The Senator became renowned as an advocate of the vaping industry back in May, as 5 days after the FDA announced the implementation of their infamous deeming rule, he sent a letter to the Agency demanding an explanation as to why such harsh rules were being put in place, and when they did not reply, he kept demanding an answer.

5 days after the FDA announced the implementation of the deeming rule, Senator Johnson sent a letter to the Agency demanding an explanation,
Hence it comes as no surprise that when he was re-elected earlier this month, hope spread amongst pro-vaping advocates knowing that someone in the Senate is pushing their case forward. And looks like he will not disappoint. Last week Senator Johnson wrote to the Department of Labor Secretary Tom  Perez, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy and Food and Drug Administration, (FDA), Commissioner Robert Califf.

“The incoming administration and the 115th Congress will likely re-examine and unwind burdensome regulations imposed by the Obama Administration. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) deeming regulations of e-cigarettes is a primary example of a rule that could eliminate an entire nascent industry. Accordingly, given the substantial likelihood that this burdensome rule will be undone, I urge the FDA to cease implementation of its deeming regulation to spare the growing e-cigarette industry unnecessary and avoidable compliance costs that it currently faces”, said Johnson in his letter to Califf.

Vapers feel reassured

Besides the above the Senator also questioned other harsh regulations which are considered counter productive. Hence the mood is slowly changing to one of hope as American citizens are starting to feel reassured by a new Congress who seems to be hearing their plights.

I urge the FDA to cease implementation of its deeming regulation to spare the growing e-cigarette industry unnecessary and avoidable compliance costs that it currently faces.Senator Ron Johnson

By planning to review the burdensome regulations that were enforced by the current administration, vaping business owners and the industry’s consumers are starting to feel that perhaps they will have more leeway than just having to rely on the Cole Bishop Amendment as a last resort.

Previous articleFree advertising of iQOS in the UK
Next articleVaping organization in NZ registered as a charity
In-house journalist covering international vaping news.
1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Michael J. McFadden
Michael J. McFadden
6 years ago

I knew that smokers themselves played a significant role as a voting bloc against Hillary Clinton (Her design/support of outrageous taxes and bans over the years ensured that!) but I hadn’t realized that Vapers might also see Trump as an important alternative. The combination of the two groups, smokers and vapers, *VERY* likely constituted at least 5% of the active switch-over votes from Clinton to Trump: i.e. people who would otherwise, on the basis of party affiliation or other issues have voted for Clinton but switched over because of their persecution.

This election may go down in history along with the UK’s BREXIT vote as the hallmark of when smokers and their new brethren-in-arms, vapers, stood up against the Controllers and Greedy and other fanatics (See: ) who’ve tried to wipe them out with their “Endgame” plans.

Also: while this article doesn’t mention it, Obama seems to be playing the same game (or perhaps a “revenge” game?) in pushing a smoking ban through on millions of people who live in public housing without even the barest acknowledgement of the hundreds of critical comments received during the mandated Public Comment period for the ruling. What’s the point of “inviting public comment” if the comments are never even read?

Is Obama simply trying to put Trump in a no-win situation of having to either seemingly side with “Big Tobacco” or face the disturbances and riots of trying to enforce a rule that would throw hundreds of thousands of HUD residents out to the streets? Or is it revenge against the smokers who voted against Clinton? Is there any legal recourse by which we can demand that the submitted public comments be properly analysed and responded to? Or is the entire notion of democratic government and our rules simply deemed to be a farce nowadays that can be ignored when it becomes inconvenient?

– MJM, who is *NOT* happy with this whole situation at the moment…