FDA TVECA post table of contents for Deeming Final Rule

[XeniaVaper]

they didn't make it"possible". They don't help the situation, but they really are just helping push an indoor ban. The FDA has been trying to get rid of is since before those cloud blowers existed. .
I personally don't think BT wants vaping to disappear, they want to own it. As has been stated, only the massive corporations, such as RJR et al. are looking like they will be able to stand against the massive rulings coming out way. So you really think they don't want people to vape? This serves to benefit big tobacco when they own the market. Tobacco extracted for e cigs doesn't have to be cured, or grown in a manner to produce s special flavor, just grown and extracted, that saves them money. Then they can charge is for our devices, more money in their pockets. And the most important of all, BT doesn't WANT us to die. They obviously don't care if we die, but it is in the best interest for is not to. Think about the money they would stand to make if all cigarette smokers converted to vaping, and added another couple decades into their life, all the while buying their product, just in the form of"ENDS" rather than cigarettes. They make money, no matter what product they sell us, and if they can keep us addicted to their product for longer they only stand to increase the customer base(people that would have been dead), and increase profits.
seriously, they are on our side. Once the FDA drops the hammer, and gives bt the opportunity to gain market dominance, they will have a vested interest in preserving vaping. That in mind,I wouldn't be surprised to see some of our favorite companies bought out in the next couple years. Sure, trends will not continue as they have, but they won't let the FDA extinguish their new cash cow.
at least I hope they have the same like of thinking, but it's only good business...a dead consumer is not as profitable as a living one. It's a win win. Hell, they might even do away with cigarettes eventually, save themselves all that lawsuit money

 

[Katya]

While I

I support vaping and I don't mean to sound like I don't. I'm just trying to think outside of the box and putting my feet in other's shoes. I've seen a little arrogance here and there. In order to win this battle, the other point of views needs to be considered.

Ian, we're all a bit frazzled right now, but we vapers are also particularly touchy when someone blames us and our behavior (like blowing clouds) for the bans and regulations.

You may not be aware that the FDA has been trying to ban vaping altogether for a very long time, and even went as far as seizing e-cigarette shipments from China in our ports in 2008 and 2009, long before anyone was able to produce any clouds form our e-cigs. In those days, we were all puffing happily on our 510 or KR808 cigalikes at 4.5-5.5 watts tops...

More on the subject:

https://reason.com/blog/2010/01/15/federal-judge-rebukes-fda-for

http://www.amednews.com/article/20100215/government/302159953/1/

 

[Katya]

Where did you see it posted?

I found this on reddit:

Email from the guy's congressman (unnamed) yesterday:

"In a related matter, I am pleased to inform you that I supported the Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2016. In addition to providing funding for agricultural, food, and food safety programs, this legislation also contains provisions similar to that of H.R. 2058. Specifically, this bill would make the new grandfather date for newly deemed tobacco products under its proposed rule date on which the rule takes effect. Therefore, newly deemed tobacco products, such as e-cigarettes, that were brought to market before the date on which the final rule is issued would not be required to submit a pre-market tobacco product application.[4] Instead, these products would be permitted to stay on the market so long as manufacturers comply with regulations such as health warning labels or minimum age of purchase restrictions."

https://www.reddit.com/r/electronic...so_my_congressman_gave_some_interesting_info/

@Kent C , I finally had some time to read your post carefully. If I understand this correctly, the modified (how?) HR2058 is a rider but they haven't voted on it yet. Is that your understanding, too?

 

[Katya]

Anti deeming should be the 'Vapers' Focus.

Not some House or Senate Bill unless it specifically states that E-cig type products cannot be deemed tobacco products.

That train has left the station a long time ago, I'm afraid. In 2010, to be more accurate. The other choice, which the FDA wanted, was to classify e-cigarettes as drugs.

 

[snork]

Just today in a amusement park I seen a guy in the crowd puffing away like he did not care.

The horror.

 

[IanDVaypes]

Ian, we're all a bit frazzled right now, but we vapers are also particularly touchy when someone blames us and our behavior (like blowing clouds) for the bans and regulations.

You may not be aware that the FDA has been trying to ban vaping altogether for a very long time, and even went as far as seizing e-cigarette shipments from China in our ports in 2008 and 2009, long before anyone was able to produce any clouds form our e-cigs. In those days, we were all puffing happily on our 510 or KR808 cigalikes at 4.5-5.5 watts tops...

More on the subject:

https://reason.com/blog/2010/01/15/federal-judge-rebukes-fda-for

http://www.amednews.com/article/20100215/government/302159953/1/

Im sorry that some people are a bit sensitive to what I said but we need to be realistic. A lot of people are vaping indoors, around noon vapers/Smokers. It's usually the younger crowd. People are vaping during our two big meeting, in the vehicle with other co-workers, a sales rep at a sprint store and so on. Hell, I've vaped inside my office building when I was by myself for a long time and when someone finally found out, they freaked out and asked me to go outside. That was when I was stealth vaping too. I've seen people throw out huge clouds at a restaurant and I even wanted to ask them to stop. So is this a vaping community as a whole? No. Everyone has they're individual mind and they do as they please. I'm sure that most of the people in this thread are respectful vapers and don't do this. I guess that if you do get offended by this post, then you might be doing it too? I don't know.

 

[Oliver]

Let;s be clear here - the regulatory action being pursued by the FDA has nothing to do with cloud chasers in public.

To understand the FDA in this, you have to have some understanding of the 20 year history of their trying to regulate nicotine. It certainly didn't start with vaping, and they were never going to leave vaping alone once it hit the scene.

Now, certainly there's a public issue with vaping, and inconsiderate vaping doesn't help. But seriously, the primary reason the public is troubled by vape is because of media scare stories. Had the messaging been consistently: "vape, basically safe" I doubt people would care anywhere near as much.

So, it's instructive to think about why the media is full of scare stories. There are two dynamics at play: 1. the media loves a good ol moral panic (great clickbait), so this is grist to their mill. 2. Tobacco Control people have been pushing the "vape is harmful" agenda, largely since the tobacco companies bought into the sector starting 2012.

Strategically, then, the tobacco industry have done well: buying into the industry "conferred their stigma" onto the category, and this stands to slow the disruption down. See the Senator video doing the rounds; he happily calls e-cig companies "Tobacco Companies", and does so untroubled because of 4 years of propaganda from Tobacco Control.

 

[rhm3769]

I think this is a fight no one will be able to fight unless you got money and political opponents in your pocket.
I will say a big thanks to those public cloud makers for making this possible.
Just today in a amusement park I seen a guy in the crowd puffing away like he did not care.
Me I vape in public but no ones sees the vapor.
Outta site outta mind.

Pointing fingers and dividing vapers is not going to help and get anything done.... The cloud chasers didn't cause this, it was set in motion years before....

(Not a cloud chaser, I vape in public and know when I can let the clouds go and when not to and when not to vape.... Just get even more annoyed when a vaper tries to put blame for all of this on a select few who did not cause this.... I highly doubt the FDA would have proceeded any differently if people never blew clouds or not....)

 

[BuGlen]

Pointing fingers and dividing vapers is not going to help and get anything done.... The cloud chasers didn't cause this, it was set in motion years before....

(Not a cloud chaser, I vape in public and know when I can let the clouds go and when not to and when not to vape.... Just get even more annoyed when a vaper tries to put blame for all of this on a select few who did not cause this.... I highly doubt the FDA would have proceeded any differently if people never blew clouds or not....)

I suspect that we're going to see a great deal more finger pointing (it's always "their" fault) now that the regs are with the OMB and reality is hitting people upside the head. It's a sad fact that a good portion of any demographic would rather just lay blame than take up advocacy and activism to make a positive change. I would say that it's disappointing, but in my 50 years on this planet I've seen it happen time and time again, so it's becoming the default. It's sad, really.

 

[Outcast]

Let;s be clear here - the regulatory action being pursued by the FDA has nothing to do with cloud chasers in public.

To understand the FDA in this, you have to have some understanding of the 20 year history of their trying to regulate nicotine. It certainly didn't start with vaping, and they were never going to leave vaping alone once it hit the scene.

Now, certainly there's a public issue with vaping, and inconsiderate vaping doesn't help. But seriously, the primary reason the public is troubled by vape is because of media scare stories. Had the messaging been consistently: "vape, basically safe" I doubt people would care anywhere near as much.

So, it's instructive to think about why the media is full of scare stories. There are two dynamics at play: 1. the media loves a good ol moral panic (great clickbait), so this is grist to their mill. 2. Tobacco Control people have been pushing the "vape is harmful" agenda, largely since the tobacco companies bought into the sector starting 2012.

Strategically, then, the tobacco industry have done well: buying into the industry "conferred their stigma" onto the category, and this stands to slow the disruption down. See the Senator video doing the rounds; he happily calls e-cig companies "Tobacco Companies", and does so untroubled because of 4 years of propaganda from Tobacco Control.

When this comes out how long will we have to stoke up bace,mods and that kinda stuff


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rossum]

I wish I could get an hour on the Senate floor. My students felt I was calm and reasonable, and I managed to keep 180 teenagers focused and excited about math every year. If 180 teenagers can be rational, some of those senators must be as well.

Most politicians are entirely rational. They know EXACTLY where their campaign contributions come from.

 

[Rossum]

I personally don't think BT wants vaping to disappear, they want to own it.

I concur.

As has been stated, only the massive corporations, such as RJR et al. are looking like they will be able to stand against the massive rulings coming out way.

The're not standing against those regulations. They're FOR them, because to them, the costs required to file PMTAs are pocket change. They're also fully aware that this is not true for most of their upstart competition, which will be eliminated by the regulations.

seriously, they are on our side.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "our side". If killing the retail vape industry (both B&M and on-line), reducing the huge variety of products we have to choose from to just a few "approved" ones, and massive increases in the cost of products qualify as being "on our side", then I suppose it's true.

I have little doubt that a few juices and devices marketed by BT and BV will be "approved" and remain available, which means vapers will be able to continue to vape, but at what cost?

One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of folks who vape don't do so for reasons of health, but to save money. If you're not cloud chasing, a 30ml bottle of juice that costs $15-$20 at retail lasts about as long as $60 carton of cigs did, and if you DIY, that bottle of juice costs more like $1.50 - $2.00. When there's effectively no competition, that cost advantage is likely to disappear.

 

[roxynoodle]

Most politicians are entirely rational. They know EXACTLY where their campaign contributions come from.

I don't call that rational. My dog knows where her meals come from, too, and I'm not sure she thinks about much besides that. Food food food poop food food food ball food food food sleep food food food. That about sums it up

 

[Rossum]

I don't call that rational. My dog knows where her meals come from, too, and I'm not sure she thinks about much besides that. Food food food poop food food food ball food food food sleep food food food. That about sums it up

Yeah, but your dog doesn't bite you, right?

 

[roxynoodle]

Yeah, but your dog doesn't bit you, right?

Nope, not me...just everyone else

She's more like a Velociraptor.

So I guess even more similar to a politician than I immediately realized.

I could take her with me when I go to the senate. I would certainly have everyones' undivided attention.

 

[pennysmalls]

Something I haven't understood for a long time is if BT wants to own the vapor industry then why such crappy products from them? They have to know about this forum and the other forums like it and see what we are all using/prefer. Unless we really are a small percentage of the vaping population? Are we really that small? Somehow I don't think so.

So why aren't they fully jumping in with better products/offerings? It can't be that they want to offer products that suck and get people back on tobacco, that just doesn't make any sense financially. They could own both the cigarette and vapor industries by offering top notch products in both fields and rake in the dough, but they're not doing that. I don't get it.

 

[Rossum]

Something I haven't understood for a long time is if BT wants to own the vapor industry then why such crappy products from them? They have to know about this forum and the other forums like it and see what we are all using/prefer.

What we are all using and prefer varies tremendously. I bet what I'm using is quite different than what you are, both in terms of liquids and equipment. BT's (and even BV's) business model and distribution networks are not compatible with offering that kind of variety.

So why aren't they fully jumping in with better products/offerings? It can't be that they want to offer products that suck and get people back on tobacco, that just doesn't make any sense financially.

Up until now, it has made sense. They know they can't compete with what an almost truly free market has been able to offer, so they've produced over-priced, sub-standard products in the hope that they will convince their customers for combustible products that vaping isn't worth pursuing.

 

[zoiDman]

Here is Section 905 of the FD&C Act.

http://www.fda.gov/tobaccoproducts/labeling/rulesregulationsguidance/ucm262072.htm

"2. Application to Certain Post-February 15, 2007, Products. A report under this subsection for a tobacco product that was first introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution in the United States after February 15, 2007, and prior to the date that is 21 months after the date of enactment of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act shall be submitted to the Secretary not later than 21 months after such date of enactment.

3. Exemptions

A. In General. The Secretary may exempt from the requirements of this subsection relating to the demonstration that a tobacco product is substantially equivalent within the meaning of section 910, tobacco products that are modified by adding or deleting a tobacco additive, or increasing or decreasing the quantity of an existing tobacco additive, if the Secretary determines that

1. 1. 
      i. such modification would be a minor modification of a tobacco product that can be sold under this Act;
   1. 
      ii. a report under this subsection is not necessary to ensure that permitting the tobacco product to be marketed would be appropriate for protection of the public health; and
   1. 
      iii. an exemption is otherwise appropriate.

B. Regulations. Not later than 15 months after the date of enactment of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, the Secretary shall issue regulations to implement this paragraph."

---

I'm not a lawyer. But I am Interrupting the reference to "21 Months" to mean 21 Month after the Enactment of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.

I think what has Wacked the Timeline, and has made things Confusing, is that the FDA did Not Comply with Deadline to Issue Regulation in portion B.

If the FDA had Issued Regulations when they were Supposed to, then that would have Given Interested Parties 6 Months to submit an Application. And that sounds like about the right Amount of time.

 

[roxynoodle]

Yes, I think BT has only produced crummy cigalikes so people will keep smoking. See, right now they want full control over vaping to keep everyone smoking. People will buy the cigalikes to try vaping or to use them where they can't smoke. But, they won't quit smoking with them. Win win for BT and the greedy politicians.

 

[justagurlinseattle]

When you say that you are a liberal, what does that mean now days? It seems to me that the party that has been traditionally associated with being liberal is no longer very liberal. Perhaps I am being naïve, but I presume being a liberal is not the same as being a leftist. Is it true?

This is true, being Liberals, is NOT the same as being Leftist... BUT, MANY Liberals
are Leftists..... Myself, I am a Moderate Liberal.
I'm a bit conservative in some areas, and more liberal in others.
I'm just NOT a bat crazy Leftist, who thinks that controlling people is a good idea.


The problem is that many Democrats want to save people from themselves.. LOL
This is just NOT a good idea, nor is it honorable, NOT to mention it is just not possible.

Now, I would NOT be against a type of regulation that made sure that
e-juice is made from the ingredients that we know are much safer than regular cigarettes,
for example.. making sure that there are no filler type poisons in the e-juice...
This is what worries me.. if the USA clamps down on the sweet flavors f e-juice,
then China will be the only place to be able to order these...
a few years back they had to recall dog food that was made in China, due to
it killing dogs because there were poisonous ingredients in the dog food.
This would end up happening to e-juice, as they have no quality controls
in place, and have zero regulation.

So, by trying to save people from vapings. they will end up making things
more UNSAFE.


Regulation is OK.... Over-regulation is a VERY BAD idea though. What they are proposing
as of now, is WAYYYY over regulation.