Yeah, it took me awhile to find a reasonably nice way to say what was on my mind at the time.
Why the FDA can NOT make illegal E-Cigs (false concern), Usage Bans in Public are the REAL problem
- Thread starter tombaker
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
*Note bolded emphasis mind (had to debold your entire message, and rebold certain parts)
Again, I find myself not (totally) dismissing what you are saying and what I feel is your honest intent in this thread.
Yet, I still believe, in this moment that the flavors issue is the biggest concern facing the vaping community, including vendors. If you disagree with this, I'd like for you to say so in this thread and add in claims of what FDA can't do via FSPTCA. I don't yet see the clear road to victory for eCig industry on that one. I do see the case that we vapers make as far more reasonable than what any neutral or anti-vaping party constructs as 'the problem' with having an assortment of flavors.
My very first post on ECF was thread in Newbie area saying much of what you are saying here. Got so heated after 20+ pages, it got locked. Since then, I've come a long way with eCig politics and my view of CASAA.
In my understanding, nearly every single instance of when CASAA member talks of 'ban on eCigs' they (always) mean de facto ban. And in my understanding, this means that when you couple all the things that are in the category of likely to be sought, it means that it will be made illegal enough that compared to whatever it is we vapers have going for us today, it will seem like a golden era. When anyone in eCig world claims an outright ban is on the horizon, my eyebrows raise, and I seek clarification on what that person is actually saying, cause I see fear mongering as not helpful to the cause in medium to long term, even while it is arguably helpful in short term to rally the emotional members of our troops.
Yet if we do combine regulations on the following, it does look a lot like a de facto ban:
- federal and state governments, plus propagandists, advocating for local usage bans. Add in segment of vaping community that seems to be very okay with idea of not vaping in public, and this is arguably our biggest concern in the immediate future.
- only legitimate flavors for juice being tobacco and possibly menthol. To this date, IMO, this is the biggest issue facing the community over the short, medium and long term.
- denying online sales or restricting them. We might all agree in the long term this won't stick. But according to thread I started looking to build consensus on most important issues, this is currently a solid #1 for all vapers who have participated in that thread. To be clear, it appears to be in most everyone's top 3 concern.
- regulating sizes of juice bottles, amount of nicotine that ought to be sold to each individual. Fear being here that it could be argued that no individual needs more than 10 ml in a bottle of juice, and no more than 12 mg dilution.
- regulating device type - fear being that whatever device "I" enjoy is currently being talked about as 'the problem' while the other devices are currently being ignored in that discussion.
- taxing and sin taxing up the wazoo. Thru end of 2013, this has virtually been a non-issue, but is also one that I think almost all vapers accept as inevitable. Bottle of 10 ml juice today may cost $5. Allow it to be taxed forever, going up each year, and would it be terribly surprising if say in 2030, that same sized bottle costs (at its lowest among all vendors) $30?
If all these items are put together and seen as accurate, then sometime in the next 1 to 17 years, an individual vaper would be: buying their 10 ml bottle of 12 mg juice (highest strength available, in largest bottle available) in local B&M store, for $30. It will be tobacco flavor (only flavor available). They will be using it in same type of device everyone uses, with variation in brand name only. And they will be shamed in any place they use it, including own home and car because by this time the general public will realize there is good reason to have banned public usage, and even some vapers will readily support that. It'll be another dirty, disgusting habit that only addicts engage in and the sooner you can quit the better. You'll save on health insurance if you do, and you'll no longer have an expensive
IMO, this all is realistic if vaping community is unable to change the national narrative, and if CASAA (or similar organization) proves to be ineffective in their fundamental mission, that appears to be pro-vaping.
I understand and appreciate your passion but all too often we (I'm guilty too) direct our passion into a sort of cannibalism. Everyone here should be treated as a fellow enthusiast. Even if you have the paranoid belief that ANTZ agents have secretly infiltrated this forum; a member is a member. Our presumed general commonality should come first.
Last edited:
That's why I waited until I could find a nicer way to say what was on my mind.
It would have been nice if the person I was addressing was taking the time to do the same.
Last edited:
Good! I've had enough interaction with you to know that you wouldn't hesitate to call me out on something. So, if you witness me being cannibalistic I'm glad to know you're here to shove a mirror in my face.That's why I waited until I could find a nicer way to say what was on my mind.
It would have been nice if the person I was addressing was taking the time to do the same.
I took "slow your roll" or whatever to mean exactly the same thing that you are saying. (Maybe I missed something.) I thought DC2 was saying slow down and listen and consider softening your (rabid!) disrespect for CASAA.
It is one thing to say local laws are the greater issue, and another to attack the people that are working their butts off for free to keep the rest of us informed of the inner and outer goings-on in the Tobacco Control world. I'm not blindly following Bill Godshall et al, I have spent many hours listening to him and others speak to groups including the FDA, debate the ANTZ, and I go to state and local legislative bodies (after getting alerts from CASAA!!), and hear what the ALA is saying.
I also don't "just believe" CASAA or the study conclusions they publish and comment on. I'm an engineer with a minor in math, training in logic (which I got IN GRADE SCHOOL!), and I look at the numbers and come to my own conclusions, which agree about 75-80% with CASAA. The sheeple are the folks that are ignoring the issue (and they are ignoring BOTH issues!) not the ones who avail themselves of the fruits of the hard work the CASAA board is putting in, again, for free.
Tom, you seem to be completely ignoring the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 that gave the FDA power over the tobacco industry that it didn't have under the Tobacco Act you keep quoting. Under FSPTCA, the FDA does have the power to regulate products that contain tobacco or are DERIVED FROM tobacco, such as the nicotine in e-cigarette liquid. Once the FDA deems such products under its regulatory power, it can make any rules it sees fit, short of banning it outright or requiring the removal of all nicotine. That leaves the FDA free to apply all sorts of rules and standards it wants. Yes, there is a public comment period, but the FDA is under no obligation to do what the comments suggest or request. So, if the FDA decides that nicotine derived from tobacco cannot be sold in bottles or flavored with anything other than tobacco flavors, it WILL have the power to do that.
And I did answer your question about handing e-cigs to the tobacco (and pharma) industry. If the FDA charges huge fees and requires expensive lab testing for every e-liquid flavor and nicotine strength, how many companies could afford the approval process? If it costs millions of dollars just to get one flavor approved for sale? Only huge companies with billions to spend will be able to get FDA approval to sell nicotine e-liquid - such as tobacco and pharma companies.
You are completely missing the point that FSPTCA now gives the FDA unprecedented regulatory power over the tobacco and recreational nicotine industries. And the tobacco companies helped get the FSPTCA passed! Just as the pharma industry lobbied to pay the FDA for drug approvals and thereby gained the FDAs dependence on its funding, now the FDA will be getting paid by the tobacco industry, as well.
And for the record, CASAA did not send Bill Godshall to speak with the OMB nor did it have any influence on his statements. CASAA has its own meeting with the OMBA coming up soon. Bill is an advisor to CASAA, but does not speak for nor represent CASAA. He was there representing his own organization, Smokefree Pennsylvania. Even so, his comments about e-cigarettes and smoking cessation did not damage the cause in any way. As it has already been established that the FDA cannot regulate e-cigs as drugs without the company making therapeutic claims. There could be a day that some e-cigs are approved as pharmaceutical smoking cessation products and others are still regulated as tobacco products. But an advocate calling them effective for smoking cessation has absolutely NOTHING to do with how the FDA can regulate individual products. Think of it this way: your aunt can claim that cranberry juice cures urinary tract infections, but that doesn't give the FDA the power to regulate all cranberry juice as a drug. And if one cranberry juice company claims its juice is a cure for UI, the FDA can't just regulate the entire industry as drug producers, either. The FDA would send a cease-and-desist letter JUST to the company MAKING THE CLAIM and and tell them they must submit studies supporting their claim or be fined (or worse) for making unproven health claims. So even e-cig companies making smoking cessation claims wouldn't affect the whole industry - the FDA would just go after the specific companies making the claim.
And I did answer your question about handing e-cigs to the tobacco (and pharma) industry. If the FDA charges huge fees and requires expensive lab testing for every e-liquid flavor and nicotine strength, how many companies could afford the approval process? If it costs millions of dollars just to get one flavor approved for sale? Only huge companies with billions to spend will be able to get FDA approval to sell nicotine e-liquid - such as tobacco and pharma companies.
You are completely missing the point that FSPTCA now gives the FDA unprecedented regulatory power over the tobacco and recreational nicotine industries. And the tobacco companies helped get the FSPTCA passed! Just as the pharma industry lobbied to pay the FDA for drug approvals and thereby gained the FDAs dependence on its funding, now the FDA will be getting paid by the tobacco industry, as well.
And for the record, CASAA did not send Bill Godshall to speak with the OMB nor did it have any influence on his statements. CASAA has its own meeting with the OMBA coming up soon. Bill is an advisor to CASAA, but does not speak for nor represent CASAA. He was there representing his own organization, Smokefree Pennsylvania. Even so, his comments about e-cigarettes and smoking cessation did not damage the cause in any way. As it has already been established that the FDA cannot regulate e-cigs as drugs without the company making therapeutic claims. There could be a day that some e-cigs are approved as pharmaceutical smoking cessation products and others are still regulated as tobacco products. But an advocate calling them effective for smoking cessation has absolutely NOTHING to do with how the FDA can regulate individual products. Think of it this way: your aunt can claim that cranberry juice cures urinary tract infections, but that doesn't give the FDA the power to regulate all cranberry juice as a drug. And if one cranberry juice company claims its juice is a cure for UI, the FDA can't just regulate the entire industry as drug producers, either. The FDA would send a cease-and-desist letter JUST to the company MAKING THE CLAIM and and tell them they must submit studies supporting their claim or be fined (or worse) for making unproven health claims. So even e-cig companies making smoking cessation claims wouldn't affect the whole industry - the FDA would just go after the specific companies making the claim.
Watching people smarter than me debate is like watching curling. I see the participants enjoying the sport and rivalry, I just don't understand what the spectators get out of it. Yes, I'm admitting that I'm not very smart.
Watching people smarter than me debate is like watching curling. I see the participants enjoying the sport and rivalry, I just don't understand what the spectators get out of it. Yes, I'm admitting that I'm not very smart.
Maybe you're like me and hoping all that smartness will rub off on you?
I love watching curling!Watching people smarter than me debate is like watching curling. I see the participants enjoying the sport and rivalry, I just don't understand what the spectators get out of it. Yes, I'm admitting that I'm not very smart.
Thanks, Kristin! I think I was also confusing the two Acts.
@those folks who are deprecating themselves without cause:
Not sure what good it does to be 'smart' when my memory sux eggs.
That last line is a distortion of the position we've described to you now countless times. I even explicitly noted that FDA and other public-health organizations do not consciously set out with the goal of enriching big tobacco. The problem, as always, is that big regulations favor big businesses, whatever the intention behind those regulations. If you disagree with that principle, then feel free to make something approaching a rational argument.
We do not know what regulations FDA will settle upon; that is true. You are still heavily overstating the limitations built into law, though. More on this after the following quotes:
You label us as doomcryers. Based on your commentary about FDA's reliance on science and its restraint in applying its authority, I'm forced to call you a hopeless naif in return. But I've been wrong before. Please, do enlighten us. How do you suppose the scientific review process works for FDA? Who do you suppose supplies the money to do the studies that the FDA consults? Who do you suppose ultimately interprets those studies? What jobs in what industries do you suppose big-wig regulator types take after their time at FDA or other regulatory authorities? Please, show all of us laughable twits what we've all been missing about the benevolent scientists in charge of FDA.
Perhaps you're talking about Mitch Zeller, J.D., director of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products? That law degree probably doesn't make him unusually well qualified to judge matters of science, but hey, let's not judge him too harshly, the tobacco control industry at large is peopled with sociologists and psychologists pretending to be hard scientists. At least a lawyer ought to know about all of the many restrictions on FDA power that you keep kindly describing to us, right?
Oh, wait: Regulating Tobacco: Q&A with FDA's Mitch Zeller - Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Zeller: "There are some very powerful tools that Congress has given FDA to use wisely and supported by evidence. Thats where I think, the greatest opportunity lies: to use the tools relying on regulatory science to try to protect consumers and reduce the death and disease toll from tobacco.
There are two areas where I think these tools can make a profound positive impact on public health. The first is something called product standards, which is basically the power to ban, restrict or limit the allowable levels of ingredients in tobacco or tobacco smoke. We are exploring potential product standards in three areas: toxicity, addiction and appeal. And we are funding research in all three areas and working very hard behind the scenes to find out what our options are for potential product standards in those three areas."
Huh. It looks like Mitch disagrees with you, Tom. Other quotes of note from his little interview with big pharma's non-profit front group (Robert Wood Johnson Foundation):
Zeller: "Yes, we are committed to improving our process and have set a goal that within six months we will have identified performance standards for substantial equivalence reports. We have thousands of pending applications. The overwhelming majority of those pending applications are for products that are already on the market. Since June we have started to make merit-based decisions yay or naysomething is substantially equivalent, something is not substantially equivalentand were going to catch up with that queue."
Being that you're such an expert on the law Tom, surely I don't have to explain to you what 'substantial equivalence' means, and why it's relevant to your assertion that e-cigs are just "electric coil
Zeller: "The only categories of products that Congress gave the FDA the authority to regulate when the law was passed were cigarettes, smokeless tobacco and roll-your-own tobacco. But there was this other really important provision in the law thats called the Deeming Provision, which gives the agency, through rulemaking, the power to deem other categories of products that meet the definition of a tobacco product to be within the agencys regulatory jurisdiction, and we are very close to being able to publish that proposed rule. And its now public information that we have submitted that proposed rule to the Office of Management and Budget where it is currently undergoing review."
Oh, hey! There's that deeming thing you scoffed at earlier! In fairness, you've since done some reading and moderated your position on that point, but you did it without softening your stance on so-called doomcryers and FUD, so I'm still gonna break your balls a little, capice? It's all in good fun; call it a doomcryer hazing ritual.
Later, in his little "I'm back to regulate your lives; yay me!" webinar, Zeller said the following about e-cigarettes:
Zeller acknowledged electronic cigarettes' growing popularity and that his agency continues to investigate how it will regulate this emerging sector. He cited anecdotal evidence praising e-cigarettes as a cessation device for long-term smokers, but said the agency must also forecast the long-term impact e-cigarettes could yield. For instance, he lamented, "CDC report showed youth e-cig use doubled there are people who challenged that, but the data is what the data is." This point echoed an earlier message during which he explained the legal role of the FDA--"the FDA must look at both individual-level risk and population-level harm."
In other words, he cited the same CDC data that ANTZ across the world have touted in the absence of any scientific evidence that e-cigs actually harm anyone -- the same data that CDC willfully misrepresented, data that, in fact, leads to the opposite conclusion. That was Zeller's singular nod towards any kind of scientific argument in his discussion of e-cigs. And the last quoted comment is a clear suggestion that he will try to balance physiological considerations (individual) with social ones (population-level).
References - CDC Belatedly Reveals That Smoking By Teenagers Dropped While Vaping Rose - Forbes
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ms-cdc-has-been-lying-about-e-cigs-youth.html
E-cigarettes:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(13)70495-9/fulltext
You're totally right. It's not like there's any precedent for restricting online sales of cigarettes or anything: Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act) Frequently Asked Questions | ATFtom again said:
Yes, but that doesn't mean we should bury our heads in the sand. You have not substantiated the subject line of this thread; the FDA has enormous power to harm us, period. And although the FDA may never actually follow through, you have yet to demonstrate that our "doomsday prepping" vis-a-vis FDA does any substantive harm to our efforts on the local front.
Your purpose appears to be not to deliver a message about strategy; rather, your purpose seems to be to stir up gratuitous controversy, by pretending that your wikipedia-derived knowledge on tobacco laws trumps that of people like Kristin and Bill Godshall, who've lived this fight for years.
All I can add to what Kristin, Fulgurant, and DC2 have already said is this.
Read the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (aka Tobacco Control Act) in its entirety before you proclaim what the FDA can and cannot do. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr1256/text
Do a search for "2007" and you will learn why Bill Godshall believes that a regulation that deems e-cigarettes to be a tobacco product could eliminate many of the more advanced products from the market. [Here's a little hint. Back in 2007 there was no such thing as an eGo, a Provari, a Chuck, or even a Joye 510. At best, we could be stuck with the very primitive models that didn't deliver nicotine very effectively. At worst, the FDA can say that there were NO models being sold in 2007, which would be a de facto ban.]
Of course that could only happen if the FDA decided to apply every last paragraph of the Tobacco Control Act to e-cigarettes. Remember that the Tobacco Control Act was designed with an objective of preventing any new combustible cigarettes from coming on to the market and of lowering the amount of nicotine in the existing products to make them "less addictive" (i.e., less appealing to consumers.)
Now, consider the text of the deeming regulation. The text is here View Rule
A little background. When a federal agency wants to issue a regulation, it has to fill out a form that asks the agency to justify the need for the regulation. The form is submitted to the Office of Management and Budget. It might be easier for you to look at this extraction. All the black text is boiler plate text from the form itself--it's actually directions on what should be entered in this area of the form. The only text written by the FDA is what's shown in red. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...formation-december-agenda-2.html#post11417686
So in the Alternatives section, we see that the FDA considered such approaches as exempting some products from certain provisions and changes to the compliance periods (e.g. the 2007 rule).
So what did the FDA decide? Apparently the FDA decided not to use any of the alternatives it considered.
This deeming rule is necessary to provide FDA with authority to regulate these products (e.g., registration, product and ingredient listing, user fees for certain products, premarket requirements, and adulteration and misbranding provisions). In addition, the additional restrictions that FDA seeks to promulgate for the proposed deemed products would reduce initiation and increase cessation (particularly among youth). This rule is consistent with other approaches that the Agency has taken to address the tobacco epidemic and is particularly necessary given that consumer use may be gravitating to the proposed deemed products.
So the FDA says that it wants to be "consistent with other approaches that the Agency as taken to address the tobacco epidemic."
In other words, these products will need to go through everything we make cigarettes go through, so we can be consistent. And it is really, really needed because people are gravitating away from those old products to these new ones. (There's an implication that the old and the new are equally hazardous--else why would the same controls be necessary for both?)
I find it alarming that the FDA apparently sees our movement away from cancer sticks to the "proposed deemed products" as a problem that it is particularly necessary for the FDA to address in order to stop the tobacco epidemic.
Basically, the deeming regulation as worded here gives the FDA a blank check to apply any of the powers that are mentioned in the Tobacco Control Act to the new products. Why bring up such things as "appeal to youth and young adults" if the FDA was not seriously considering stretching the applicability of Section 907 (A)(1)(a) to the newly deemed products? Nothing in the Tobacco Control Act would prevent the FDA from setting a top nicotine concentration in cartridges so low that only a tiny fraction of smokers would find them an acceptable substitute for combustible cigarettes.
Read the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (aka Tobacco Control Act) in its entirety before you proclaim what the FDA can and cannot do. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr1256/text
Do a search for "2007" and you will learn why Bill Godshall believes that a regulation that deems e-cigarettes to be a tobacco product could eliminate many of the more advanced products from the market. [Here's a little hint. Back in 2007 there was no such thing as an eGo, a Provari, a Chuck, or even a Joye 510. At best, we could be stuck with the very primitive models that didn't deliver nicotine very effectively. At worst, the FDA can say that there were NO models being sold in 2007, which would be a de facto ban.]
Of course that could only happen if the FDA decided to apply every last paragraph of the Tobacco Control Act to e-cigarettes. Remember that the Tobacco Control Act was designed with an objective of preventing any new combustible cigarettes from coming on to the market and of lowering the amount of nicotine in the existing products to make them "less addictive" (i.e., less appealing to consumers.)
Now, consider the text of the deeming regulation. The text is here View Rule
A little background. When a federal agency wants to issue a regulation, it has to fill out a form that asks the agency to justify the need for the regulation. The form is submitted to the Office of Management and Budget. It might be easier for you to look at this extraction. All the black text is boiler plate text from the form itself--it's actually directions on what should be entered in this area of the form. The only text written by the FDA is what's shown in red. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...formation-december-agenda-2.html#post11417686
So in the Alternatives section, we see that the FDA considered such approaches as exempting some products from certain provisions and changes to the compliance periods (e.g. the 2007 rule).
So what did the FDA decide? Apparently the FDA decided not to use any of the alternatives it considered.
This deeming rule is necessary to provide FDA with authority to regulate these products (e.g., registration, product and ingredient listing, user fees for certain products, premarket requirements, and adulteration and misbranding provisions). In addition, the additional restrictions that FDA seeks to promulgate for the proposed deemed products would reduce initiation and increase cessation (particularly among youth). This rule is consistent with other approaches that the Agency has taken to address the tobacco epidemic and is particularly necessary given that consumer use may be gravitating to the proposed deemed products.
So the FDA says that it wants to be "consistent with other approaches that the Agency as taken to address the tobacco epidemic."
In other words, these products will need to go through everything we make cigarettes go through, so we can be consistent. And it is really, really needed because people are gravitating away from those old products to these new ones. (There's an implication that the old and the new are equally hazardous--else why would the same controls be necessary for both?)
I find it alarming that the FDA apparently sees our movement away from cancer sticks to the "proposed deemed products" as a problem that it is particularly necessary for the FDA to address in order to stop the tobacco epidemic.
Basically, the deeming regulation as worded here gives the FDA a blank check to apply any of the powers that are mentioned in the Tobacco Control Act to the new products. Why bring up such things as "appeal to youth and young adults" if the FDA was not seriously considering stretching the applicability of Section 907 (A)(1)(a) to the newly deemed products? Nothing in the Tobacco Control Act would prevent the FDA from setting a top nicotine concentration in cartridges so low that only a tiny fraction of smokers would find them an acceptable substitute for combustible cigarettes.
I believe people I know and trust like Elaine and Bill.
It's hard to find honest people you can trust. When you find one, whether It's a doctor, lawyer, barber, bartender, Husband, wife, Coach they cannot be replaced by machines.
Trust is hard to earn and easy to lose.
As the pre-occupied general public sees the crusade against healthier alternatives to save their loved ones life, they will be shocked and disillusioned.
Big government, big Pharma, and big "nonprofit" groups don't care who dies or from what. It's all about the money.
E-cigs just expose them like Latoya Jackson in a Playboy centerfold spread. The only thing that is missing is a staple in the belly button.
It's hard to find honest people you can trust. When you find one, whether It's a doctor, lawyer, barber, bartender, Husband, wife, Coach they cannot be replaced by machines.
Trust is hard to earn and easy to lose.
As the pre-occupied general public sees the crusade against healthier alternatives to save their loved ones life, they will be shocked and disillusioned.
Big government, big Pharma, and big "nonprofit" groups don't care who dies or from what. It's all about the money.
E-cigs just expose them like Latoya Jackson in a Playboy centerfold spread. The only thing that is missing is a staple in the belly button.
-------> The intent of this is with regards to the part of the cigarette that is used, and consumed. A filter, the paper. It is not the hardware of an APV, or even an E-Cig, besides the cartomizer, and the cartomizer has been on the market for a long time. No cartomizer is different in basis. Nothing about an E-Cig is substantial different from what was on the market at 2007. NOTHING. Its a electric coil, fed liquid, vaporized, unfiltered. Its pretty basic. People want to spread FUD about what could be done, what may be done, with none of these apocalyptic results being likely. The view that all E-Cigs are about to be banned is simply foolish....because the very law, the Tobacco Act, which is the only thing giving the FDA any authority....specifically PROHIBITS the FDA from doing so. Do you understand now? .......................... Because anyone can post link to generic text about deeming regualtion......WHO THEN, proclaims its means in their best guess it would mean that all E-Cigs, does not make it so. The FDA has said it can regulate E-Cigs as a Tobacco Product, the courts agreed, and the law that gives them regulatory powers, specifically and totally says they can not ban them................So anyone who believes that the FDA can Ban all E-Cigs is completely and totally wrong. Okay? Anything I got wrong???????
Yes, we all know they can not "ban" them.
But the restrictions they can put on them can leave them virtually useless.
Also, I have to say that it does not appear you read the thread about substantial equivalence.
Because if you did I don't think you would still be saying what you just said about nothing being substantially different.
But the restrictions they can put on them can leave them virtually useless.
Also, I have to say that it does not appear you read the thread about substantial equivalence.
Because if you did I don't think you would still be saying what you just said about nothing being substantially different.
I agree and or appreciate most said in the stuff that I snipped out. I also agree of the most reasonable concerns about what the FDA could do, the single largest would be any attempt to restrict flavors. I do see parallels to mixed drinks, people can mix drinks that taste like candy too, but they are not for children obviosuly. The ban on flavors right now is related to cigerettes only. Flavored cigars are still being sold, and they have not attempted to regulate them out as of yet. (I mean with action, not just bluster and talk)...................So lets go with a worse case scenerio, they try to ban all flavors. The work around would be that base nicotine vaping solutions would be sold, and counter parts would sell mixing flavors, for bottle sizes. The profits of mixes would be smaller and would be an impact on vendors, but it would be a full work around. Since a full work around is available, I don't think the FDA would try to do it. We have to wait to see what the FDA will do.....an at this rate, the FDA might not do much of anything besides addresss advertising and sales, and ask that warning labels be put on everything up the ying yang, say the FDA has not evaluated yada yada yada..............................The FDA can not ban E-Cigs as a category......and E-Cig devices are not substantially change........................................I am really offended by people saying that E-Cigs have changed SUBSTANTIALLY since introduction, its a heated coil, vaporizing liquid, unfiltered. Its the same for carts, clearos, drippers. They can not ban them, or claim each is significantly different........and they can not ban the raw hardware of APVs.
VPLive Vape Team Episode #85: Inside FDA Regulation - YouTube An interview with an attorney that specializes in food and drug law. A good perspective. In summery from someone that knows the law,.....this whole deeming can go either way. The FDA DOES have the power to hold e-cigs to the same standards and approval process as combustible cigarettes per the tobacco control act. The question is will they? We will wait and see. I will take into consideration the previous actions and history of the FDA, and fight this thing until I know my e-cigs are safe from heavy handed regulation! I stand by the experts who are smart enough to interpret the law for what it is! This interview was from October 2013 for anyone interested.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
