FDA TVECA post table of contents for Deeming Final Rule
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
The FDA has signaled pretty clearly their intent to keep every application of "derived" available to them. I believe 'em. They want the money. Then there's no end to tobacco or the opportunity to pay for the privilege. But they kill tobacco and nic makers and there's nothin' to be had but they've signed a revenue death warrant. No cash flow transition.
Don't believe the debate has been had at all if you read my opening question. At least not in the appropriate legislative context. We are presumed to be nic regulated by extension of the word tobacco. I worked in the international sphere long enough to know you can't argue semantics with a bureaucrat. We may still however deprive them of revenue in an assortment of discouraging ways if the marketplace reacts rationally. I say let the grifters try but they'll find nothin' in the wallet.
Train may have left the station z but we can sure put it on a dead-end sidetrack if we so choose.
Good luck all.
I agree with every thing you are saying except the nicotine.
Nicotine will be regulated as a tobacco product. E-juice with out nicotine will
be regulated the same, as a tobacco product. Read my post [HASHTAG]#731[/HASHTAG].
Regards
mike
Dunno skoony. What would be the premise for regulating juice? They already regulate flavorings. That would be an even further stretch than calling nic tobacco.
My concern is that we have an impartial process inclusive and representative of our constituency's interests as vapers and businesses. Relegating the extremes of authority to the FDA that we're seeing is spooky. Day may come when nic is reg by law but it will likely not be the cash cow that's implied by the taxation of an entire industry. I would hate to see that happen as do all of us. That's why the market must react. And I believe it will certainly have to.
Good luck.
I hope your interpretation is the more correct view.Dunno skoony. What would be the premise for regulating juice? They already regulate flavorings. That would be an even further stretch than calling nic tobacco.
My concern is that we have an impartial process inclusive and representative of our constituency's interests as vapers and businesses. Relegating the extremes of authority to the FDA that we're seeing is spooky. Day may come when nic is reg by law but it will likely not be the cash cow that's implied by the taxation of an entire industry. I would hate to see that happen as do all of us. That's why the market must react. And I believe it will certainly have to.
Good luck.
I myself am looking at this from a worse case scenario in the hopes that it couldn't
be as bad as what I believe they could be if the FDA goes for the whole nine yards.
I firmly believe at this point in time its an all or nothing deal for the FDA.
Over the last year or more every report on market share concerning e-cigarettes
has been larger than the previous report concerning the same time period. The
last one i read about a month ago predicted sales in the industry to top 10 billion
by 2017-18. I believe the figure was 18 billion. I am not exactly sure other than it
was way over 10 billion. I am not sure if these figures are based on just BT's market
share as so many of these reports are or, the whole industry. There is a whole lot
of free range money roaming around in the wild and somebody's going to be laying
a lot of barb wire fence.
Regards
Mike
If makers, producers, retailers isolate themselves from nicotine. Leave out the sugar and the ANTZ will go away. Tough choice I grant ya but one I think will need to be seriously considered. And in all likelihood unavoidable as if rules at present are implemented a great many businesses will just not be able to comply with the costs. I'm eager for ideas but I feel the marketplace is the overwhelming force that can take us off the defensive by just saying no…we're not going to line up to your definition. I for one will favor those that don't play ball. And if the FDA signs a suicide note and vindictively goes after inter-state nic makers look at that as a local opportunity. Isolation (of nic) may turn out to be a boon for local makers and eventually juice makers as states, more responsive to local constituents, assumes a proper regulatory and legislatively enacted role.
What we can't have is the present intractable contest which in the long run will deter more folks than it helps from escaping cigarettes in its present FDA embodiment. It dooms us all to tobacco tax slavery. That must end.
Good luck all.
Last edited:
If makers, producers, retailers isolate themselves from nicotine. Leave out the sugar and the ANTZ will go away. Tough choice I grant ya but one I think will need to be seriously considered. And in all likelihood unavoidable as if implemented a great many businesses will just not be able to comply with the costs. I'm eager for ideas but I feel the marketplace is the overwhelming force that can take us off the defensive by just saying no…we're not going to line up to your definition. I for one will favor those that don't play ball. And if the FDA signs a suicide note and vindictively goes after inter-state nic makers look at that as a local opportunity. Isolation (of nic) may turn out to be a boon for local makers and eventually juice makers as states, more responsive to local constituents, assumes a proper regulatory and legislatively enacted role.
What we can't have is the present intractable contest which in the long run will deter more folks than it helps from escaping cigarettes in its present FDA embodiment. It dooms us all to tobacco tax slavery. That must end.
Good luck all.
I'm sorry. But I must have Mis-Read and or Understood what you are trying to say.
Because it Sounded like your way to Win is for Sellers to Isolate themselves from Nicotine.
And if the FDA signs a suicide note and vindictively goes after inter-state nic makers look at that as a local opportunity. Isolation (of nic) may turn out to be a boon for local makers and eventually juice makers as states, more responsive to local constituents, assumes a proper regulatory and legislatively enacted role.
Are you of the opinion that the Feds can't regulate the sale of nicotine within a State? Like me living in Florida and buying from Wiz Labs. I guess it makes some sense since it wouldn't be interstate trade, but that clause of the Constitution has already been mangled beyond recognition.
And how easy would it be for a local maker to make nicotine from tobacco? I vaguely recall a chemist on the NET forum saying it would take around $100K of equipment, a PHD, and a lab half the size of my house. But I think that was directed at an individual doing it for themselves.
I'm sorry. But I must have Mis-Read and or Understood what you are trying to say.
Because it Sounded like your way to Win is for Sellers to Isolate themselves from Nicotine.
I have to run but I didn't want to leave you hanging z. Well yes, that is what I'm saying but certainly not the only way. It's also inevitable, I said. A popular and commercial momentum towards a perspective of isolation as defiance might be just enough to dissuade the FDA (at least from the most aggressive of potential incursions into the marketplace, i.e. its application process). I agree with a post above, I think the FDA's gone all in with everything they've got. No pretense. They're out to get us. We can fight fire with fire. Or wait 'till it drops and most of us will be there anyway. With vendors unable to sell nic juice or unable to sell much at all, except at a premium refraining many from quitting and zapping the rest of us for as much as they can get.
It was perhaps a convenient fallacy for us to believe that if we fashioned an affective alternative to tobacco we could escape the regulatory stigma and taxation. But we've got a framework of laws and twisting that into knots is every bit as bad.
Right now we've got to start thinking in terms of what is possible to do. We can do it while we can of our own choice, under our terms; or, we can do it when we must, and have to. Government seldom retreats from a tax.
Just sayin'.
Good luck.
Like I said... I Must be Missing It.
Are you Saying that the Way to Fight FDA Regulations on the Sale of Nicotine is to Not Sell Nicotine?
That Can't be what you are say'n.
LOL
Sorry for the excessive multi-quoting, but I'm just catching up after vacation...
And therefore, it's hard to imagine that TVECA has our best interests at heart.
We'll have to wait and see.
But there is too much Big Tobacco behind TVECA, as you have previously posted.
And Big Tobacco wants it all, not just scraps.
They have a good thing going, and are all about social media efforts.
Just greedy and immoral.
And it's not just the common vaper that isn't aware.
The vape shops are surprisingly unaware in many, if not most cases.
And what it really amounts to is an attempted end-around on the Judge Leon ruling from a few years back.
Judge Leon said no to intended use because that is not in the FSPTCA.
The FDA is now saying we'll just make it part of the deeming then.
I am going to follow the lead of SFATA and CASAA, in that order.
Ray Story is not necessarily our friend, as history shows.
And therefore, it's hard to imagine that TVECA has our best interests at heart.
We'll have to wait and see.
But there is too much Big Tobacco behind TVECA, as you have previously posted.
And Big Tobacco wants it all, not just scraps.
You should check out the CASAA Facebook page.
They have a good thing going, and are all about social media efforts.
Make no mistake, the politicians opposed to vaping are not stupid.
Just greedy and immoral.
This.
And it's not just the common vaper that isn't aware.
The vape shops are surprisingly unaware in many, if not most cases.
This whole intended use thing is the ugliest part of their new regulation angle.
And what it really amounts to is an attempted end-around on the Judge Leon ruling from a few years back.
Judge Leon said no to intended use because that is not in the FSPTCA.
The FDA is now saying we'll just make it part of the deeming then.
@MacTechVpr Vpr
I think what you mean by disassociation instead of vape stores one could sell
perfumed hand lotion Made with the finest grade PG's and or,VG's scented
with the very best extracts along with a large selection of exterior powered
miniature fog machines. "not intended for use with any tobacco product."
I believe this falls under the FDA's new interpretation of intended use.
this will also be the nail in the coffin of glass pipes and pipettes.
Regards
Mike
I think what you mean by disassociation instead of vape stores one could sell
perfumed hand lotion Made with the finest grade PG's and or,VG's scented
with the very best extracts along with a large selection of exterior powered
miniature fog machines. "not intended for use with any tobacco product."
I believe this falls under the FDA's new interpretation of intended use.
this will also be the nail in the coffin of glass pipes and pipettes.
Regards
Mike
Seriously: If it were legal to do local (in-state) sales, $100k would not be a huge barrier to entry. I could see needing a chemist as a consultant to get the process up and running correctly, but once it's running? Maybe he'd be needed to do occasional trouble-shooting.
The trouble with doing this is Wickard v. Filburn, where the feds claimed that a guy growing wheat on his own farm for his own use (not even for sale) was engaged in interstate commerce and the SCOTUS sided with the feds.
Seriously: If it were legal to do local (in-state) sales, $100k would not be a huge barrier to entry. I could see needing a chemist as a consultant to get the process up and running correctly, but once it's running? Maybe he'd be needed to do occasional trouble-shooting.
The trouble with doing this is Wickard v. Filburn, where the feds claimed that a guy growing wheat on his own farm for his own use (not even for sale) was engaged in interstate commerce and the SCOTUS sided with the feds.
Yep, right you are and I alluded to it a bit earlier. Not an atty to fully appreciate how all the convoluted case law on this illogical irrational finding might affect us in this instance…how a don't affects a does. I'm only a contract specialist that studied the UCC for 13 years. What do I know. All the more reason we need to move ourselves out of the path of this freight train.
It's a tell I think that the FDA obviously feels their rules will not serve to stifle interstate commerce. They must know something we don't.
Good luck.
That is entirely untrue. I have seen with my own eyes a lab doing nicotine/wta extraction and it's nowhere near that expensive or complicated. But it does take expertise and time.
While the commerce clause does have it's restrictions, and there was a decision about States making interstate commerce restrictions (see the wine case), the federal law on certain drugs could be used in Colorado and Washington (and Ohio, if issue 2 passes) and the current president and at least one of the candidates from NJ, said they'd enforce federal law over the State laws - regardless of any interstate commerce. The FDA deeming would be Federal Law.
The Feds have a number of ways to intervene into commerce in states. As Rossum points out in Wickard v Filburn - even though the farmer was only using grains for his own animals, not shipping it out of state, the fact that he raises supply and therefore prices effected the whole market.
With the Kelo case 5th amendment takings which can only be used for gov't use, it was going to be sold to a condo corporation which would then effect more taxes for the local gov't hence 'gov't use'
The Feds routinely blackmail States by threatening to withhold Fed funds if they don't take action/restrict action - Arizona and Wyoming or Montana said no more 55mph speed limit and there were enough states to back them up that the Feds backed off. MacTechVpr's idea and it can work in some cases, but if it were just Arizona, likely wouldn't have.
I suspect the Feds will use all the above - they certainly show that they can and will. Whether it is that big of an issue for them remains to be seen, but the money involved makes me think yes it is.
The Feds have a number of ways to intervene into commerce in states. As Rossum points out in Wickard v Filburn - even though the farmer was only using grains for his own animals, not shipping it out of state, the fact that he raises supply and therefore prices effected the whole market.
With the Kelo case 5th amendment takings which can only be used for gov't use, it was going to be sold to a condo corporation which would then effect more taxes for the local gov't hence 'gov't use'
The Feds routinely blackmail States by threatening to withhold Fed funds if they don't take action/restrict action - Arizona and Wyoming or Montana said no more 55mph speed limit and there were enough states to back them up that the Feds backed off. MacTechVpr's idea and it can work in some cases, but if it were just Arizona, likely wouldn't have.
I suspect the Feds will use all the above - they certainly show that they can and will. Whether it is that big of an issue for them remains to be seen, but the money involved makes me think yes it is.
@MacTechVpr Vpr
I think what you mean by disassociation instead of vape stores one could sell
perfumed hand lotion Made with the finest grade PG's and or,VG's scented
with the very best extracts along with a large selection of exterior powered
miniature fog machines. "not intended for use with any tobacco product."
I believe this falls under the FDA's new interpretation of intended use.
this will also be the nail in the coffin of glass pipes and pipettes.
Regards
Mike
Rather, "No tobacco inside."
I'm not saying "No nic, no FDA." is the definite answer. Although, it's likely to be the only tenable resistance for many who may ultimately feel stranded alone among thousands of likewise others who failed to consider change. I'm certain it's in the minds of many as FDA tightens the noose. It hurts no one to consider organizing such a stand given the likely possibilities. And we as consumers, to support it. Business needs to be adaptive to survive. As adaptive as we have been to succeed.
Good luck all.
p.s. I hate disclaimers. I support individual reason and informed choice.
English I'm sorry I missed the first part of your post. Can't predict what the FDA is likely to assert in a future action. Comm Clause precedents are likely to be cited but I'm no legally qualified expert. However, I can't help but think that the State of FL might have a little something to say about that. I drafted a longer answer on why this might actually be beneficial but I'm too tired to get to that tonite.
As it stands the FDA doesn't regulate nicotine as a consumer product/drug. No, not to my understanding. If they were to, I'd think it would necessarily come out of legislation which Congress hasn't proposed to my knowledge (re vaping). So we're good bro on that score. We just need to make clear and loud as best we can — No tobacco inside. Let them explain to a judge how the ultrasonic cleaner I use to steep my juices is "tobacco" and why vaping resellers should exclusively be charged to pay the federal highwayman for a device one can buy anywhere. Or answer as to what is so fundamentally different between a flashlight battery and a vaporizing battery that warrants this exceptional categorization. Then we bring intended use to the forefront. And I believe such arguments must categorically fail. No one can predict who will need or want nicotine. Nor can anyone reasonably argue that a retailer or producer should be tasked to be soothsayer.
Good luck.
I really feel like everything ive done, emails made, and calls sent hit a brick wall of money that theres no getting past. I've read articles about big pharma & tobacco's spending hundreds of millions on legal defense and their money really puts them above the law. Now they're going to monopolize the vape industry, and it hurts to sit and watch
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
