Just so I’m clear on all this.
We shouldn’t talk about Health aspects of e-Cigarettes or e-liquids because they don’t include Taxation and or Company Profits slant?
When is the FDA thing going down?
- Thread starter oxygen thief
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Just so I’m clear on all this.
We shouldn’t talk about Health aspects of e-Cigarettes or e-liquids because they don’t include Taxation and or Company Profits slant?
But these are ALL legitimate concerns! I feel my life has been saved by these modern miracles! I guess we will only find out in time. The FDA is being too vague on this topic, which means they hold the winning hand, or bust.
They ARE All Very Legitimate Concerns.
And what makes this Forum such a Great Place is we can come to Discuss them.
Is that remotely what I said? Re-read my posts. And then read them again. If it's still not clear, ignore me.
"Monetize" is the word.
<hypothetical scenario>
FDA Rep: "WOW! Look at these things, they're AWESOME! WHY ARE WE NOT MAKING MONEY OFF THEM YET?"
</hypothetical scenario>
Lets be logical. It's pretty certain that we can all agree that ecigs are safer than cigarettes. The FDA knows that too. They wouldn't crush an industry when they could make money off it instead. They won't get banned, which is the worst case scenario. Taxes and regulation to "limit the market" into its "taxable form" would not surprise me.
What would surprise me though is if they said "Yeah, you guys are right. They're safe, vape away and we won't bother you."
<hypothetical scenario>
FDA Rep: "WOW! Look at these things, they're AWESOME! WHY ARE WE NOT MAKING MONEY OFF THEM YET?"
</hypothetical scenario>
Lets be logical. It's pretty certain that we can all agree that ecigs are safer than cigarettes. The FDA knows that too. They wouldn't crush an industry when they could make money off it instead. They won't get banned, which is the worst case scenario. Taxes and regulation to "limit the market" into its "taxable form" would not surprise me.
What would surprise me though is if they said "Yeah, you guys are right. They're safe, vape away and we won't bother you."
Wrong. Have you read the page that Baditude linked to?
"Chapter IX also subjects new tobacco products (i.e., products that are first marketed or modified after February 15, 2007) and modified risk tobacco products (i.e., products that are sold or distributed for use to reduce harm or the risk of tobacco-related disease associated with commercially marketed tobacco products) to pre-market review."
How many e-cigarettes on the market being used today were being sold in the U.S. before February 2007? Almost everything people on this forum use would be considered "new tobacco products" and subject to this "FDA pre-market review" before they could be sold. In theory, any company selling products without this review could (and probably would) receive cease-and-desist letters from the FDA. If you cannot sell without FDA approval and you cannot afford or comply with the approval process, then that is a de facto ban on your product. So, the FDA may not technically "ban" e-cigarettes, but this approval process would effectively remove nearly all currently available products from the U.S. market. Only the wealthiest e-cigarette companies or those sold by the tobacco industry would be able to get approval.
Wrong again. The FDA defines any product that contains nicotine and is not approved as a drug treatment as a "tobacco product."
It doesn't matter what name you call them!
Only non-nicotine products could avoid being defined as tobacco products. And even those can run afoul of the FDA if they make smoking cessation claims.
Most of us aren't worried about an all-out ban. The FDA won't need to ban them. In fact, the FDA rarely "bans" anything - it just creates regulations that make it impossible to sell your product unless you are a huge industry like the agriculture, dairy, drug and tobacco industry. See my comment above about regulation acting as a de facto ban.
Last edited:
Still holding out hope they don't tax juice at the rate of cigarettes, or even higher. They won't van them.
If they acted in the best interest of the nation's economy, they would tax the hell out of the hardware and not tax the juice. That would really dent China's ecig manufacturing sector and at the same time, serve as a big boost to American ejuice manufacturing.
If they acted in the best interest of the nation's economy, they would tax the hell out of the hardware and not tax the juice. That would really dent China's ecig manufacturing sector and at the same time, serve as a big boost to American ejuice manufacturing.
I'm in agreement with you.
If health concerns were the true issues, wouldn't cigarettes have been banned many years ago?
Which means we would be stuck with Blu at a higher price. Lovely.
Fair enough.
Taxation in retrospect itself is not considered ex post facto, I would assume that the FDA would take advantage of this. As far as a ban without significant justification, I'm pretty certain that it could be tried in the courtroom. Banning what once "was legal".
Yeah, you're right about the naming scheme. Buying a pack of "little cigars" these days costs just as much as a pack of cigarettes, in my area atleast. They intend on taxing fine cigars too, of which I enjoy pretty often.
I still believe that the "experimental chemical" route will be left open though.
Taxation in retrospect itself is not considered ex post facto, I would assume that the FDA would take advantage of this. As far as a ban without significant justification, I'm pretty certain that it could be tried in the courtroom. Banning what once "was legal".
Yeah, you're right about the naming scheme. Buying a pack of "little cigars" these days costs just as much as a pack of cigarettes, in my area atleast. They intend on taxing fine cigars too, of which I enjoy pretty often.
I still believe that the "experimental chemical" route will be left open though.
You're missing two HUGE parts of the equation.
1) ANTZ. They are in the FDA and have a huge influence. They are also funded by Big Pharma, so they have a TON of money. They don't care about money or tax revenue. (FDA doesn't collect taxes anyhow - it is mostly funded by the pharmaceutical industry.) The ANTZ are so anti-tobacco and anti-nicotine they want it all wiped off the face of the planet. But their "cause" is irrelevant and obsolete without us getting sick and dying from smoking. So they oppose all tobacco harm reduction products because it makes tobacco and nicotine use more socially acceptable when it isn't annoying or killing people.
2) Big Pharma. It stands to lose the most if affordable and effective e-cigarettes are approved by the FDA as tobacco products. It loses millions and millions of customers world-wide - the ones trying to quit and the ones who couldn't or wouldn't quit and are sick. It also is the FDA's biggest customer and the sugar daddy to all of those ANTZ.
Yeah, FDA's reps get paid a crapload just to speak at pharma events. It's not so much the FDA collecting revenue, moreso big pharmaceuticals that pay the FDA to speak for them.
No, I didn't know about ANTZ. After some research, I can see what you're getting at. Kinda funny how a FDA related organization would press for something that hurts their own paychecks. I'm going to have to look a bit more into them, heading into the law library right after an exam.
It seems you misunderstood part of what I was saying. The FDA is funded in a large part by the pharmaceutical industry - literally. The fees the industry pays for drug reviews per the Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992 keeps the doors open. (A whistle blower once revealed that the FDA considers the pharmaceutical industry to be it's "customers," not the American people!)
Last edited:
What else are they gonna say?
"Buy out our stock before the SHTF!" Ummm... don't think so.
<In da back B&M office> "If da FDA pounces, we'll make more profits on our remaining stock due to da panic!"
As always, follows da buck$!!!
Are you saying that a battery holder and an empty tank can be considered a nicotine product? I don't see how.
Pre-filled cartridges and nic liquid yes, I understand how those fall under FDA regulation
If you read carefully what you bracketed from Kristen's response, e-cig vendors could be issued a cease-and-desist order by the FDA if they sell anything with the description of e-cig. If it can be considered a new tobacco product or modified risk tobacco product by the FDA, these devices can fall into that category.
Could the vendor re-name their products as something else? I'm not sure how that might work. Admittingly there are products being sold in headd shops which likely would not fit into this category, or would they? Thats seems to be what those vendors have been calling those devices to avoid the loop holes in the law for illegal devices.
- Status
Similar threads
