The Elephant in the Room

[CES]

IMO, this is the level of regulation that would be appropriate for e-liquid (if regulation is unavoidable) . While e-liquids aren't food supplements, this is an example of regulation that is other than medicine or tobacco, so the structure exists for (relatively) light-handed regulation.

Dietary Supplements

 

[Bored2Tears]

IMO, this is the level of regulation that would be appropriate for e-liquid (if regulation is unavoidable) . While e-liquids aren't food supplements, this is an example of regulation that is other than medicine or tobacco, so the structure exists for (relatively) light-handed regulation.

Dietary Supplements

I like this line of reasoning. The analogy is a good one. Dietary supplements are considered mostly harmless, and treated with much less oversight than OTC drugs or prescription drugs. I don't know if it fits perfectly into the framework, but it's a step in the right direction.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

They could decide that since e-cigarettes are in fact NOT a tobacco product, they don't have to be regulated under the tobacco control act or FDCA. It doesn't have to be a separate agency, just a separate set of standards.

Well, I suppose if there is some sort of decision that e-cigarettes are not tobacco, like a court ruling or some sort of statement by Congress. However, considering the fact that the statute was a mandate to the FDA to address these issues, combined with the definition of tobacco under title 21, it seems to me that it would be a dereliction of their duties to not do anything. Now they can make some exceptions or changes for the application.

 

[QU1T]

IMO, this is the level of regulation that would be appropriate for e-liquid (if regulation is unavoidable) . While e-liquids aren't food supplements, this is an example of regulation that is other than medicine or tobacco, so the structure exists for (relatively) light-handed regulation.

Dietary Supplements

Must be something similar in EU, I am just too lazy to find out atm,
Feels a bit lame being the only Eurotrash rep here, hope you guys don't mind too much

 

[CES]

But the whole point of the deeming proposal is to define e-cigs as tobacco products. ATM, they are not. Nor are they medicinal products. The FDA currently has no jurisdiction.

As i understand it, in 2010, Judge Leon said that, absent health claims, the FDA couldn't regulate e-cig as medicine. And if the FDA really felt they needed to regulate, then tobacco products was an available route. The first step is to officially deem that e-cigs are tobacco products. E-cigs didn't exist when the tobacco act was passed. There is no requirement that the FDA do anything at all.

 

[Lessifer]

Well, I suppose if there is some sort of decision that e-cigarettes are not tobacco, like a court ruling or some sort of statement by Congress. However, considering the fact that the statute was a mandate to the FDA to address these issues, combined with the definition of tobacco under title 21, it seems to me that it would be a dereliction of their duties to not do anything. Now they can make some exceptions or changes for the application.

I thought we already established that e-cigarettes are not currently a tobacco product, hence the proposal for regulations that would deem them to be tobacco products. If I understand it correctly, the FDA could propose deeming vaporizers as a wholly separate category of products since the inclusion of tobacco derived nicotine is not a given, nor does the inclusion of nicotine automatically make it a tobacco product, depending on interpretation of the definition.

 

[rbrylawski]

I thought we already established that e-cigarettes are not currently a tobacco product, hence the proposal for regulations that would deem them to be tobacco products. If I understand it correctly, the FDA could propose deeming vaporizers as a wholly separate category of products since the inclusion of tobacco derived nicotine is not a given, nor does the inclusion of nicotine automatically make it a tobacco product, depending on interpretation of the definition.

"WE" can establish anything we want. But we're not the FDA and I suspect they can and will establish things that will definitely effect us. Hopefully for the benefit of us, but they can also do things to make it very difficult for us too.

 

[Robino1]

But the whole point of the deeming proposal is to define e-cigs as tobacco products. ATM, they are not. Nor are they medicinal products. The FDA currently has no jurisdiction.

As i understand it, in 2010, Judge Leon said that, absent health claims, the FDA couldn't regulate e-cig as medicine. And if the FDA really felt they needed to regulate, then tobacco products was an available route. The first step is to officially deem that e-cigs are tobacco products. E-cigs didn't exist when the tobacco act was passed. There is no requirement that the FDA do anything at all.

Correct.

Once the FDA decides to deem them a tobacco product, then the crap hits the fan and they will be able to regulate e-cigs out of existence if they so choose.

AEMSA started as a vendor based organization to try to put Standards in place. Some vendors joined quite a few did not. The fees are really kind of high. AEMSA | American E-Liquid Manufacturing Standards Association

The industry does need standards, we do not need regulation. Cleanliness, accuracy and common sense. Labels and the option of childproof caps for the households that need them. At least give the choice of not having childproof caps for those that have arthritis, or something similar, that cannot open those darn caps. Also a lot of us no longer have children living in the house and when they do visit, we know enough to keep the stuff out of their reach.

Standards I can live with. Regulations? No.

 

[Plastic Shaman]

I don't think anything has been established. I think there are some technical arguments against it. However, the plain language of title 21 is clear. There are eliquids that contain nicotine. Thus the FDA cannot, and should not, ignore them. If there is some error, that's something a court should decide.

 

[Bored2Tears]

Oh well, I tried. I think that the FDA is going to exercise it's regulatory authority to e cigs. Just my opinion. It contains nicotine, which is well established as a product that should be regulated. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.

Big Tobacco I think is preparing themselves accordingly. If the e cigarette industry chooses to fight the battle over whether or not this should be regulated by the FDA, then I think they are wasting energy better spent preparing for the inevitable and dealing with the regulatory authority they are gonna face.

Just my two cents.

 

[Bored2Tears]

I'll put it this way: If my livelihood was dependent on e liquid sales business....I would start self-regulating to be ahead of the competition.

 

[Bored2Tears]

Correct.

Once the FDA decides to deem them a tobacco product, then the crap hits the fan and they will be able to regulate e-cigs out of existence if they so choose.

AEMSA started as a vendor based organization to try to put Standards in place. Some vendors joined quite a few did not. The fees are really kind of high. AEMSA | American E-Liquid Manufacturing Standards Association

The industry does need standards, we do not need regulation. Cleanliness, accuracy and common sense. Labels and the option of childproof caps for the households that need them. At least give the choice of not having childproof caps for those that have arthritis, or something similar, that cannot open those darn caps. Also a lot of us no longer have children living in the house and when they do visit, we know enough to keep the stuff out of their reach.

Standards I can live with. Regulations? No.

Here are some standards recommended by AEMSA. AEMSA Recommends Flavor Testing | AEMSA

How many vendors are following or taking this suggestion voluntarily, or even joining AEMSA? If the vast majority are doing this, I will agree we are self regulating.

 

[PapaSloth]

See, here's the thing. Most people believe that in a negotiation, the winning strategy is to be as reasonable as possible and to find a consensus. However most experts citation needed actually believe that the most effective strategy is to be as much of an unreasonable pain in the .... as possible. Make them fight for even the most trivial of concessions until they'd rather do anything in the world instead of having to talk to you for another minute. This forces them to be reasonable to you, rather than you being reasonable to a bunch of unreasonable jerks. Now, I'm not saying that I think restricting the vaping age to 18 or older is a bad thing, or that having ingredients labels on eliquid is a bad thing either. I might even secretly admit that I thought they would be good things, as long as there were no tape recorders running. But, I sure as hell would never admit that to the other side before the negotiations even began. That's a total losing strategy.

 

[readeuler]

Here are some standards recommended by AEMSA. AEMSA Recommends Flavor Testing | AEMSA

How many vendors are following or taking this suggestion voluntarily, or even joining AEMSA? If the vast majority are doing this, I will agree we are self regulating.

The real question is, are you buying from these vendors? If you don't care enough to seek out "responsible" vendors, why should everyone be forced to support a market with these kinds of regulations forcefully imposed?

 

[Bored2Tears]

See, here's the thing. Most people believe that in a negotiation, the winning strategy is to be as reasonable as possible and to find a consensus. However most experts citation needed actually believe that the most effective strategy is to be as much of an unreasonable pain in the .... as possible. Make them fight for even the most trivial of concessions until they'd rather do anything in the world instead of having to talk to you for another minute. This forces them to be reasonable to you, rather than you being reasonable to a bunch of unreasonable jerks. Now, I'm not saying that I think restricting the vaping age to 18 or older is a bad thing, or that having ingredients labels on eliquid is a bad thing either. I might even secretly admit that I thought they would be good things, as long as there were no tape recorders running. But, I sure as hell would never admit that to the other side before the negotiations even began. That's a total losing strategy.

PapaSloth, at least you recognize that this is a political fight. It's not a morale or philosophical debate. It doesn't matter one bit to them if vaping is relatively harmless. From a political standpoint, NO politician would support selling e liquids to minors. SO going into the negotiations table appearing unreasonable to terms like that will only make us look silly, in my opinion.

Look at how often mediation / arbitration works as opposed to a lawsuit. Mostly because people have lost the ability to give even a little bit on their own beliefs or ideology. Congress can't operate because of it.

I dunno. This is a political debate. One of the greatest politicians ever in our history was Lyndon Johnson. Note that I am not saying greatest leaders, or anything remotely close. I don't know if I agreed with any of his policies. But he got legislation through like no one ever has. He did not get stuck on giving nothing to the other side. He wanted to win on the big picture...the points that mattered to him. If you want winning strategy....look at how he worked. Political victories are made with favors and lobbying and applying pressure in the right places. And the politicians have to come away looking like they won morale victories.... by saving the children, making the world a safer place for all of us, etc. It needs to have the appearance that it accomplishes that.

If you want to win on the points that matter, then concede the little things to them that don't matter...but give the appearance that they've won something.

So labeling.....I say what's the harm? How hard is it to incorporate labeling on this stuff? Really???? How hard? How expensive is it?

 

[PapaSloth]

PapaSloth, at least you recognize that this is a political fight. It's not a morale or philosophical debate. It doesn't matter one bit to them if vaping is relatively harmless. From a political standpoint, NO politician would support selling e liquids to minors. SO going into the negotiations table appearing unreasonable to terms like that will only make us look silly, in my opinion.

Yeah? They want to claim that letting minors vape is unreasonable? Make them prove that it's harmful in some way. So what if the number of children who vape is on the rise? Vaping is good for you, and builds healthy bones and skin. It contains essential vitamins and nutrients. Most importantly, it keeps kids from smoking, which is a proven health hazard and will kill them. Vaping is an immunization agent, just like the measles vaccine, and daily healthy doses will prevent cancer and heart disease. If they don't agree with that, make them present scientific evidence to the contrary, and then dispute that evidence. Question the biases in the study. Question the academic credentials of the scientists who did the studies. Question the sample size, and other mitigating factors. Pick apart the data until they don't have a leg to stand on. Then, MAYBE, be willing to concede that it's MAYBE not the worst thing in the world if kids, say under 12, should be prevented from vaping. Maybe. Not entirely convinced, but I'm willing to be reasonable and work with you here. But 15? 15 is just ridiculous, and totally out of the question.

Look at how often mediation / arbitration works as opposed to a lawsuit. Mostly because people have lost the ability to give even a little bit on their own beliefs or ideology. Congress can't operate because of it.

You are not a lawyer. You have never been through a divorce, or any other major litigation for that matter, I'm guessing.

I dunno. This is a political debate. One of the greatest politicians ever in our history was Lyndon Johnson. Note that I am not saying greatest leaders, or anything remotely close. I don't know if I agreed with any of his policies. But he got legislation through like no one ever has. He did not get stuck on giving nothing to the other side. He wanted to win on the big picture...the points that mattered to him. If you want winning strategy....look at how he worked. Political victories are made with favors and lobbying and applying pressure in the right places. And the politicians have to come away looking like they won morale victories.... by saving the children, making the world a safer place for all of us, etc. It needs to have the appearance that it accomplishes that.

This is funny, because everyone I've ever talked to who was alive during the Johnson administration tells me he was one of the biggest failures ever as president. They often compare Jimmy Carter's administration in terms of depth of failure. On the other hand, people (not me) view Ronald Reagan as one of the most successful presidents in recent history, and he never gave a single inch to anyone. History is written by the winners.

If you want to win on the points that matter, then concede the little things to them that don't matter...but give the appearance that they've won something.

So labeling.....I say what's the harm? How hard is it to incorporate labeling on this stuff? Really???? How hard? How expensive is it?

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

 

[beckdg]

just like most industries there are regulations in place to monitor safety, however it only takes a few minutes to find ways around this (ie Time limits on Truck Drivers using log books, they keep multiple log books on hand or modify their TAC system to show them down when they get under 15 miles an hour etc).
When we regulate, it will usually show one thing, the government putting their hands in our pocket. Just like New Mexico's proposed 4 cent per mg nic tax where the bottle of nic I just bought would come out to $2735.00 (35 for the nic, 2700 for tax) are you ready for that???
I suggest more of a community standards where people investigate for themselves where good places are and stick to these locations. It has worked for the past 11 years, why should it not continue on?

Perfect example. Ironic in a way.

I run on electronic logs. When I put her in gear and get moving it logs me in. But my system is wonky currently because it's windows based and the company doesn't want to spring for a tech. So my system won't allow me to do my pre trip on my e logs. I'm doing them on paper.

Well last night I did a bit of personal driving then went back off duty. Only I didn't change my duty status. I got my 10 hours off duty, plus some since I had to wait for my scheduled delivery time. My delivery was only 10 miles down the road.

I get on the highway and realize I'm still driving on off duty time. But since I'm rolling I'm locked out and can't change my status.

I noticed it and I was only 5 hours away from the shop where I had to drop off my tractor for some electrical repairs so everything worked out. But my on duty day started about 2 hours after I went on duty. 1 hour and 40 some odd minutes after I logged my pretrip.

Had I had a full day of driving and not noticed, I could have easily spaced out and drove 2 hours past my 8 hour, 11 hour and/or 14 hour limits putting me in a real pinch should DOT happen across that log.

I went through 2 scale houses unscathed. And trucking has more checks and balances than any industry mentioned thus far.

Not to mention how many state troopers passed me with half my lights malfunctioning today.

Sent from my device.

 

[PapaSloth]

By the way, on the specific topic of labeling, the sad truth is that NONE of the chemicals we are vaping have been proven safe for inhalation over long periods at the levels we're using them at. So, the natural next step is to impose a moratorium (not a ban, oh goodness no, just a brief pause while we weigh the evidence) on any inhaled chemicals until there's been time for a full scientific longitudinal study on the long-term health consequences. 30 years or so should be adequate. In the meantime, go use your perfectly safe cigarettes, and if you don't like those, then there's also the FDA approved Nicotine Replacement Therapies. Oh, they don't work? There's always cold turkey or Chantix, if that doesn't kill you.

That's what being reasonable gets you. Bent over the table.

 

[Jman8]

IMO, same as if the beer contains no alcohol.

The same? I would say it is like soda without alcohol. Should we let kids buy soda if there is no alcohol in there?

 

[Jman8]

Everyone thinks they know whats in their liquid cause they trust (lol) their seller, or they (lol)

Some sellers post (online) their ingredients and lab tests. Why would they do this if they are unregulated? Manufacturing organizations that promote standards within the industry exists.

You keep claiming that no one knows what's in eLiquid. Why do you do this when it is not accurate? I could link to vendor(s) that post their ingredients.

And I'm very willing to bet there will be more harm to users in a regulated market. Are you willing to make that wager?