The Key word here is "tobacco".
Tell me Again how a Solution of PG, VG and Food Flavorings can be tied to Tobacco?
Because Isn't that what a 0mg is? A Solution of PG, VG and Food Flavorings.
The FDA "is also considering whether to ban online sales of e-cigarettes..."
- Thread starter sofarsogood
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
The Key word here is "tobacco".
Tell me Again how a Solution of PG, VG and Food Flavorings can be tied to Tobacco?
Because Isn't that what a 0mg is? A Solution of PG, VG and Food Flavorings.
i think they are going after everything. i'm not saying its right or
even totally legal. their going to throw every thing against the
wall and see what sticks.
with zero nic it will be the old chillin' and gateway argument.
first 0 nic than 6,than 12 and before you know its real cigarettes.
and after that on to the serious stuff,blah,blah.
regards
mike
The FDA isn't Stupid.
And they are Not going to try and Regulate something that would be Thrown out by the First Court it was brought in front of.
The FDA Knows that they Can Not Touch 0mg "e-Liquids". As long as the Seller Makes No Claim or Intended Use.
The FDA also Knows that Hardware, if sold without Implying that it is to be Used with a Tobacco Product, or if the Seller Makes No Claim, will be Extremely Difficult to Regulate. That is why Hardware will be Minimally Effected in My Opinion.
first there was the tobacco,cigarettes are a derivative of tobacco .
then there was the e-cigarette and any and all of the components
needed to make it.there would not be an e-cig if there was not tobacco
and the cigarette in particular before it. hence e-cigs and any and all
materials needed to make one are derived from the cigarette hence
from tobacco.
this is not a difference with out meaning.
google "derivative of" and then "derived from".
they have two completely different meanings.
regards
mike
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
sofar wrote (as the title of this thread)
That is a false statement, as the FDA's proposed deeming regulation (that would ban >99.9% of e-cigs products and give the e-cig industry to Big Tobacco) never proposed nor mentioned an online e-cig sales ban.
This entire thread should be deleted because it just spreads a lie.
That is a false statement, as the FDA's proposed deeming regulation (that would ban >99.9% of e-cigs products and give the e-cig industry to Big Tobacco) never proposed nor mentioned an online e-cig sales ban.
This entire thread should be deleted because it just spreads a lie.
that's right,they are not stupid. that's why the law says derived from and
not a derivative of.
in terms of the courts the only way they can get involved is when the
regulations come into effect and start causing substantial monetary harm
to juice and hardware vendors because of the regulatory paperwork burden
not because of the regulations and or taxes placed on the juice and hardware.
either way vaping is going to be as expensive or more so than smoking.
the FDA has been granted the authority to do so. how far they go is the $64
dollar question. i believe the FDA will go for the whole enchilada before the time
is reached when the amount of vapers reaches the proverbial tipping point and
creates a voting block that has to be contended with.
regards
mike
So do you think that e-Liquids that contain Nicotine will be Allowed to be Sold over the Internet in a FDA Regulated e-cigarette Market?
hi Bill,
i respect your opinion but how are the going to regulate it with out
having control over internet sales?
just because they haven't mentioned it doesn't mean they haven''t
thought of it in least in terms of future regulations.
don't they pay some guy to think of these things?
if they can't touch internet sales than this whole deeming
process doesn't mean a thing because (China).
regards
mike
that's right,they are not stupid. that's why the law says derived from and
not a derivative of.
in terms of the courts the only way they can get involved is when the
regulations come into effect and start causing substantial monetary harm
to juice and hardware vendors because of the regulatory paperwork burden
not because of the regulations and or taxes placed on the juice and hardware.
either way vaping is going to be as expensive or more so than smoking.
the FDA has been granted the authority to do so. how far they go is the $64
dollar question. i believe the FDA will go for the whole enchilada before the time
is reached when the amount of vapers reaches the proverbial tipping point and
creates a voting block that has to be contended with.
regards
mike
Hey you might be Right Mike.
Not sure how they are going to Stop me from selling a DNA30 Box Mod LED Flashlight? Or say that a Solution of PG, VG and Food Flavoring is somehow "Tobacco Product"?
Guess we will just have to get a Little Closer to see what is Going to Happen.
i am also starting to formulate contingency plans.
just like sudafed quantities will be limited and or require
face to face i.d. required sales and a solemn oath not to
to use PG/VG/and flavors in unauthorized ways.
the real harm would be done to us older folks who have
smoked for any years.a lot of my older brethren are
rather set in their ways and it would be hard to convince them
that vaping is a viable replacement for smoking if its going
to cost as much or more. then you add in the learning curve.
you should see the looks on there faces when i tell them what
my first decent ego passthrough an iclear16 cost me. why that's
as much as a half carton of smokes. i have to explain to them
i got y juice cost down to about 0.22 cents roughly for an
equivalent pack of smokes.
regards
mike
I think this is something we Both can agree on.
Nicotine Solution 100mg Pure USP Grade - Liter Heartlandvapes Wholesale
hi Bill,
i forgot to add even though the FDA didn't specifically mention
on line sales it was most certainly addressed in the comments
to there deeming proposal.
don't get me wrong i am just taking the doom and gloom
approach to the coming regulations. if i can think this way
i am sure that the people they pay to think up stuff already
have.
regards
mike
I am starting a brand of "Kosher CPU cooling fluid" for overclockers. Made with the purest propylene glycol and glycerin available. Various proportions to adapt to all cooling needs.
I am starting a brand of "Kosher CPU cooling fluid" for overclockers. Made with the purest propylene glycol and glycerin available. Various proportions to adapt to all cooling needs.
Don't forget 100% of either for those who want to tune their fluid to their own system.
Hear hear. And don't forget to add some additives to keep bugs at bay:
http://www.bombayharbor.com/productImage/0046051001241597169/10_Nicotine_As.jpg
No need to reboot ever again!
I've tracked my expenses for vaping as 'recreational'...the same as I did with tobacco products before vaping.
On the matter of hardware, there is a somewhat parallel recreational realm that may be locally acceptable. Some people like to ingest herbs that may either be dry and combusted or in liquid extracts drawn from the herbs. Much of the hardware used in vaping may also have usefulness in the herbal realm.
Are we to assume that the proposed FDA regulations regarding hardware would apply to 'derivatives' in which tobacco plays no part? What might be the response from herbal enthusiasts?
On the matter of hardware, there is a somewhat parallel recreational realm that may be locally acceptable. Some people like to ingest herbs that may either be dry and combusted or in liquid extracts drawn from the herbs. Much of the hardware used in vaping may also have usefulness in the herbal realm.
Are we to assume that the proposed FDA regulations regarding hardware would apply to 'derivatives' in which tobacco plays no part? What might be the response from herbal enthusiasts?
my understanding goes like this.
first you have tobacco.
a cigarette is a derivative of tobacco.
now you have e-cigarettes in all their shapes and forms
tanks,batts,coils an e-juice inclusive.
these are derived from a cigarette witch is a derivative of tobacco.
the law states derived from tobacco or a tobacco product not a derivative
of tobacco or a tobacco product.tobacco products and their derivatives
are already regulated.
this is not a distinction without meaning."derived from"and"derivative of"
do not mean the same thing.
regards
mike
Last edited:
my understanding goes like this.
first you have tobacco.
a cigarette is a derivative of tobacco.
now you have e-cigarettes in all their shapes and forms
tanks,batts,coils an e-juice inclusive.
these are derived from a cigarette witch is a derivative of tobacco.
the law states derived from tobacco or a tobacco product not a derivative
of tobacco or a tobacco product.tobacco products and their derivatives
are already regulated.
this is not a distinction without meaning."derived from"and"derivative of"
do not mean the same thing.
regards
mike
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ambiguity
- Status
Similar threads
