FDA TVECA post table of contents for Deeming Final Rule
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Agree with you Less, vaping is more akin to the culinary without the objective of the swallowing part but very definitely the inhalation side which is an important aspect of our enjoyment and common to both. The FDA is pernicious in it's purposeful excessiveness as the kitchen physics are understood by almost every adult. Great analogy. What we do has little to do with tobacco were it not for the implications of nicotine. And that is what we should be objecting to — the correlation which traces back to an irresponsible decision by Congress based on utterly false premises. We most by now should understand what they're after has little to do with nicotine or tobacco.
Nicotine standards can be established easily at the federal level. But not much promise of revenue there. And certainly the upside temperature implications explained to the public without having to impoverish or dilute an entire industry. Do we need a multi-billion dollar agency operation to oversee every minute detail of our cooking? Can the states and lower jurisdictions adequately define appropriate health standards for juice mixers as they do for restaurants? Certainly! They always have. Is there risk? There always will be. What we absolutely don't need is governmental redundancy.
Is it a rational level of regulation that we object to? No. That's not what's in the offing here. And so not worth much of our time considering whether the necessity is legitimate. We all agree, at some reasonable level. What we have is the aggressive imposition by government of over-thinking the problem coercively compelling us to do so ourselves. Remove nic from the equation or relate it to its proper place in context and this whole scheme is ludicrous and unconscionable. It's futile to try and reason with an unrestrained bureaucrat. That is the real problem. Congress' drops us into a cement mixer from which we cannot extricate ourselves the longer we revel in any presumed success at consideration or accommodation.
You're right, we have no uniformity in our approaches and technology. And neither would we accept it in our kitchens. To imply that we the public are too stupid to deal with nic is asinine. But that is the underlying premise. We need to spend billions to let them find that black swan.
Can you guess my answer to that?
Good luck all.
Individual Food Flavorings were sold Long before e-Cigarettes were Ever Considered. I'm sure they will Also be long after e-Liquids that contain Nicotine are Deemed a "Tobacco Product".
---
BTW - I had a Funny Idea last Night. What if a Made a Bottle of Multiple Flavorings and sold it for Someone to put Drops into Bottled Water?
All the Ingredients Already are FDA Approved for Ingestion. So it wouldn't seem like the Approval Process would be all that Bad.
Suicide Bunny flavored Water?
Bowen Mate flavored Water?
CookieBun favored Water?
I've had a thought rolling around my head today, and I think it's been growing for awhile now.
I'm pretty sure we lost the current fight the moment we decided that it was inevitable for vapor to be deemed tobacco. I honestly don't think the FDA has much choice in how they apply the tobacco regs to vaping. The intentions of the FSPTCA are pretty clear, keep the tobacco problem from getting worse by keeping things the same. Extend that logic to vaping and we all know what happens.
What were the choices? Regulate as drugs, nope, judge overruled that. Try to come up with an entirely new regulatory framework, that congress would have to grant the authority over? That doesn't sound like fun. Expand tobacco control to cover this new thing? Sure, why not?
I'm not sure how tobacco control could regulate vaping without destroying it, unless it was completely rewritten, and then it wouldn't be tobacco control.
I don't think we should have ever accepted nicotine = tobacco, I know I never have.
I'm pretty sure we lost the current fight the moment we decided that it was inevitable for vapor to be deemed tobacco. I honestly don't think the FDA has much choice in how they apply the tobacco regs to vaping. The intentions of the FSPTCA are pretty clear, keep the tobacco problem from getting worse by keeping things the same. Extend that logic to vaping and we all know what happens.
What were the choices? Regulate as drugs, nope, judge overruled that. Try to come up with an entirely new regulatory framework, that congress would have to grant the authority over? That doesn't sound like fun. Expand tobacco control to cover this new thing? Sure, why not?
I'm not sure how tobacco control could regulate vaping without destroying it, unless it was completely rewritten, and then it wouldn't be tobacco control.
I don't think we should have ever accepted nicotine = tobacco, I know I never have.
well the whole intent of my question of 0% nic to keep the flavors and as of now this is several sites selling nicotine. if occasionally bying overseas or from sites would they be tracked and marked? there is formulas to add nictoine to juice and to be honest I think if it were to have 0% nic or no vaping at all I think I could be happy. but obviously the stores wouldn't sell nic because that would be obvious why they have it... but just like novelty items at tobacco stores (i.e. whippits) it could be done... but seriosuly would yall be happy with 0% across the board to save vaping?
IMO, if the FDA can get Complete Control of the Nicotine, I don't think they will be all that Worried about 0mg.
I mean they would be Running out of things to Tell me I shouldn't be Doing because they are "Bad".
First they Tell me that the Most Important thing I should do is to Quit Smoking.
So I did. Now I Vape.
Now they want to Tell me that the Nicotine is a Problem.
So Ok, I move to 0mg.
Then are the Going to Tell me that the 0mg is a Problem?
You don't see what I brought up as plausible loophole? How would they close that type of business down? Based on what?
Exactly right. And let's equate it to smoking in multiple ways - get some studies out there showing it as bad as (maybe even worse than) cigarettes; put them in designated smoking areas, ban from workplaces, 'public' (ie private) buildings and areas - parks, etc. Pretty soon everyone will think it's the same, so regulating it in the same manner will be an easy sell.
Last edited:
I'm not going to bother to quote the deeming and what some have said about 'even if it contains no nicotine' - that's been dragged through this forum since Tom Baker was banned.
I was replying to the new guy. Didn't read yours. I don't believe in regulatory loopholes - only tax loopholes that weren't really loopholes but bought and paid for.
You'd have to paint a clear picture on what "saving vaping" looks like for me to give fair response.
To get to the point, what if it were well known that 0 nic juice is routinely used by consumers who add nic to it? And that some of these consumers are children (oh my). And then what? Is vaping still saved or is it subject to additional regulations, based on scenarios that no one could have ever thought of (even while many did) and so now, we have to go after those 0 nic juices for they are hooking another generation onto that evil smoking/vaping/nicotine using habit.
No, you're right, there are similar 'loopholes' in regulation just that right now without the final rule. there' s nothing to jump through the loop. ie. I'll take a look at what you said....
Guess we will just have to wait and See what is in the Final Rule Set. Because All I have ever seen have been Draft Document. Or Proposed Information.
---
BTW - Is anyone else Kinda Bent that the Public is Not Allowed Access to what the OMB/OIRA is Reviewing.
Not sure why it needs to be Kept Out of the Public Domain. Or how we are Supposed to be able to Submit Comments on things when we Don't Even know what is in the Final Rule Set?
That's my understanding as well - but.... I've pointed out elsewhere, where how the FDA can interpret 'intended use' - it's quite wide - and depending on the level of police state - say for drugs, unpasteurized milk (1/2 jokingly), where circumstantial, hearsay, consumers or vendors comments, etc. can be taken as 'intent'. A vendor should eliminate any wording about cigarettes, health, well being, pleasure, and basically just sell the product.
The focus seems to be on commercial pre-mix, vape shops, and mech mods. I mix, rebuild and use regulated devices (from China) and I don't spend much. A year ago I liked the vape shops around me but not lately. I can't go into them any more, I'm toxic. You can't buy a beginner rig for less than $100 and you can't buy liquid with more than 6mg. I don't like to recommend vape shops to newbies any more.
With a little encouragement low income smokers could be mixing and rebuilding and eliminate the cost of smoking. That's not much business for the "industry" but the thousands of dollars a year saved would be a better life for the family, the kids. That's a positive message about more than just me, me, me.
Worrying about vape shops and pre-mix makes me impatient, irritable, puff, puff.
With a little encouragement low income smokers could be mixing and rebuilding and eliminate the cost of smoking. That's not much business for the "industry" but the thousands of dollars a year saved would be a better life for the family, the kids. That's a positive message about more than just me, me, me.
Worrying about vape shops and pre-mix makes me impatient, irritable, puff, puff.
Last edited:
I agree with you less too
On this:Other than what was already in place for both hardware and eliquids - pg, vg, flavorings, metals, coils, etc. etc. we've been without regulation and brought to it more safety and quality than exists in many highly regulated industries where the unintended consequences have been more unsafe and hazardous than prior to regulation. Too many instances to cite - but the 'fire ......ant' kids pj's is a good example, exposing millions to carcinogenic material. Forcing products to the black market has to be included..... more people died during prohibition than before or after on 'bad products'.
save vaping = if it was deemed that 0 nic was deemed un-regulatory based on health and novelty aspects would everyone be happy with 0nic? i've been using .15 and 0.0 and been happy. My question is basically do you think it could survive without the nicotine? Pez was invented by an ex smoker to imitate the flick of a lighter and the movement from hand to mouth repeatedly and used by kids daily. And that's a statement based on hearing and little research, not fact. But stands to reason that marketing as a hobby or like flavored oxygen bars or something it could stand a fight. In my area Fredericksburg, VA we have Nomad Vapers with oxygen bars flavored and just had Mutiny Vapes and Cafe open and they sell food in same shop as vape products and as they told me that even local governments can have final say so in certain things. Its not something etched in stone and FDA regulation could change standpoint but if that's the case I think the fight starting at such a high level has low impact when in fact we should be starting locally and progressing the fight out from local to state to federal. Sorry if i'm all over the place but seems relevant and reasonable.
Sofarsogood. I agree with you in that we could save alot more doing it ourselves but goodbye convienence. I was told the other day there is 9mil vapers 25000 vape shops and x that by 5 employees per vape shop we are gonna run into a huge mess of unemployment and people back to welfare.
edit i think it was 250000 shops
edit i think it was 250000 shops
I think there are Many Current Vaper's who if they Switch to 0mg Today, that the Transition would be Relatively Painless.
But I think the Chances of the Average Smoker quitting with 0mg would not be good.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
