FDA TVECA post table of contents for Deeming Final Rule

[Sgt. Pepper]

My guess is that all along, the big tobacco companies have known what kind of e-cigarettes will be the only type to actually make it through the FDA's ridiculously onerous regulations, after the full stranglehold of FDA's proposed "deeming" takes effect.

The big tobacco companies have probably been consulting all along behind the scenes with the FDA to make sure their closed system proprietary cig-alikes will be the only ones allowed.

After "deeming" destroys all the independent e-cig and e-liquid manufacturers in this country, the big tobacco companies are in the driver's seat once again.

The big tobacco companies will be the only ones with the millions it takes to put an "electronic nicotine delivery system" on the market... after all the dust settles and practically every other e-cig or e-liquid manufacturer in this country is buried under the FDA's tons of dust.

Those dust particles kill.

Exactly! It's big business and big government colluding--otherwise known as crony capitalism. We can all talk about this regulation and that regulation, but in the end, the purpose is to destroy competition and the little guy. It's Progressivism 101.

p.s. thank you for your post, Lara

 

[Kent C]

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?

I think "Kodak" - who went out of business - while all the 'not small, but more diverse' companies have continued. But there wasn't a gov't agency that was trying to ban cameras.

 

[kkay59]

kkay59, I think you got the wrong end of the horse.

LOL...right you are. That is what I would have put down, but they frown on that here. (especially with my chosen word for the rear end) It crossed my mind in exactly the way you were thinking!

 

[XeniaVaper]

well, yeah I didn't mean to say the tobacco companies were to stand in opposition of these regulations, but that they would be able to stand in the face of them.
BT doesn't want to stop is from vaping. That's corporate suicide, they want us to live as long as possible. That way we have more time to spend money on their product. Just like h dealers don't want their customers to die, did anyone hear about the stuff that was going around cut with fentanyl? People were dropping dead left and right, it only took a couple months for the inarguably immoral dope dealers to get that killer product off the street, cause when you kill your customer, you cut into your profit.

and as for the e liquid being cheaper than cigarettes,...1 that is in large part due to the massive taxation on them. Something like half the prixe of cigarettes, sometimes much, much more( Chicago) guess to the government, not bt. Unfortunately, it is about to be the same situation with e liquids.2 that means they will want us to use more liquids, therefore giving them incentive to keep our high powered, high consumption devices on the market. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. As far as this goes we want the same thing as big tobacco, that being to keep vaping alive. We don't want exactly the same thing, and hopefully we don't have to rely on them, but they will not let vaping be extinguished, as I said they have too much to gain

 

[Kent C]

The big tobacco companies have probably been consulting all along behind the scenes with the FDA to make sure their closed system proprietary cig-alikes will be the only ones allowed.

I'm not so certain. The Feb 2007 date was simply when Waxman(D) proposed the bill. The fact that at that point - perhaps and not without doubt - that only cigalikes were available from Ruyan (not from the cigarette companies) and the fact that tobacco companies have been one out of many who have produced and continued to produce mainly cigalikes doesn't mean they were 'in bed' with the FDA regarding the GF date which was established from a known source.

That said - it may be that the tobacco companies 'saw the train coming down the track' and stayed with the cigalike design for that reason. And there is no reason to believe that their cigalike will be grandfathered. Perhaps certain aspects of them would but others would have to go through the new product applications which - I agree - they are in better position to pay for but not because of anything in the FDA deeming. Joyetech and Kanger may be in even better position but they'd have to have American sites or finance some of the major vendors to make such a case. That's pure speculation - don't know if they would want or would do anything like that. They do have other customers than Americans - not the market of American but a market none-the-less.

The whole "BT" and "BP" stuff comes from mainly liberals/socialists who hate anything 'big' except government - So the 'big' aspect to 'explain' why things are so screwed up (without actually having reasons other than they are big AND without acknowledging the Reason they are big is because of government. Without gov't they wouldn't be so big, but that has more to do with history that precedes ecigarettes.

I find it a bit odd, that liberals who have smoked all their lives and have depended upon BT to continue their use - iow, actually 'loved' BT or their brand, now, like 'reformed alcoholics' strike out against BT, like alcoholics strike out against alcohol. When it was their habits, their own decisions, that drove both. But hypocrisy is no stranger to liberals.

 

[Rossum]

And there is no reason to believe that their [BT's] cigalike will be grandfathered.

Agreed, but I bet they have PMTA's ready to file very quickly, with all the 'i's dotted and the 't's crossed.

 

[zoiDman]

Agreed, but I bet they have PMTA's ready to file very quickly, with all the 'i's dotted and the 't's crossed.

Agreed.

Just like I think that BT has been doing the Health Studies/Paperwork on select e-liquids that they plan to sell as FDA "Approved" e-Liquids.

BT Isn't stupid. And I'm sure they would like to Hit the Streets Running after Deeming is Complete.

 

[navigator2011]

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.

It's seems that the shift toward the crazy left has been going on for years, which has led to a substantial decrease in personal freedom in the US. Over the years, I have encountered many people that claim to be Liberals, but seem to have little in common with the "modern day version" of the Democratic party. Yet, all these crazy Leftists keep getting elected. Why? As a Liberal, isn't an increase in personal freedom the objective? If so, then why are so many Liberals still voting for people that work hard to decrease so many personal freedoms? I genuinely want to know your perspective . . .

 

[Rossum]

The meaning of the word "liberal" has changed big-time over the recent decades, especially in the US.

 

[Alexander Mundy]

Almost 30 years now, kicking off with the Surgeon General's (C. Everett Koop) report in 1988 where he said that nicotine was just as addictive as h* and c*.

You still hear people saying that today - people including vapers and B&M owners. There was no actual evidence of this h*-like addictive quality (even mentioned in this article on the report, saying they had no additional studies or research to back up that claim https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal88-1141921 ) but the perception continues to this day.

Now, we do have countless studies showing that NOT to be the case, backed up by the FDA themselves, in their new guidelines for NRT marketing. http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm345087.htm offers this statement: The changes that FDA is allowing to these labels reflect the fact that although any nicotine-containing product is potentially addictive, decades of research and use have shown that NRT products sold OTC do not appear to have significant potential for abuse or dependence.

In other words, nicotine on it's own, outside of a combustible cigarette, with the MAOI's and other additives - isn't addictive. So why are we still perpetuating this myth? Why aren't we calling out the FDA and the guidelines that call for warning labels that say "nictotine is addictive". the FDA has already concluding that it isn't. Oh sure, "Potentially" addictive. Alcohol is "potentially" addictive because some people do become addicted. But most don't.

But until *we* stop repeating and perpetuating false information, why do we think anyone else will?

Facts don't matter when it comes to politics. The government makes their own "facts" that agree with their position. This whole devil nicotine, devil vaping, save the children campaign is straight out of Harry Anslinger's playbook as someone else alluded to a few posts ago. Anslinger (head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics) noted an increase in recreational use that was increasing quickly. He decided to convince congress to give him full legal control and started using the media to sensationalize mostly falsified "facts". He then took the made up media "facts" to Congress which (like the general public) swollowed hook line and sinker. La Guardia (a supporter of the devil substance) created a committee to do a scientific study. The results contradicted the falsified media facts. Anslinger coerced the AMA into falsifying a report that contradicted the La Guardia Committee and Anslinger maligned La Guardia and the scientists that spent 5 years compiling the report. Hollywood bucked Anslinger so he strong armed Hollywood to the point they let him personally review and approve or disapprove any mention of the devil substance in a movie. It worked so well in the 1930's & 1940's, why wouldn't the same playbook be used today? Took the AMA till 1972 to admit it lied and the evidence was the opposite.

Want a chilling read? Substitute the word "vaping" for the "devil substance" in the following 2 articles.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Guardia_Committee

 

[justagurlinseattle]

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.

Ohhh YES!!! this is the truth.

people are lazy, and the ONLY exercise they get, is pointing fingers at other people.

If EVERYBODY banded together and got out there to fight this, we could possibly
make a dent in the myths being passed around.

 

[jimbodaddy74]

The only phrase that comes to mind is that everything that has been recalled by the FDA was first approved by the FDA.

 

[justagurlinseattle]

It's seems that the shift toward the crazy left has been going on for years, which has led to a substantial decrease in personal freedom in the US. Over the years, I have encountered many people that claim to be Liberals, but seem to have little in common with the "modern day version" of the Democratic party. Yet, all these crazy Leftists keep getting elected. Why? As a Liberal, isn't an increase in personal freedom the objective? If so, then why are so many Liberals still voting for people that work hard to decrease so many personal freedoms? I genuinely want to know your perspective . . .

Because they don't inform us that they will be creating laws like this, or laws like FATCA
or that they will be working on banning LIGHT BULBS.... Working on
broadening the definition of sexual assault, and the definition of sexual harassment...etc.. etc... etc..
Nope, they LIE to us about how they will defend our freedom... Then they
work on stupid stuff like this bill.
Both parties do this.. they LIE to get elected, then they go on to work on stuff
that was NEVER even mentioned in the run up to the election.

 

[Kent C]

It's seems that the shift toward the crazy left has been going on for years, which has led to a substantial decrease in personal freedom in the US. Over the years, I have encountered many people that claim to be Liberals, but seem to have little in common with the "modern day version" of the Democratic party. Yet, all these crazy Leftists keep getting elected. Why? As a Liberal, isn't an increase in personal freedom the objective? If so, then why are so many Liberals still voting for people that work hard to decrease so many personal freedoms? I genuinely want to know your perspective . . .

The "Old Left" had a civil libertarian strain - free speech, press - not much more though - Lenny Bruce, Mort Sahl, Dick Cavitt, Jack and Bobby but not Teddy, etc. The "New Left" is fascistic - Politically Correct (only certain speech/press - determined by them only) and all the 'micro-aggression' BS - a policy of victims (or making victims). And victims need someone to protect them - liberals/progressives/socialists, where there is now very little difference among them and who live in one party. And like other lifestyle types - they seems to be a need to tell everyone what they are, as if it weren't already apparent. For me, it's usually TMI.

 

[navigator2011]

Because they don't inform us that they will be creating laws like this, or laws like FATCA
or that they will be working on banning LIGHT BULBS.... Working on
broadening the definition of sexual assault, and the definition of sexual harassment...etc.. etc... etc..
Nope, they LIE to us about how they will defend our freedom... Then they
work on stupid stuff like this bill.
Both parties do this.. they LIE to get elected, then they go on to work on stuff
that was NEVER even mentioned in the run up to the election.

Yes, but now everyone knows who the players are and what they are trying do achieve. In my state of California, for example, the same characters get elected year after year, and there's no doubt what page they're on. Everyone is unhappy with the status quo, but they vote for the same jokers every time. I just don't get it.

 

[justagurlinseattle]

The "Old Left" had a civil libertarian strain - free speech, press - not much more though - Lenny Bruce, Mort Sahl, Dick Cavitt, Jack and Bobby but not Teddy, etc. The "New Left" is fascistic - Politically Correct (only certain speech/press - determined by them only) and all the 'micro-aggression' BS - a policy of victims (or making victims). And victims need someone to protect them - liberals/progressives/socialists, where there is now very little difference among them and who live in one party. And like other lifestyle types - they seems to be a need to tell everyone what they are, as if it wasn't already apparent. For me, it's usually TMI.

Ohhh god, Your post was Triggering to me... SToooooppppp...


I NEVER and I mean NEVER trust a person who would use the word Patriarchy.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

The meaning of the word "liberal" has changed big-time over the recent decades, especially in the US.

The word liberal, or libertarian, was co-opted by the progressives after the Woodrow Wilson Administration (that evil sob). Progressivism was so disgraced and shunned by the American people after Wilson, that they went underground for a few years and re-emerged as liberals. The word liberal hasn't really changed over the last few decades, what has happened is those calling themselves liberals are coming out more and more as progressives. Those calling themselves progressives in America are known as Fabian Socialists in Europe or more proper the U.K. The Genesis of American progressivism is Fabian Socialism started in the London School of Economics... where one of the most evil men went to school, George Soros.

 

[Kent C]

Ohhh god, Your post was Triggering to me... SToooooppppp...

 

[Kent C]

The word liberal, or libertarian, was co-opted by the progressives after the Woodrow Wilson Administration (that evil sob). Progressivism was so disgraced and shunned by the American people after Wilson, that they went underground for a few years and re-emerged as liberals. The word liberal hasn't really changed over the last few decades, what has happened is those calling themselves liberals are coming out more and more as progressives. Those calling themselves progressives in America are known as Fabian Socialists in Europe or more proper the U.K. The Genesis of American progressivism is Fabian Socialism started in the London School of Economics... where one of the most evil men went to school, George Soros.

Of course 'classical liberal', which many libertarians prefer to call themselves - needed the 'classical' designation after the socialists stole the 'liberal' tag. When asked in the 2008 primary debate, if she was a liberal, Hillary said she preferred 'progressive'. And many libs have picked that up. The history of the progressives while similar is worse than the path the word 'liberal' took.

Some classical liberal/libertarian has said to liberals, if you're done with the term, we'll take it back

Someone at some point 'deemed' themselves liberal and it was about as true as ecigs being deemed a tobacco product. (to move back on topic)

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Of course 'classical liberal', which many libertarians prefer to call themselves - needed the 'classical' designation after the socialists stole the 'liberal' tag. When asked in the 2008 primary debate, if she was a liberal, Hillary said she preferred 'progressive'. And many libs have picked that up. The history of the progressives while similar is worse than the path the word 'liberal' took.

Some classical liberal/libertarian has said to liberals, if you're done with the term, we'll take it back

Someone at some point 'deemed' themselves liberal and it was about as true as ecigs being deemed a tobacco product. (to move back on topic)

I'm just setting the stage for my comment tomorrow/late evening that will be on topic. I'm watching the World Series and having a few adult beverages... ok, beers... and I'm having problems doing more than 2 things at once.