For all we know, Covington could be a vapor and like Tribeca!!
Nice to have a laugh at a time like this.
Read this! Tuesday: Halo start first lawsuit against FDA, Debate in the UK House of Lords
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Nice to have a laugh at a time like this.
Duh...Anything's better than the reaction from one of my local B&Ms. Just checked their Facebook page, they're having a "Forget the FDA Deeming" sale.
You miss my point. As of today, 12 May 2016 nothing has legally changed that would require CC companies to transact business any differently then they did a week ago. Nothing we buy or vape today is considered "tobacco" or contraband. (In a few months, when the regs officially kick in... most likely
).Again, State and local ordinances permitting, it's a given that CC companies will continue to charge us for using their money and will keep filling their coffers until the very last minute. I would consider it fiscally irresponsible otherwise.
Anything's better than the reaction from one of my local B&Ms. Just checked their Facebook page, they're having a "Forget the FDA Deeming" sale.
I have been FLOODED with FDA This and That - SALES - emails from Dozens of Vendors the past Few days.
They ALL seem to be making a HOLIDAY SALE EVENT out of the whole thing.
Our Industry seems Hardwired for Self Destruction.
Heh. If VISA and/or certain other credit card companies drop all vaping businesses, I wonder whether some other company will pick up their customers? I'd apply for a new credit card with a different company if I had to. Then I'd keep my current card and use it only if the new card wasn't supported by a merchant.
Discover or Diners Club.
Wouldn't that be funny? People would actually use those cards for once!
You miss my point. As of today, 12 May 2016 nothing has legally changed that would require CC companies to transact business any differently then they did a week ago. Nothing we buy or vape today is considered "tobacco" or contraband. (In a few months, when the regs officially kick in... most likely
Again, State and local ordinances permitting, it's a given that CC companies will continue to charge us for using their money and will keep filling their coffers until the very last minute. I would consider it fiscally irresponsible otherwise.
Apologies for not making myself clear. Force is not needed. CC Companies are obligated to Investors and regularly under pressure from large Financial groups lobbying for actions to be taken.
This has already resulted in CC Companies updating user agreements or more highly enforcing in place policies.
These type of actions have already happened in the past and are already beginning to happen again.
Mandatory or not, it is happening and will only get worse without extreme change in Regulations.
Private companies can do what they want. The USPS will comply with what the law
says applies unless a governmental agencie has authorization to request otherwise.
Certain restrictions will become active in 90 days. Everything pertaining to denying
underage access for one and no more new products. The FDA has said per Bill Godshall
they intend to shake down B&Ms hand mixing behind the counter after 90 days. I think
this refers to on the spot mixing as per order not premixed and bottled stock. This would
be due to the fact precise amounts cannot be maintained to a standard that insures it is not
in fact a new product every time you eyeball the ingredients. Other than that the status
quo remains the same for 2 years. Granted the FDA seems to have given itself
a lot of weasel room but until they announce other wise nothing changes for 2 years.
Of course the FDA could start tomorrow using the discretionary authority they seem
to think the deeming regs give them free reign to change anything and everything in the regs to
suit their definition of maintaining compliance and control. When that happens we will
have to start a new thread. I remember the proposed deeming regs we commented on
stressed the fact that they were not written in stone and that the final deeming regs
could be quite different or relatively the same. However to my thinking it appears
the FDA has encoded or is attempting to encode into law a new procedure to enact
new regulations with out going through the process as I understand it to be now.
Propose a regulation.Get comments on the regulation. Write the actual regulation.
Post it to the Federal Register and finalization into law per prescribed procedure.
I digress,getting back to the main subject. Private companies can do what they want
unless it violates a specific item under the law. Discriminatory practices against a
protected class as an example. Cutting off an e-cig vendor is not at this time is
not required under law and does not violate the law as e-cig vendors are not a protected
class. Therefore stating that one cut a vendor off because regulations require it is
simply not true. They simply could say sooner or later we are going to have to do this
anyway. That would be fine.
Regards
mike
Here is the Key to Locking up the Internet Kingdom ........in case anyone missed it
A work in progress
Policy History - Internet Tobacco Vendors Study
Are the Days of Online eCig Purchases by Credit Card Numbered?
I agree whole heartily with this reasoning. my point it is not a legal requirement for them to do so.Apologies for not making myself clear. Force is not needed. CC Companies are obligated to Investors and regularly under pressure from large Financial groups lobbying for actions to be taken.
This has already resulted in CC Companies updating user agreements or more highly enforcing in place policies.
These type of actions have already happened in the past and are already beginning to happen again.
Mandatory or not, it is happening and will only get worse without extreme change in Regulations.
It's a business decision.
Mike
You be fine my friend.
Well let's hope my <cough> sizable and highly <cough> diversified portfolio does not include investors who scurry like scared rabbits (avoiding millions in profits), sooner than they have to.
Hee hee. I had one of them thar fancy Diner's club cards many many moons ago. After many strange looks and refusals from merchants after I handed it to them, it served as a dandy shoe horn thereafter.
The reason cigarettes and smokeless tobacco are not shipped by USPS is because of the PACT act. USPS does deliver pipe tobacco and cigars as the PACT act specifically designates cigarettes, roll you own cigarette tobacco, and smokeless. UPS does have a policy of not delivering cigarettes, but does delivery smokeless tobacco, though it takes an adult signature on delivery. That is also part of the PACT act.
In order for ecigs to not be delivered by USPS the PACT act would have to be amended.
The reason I know this is because the PACT act had a serious effect on delivery of snus from Sweden. International UPS shipping with an adult signature has greatly increased the price of shipping.
As of now ecigs are not under threat as far as shipping.
I am not disagreeing with you @Stubby ,however if the FDA decides in order to carry
out its mandate of getting these newly deemed tobacco products into compliance and
under their control, what exactly in the PACT Act would prohibit them from restricting
transportation of products directly to buyers. It is MHO that with out a specific exemption
for e-liquid an harware The Pact Act has nothing to do with our situation.
Regards
Mike
The PACT act has everything to do with our situation as far as shipping goes. There is nothing in the tobacco control act that would give the FDA authority to stop shipping via USPS, or any other shipper. It is the PACT act, not the tobacco control act, that limited shipping on specific tobacco products.I am not disagreeing with you @Stubby ,however if the FDA decides in order to carry
out its mandate of getting these newly deemed tobacco products into compliance and
under their control, what exactly in the PACT Act would prohibit them from restricting
transportation of products directly to buyers. It is MHO that with out a specific exemption
for e-liquid an harware The Pact Act has nothing to do with our situation.
Regards
Mike
Even though pipe tobacco and cigars are now deemed, it is still perfectly legal to ship with USPS, as are ecigs, and will remain so into the future unless the PACT act is amended.
Stubby is correct.
The PACT Act does not cover tobacco products in general.
It covers only the products it specifically says it covers.
It will not cover electronic cigarettes unless it is amended to add them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
