Fda crackdown looms

[LaceyUnderall]

OH! And before I forget... there is a study going on currently in Cali regarding a nicotine lotion that diabetics can apply to rashes that could possibly lead to gangrene and then amputation. The idea is that nicotine would help boost cell growth.

And wouldn't you know I can't find the link in my bookmarks! Crap. I will find it and edit.

[mmmvaping]

Interesting, If nicotine causes cancer to excell then tabacco which contains nicotine is in the same catigory as the e-cigarette. Those who chew get more nicotine at least twice as much. Because there is no cumbustion to lower the nicotine level. ONE cigarette before smoked contains at least 10mg of nicotine after cumbustion it may contain as much as 2mg deoending on how you smoke it. The FDA has no real ground evidence or a solid foundation to ban cigarettes. But they can still win. a few years ago the FDA were given the right over nicotine rights. But not over cigarettes. that makes absalutly no since....Cigarettes contain nicotine. So why dont they have the right over cigarettes? And why aren't they ban when they are known to kill. But the FDA argue that e-cigarettes may not be safe. But they have not one shed of proof. Makes no since. Is this what I pay taxes for.

[yvilla]

And don't forget that that new hypothesis that nicotine may encourage growth of existing cancers applies equally to the many already FDA approved NRT products on the market.

One of the reports even has the researcher pointing out that he didn't advise people to stop using NRT products (on the basis of his new "findings"), on the grounds that they are clearly still better for people than smoking cigarettes!

[TropicalBob]

Good points. Yvilla, if the FDA doesn't act, it won't be because of cold feet but cold facts. You've been an attorney. If you were advising the FDA, wouldn't you say:

"Ladies and gentlemen, you should not make statements about electronic cigarettes in the court of public opinion when you are now facing action in a court of law. Do not provide the cameras and scribblers of the press with arguments you will present later to a judge. Do not prejudice your case. Do not tip your hand. Do not attempt to influence opinion before the case against you is heard. There is no compelling reason to speak now, or to take action now. Say nothing more to anyone until you have the opportunity to make your case in court."

My hope here is that SE wins on the request for a temporary injunction, since the FDA action really does put them essentially out of business before their product has been ruled illegal. Then the court can move forward to define what e-smoking is and how, of even if, it should be regulated, and by what agency.

[mr_vapor]

What I would really ultimately like to see is a compromise. There are some obvious reasons the FDA needs to get involved with e-cigs. However if there intentions are to ban it out right that would be devestating on so many levels. Basically people need to stop claims, in my mind it is not a product to help you quit nicotine (either is the gum or patch if you ask me though). Its an "alternative". Maybe we should leave the suppliers advertisement at that (tobacco smoking alternative) and let the doctors do the talking about about how much of a healthier alternative it is and not the suppliers (and yes, it is in my mind a SO MUCH healthier than puffing smoke but there are issues with saying that in the USA without FDA consent). A few things could be improved for overall safety such as a strength limit to juice. Right now if someone wants to they could make 64mg juice, that could do some damage both to our cause and to the person inhailing it. Also the bottles should have some warning (do not swallow, nicotine is addictive, etc). Probably they should all arrive in child proof jars with the option of purchasing dropper jars to transfer the liquid to. A few basic guidlines, could actually be better in the long run. If the FDA would just set some general guidlines to e-cigs and not step in and totally ban them than it could actually be better for us in the long run. I would love to go down to my local corner store and buy some e-juice and a new atomizer at a moments notice. However in all reality this probably will not happen (but lets keep our fingers crossed). To me though, it would be the most logical solution.

[moose88]

hey guys im from the UK, so im not too educate don the whole FDA issue, but from what i gather, the FDA were supposed to give their results TODAY?!?! so is the product now banned or not?

no doubt that whatever the results are that Britain will follow suit, and ban the products. the only problem that the british authorities have is that the nictine liquid itself is toxic if ingested. but other then that i think the authorities have no problem with it.

im kind of nervous because i am in the process of launching my own ecig company in the UK, so if anybody has got any info on the FDA issue then please post ps great product and great forum. thanks

[SavePaperVapor]

This is ridiculous. I've been eying e-cigs at my local smoke shop for weeks now. I really want to purchase one but whats the point if they will be banned any day now. So instead I'm dumping cancer into my body. And yes, they are still on the shelves today. I read in another thread that petro was pulling theirs today but every place in my town still has theirs available.

[mr_vapor]

Hey SavePaperVapor,

Don't let that stop you from buying an e-cig. I just got mind yesterday and feel the same as you (just finding out about this, now there might be ban, etc). All I can say is if you buy an e-cig and maybe two bottles of 30ml liquid it will pay for itself in a month because you wont be smoking as much (or any) analogs. Worse case scenario you just get to at least expirence the e-cig for awhile, a better scenarrio is that you will still be able to buy liquid/parts for months or years. $6 a pack a day is $180 a month. A kit for $50 a couple of spare parts and e-liquid will introduce you to e-smoking for well over a month for much less a cost. Even if its only a month it does not hurt. If you buy cigs you are already throwing tons of money away!

As a side note, this whole discussion always makes me think of that movie "Who Killed The Electric Car".

[Boston George]

Christmas has came and gone. Once again showing that the FDA will play this game their way.

The rumor mills on this forum are working in over drive. I am all for free expression but if I hear one more thing about company X pulling product


Vape on. Lets hope this stay of execution lasts.

[Sun Vaporer]

Originally Posted by Boston George

Christmas has came and gone. Once again showing that the FDA will play this game their way.

The rumor mills on this forum are working in over drive. I am all for free expression but if I hear one more thing about company X pulling product


Vape on. Lets hope this stay of execution lasts.

Boston George--I am with you on this as I am a little skeptical about that e-mail but it did say the 6th if I am not mistaken so lets wait another day and see what the deal is. Either way I imagine the FDA will make its move---maybe the SE lawsuit took out their timetable till after they see if they defeat the requested TRO--so we will see--Sun