATA's comments got at this, but there is a loophole with the liquid. If I mix vg, pg, and flavors, in other words, zero nic juice, couldn't I fall into an exception? Then I could buy nic from a distributor and sell it separately. Since the statutes only apply to tobacco manufacturers, and I haven't really manufactured tobacco, I think that you can argue that I should be exempted from the application process. Then, the only one who would need to apply would be the nic manufactures.

Most people are assuming, and I think reasonably, that they can't control the wire, batteries, flavors (sold separately), PG, VG and that sort of stuff.

You have manufactured a tobacco product and if you are going to sell it, that's about a $250,000 fee and 500,000 page application.

 

[towelie]

So, are you suggesting that Congress and the Fed are in an elaborate scheme where Congress authorizes the creation of money which the Fed gives back to Congress? I'm sorry, I'm just confused about what you're saying. I would ask you this. What's the point? Also, I'm not sure what you mean by your distinction between legal and lawful.

I think you answered your question when you cited the note in that statute. It's a system of keeping financial accounts. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you're getting at here.

On to your point, are you suggesting that if we deprive Congress of legal currency that it would not be corrupt because it wouldn't be able to do things?

I am a law student, but I don't know what you mean referring to redemption!

I would like to point out it is Congress that made the distinction that Fed notes are not lawful money, not me; I didn't author the statute or the Act it references.

Idk how else to put it. If elastic currency were not elastic there would be very little wiggle room for any sort of corruption, including campaign contributions. I am sorry, that is as cliff notes as I can state that without going into a very long history lesson.

So I am having a hard time here also....12 U.S. Code § 411 - Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation; redemption | LII / Legal Information Institute is the issuing authority of elastic currency, elastic in that it is created when borrowed in a 10% reserve system on the populace level, elastic in that the lawful reserves for the currency exchange are borrowed at the Congressional level.

The text of the issuing authority simply states:

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

to which you respond:

So this statute allows the Federal Reserve to issue notes, basically loans to the government, that can then be redeemed for legal currency later.

Are you suggesting that the Federal Reserve is issuing unlimited notes to companies which then give them to politicians for favors?

When I say campaign finance reform, I mean caps on the amount of money that private interests can donate to politicians to run for office.

Not sure where to go from here so I guess I will stop now.

TL;DR
It seems that worrying about how much private interests can corrupt a Congress person is a snake on a Medusa head IMHO. The fact that Congress person does not know what elastic currency is nor the difference in what is legal and what is Lawful is the head of the Medusa given that they are the purse and the legislator. IMHO

I don't know how to simplify this, sorry.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

Most people are assuming, and I think reasonably, that they can't control the wire, batteries, flavors (sold separately), PG, VG and that sort of stuff.

You have manufactured a tobacco product and if you are going to sell it, that's about a $250,000 fee and 500,000 page application.

But I haven't. I've combined vg, pg, and flavors, all things that alone are not tobacco products. Then I acted as a retailer for a manufacturer of nicotine, which I'm assuming for this hypothetical has successfully applied. As long as I sell them separately and let my customers mix their own nic in, I have not done anything with the tobacco. I guess if I really wanted to cause them a headache, I could sell everything in separate bottles and let the customers mix it. Now, this seems to be something that the FDA is concerned about, selling components and parts separately, but if everything other than the nic, which I didn't make, is something that cannot be regulated under this rule, how am I doing anything that would cause me to fall under their jurisdiction. Unless they are going to regulate all vg, pg, and flavors. It violates the spirit of the regulation, but I think its either a valid loophole or a scenario in which the FDA would have to regulate all sorts of stuff they didn't anticipate. Congress probably didn't intend this either. I think that this is grounds for a legitimate challenge, but the FDA can easily work around it by tailoring the rules.