Just a thought on the whole FDA possibility thing

[loneranger721981]

I have heard and read so much about the regulations on flavors and nic that have been passed around. I thought of something the other day. Im not sure if anyone has posted this, but if they have I am sorry. If they want to regulate that juice sold online can only be menthol or tobacco flavored. Why cant juice companies just mix up unflavored? If it is unflavored there cant be that much regulation other than the nic in it. I bet they would have a hard time regulating candy flavoring. Why would the mixers not ship the flavoring in the proper amount separate and you mix it when you get it? I dont know if my thinking and understanding of this topic is off, but it seems like a good idea to me.

[wizard46304]

I've started taking the steps needed to diy, have the equipment bought, I'm set to but my nicotine. Plan on getting enough materials to sustain myself for quite a while. And then if they ban, restrict, tax, or whatever the FDA decides to do I'll be ok.

[bcartervol98]

I am not as worried as I once was. I think this will devolve from such tight restrictions to basically a tax. Yes it may cost a little more, but I cannot see a way for them to regulate flavors. How is that enforced? Wouldnt companies just rename their products with tobacco in the name if "only tobacco flavors" are allowed anyway? "Unicorn Tobacco", Dragon Tear Tobacco, Strawberry Fields Tobacco: etc...? Since the product contains 0 tobacco, the taste is the only determining factor and everyone knows the taste of any "tobacco" liquid is subjective. It may taste like tobacco to one and like caramel to another. Or Maple Syrup like a few I have tried.

In the end this is going to be two things imo

1. A tax on the products

2. Banning the sale to minors (which possibly might make online vendors have a solid age verification system)

I believe that is truly all that happens. I cannot see any regulations that attempt to call a product a "tobacco product" when it contains 0 tobacco standing the test of court challenges. I also cannot see a ban of flavors surviving the same, since the law banning flavored cigarettes applies to tobacco products only. How could it apply to something that contains no tobacco? It would be like trying to make a 16oz bottle of Coca Cola a 21 and older product because sometimes people mix a little Makers Mark or Jack Daniels with it. Maybe not a strong analogy but along the same lines.

[Aquatroy]

I just wish they would do what they're gonna do, get it over with, so we can "adapt" if need be, and move on....I can't see the govt having the ability to regulate anything anymore.. Look at what has happened at the USDA, can't keep our food from killing us. My only concern is I see a few Internet based stores now opening B&Ms ...do they know something we don't ? And my new go to juicer is out of state! Wouldn't be the first time I had to use the"black market" so I'm not worried as much as tired of the issue taking so long to resolve...

[Bebop]

The only other thing I can think of that hasn't been mentioned yet is that juice makers will have to undergo some kind of certification/regulation with regard to producing consumables. Standards will be set, licensing, environmental impacts. The brunt of the cost will be to manufacturers and retailers getting set up. Many will fall out or go black market. And of course those costs will be passed on to us.

Then, tack on exhorbitant sin taxes ( which will happen as it is classified as a "tobacco product" regardless of any actual tobacco content or not).

I wouldnt be surprised to see juice double in cost to the average consumer and gear follow suit. This will be all about tax revenue.

And one other downside: vaping will still not be marketed as a smoking cessation product, which is very unfortunate as that is one of it's greatest assets.

[bcartervol98]

The only other thing I can think of that hasn't been mentioned yet is that juice makers will have to undergo some kind of certification/regulation with regard to producing consumables. Standards will be set, licensing, environmental impacts. The brunt of the cost will be to manufacturers and retailers getting set up. Many will fall out or go black market. And of course those costs will be passed on to us.

Then, tack on exhorbitant sin taxes ( which will happen as it is classified as a "tobacco product" regardless of any actual tobacco content or not).

I wouldnt be surprised to see juice double in cost to the average consumer and gear follow suit. This will be all about tax revenue.

And one other downside: vaping will still not be marketed as a smoking cessation product, which is very unfortunate as that is one of it's greatest assets.

While I agree it will be taxed and liquid manufacturers will have to undergo a certification process, underage will be banned by federal law, and online sales will require more solid age verification; I still think in the long run court challenges will prevent them from classifying it as a "tobacco product".

Even as effed up as our country and government is and has been for the last 15-20 years, this is still a stretch for me to believe it will remain classified as a tobacco product for long. Surely there is legal precedent to keep a product from being so grossly misclassified.

[Havamal]

I have a hard time with the whole "tobacco product" thing holding up... the obvious argument would be if they do this should they not be taxing anything with alcohol flavors with an alcohol tax, for example rum flavored extract for baking?

There are numerous products out there that have alcohol based flavorings with out the alcohol, if the tax vapors as a tobacco product, shouldn't they have to tax the others as well?

or worse yet, what if you vape a rum raisin... that one would be double tax opportunity, both alcohol & tobacco taxes!!!

[aufin]

Just what makes anyone think the govt intends to act rationally concerning e-cigs?!! Look at some of the crap that's come out of DC the past few years. How much of that really made sense? My Opinion ....... that whole bunch of two-faced, self-important, liars up there in DC are going to do whatever makes them "feel" good or somehow directly impacts their pocket. In the past few years I've lost all confidence in our govt. to do what makes sense. These guys can't stand it unless they're micro-managing even the smallest issue that they have no business in, and finding ways of taxing everything else. I'm hoping for the best, but am preparing for the worst ........I'm stocking up.

"Just my opinion.........I could be wrong."

[bcartervol98]

Just what makes anyone think the govt intends to act rationally concerning e-cigs?!! Look at some of the crap that's come out of DC the past few years. How much of that really made sense? My Opinion ....... that whole bunch of two-faced, self-important, liars up there in DC are going to do whatever makes them "feel" good or somehow directly impacts their pocket. In the past few years I've lost all confidence in our govt. to do what makes sense. These guys can't stand it unless they're micro-managing even the smallest issue that they have no business in, and finding ways of taxing everything else. I'm hoping for the best, but am preparing for the worst ........I'm stocking up.

"Just my opinion.........I could be wrong."

I do not ever expect our government to act rationally, at least not anyone with an ® or a (D) next to their name. I do, however, expect our court system to work the way it has to keep over zealous politicians on both sides from imposing their ideological will on the populous in an egregious way. I would consider regulating something as a tobacco product that contains no tobacco as egregious as it gets.

[cigbuyer]

Hoping for the best... planning for the worst... expecting something in-between. I don't think anyone has a problem with age restrictions, or even some limitations on e-cig advertising. Those are the obvious first steps that most politicians will agree on. The EU recently rejected tight restrictions on e-cigs, and hopefully we'll follow suit in the US. As others have mentioned, I think it's going to be tough to ban flavors, and they're probably not ready to impose new taxes (yet). Guess we'll find out soon enough...

[Compenstine]

Does anyone have credible info on this? Or, is it just a rumor that has started to scare off new start-ups...? I have been doing some searches on this and have found nothing to back up the rumor.

[Jeffb]

This from SFATA:

"It has come to SFATA’s attention that FDA has completed the drafting of its deeming regulation, and has submitted its proposal to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the White House. We believe that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the office within OMB responsible for reviewing proposed rules, is currently reviewing the deeming regulation now that the government shutdown has ended.

By law, there is no minimum period for OIRA review, but the maximum period is 90 days. If OMB approves the final draft, the proposed rule will be published in the Federal Register, and the public will be given an opportunity (likely 60 days) to submit comments, which FDA is then required to review and analyze in its final rule."

Here's some reading material:

http://casaa.org/deeming_regulations.html

Edited October 25, 2013 by jeffb

[Havamal]

If I understand all of this correctly e-cigs were classed as "tobacco products" because of the nicotine that they are designed to deliver...

So if you are vaping a 0mg nic juice then it should not fall under their classification of "tobacco product"??

With the all I have read on this is sounds more and more like it is nothing more than the government looking for a new revenue stream.

I agree that ingredients should be listed, safe practices, and not sold to minors (all ready a law in WA state), but other than that it is just another way for the Gov. to stick their slimy fingers into our wallets again.

[Compenstine]

This is what I already have understood...

As I read this " The FSPTCA defines the term “tobacco product,” in part, as any product “made or derived from tobacco” that is not a “drug,” “device,” or combination product." ATM they only really have power over Tobacco Flavor and Nicotine derived from Tobacco" So a vendor selling 0 nic and non tobacco flavors may have a loophole...?

[spydre]

I am not as worried as I once was. I think this will devolve from such tight restrictions to basically a tax. Yes it may cost a little more, but I cannot see a way for them to regulate flavors. How is that enforced? Wouldnt companies just rename their products with tobacco in the name if "only tobacco flavors" are allowed anyway? "Unicorn Tobacco", Dragon Tear Tobacco, Strawberry Fields Tobacco: etc...? Since the product contains 0 tobacco, the taste is the only determining factor and everyone knows the taste of any "tobacco" liquid is subjective. It may taste like tobacco to one and like caramel to another. Or Maple Syrup like a few I have tried.

In the end this is going to be two things imo

1. A tax on the products

2. Banning the sale to minors (which possibly might make online vendors have a solid age verification system)

I believe that is truly all that happens. I cannot see any regulations that attempt to call a product a "tobacco product" when it contains 0 tobacco standing the test of court challenges. I also cannot see a ban of flavors surviving the same, since the law banning flavored cigarettes applies to tobacco products only. How could it apply to something that contains no tobacco? It would be like trying to make a 16oz bottle of Coca Cola a 21 and older product because sometimes people mix a little Makers Mark or Jack Daniels with it. Maybe not a strong analogy but along the same lines.

What I'm guessing is you are right. I mean, it's been classified as a tobacco product for ALMOST five years, and they haven't moved to do anything until now - which tells me they weren't going to do anything once that they found it was non-cancerous except for it's making a buttload more money now, and the government wants to get their hand in that money pie. Yeah, they COULD go with banning online sales, but online sales of analogs and cigars are still permitted domestically, so they would have to change THAT policy. Now, if you remember, a few years ago, they banned all flavors in cigarettes except menthol (I know at LEAST Marlboro added a touch of cocoa powder to the lights before that), so it's possible they could try an outright ban on flavors, but, as you said, it doesn't contain a tobacco leaf, so what SHOULD it taste like? And there has been, I'm pretty sure, a lot of lobbying the past six weeks about how we don't lose our taste buds at 18, and that the flavors are what have KEPT us off the analogs.

I also see them requiring warning labels, since nicotine DOES have side effects - just not cancer.

I just wish they would do what they're gonna do, get it over with, so we can "adapt" if need be, and move on....I can't see the govt having the ability to regulate anything anymore.. Look at what has happened at the USDA, can't keep our food from killing us. My only concern is I see a few Internet based stores now opening B&Ms ...do they know something we don't ? And my new go to juicer is out of state! Wouldn't be the first time I had to use the"black market" so I'm not worried as much as tired of the issue taking so long to resolve...

I know Better Vapes, the B&M we mainly shop at, opened up the storefront simply to supplement their business. They figured they would get more juice sales if people could come in and sample it. I mean, their prices on the online store and the storefront are identical, and on most but the SIMPLEST hardware, there is still a mark up. For what I paid for a KPT mini 2, I literally could have ordered it from DV and paid for shipping as well, but the mark up on the full sized Davides, I don't think, is quite as bad, but it might be, I don't remember. Like I said on the "Bump if you...." thread, found out their 5 packs of coils were so cheap because they weren't genuine Kanger coils, I didn't realize that before, but I should have since they were only charging $5.50 for them (cheaper than DV).

I have a hard time with the whole "tobacco product" thing holding up... the obvious argument would be if they do this should they not be taxing anything with alcohol flavors with an alcohol tax, for example rum flavored extract for baking?

There are numerous products out there that have alcohol based flavorings with out the alcohol, if the tax vapors as a tobacco product, shouldn't they have to tax the others as well?

or worse yet, what if you vape a rum raisin... that one would be double tax opportunity, both alcohol & tobacco taxes!!!

There was a lawsuit over this that the FDA filed....they tried to get a classified as a drug delivery system (I guess like the patch? Not sure, but so they could regulate them, and have studies done on them), and the judge denied the drug delivery request, but classified it as a tobacco product, because nicotine IS derived from tobacco - they can't get the nicotine without the plants.

Does anyone have credible info on this? Or, is it just a rumor that has started to scare off new start-ups...? I have been doing some searches on this and have found nothing to back up the rumor.

It's credible info, as jeffb said. The FDA previously announced that they would make an announcement over an possibilities at the end of October - but I don't know if the shutdown affected that time line, or if they just made the decision quicker. Evidently they routinely hold some types of meetings with SOME E-cig manufacturers, but I believe they are all Big Tobacco cigalike companies, not the eGo and other type devices most of us use with the other tanks. And THOSE, I believe, are simply tobacco or menthol flavored.

[Bebop]

Which is funny because a cigarette could easily be described as a "drug delivery device" and now you see the problem they are up against. Virtually anything that is decided can easily be applied to the cigarette industry. Infact, if they dont ban flavors the cigarette industry can now come forward and lobby to create flavors.

And unfortunately, we havnt had a government with politicians that have balls for a long time. Its the special interest groups that will have the most say in what occurs, not the politicians themselves or the governmental agencies. I will go as far as to say it is the FDA that is responsible for a lot of the woes we face today with food and drug products in this country. Everything in a 7-11 is approved by the FDA but is it actual food? Look at the list of "FDA approved" drugs that have become the subject of lawsuits and recalls. It's freakin rediculous

*end rant because it's the weekend*

[spydre]

Which is funny because a cigarette could easily be described as a "drug delivery device" and now you see the problem they are up against. Virtually anything that is decided can easily be applied to the cigarette industry. Infact, if they dont ban flavors the cigarette industry can now come forward and lobby to create flavors.

And unfortunately, we havnt had a government with politicians that have balls for a long time. Its the special interest groups that will have the most say in what occurs, not the politicians themselves or the governmental agencies. I will go as far as to say it is the FDA that is responsible for a lot of the woes we face today with food and drug products in this country. Everything in a 7-11 is approved by the FDA but is it actual food? Look at the list of "FDA approved" drugs that have become the subject of lawsuits and recalls. It's freakin rediculous

*end rant because it's the weekend*

The thing is, I don't think it's politicians driving this train. I think the FDA is acting on it's own, like it did the last few times analogs were targeted. I mean, the Attorneys General didn't send that letter until the FDA was already looking at it. By that time, some states and municipalities had already begun to take action, some of it misguided.

But I do agree that there needs to be a federal minimum age, just like smoking. My state already passes the law that you had to be 18 to even possess the paraphenalia, so to speak; biut even begore, area B&Ms didn't even let minors into the stores.

[Uma]

Actually, from what I understand, it's not a tobacco product either... yet. The "deeming" still has to be approved by congress. The FDA submitted the deeming regulations to congress on October 1st, (listed under of International Financial Importance). I'm sure congress is rushing it through as fast as they can...

What I worry about is online sales and morbid taxing. One of the states, Minnesota?, already charges 95% tax on all eCig purchases. Many other states have tested the water... Oregon comes to mind. Italy is charging 58% (now or soon will be). As you can see, it's all about the money.

The same ANTZ are pushing for sin taxes on sugar, fat, obesity, etc. Oreos are more addicting than cocain, yaddayadda. Demonizing is increasing. (It's ok to bully & laugh at fat people).

Check out changelabsolutions and their "better world" plans. Sounds like Hitler. They advise towns how to ban eCigs, demonize sugar, demonize fast food, etc.. And if you dig deep enough, you'll see who owns that company, what else they own and sale, (diet pills, smoking cessation pills), the ANTZ they give funding to, ... And they're not the only company pulling stunts.

And it goes deeper than this, and way back to the 50's, with WHO, and more. There's even a brainwashing summary of letters posted by an informer...

Oops, off topic a bit. I get to ranting and can't stop. I am FIGHTING mad.

Anyway, today, Bill Godshall posted something of interest. (As usual). The NRT main guy, West, is now saying that eCigs just might be the answer to stopping smoking after all. I hope he's not too late with his huge epiphany.

[spydre]

Well, it is and it isn't. They have to use tobacco to extract the nicotine - nicotine IS a tobacco product. But, as it doesn't contain the tobacco leaf, it isn't. Still, it's better that it's looked on as a tobacco product than a drug delivery device - companies aren't going to want to go through that hassle - the mod manufacturers.

Pretty sure that is why theydon't claim it to be a smoking cessation alternative - just harm reduction. It is word of mouth tha gets that done, and shop owners.

[subnuclear]

They only extract nicotine from tobacco plants because it's higher concentrations. Nicotine is found in many other plants too.

http://abouttesting.testcountry.com/2010/06/6-common-food-with-nicotine-content.html

So basically saying nicotine is a tobacco product is not entirely correct. It's just our cheapest and most abundant source.

[Uma]

Here's some optimistic news. Mr. Godshall warns to not let our guard down though, & stay busy writing our Congressmen & Senators.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/486046-herzog-optimistic-after-attending-food-drug-law-institute-tobacco-regulation-conference.html

Oh, and here's good news about nicotine addiction,

http://www.ecigarette-politics.com/nicotine-clinical-trials-why-aren-t-there-any.html

[spydre]

Here's some optimistic news. Mr. Godshall warns to not let our guard down though, & stay busy writing our Congressmen & Senators.

http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/legislation-news/486046-herzog-optimistic-after-attending-food-drug-law-institute-tobacco-regulation-conference.html

Oh, and here's good news about nicotine addiction,

http://www.ecigarette-politics.com/nicotine-clinical-trials-why-aren-t-there-any.html

You know, I was talking with a friend from Norway, and he was telling me that cigarettes aren't nearly as physically addicting as we make them out to be. So talking to him tonight, there's literally four ingredients in cigarettes - tobacco, tar, nicotine, and C02 in Norway, and only 2000 people a year die from lung cancer. I always wondered how my bff, his fiance, could get by only smoking like 4 a day.

[spydre]

Just makes me think if the US government would have gotten balls enough YEARS ago, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now, where not only are smokers dying of lung cancer, but those who've never smoked, and had, essentially, second hand exposure over the years.

Granted, not all countries have such strict standards as Norway. But I've had family, well a family member before I was in that family, die of lung cancer, shortly after I was married into that family his widow died from the effects of smoking for however long, my grandmother had COPD, my father has the beginnings of it (yet still smokes), not to mention the c/v problems my mother is suffering through (she quit smoking with the patch 13 years ago, but she had a family history of c/v risk factors - her father had non-fatal stroke when she was 12 that left him hemiplegic, and he had heart trouble for as long as I remember him before he died when I was 8). My uncle has already had a stroke, and if it wasn't for the fact that Barnes has the number 1 neurosurgery center in the country, I'm not sure he would have recovered as much as he has.

But these aren't just smoking risk factors. Family cardiovascular risk factors, family cholesterol issues, heck, my mom stopped smoking in 2000, and even since then, has had three more blood clots in her legs.

[Uma]

I know, right. So many deaths & diseases could have been avoided. But instead, countries BAN the stuff that saves lives. What in the world is wrong with our today's world? Too many flu shots to go along with all the propaganda methinks.

[aufin]

I know, right. So many deaths & diseases could have been avoided. But instead, countries BAN the stuff that saves lives. What in the world is wrong with our today's world? It's all about the money. Always has been, always will be. Too many flu shots to go along with all the propaganda methinks.