FDA TVECA post table of contents for Deeming Final Rule

[Kent C]

Those are not documents to be released Monday, they are proposals that have their comment periods ending Monday.

Go down a category - in the link above it gave a link to the pdf where they did give some 'corrections' to the docs..... they were insignificant as far as I could see but they were changes in docs to both links.

These:
Federal Register | National Environmental Policy Act; Environmental Assessments for Tobacco Products; Categorical Exclusions; Correction

Federal Register | Request for Nominations for Voting Members on a Public Advisory Committee; Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee

 

[Ca Ike]

Unknown:
National Center for Public Policy Research - looks like they are also pro vaping

L.A. Votes to Treat Much Safer E-Cigarettes Like Tobacco
Research & Commentary: Bloomington’s Vaping Ban | Heartland Institute

Pro vaping and pro THR. Jeff Stier is the NCPPR rep that did the webinar with white cloud.

 

[Zabolee]

I'm sorry if this topic has been brought up before, but I wasn't able to keep up with this thread all the time.

There were a couple of articles I came across that were a bit confusing to me. They made it sound like if this all passes, it will be illegal to use any mods sold after 2007. Don't take this as gospel, since I'm not sure that is what was being said.

I'm wondering if anyone has come across info about this. I know that anything made after the GF date will be harder to get passed and sell, but what about the mods that are already out there?

 

[Rossum]

There were a couple of articles I came across that were a bit confusing to me. They made it sound like if this all passes, it will be illegal to use any mods sold after 2007.

I don't think the FDA has the authority to do that, and wouldn't try it even if they thought they did.

 

[zoiDman]

...

There were a couple of articles I came across that were a bit confusing to me. They made it sound like if this all passes, it will be illegal to use any mods sold after 2007. Don't take this as gospel, since I'm not sure that is what was being said.

I'm wondering if anyone has come across info about this. I know that anything made after the GF date will be harder to get passed and sell, but what about the mods that are already out there?

As Rossum mentioned, the FDA doesn't really have Authority when it comes to "Use". Their Authority is Mainly centered around what Products can be Marketed/Sold.

 

[Zabolee]

That's what I figured. I can't really imagine you'd get pulled over for vaping an unregulated product. But I just wanted to see if anyone else had heard something of the like

 

[zoiDman]

That's what I figured. I can't really imagine you'd get pulled over for vaping an unregulated product. But I just wanted to see if anyone else had heard something of the like

Unless your doing 60 in a 25 while Vaping, I don't think you have to worry about getting Pulled Over for using a Pre-FDA Approved Mod.

 

[Zabolee]

Or if your car is obviously filled with vapor to the point that they think you can't see out of it

 

[Katya]

Unless your doing 60 in a 25 while Vaping, I don't think you have to worry about getting Pulled Over for using a Pre-FDA Approved Mod.

Or the officer wants to know what exactly is in your tank.

I'm a respectable-looking middle-aged lady driving a completely non-threatening white Prius, so I'm not too worried yet, but I sometimes wonder--usually when I see a police car behind me... Can I be pulled over for suspicion of using illicit substances? And if so, how on earth am I going to prove to the nice police officer (in my neighborhood they are all very nice and friendly) that it's just nic juice?

 

[Rossum]

If you were smoking a hand-rolled cigarette, how would you prove it's just tobacco?

 

[tiburonfirst]

If you were smoking a hand-rolled cigarette, how would you prove it's just tobacco?

offer to let the officer take a puff?

tweety, you best carry a spare drip tip!

 

[Zabolee]

First off, the smell alone. Second, tobacco is brown. Whatever else they think you're smoking isn't. I live in Philly, and although our cops are not known to be the nicest, they tend to not care about small things like what you're smoking

 

[MacTechVpr]

Or the officer wants to know what exactly is in your tank.

I'm a respectable-looking middle-aged lady driving a completely non-threatening white Prius, so I'm not too worried yet, but I sometimes wonder--usually when I see a police car behind me... Can I be pulled over for suspicion of using illicit substances? And if so, how on earth am I going to prove to the nice police officer (in my neighborhood they are all very nice and friendly) that it's just nic juice?

Fortunately under our Constitution it's not your job to demonstrate innocence (it's assumed) rather the government's role to establish probable cause (indication of crime or violation). Suspicion is not evidence. Instead I would suggest respectfully inquiring why you are being detained (or stopped). No explanations are necessary or appropriate and in my view may be potentially incriminating. Not an attorney but this seems common sense.

Good luck.

 

[oldbikeguy]

offer to let the officer take a puff?

I've done that trying to get one of the local's off the chew

 

[Zabolee]

If you were smoking a hand-rolled cigarette, how would you prove it's just tobacco?

It's tough. When my wife was 16, she was in a car accident. At the time she was rolling her own cigs. When the cops showed up, she had an ash tray full of what looked like {other stuff}. The cop refused to believe that they were cigs, even after she showed him the bag of tobacco, and the loose tobacco that was all over her car. It took the EMT being amazed at how much cheaper it was to roll her own than buying a pack for the cop to finally lay off.

But I agree. It's up to the cop to prove guilt. Unfortunately, we live in a world where they can claim reasonable suspicion, and the courts will generally side with the police.

 

[haleysdadda]

Fortunately under our Constitution it's not your job to demonstrate innocence (it's assumed) rather the government's role to establish probable cause (indication of crime or violation). Suspicion is not evidence. Instead I would suggest respectfully inquiring why you are being detained (or stopped). No explanations are necessary or appropriate and in my view may be potentially incriminating. Not an attorney but this seems common sense.

Good luck.

Are you really trying to say that police in your area don't do "check you out" stops? Then use some lame excuse for PC? When I was younger this used to happen to me alot!

 

[MacTechVpr]

...But I agree. It's up to the cop to prove guilt. Unfortunately, we live in a world where they can claim reasonable suspicion, and the courts will generally side with the police.

Reasonable suspicion requires an enforcement officer to be, reasonable. There still needs to be indication of violation or crime per the SCOTUS. If we don't insist on our rights we can't well expect to be treated as if we had them without reason. It's almost a duty to yourself to ask why.

Been in this situation more than once. It's important to get the point where they tell you…well, I thought. Like a previous post, then it becomes an opportunity to inform and help. If the officer is reasonable. Otherwise, was the conversation worth it? May not be, if they've made up their mind. Me personally, I'd like to know that asap. Guy's strapped.

Good luck.

 

[MacTechVpr]

Anyway, back on topic. Coincidentally doing some legal research on vaping happened on the TVECA site and ran across this item. An apparent summary of the current "deeming" regs…

The Rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary: FDA is Out of Its Mind: Deeming Regulations Should Be Called "The Cigarette Protection Act of 2015"; Regs are an Embarrassment to Public Health and Will Decimate the Vaping Industry

FYI.

Good luck.



p.s. Well I did have a copy, as posted at the start of this convo. This link's staying up for me and not going to the ad.

 

[Zabolee]

I know people won't like to hear this, but under point #5, where it says "And furthermore", those methods of testing are not excessive. In fact, that is how any lab anywhere would test just about anything. That's how you produce control and variable groups. It will absolutely hurt the vaping industry, which I don't want to see. I hope we can fight the need to test every liquid at all nic concentrations, but testing each juice on different mods, and each mod with different juices is not an overreach. It's how scientific studies are done.

That said, I'd like to know more about the 29 chemicals they are talking about. I'm sure there are more than 29 chemicals in e-liquid and the aerosol produced, but that doesn't mean they are the same chemicals as in cigarette smoke.

 

[zoiDman]

Here is some Survey Information as to how the Public Views Regulations regarding e-Cigarettes .

"The survey showed specifically enthusiastic support for warning labels, a minimum purchase age, use limitations and advertising bans: 94% of respondents were in favor of labels warning e-cig consumers that the products contain nicotine, 90% supported banning e-cig sales to those under 18, 69% were against e-cig use in public places (including restaurants and workplaces), and 61% supported a government ban of television advertising.

The main area of division on the poll seemed to be the issue of flavor restrictions. When asked whether flavored e-cigs and liquids should be banned, 48% of respondents said no, while 46% were in favor of a flavor ban.

Even those conducting the poll were surprised at the firm stance the public has taken on electronic cigarettes."

Survey: Adults View Electronic Cigarettes as Harmful

E-cigarettes widely seen as harmful in STAT-Harvard poll - STAT