Cole & Bishop are back at it

[nightshard]

http://www.vapingpost.com/2017/02/1...-deeming-authority-clarification-act-of-2017/

Let's hope it will carry more weight then the previous one.

 

[HellbillyRJ]

I have searched and searched the FDA's website and still can't find an understandable definition of "tobacco product." If they want to put rules and regulations on it, that's one thing, but to classify it as a tobacco product when there is no tobacco product or even byproduct at all (given that nicotine can be synthesized in labs and does not require the plant to be produced)... The whole situation with the FDA is bullshit imo. Just the gov trying to control the masses...

"Some people call me a redneck, and some people call me a hick, some people call me an asshole, and some people call me just dick. I'm a hellbilly."

HellbillyRJ

 

[r055co]

I have searched and searched the FDA's website and still can't find an understandable definition of "tobacco product." If they want to put rules and regulations on it, that's one thing, but to classify it as a tobacco product when there is no tobacco product or even byproduct at all (given that nicotine can be synthesized in labs and dies not require the plant to be produced)... The whole situation with the FDA is bullshit imo. Just the gov trying to control the masses...

"Some people call me a redneck, and some people call me a hick, some people call me an asshole, and some people call me just dick. I'm a hellbilly."

HellbillyRJ

There you have the threshold issue, the facts are Vaping is NOT tobacco period.

All the rest of this shit like the Cole/Bishop Amendment is just that SHIT. Focus on the threshold issue which is defining what a Tobacco product is, if it's because it has nicotine they're going to have to add a shit load of other plants in there. Potato's, Tomato's, Broccoli, Eggplant, etc. etc. etc.

 

[VaporCat]

I have searched and searched the FDA's website and still can't find an understandable definition of "tobacco product."

FDA's definition of a "tobacco product" is a joke since it can include things like batteries, displays and software if those items are expected to be included in a finished product deemed to also be a "tobacco product". This type of legal word-wrangling is an endless loop/vicious cycle, and purely intentional on their part to add obscurity, so they can make things mean whatever they deem them to mean.

> to classify it as a tobacco product when there is no tobacco product or even byproduct

True to an extent but not entirely, since tobacco-based wta's, absolutes, extracts, and distillates make up a substantial portion of the vapor market. However...

- Tobacco is not the problem
- Nicotine is not the problem
- Combustion was the problem, and we have eliminated that.

Don't count on congress or the FDA to see things so clearly, as that would be much too sensible.

 

[Rossum]

I have searched and searched the FDA's website and still can't find an understandable definition of "tobacco product."

That's intentional. Their effectively circular definition allows them to regulate almost anything they choose. A reasonable court would shoot the whole mess down as unconstitutionally vague, but I'm not sure there are any reasonable courts left.