FDA Why Isn't Vaping the FDA Center for Tobacco Product's Biggest Ally?
- Thread starter toddkuen
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Our government would never put pressure on banks, like what was done to PayPal...OH wait they are already doing it...
The DOJs Operation Choke Point
And as other news outlets (rightfully) note, this is leading to a different America. If "reputation risk" is on the table and not questioned, I stand by notion that buying vaping stuff online will not be the biggest concern for most people (including vapers). Arguably, every purchase of any kind carries with it a 'reputation risk.'
Now that 'reputation risk' is on the table and attempting to be used, I expect litigation galore. And coupled with 'grand finale' item from Snowden camp later this week, things could get ugly very soon for Feds before they get better. Almost kinda glad the comment period is in effect right now to stay away from the fray.
I've always agreed with you here.
I smoke whenever I want to.
I have no fear of cigarettes anymore, and I use them when I want to.
That comes out to about once every month or two.
I hate the political wrangling around these issues.
Truth should suffice.
But it doesn't.
We should try to make sure it does.
But that would be one hell of a battle for sure.
It may be the ONLY way we can really win though.
No, you and I disagree on nicotine being tightly controlled. If it is, most of those shops you talk about will go away, as they won't be needed. It will be easier to just go to the gas station or walmart to get your cigalike. And any company domestic or overseas who the government suspects may be providing nicotine outside of the controlled method will be put on a "don't process" list or else.
It's obvious that the FDA intends to reset the market by imposing unreal paperwork burdens on manufacturers and vendors. That aids BT who has the funding and causes mom and pop businesses to fold if large vendors can't get enough products from China approved due to costs. The stateside manufacturers will probably have the same issues.
The big question is whether a Chinese company can sell their product in the U.S. without a U.S. sponsor. Who would be the sponsor for Kanger, for instance? I haven't found a good answer for that.
Last edited:
A Chinese company wouldn't be allowed to import products without dealing with the paperwork, or the company doing the importing would. We would be back to the FDA having customs seizing shipments at the docks, what's old is new again.
If only we could find a way to change that course. Something that would include going over the head of FDA to change things.
Something that is included in wording from FDA as an alternative course.
Something that you would think every vaper alive would rally around.
It exists right now.
And yet, we pretend like it doesn't.
Can't wait for CASAA guidance so we can finally move on this.
So, if China can't get their products FDA approved only made in USA juice could be sold. Ecig hardware isn't a tobacco product, or is it once you load the juice? If you think about it, a cigarette is only a cigarette once the tobacco is inserted into the paper tube. The paper tube with a filter on the end isn't a tobacco product.
If I were China, I'd be like, "we'll forgive 10B in debt you owe us if you let us sell / distribute all the vaping stuff that we desire in your borders for at least another 10 years."
You would think not, but paper tubes are subject to Substantial Equivalence applications, and waiting over 2 years for approval.
While filters and tubes aren't tobacco products per se, under the deeming reg, the FDA is asserting that it has the right to regulate them because they are, "Components and parts ... intended for consumer use in the consumption of a tobacco product" which "would include air/smoke filters, tubes, papers..."
Both Kanger and Joyetech have US sites now. However, as I've stated much earlier, it is doubtful whether they'd engage with the US gov't on this issue or whether they could get money they give to their gov't, back, in order to do so.
Slightly OT:
If you emailed a comment to OMB please read the last paragraph in rolygates post here http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/advocates-updates-usa/567740-action-alert-omb-oira-today.html , you may need to resend it by 12pm tonight.
If you emailed a comment to OMB please read the last paragraph in rolygates post here http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/advocates-updates-usa/567740-action-alert-omb-oira-today.html , you may need to resend it by 12pm tonight.
I just sent the whole dam thing over again. If you misplace one little "comma", then you are prohibited from providing your concerns to the government that we pay for. I am understanding more and more why people are so sick of this government. That "hope & change" thing has worked miracles.
Not sure about Joyetech, but Kanger is a member of SFATA. I imagine they're getting the information they need and working out some plans of some sort?
They have lots of new members (including ProVape (Provari), though they could be old, not sure):
SFATA
And how many people died during the Prohibition, or suffered blindness or experienced damage to other organs, either because they didn't know what they were doing, or because others intentionally manufactured & sold to them unfit booze due to financial motives?
How much "good" did it bring to those consumers?
(I'm not even going to dive into the world of "other stuff"..)
There is smart risk & there is dumb risk..
And sometimes there's just plain random luck -- good or bad...
Alcohol Prohibition Was A Failure
"There were few if any production standards during Prohibition, and the potency and quality of products varied greatly, making it difficult to predict their effect. The production of moonshine during Prohibition was undertaken by an army of amateurs and often resulted in products that could harm or kill the consumer. Those products were also likely to contain dangerous adulterants, a government requirement for industrial alcohol.
According to Thomas Coffey, "the death rate from poisoned liquor was appallingly high throughout the country. In 1925 the national toll was 4,154 as compared to 1,064 in 1920. And the increasing number of deaths created a public relations problem for . . . the drys because they weren't exactly accidental." Will Rogers remarked that "governments used to murder by the bullet only. Now it's by the quart."
Patterns of consumption changed during Prohibition. It could be argued that Prohibition increased the demand for alcohol among three groups. It heightened the attractiveness of alcohol to the young by making it a glamour product associated with excitement and intrigue. The high prices and profits during Prohibition enticed sellers to try to market their products to nondrinkers--undoubtedly, with some success. Finally, many old-stock Americans and recent immigrants were unwilling to be told that they could not drink. According to Lee, "Men were drinking defiantly, with a sense of high purpose, a kind of dedicated drinking that you don't see much of today."
Prohibition may actually have increased drinking and intemperance by increasing the availability of alcohol. One New Jersey businessman claimed that there were 10 times more places one could get a drink during Prohibition than there had been before. It is not surprising that, given their hidden locations and small size, speakeasies outnumbered saloons. Lee found that there were twice as many speak easies in Rochester, New York, as saloons closed by Prohibition. That was more or less true throughout the country."
'heightened attractiveness to the young'. That's a given. More alcohol available, than before. Hmmm
"There were few if any production standards during Prohibition, and the potency and quality of products varied greatly, making it difficult to predict their effect. The production of moonshine during Prohibition was undertaken by an army of amateurs and often resulted in products that could harm or kill the consumer. Those products were also likely to contain dangerous adulterants, a government requirement for industrial alcohol.
According to Thomas Coffey, "the death rate from poisoned liquor was appallingly high throughout the country. In 1925 the national toll was 4,154 as compared to 1,064 in 1920. And the increasing number of deaths created a public relations problem for . . . the drys because they weren't exactly accidental." Will Rogers remarked that "governments used to murder by the bullet only. Now it's by the quart."
Patterns of consumption changed during Prohibition. It could be argued that Prohibition increased the demand for alcohol among three groups. It heightened the attractiveness of alcohol to the young by making it a glamour product associated with excitement and intrigue. The high prices and profits during Prohibition enticed sellers to try to market their products to nondrinkers--undoubtedly, with some success. Finally, many old-stock Americans and recent immigrants were unwilling to be told that they could not drink. According to Lee, "Men were drinking defiantly, with a sense of high purpose, a kind of dedicated drinking that you don't see much of today."
Prohibition may actually have increased drinking and intemperance by increasing the availability of alcohol. One New Jersey businessman claimed that there were 10 times more places one could get a drink during Prohibition than there had been before. It is not surprising that, given their hidden locations and small size, speakeasies outnumbered saloons. Lee found that there were twice as many speak easies in Rochester, New York, as saloons closed by Prohibition. That was more or less true throughout the country."
'heightened attractiveness to the young'. That's a given. More alcohol available, than before. Hmmm
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
