White House weakened draft of FDA's proposed tobacco regulations | Reuters
Did we do it? Are we out of the woods?
Did we do it? Are we out of the woods?
White House Weakens Proposed FDA E-Cigarette Regulations
- Thread starter Timeghoul
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
"[...] but must issue new rules before regulating e-cigarettes, cigars, hookahs, water pipes and other tobacco products."
Has anyone ever found tobacco in an electronic cigarette? Even once? My shoes are as much a tobacco product as my eGo-V and Protank II.
We're not out of the woods. There is still plenty of forest ahead. But we're doing the right thing when we disseminate the truth about vaping to as many people as possible.
And as long as the FDA doesn't do anything inappropriate with the regulation of vaping, as long as they don't stand in the way of the best hope for saving the lives of millions of smokers, then I won't have to dramatically change the plans I have for my life.
Has anyone ever found tobacco in an electronic cigarette? Even once? My shoes are as much a tobacco product as my eGo-V and Protank II.
We're not out of the woods. There is still plenty of forest ahead. But we're doing the right thing when we disseminate the truth about vaping to as many people as possible.
And as long as the FDA doesn't do anything inappropriate with the regulation of vaping, as long as they don't stand in the way of the best hope for saving the lives of millions of smokers, then I won't have to dramatically change the plans I have for my life.
I also saw this article: White House Weakened Tobacco Regulations Of FDA's Draft Proposal
"The proposal disappointed public health advocates who criticized the agency's failure to restrict flavored products or television advertising, which they say attracts children, and criticized the agency for not moving to restrict online sales, where it can be harder to verify a person's age."
You're not a "public health advocate" if you unreasonably restrict the sale of a product that is the best hope to save the lives of millions of smokers. It is not reasonable to block the sale of "flavors" and to block online sales of vaping products in order to keep them out of the hands of children. (a) Kids will find a way, (b) from what I've seen, most kids who want to vape seem more interested in the "looking cool" part rather than the nicotine part and (c) the risk of making it more difficult for smokers to acquire vaping products is too high. Especially for people like me, who are house-bound and unable to go out and buy anything in-person.
You're not a "public health advocate" if you unreasonably restrict the sale of a product that is the best hope to save the lives of millions of smokers. It is not reasonable to block the sale of "flavors" and to block online sales of vaping products in order to keep them out of the hands of children. (a) Kids will find a way, (b) from what I've seen, most kids who want to vape seem more interested in the "looking cool" part rather than the nicotine part and (c) the risk of making it more difficult for smokers to acquire vaping products is too high. Especially for people like me, who are house-bound and unable to go out and buy anything in-person.
I have. When I.was smoking and vaping
Put my e cig in pocket. Took it out. Few grains of tobacco in drip tip
I doubt it. The most devastating part of the FDA's proposal is the requirement of getting new and existing products on the market approved. The approval process is lengthy and expensive, and would put most small and new hardware manufacturers out of business. The only ones that could possibly function within these regs are Big Tobacco, which was exactly the FDA's goal; the regs were specifically designed to destroy innovation, prevent new companies from entering the market, and hand the e-cig industry to Big Tobacco.
And neither of the articles quoted so far says anything about changing that.
BT adulterated and lied about tobacco products so now they should be trusted with a new product? Your kidding.
Oh, I agree. I'd never use a vape product put out by a Big Tobacco company for precisely this reason - I'm sure they'll find a way to poison vaping to make it more addictive, just like they did with tobacco. But they have all the lobbying money, so they have all our representatives in their pocket. Hell, even Obama smokes. You can be sure that our government will work to protect BT's interests by making sure they corner the vaping industry. Works out perfect for them - they get to move to a less demonized product, will be allowed to advertise again, and get to keep their market share (complete with previously addicted consumers) at the same time.
Your tax dollars at work.
Last edited:
Nope
The changes noted are simply the edits that were made prior to the April publication of the proposed regulations.
Doesn't mean a thing.
Sidebar: the final paragraph mention of the rockefeller circus hearing last week should have specifically said:
"Last week a panel of democrat U.S. senators tortured the chiefs of two of the biggest e-cigarette companies, by exposing them to inhumane levels of toxic bovine excrement"
Or, "Democrat Senators contribute to global melting with explosions of emotional hot air. NASA scientists report satellite sensors mistook committee hearing as earth-based solar flare"
Exactly, CabinetGuyScott. We will never be "out of the woods" as long as FDA has regulatory authority over ecigs and its CTP Special Advisory Committee and senior staff are composed of anti-ecig people.
I credit at least part of OMB's "corrective measures" to the meeting our informed, persuasive CASAA directors had with OMB earlier this year, and to efforts by SFATA on behalf of vendors.
I credit at least part of OMB's "corrective measures" to the meeting our informed, persuasive CASAA directors had with OMB earlier this year, and to efforts by SFATA on behalf of vendors.
This is an area that appears to be pretty darn vague in the proposed FDA regulations... It opens up some key questions in my mind.
We have two distinct product classifications... devices or components containing a nicotine solution ex. cig-a-likes, prefilled cartridges & e-juice. Then those that are just hardware only.
Can the FDA's regulations apply to accessories, parts and/or components that contain no tobacco product or nicotine solution?
To me it's like saying they can also regulate lighters, ashtrays & rolling papers just because their primary use is related to tobacco consumption.
what you say is true. however after the master tobacco control settlement they and the FDA kissed and made up.
regards
mike
They are targeting the masses, truth is the mass of e-cigarettes still use stick batteries and cartridges, we are a niche. But this is good news for us, chances are if the cartridges are safe in the revised bill the law will also be applied to cartos, screw in replacement heads etc...
I know this doesn't seem like much right now but it's a step in the right direction.
Not a direct quote from the proposed rule, but FDA does specify any part or component that is intended for use as part of an electric cigarette, or some such language. As I read it, this leaves the door open for them to regulate tanks, attys, batteries, etc.
That's why I found the recent Supreme Court decision overturning the smoking ban in Bullit Co, KY so encouraging.
"The court warned that if unelected administrative agencies continue to receive increased power, a "fourth branch of government — the regulatory state" — could come into play."
I don't know what to make of this. I think CGScott is right. It may be that this now just made it into the Federal Registry:
"The OMB also weakened language detailing the FDA's concerns about the safety of e-cigarettes, according to documents published Tuesday in the Federal Register." (from the HuffPo piece)
And/or that the White House got so many emails, comments (perhaps from the Free To Vape thing), that they wanted people to know they 'weakened' the proposal. So a bit of 'retro PR' because the link given shows the revisions here, in red:
Regulations.gov
... and you'll see at the top that September 2013 is crossed out with April 2014 in it's place. And the actual text is the same that we've read - well, for those who read it So this so called "weakening" occurred in April 2014, not now.
And just from a cursory reading of what the red replaces I think they actually 'strengthened' rather than weakened the proposal. All entries of 'newly' or 'new' products that werestruck which, imo, would only relate to products AFTER the final rule, which might mean everything not new would be grandfathered, were replaced with "proposed", and the proposal is to deem all products - new and existing.... according to predicate/SE provisions, etc.
There are many more revisions of course but those are what caught my eye, and I didn't have the time or desire to inspect each part.... lol.
The other revisions pdf's listed in the "Supporting Documents" section (2 others) in the link, Regulations.gov ....were only about the comment period - first from 30 to 60 days and then to 75 - the most recent.
"The OMB also weakened language detailing the FDA's concerns about the safety of e-cigarettes, according to documents published Tuesday in the Federal Register." (from the HuffPo piece)
And/or that the White House got so many emails, comments (perhaps from the Free To Vape thing), that they wanted people to know they 'weakened' the proposal. So a bit of 'retro PR' because the link given shows the revisions here, in red:
Regulations.gov
... and you'll see at the top that September 2013 is crossed out with April 2014 in it's place. And the actual text is the same that we've read - well, for those who read it
So this so called "weakening" occurred in April 2014, not now.And just from a cursory reading of what the red replaces I think they actually 'strengthened' rather than weakened the proposal. All entries of 'newly' or 'new' products that were
There are many more revisions of course but those are what caught my eye, and I didn't have the time or desire to inspect each part.... lol.
The other revisions pdf's listed in the "Supporting Documents" section (2 others) in the link, Regulations.gov ....were only about the comment period - first from 30 to 60 days and then to 75 - the most recent.
Actually rolling papers are currently being regulated. A couple just passed Substantial Equivalence muster recently after waiting a couple, few years.
It makes no difference if they can or can't or do or don't. The choke point always has been and always will be the e-liquid.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
