Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt: FDA's Control of Vaping (+ Video)

So here's the final video in my current series of the OSP Prometheus (Bluetooth + MIDI + 510 + Dean's).  All of this is freely available on this blog (schematics, parts lists, software is on github, etc.):

(Prior video here).

A couple of notes:

First off this thing is not really a mod anymore, or even an Open Source Power module.  It's a fully programmable computer, a MIDI controller, and USB power block.  A whole bunch of things.

It is not intended to affect "tobacco" in any way.  I don't use it for such though the through the FDA regulations I am forced to vape cake frosting falsely advertised and labeled to contain nicotine.

As I have progressed along this path I now believe that the real idea here is the intent of the device.

First off, my device is intended to be a fun, multi-purpose toy that does a number of things.

Secondly, I envision a commercial product that is sold such that it does nothing when purchased, i.e., it has no programming at all.

The purchaser would use some standard, free tools on his or her phone to locate and download a program of his or her choosing to make the thing do whatever they wanted.

My sincere belief is that this makes this something other than any possible definition of an electronic cigarette (state, local, federal).

So as a finer point I can clearly make e-cigarette things with just about anything (from here):

Since it uses wall power does it make the entire US grid (all connected together more or less) something the FDA regulates?

I would hope not (but you never know, I suppose I could resell commercial electricity as a reseller for the purpose shown in the photo to ensure it was FDA regulated...)

Working backwards from this picture eventually we arrive at something the FDA can regulate as an e-cig.

But where, exactly, is that point?

In truth the only possible means to figure this out is intent...  Which is kind of what the FDA alludes too in the video in my recent post.  But they wield fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) to frighten people into compliance.

I cannot control what an end-user might do with something I sell.  Guns, for example, are not the problem of the manufacturer, its share holders, or even a pension holding shares in a given murder, instead its the responsibility of the murderer.

I think that holds here as well.

If the vape units sold have no software they are nothing.  They fire no coils and, more importantly, since they have multiple uses I, the maker, cannot say what the intent of the purchase or purchaser is.

Here we are victims of the Chinese and like minded manufactures.  Vapes are basically standard, cheap power circuits with lithium ion batteries.  No one really cares if you have to pay a significant, e.g., 40% tax.  But the end user would buy mods with other features if they net cost where less than simply battery circuits.

As a manufacturer I simply cannot know how a user will use a computer I sell them.

Certainly I cannot arrest every cell phone user because they might hack into the Pentagon with their phone, even if the phone is technically able to do such a thing (which all are).

There's some legal precedent for this argument.  Here in Pennsylvania "Cherry Masters" are illegal - they are basically video slot machines found in bars.  If you had one in a bar you could be arrested, pay fines, etc.  They are games of chance because they have, according to this article, "random number generators" inside.

However, some clever folks figured out that you could modify the basic game and add skill elements (see this court decision).  Since you have to be quick (skill wise with your fingers) to win given these modifications the machines are no longer simple games of chance (like a roulette while).

What does this have to do with vaping?

I think a lot...

Challenges need to be made to force a decision on what exactly the FDA thinks are e-cigarettes and what their, the FDA, rules actually can logically and rationally encompass.

I have written here that many things easily fit the definition that are not vapes: Air fresheners and oil diffusers for example.

The OSP system above is "multi-use" and it's operation is defined after purchase.  Does that meet the definition of an e-cig?

Without action the future of vaping will be wiped out by big tobacco and the FDA.

FUD is being used against vaping.

The ideas are fully irrational.  One a scientific basis air fresheners are far more dangerous than vapes. Yet there is virtually no regulation of those...

What does that tell you about who has your best interest in mind?