There may be an easy answer to the FDA ban - Page 9 - e-cigarette-forum.com • The place for electronic cigarette reviews, news and chat

CandyGirl · 03-26-2009, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dEFinitionofEPIC

Like I said--- Google "Marijuana Vaporizer". YES, you can legally buy a marijuana-specific vaporizer in the United States. At a head shop, or on the internet. Medical marijuana users use these all the time for a safer smoke. As we know however, medical marijuana is not legal in every state. Anyone can buy a marijuana vaporizer legally with a medical marijuana prescription or not. I do not see why Marijuana vaporizers would be legal to buy and sell but not NICOTINE vaporizers. If liquid nicotine were made illegal than the two would definitely be in the same ballpark. Because it's ok for marijuana (a scheduled illegal drug) I do not see why the same treatment would not apply to nicotine.

thank you dEFinitionofEPIC,

i did quite a bit of research on that possibility. very interesting, and at times confusing.

if i may be blunt, (no pun intended)
i'd like to see our devices legitimized on their own.

if that's not an option, i have no problem going that route.
i would just prefer to not have that association.
i'm using it to quit cigarettes and i'd like it to be seen that way.
i'm not judging, just trying to keep from being judged. lol

thanks again for the reply

dEFinitionofEPIC · 03-26-2009, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b00stzx3

Welcome to the always rational, senses-making United States

What I don't get is, how are things already illegal still allowed for importation? Theres 4 headshops in my old ghetto neighborhood in Baltimore. I doubt there making the bongs and bowls here!

Because of the point I was making ---The drugs are illegal....Not the devices.

(Though in a lot of the places if you say "bong" they'll make you leave -- your intention must appear to be for a "tobacco" smoking device of some kind ---What a wierd loophole)

TropicalBob · 03-26-2009, 07:45 PM

Here's the problem: A ruling will likely be all inclusive. The FDA likely -- likely -- won't issue piecemeal rulings on parts of the device, the carts, the liquids, the whole nine yards. The FDA has said these are drug-devices. The drug is NOT nicotine, but that poisonous and addictive substance -- a drug -- is in a concoction of many ingredients, all vaporized and inhaled without any scientific proof of the consequences. We call it e-liquid. This drug cocktail has not been approved for sale in this country.

Should sales be allowed to continue when this country carefully spells out how drugs can be brought to market and sold?

Let's say the FDA allows the present situation to continue. It will have, in essence, approved the manufacture and sale of unknown, untested, unproven drugs from China for U.S. consumers.

It will have approved containers that aren't childproof, but a half-thimble of e-liquid will kill a child. It will have approved containers that aren't tamperproof, so they could be easily contaminated at any point prior to sale. It will have approved liquids without proper labeling of content, danger, side effects, place of manufacture. It will have approved a device that is easily broken apart to remove a cartridge so small a three-year-old could swallow it.

It will have approved a new, cheap, unapproved, unregulated addiction system for nicotine, where approved systems delivering nicotine have already sought and been given FDA approval.

It will tacitly allow recreational use of nicotine, a drug it calls both poisonous and highly addictive.

That's if it sides with us, as we are petitioning it to. I do not see that happening. That's irresponsible on its face.

Here's the best I hope for: The FDA allows that e-cigs have done no demonstrable harm in the past year, with hundreds of thousands of users now e-smoking daily. It will realize that these e-smokers are doing what they think is best for them, and their health. It acknowledges a low success rate with existing NRT products. It knows tobacco cigarettes are hazardous. It can only make assumptions about e-cigs.

So it gets mad, to be sure, at what is now the reality. It issues demands much as Congress makes to automakers with fleet fuel efficiency standards. The demands are spelled out, with a timetable for each.

Eg. You have 30 days to childproof and tamperproof your liquid containers or they cannot be sold in the U.S. You have 30 days to prove a person under 18 cannot purchase from your site or sales location. You have 60 days to label e-liquid with all relevant information, with prominent poison warning labels for first responders.

Each step gets a timetable to be met. The final step would be for each manufacturer to submit evidence -- as should have been done last year -- that a particular device and liquid is safe and efficient when used as directed. That would be a year from now. Give this one more year.

E-smoking needs only time to become the smoking method of the future. If killed now, it will likely experience years of delay -- and needless illnesses and deaths of smokers -- until a successful marketing attempt is made. It will return. That might be too late for many.

From all this, take that the present situation is essentially indefensible, in my opinion. It is untenable. It should not have been allowed to remain as long as it has. But be open to change that brings assurances of safety. It's not your "rights" that are being stolen; it's your welfare that is being guarded by drug regulators.

It's not a game without rules. Yours don't trump the ones we've had for many years, the ones designed to protect us all from unscrupulous snake oil salesman. No matter how you phrase it, you do not have a Right to Snake Oil.

dEFinitionofEPIC · 03-26-2009, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CandyGirl

thank you dEFinitionofEPIC,

i did quite a bit of research on that possibility. very interesting, and at times confusing.

if i may be blunt, (no pun intended)
i'd like to see our devices legitimized on their own.

if that's not an option, i have no problem going that route.
i would just prefer to not have that association.
i'm using it to quit cigarettes and i'd like it to be seen that way.
i'm not judging, just trying to keep from being judged. lol

thanks again for the reply

Oh, I hear you... I don't want to be creeping into headshops by the dark of night to "get my vape on" either

--- I would love if the whole thing got sorted out and e-cigs were looked on legitimately. However I'm also practical enough to know that the government does what it wants and the end result may not be what we are looking for. Great pun by the way

Brando · 03-26-2009, 07:52 PM

I've been as concerned as the rest of the forum on the possibility of an inconcionable decision by the FDA/Congress to over regulate and/or ban e-cigs. But lets take a deep breath and look at it logically. There is NO way the feds are going to do to much with e-cigs other than allow the bad publicity and fear mongering to commence (kids, poison, testing...), which is standard procedure in politics. So what happens if they impose even a total ban? We can't keep illegal immigrants, drugs, guns or a myriad of other items out of our country. The devices are small and simple enough that many of us could easily make them without nicotine, and the juice can be DIY as well.

How will they possibly prevent us from continuing to vape as we so please? It takes a lot of resources to enforce a law, which is why so many of them are not. If it goes to the courts I can see many judges dismissing the cases and it only takes one to set a precedent.

What I believe will actually happen is manufactures will get creative in the way they label incoming packages, supply chains will have to be rerouted and there will be more domestic production if necessary, and eventually things will go on normally. The FDA has by itself has very little actual power to regulate trade, especially online due to resource constraints, state laws and jurisdiction from other agencies. The feds also run the risk that if vaping goes 'grey' market then they will lose any potential of even sales tax revenue.

Vaping has proved to be far too effective to simply ignore and go away. More and more people are going to switch! Many of us prefer our new addiction to our old one, and fellow Vapers it our RIGHT to do so!

Therefore don't get too caught up in the news reports and believe that our government even has the ability to control us in spite of their best efforts. It's the PEOPLE who have the power as only they can agree to obey most laws that contribute to a civil society. In order for a "Ban" to be effective all vapers would have to agree to put down their vaporizors... and never be willing to purchase another one, which I can tell from many of your posts that's NOT going to happen.

dEFinitionofEPIC · 03-26-2009, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TropicalBob

Here's the problem: A ruling will likely be all inclusive. The FDA likely -- likely -- won't issue piecemeal rulings on parts of the device, the carts, the liquids, the whole nine yards. The FDA has said these are drug-devices.

I completely agree with you on the juice. My point of contention is with the devices. The FDA may have called e-cigs a drug-device but it doesn't mean they can do anything about it. How is a marijuana vaporizer any different than a nicotine vaporizer? The FDA has no jurisdiction over a device -- it is not a food or a drug.

dEFinitionofEPIC · 03-26-2009, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brando

I've been as concerned as the rest of the forum on the possibility of an inconcionable decision by the FDA/Congress to over regulate and/or ban e-cigs. But lets take a deep breath and look at it logically. There is NO way the feds are going to do to much with e-cigs other than allow the bad publicity and fear mongering to commence (kids, poison, testing...), which is standard procedure in politics. So what happens if they impose even a total ban? We can't keep illegal immigrants, drugs, guns or a myriad of other items out of our country. The devices are small and simple enough that many of us could easily make them without nicotine, and the juice can be DIY as well.

How will they possibly prevent us from continuing to vape as we so please? It takes a lot of resources to enforce a law, which is why so many of them are not. If it goes to the courts I can see many judges dismissing the cases and it only takes one to set a precedent.

What I believe will actually happen is manufactures will get creative in the way they label incoming packages, supply chains will have to be rerouted and there will be more domestic production if necessary, and eventually things will go on normally. The FDA has by itself has very little actual power to regulate trade, especially online due to resource constraints, state laws and jurisdiction from other agencies. The feds also run the risk that if vaping goes 'grey' market then they will lose any potential of even sales tax revenue.

Vaping has proved to be far too effective to simply ignore and go away. More and more people are going to switch! Many of us prefer our new addiction to our old one, and fellow Vapers it our RIGHT to do so!

Therefore don't get too caught up in the news reports and believe that our government even has the ability to control us in spite of their best efforts. It's the PEOPLE who have the power as only they can agree to obey most laws that contribute to a civil society. In order for a "Ban" to be effective all vapers would have to agree to put down their vaporizors... and never be willing to purchase another one, which I can tell from many of your posts that's NOT going to happen.

No doubt man. That's how the prohibition of alcohol was snuffed out. Like your sig, a little bit of civil disobedience never hurt anybody

...the problem is how are all of us who don't want nicotine labs in our kitchens going to get our juice?

Nuck · 03-26-2009, 08:02 PM

TBob..you and Sun have posted that same argument many, many times. The 'drug-device' is the hardware and the drugs combined as has been pointed out numerous times. Can you name a time that a device was banned because it may or may not be used for something illegal?

The obvious and frequently used analogy is all the various drug delivery devices used for weed and other illegal substances. IF they could ban them, they would.

Now, take it further, the device is a battery and a heating element with some wick. Even if the government gave itself brand new authority to ban hardware, how would the government describe the article that would be banned that wouldn't impact a multitude of other devices?

The idea that hardware will be banned just isn't realistic.

Brando · 03-26-2009, 08:05 PM

I was just thinking about Tropical Bob's astute dissertation a few posts above and the statement:
"If killed now, it will likely experience years of delay"

Actually in thinking about other bans they have tried for really good products like this, is that a ban would actually increase awareness of what they are and how they work to many more people. More smokers would be interested and there would be an allure of "They don't want me to have it, so now I want it" We see it in kids all the time... they don't want it till they can't have it!

We Americans are notorious for skirting and ignoring bans and they have even been shown to increase usage. Ie. underage drinking vs legal in much of Europe. We are not really a people who sit idly by and just let the government rule us as they see fit. Even though it might be hard to recognize anymore it still exists in our American Spirit!

TropicalBob · 03-26-2009, 08:09 PM

Those are not my phrases, Nuck. That's how the FDA defines e-cigs. It also has absolute control to approve or disapprove "medical devices". If it declares the e-cig to be a medical device, the game goes into extra innings, doesn't it? We won't argue nicotine in a chemical solution is a drug, but we better have a good argument on the device that Ruyan patented to deliver that drug. It seems very much a defendant here.

Bongs are not a good argument, BTW.

The FDA will not be amused.

03-26-2009, 07:52 PM	#85
Brando Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 8	Cat out of the bag.... I've been as concerned as the rest of the forum on the possibility of an inconcionable decision by the FDA/Congress to over regulate and/or ban e-cigs. But lets take a deep breath and look at it logically. There is NO way the feds are going to do to much with e-cigs other than allow the bad publicity and fear mongering to commence (kids, poison, testing...), which is standard procedure in politics. So what happens if they impose even a total ban? We can't keep illegal immigrants, drugs, guns or a myriad of other items out of our country. The devices are small and simple enough that many of us could easily make them without nicotine, and the juice can be DIY as well. How will they possibly prevent us from continuing to vape as we so please? It takes a lot of resources to enforce a law, which is why so many of them are not. If it goes to the courts I can see many judges dismissing the cases and it only takes one to set a precedent. What I believe will actually happen is manufactures will get creative in the way they label incoming packages, supply chains will have to be rerouted and there will be more domestic production if necessary, and eventually things will go on normally. The FDA has by itself has very little actual power to regulate trade, especially online due to resource constraints, state laws and jurisdiction from other agencies. The feds also run the risk that if vaping goes 'grey' market then they will lose any potential of even sales tax revenue. Vaping has proved to be far too effective to simply ignore and go away. More and more people are going to switch! Many of us prefer our new addiction to our old one, and fellow Vapers it our RIGHT to do so! Therefore don't get too caught up in the news reports and believe that our government even has the ability to control us in spite of their best efforts. It's the PEOPLE who have the power as only they can agree to obey most laws that contribute to a civil society. In order for a "Ban" to be effective all vapers would have to agree to put down their vaporizors... and never be willing to purchase another one, which I can tell from many of your posts that's NOT going to happen.

03-26-2009, 08:05 PM	#89
Brando Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 8	Would a Ban be all BAD? I was just thinking about Tropical Bob's astute dissertation a few posts above and the statement: "If killed now, it will likely experience years of delay" Actually in thinking about other bans they have tried for really good products like this, is that a ban would actually increase awareness of what they are and how they work to many more people. More smokers would be interested and there would be an allure of "They don't want me to have it, so now I want it" We see it in kids all the time... they don't want it till they can't have it! We Americans are notorious for skirting and ignoring bans and they have even been shown to increase usage. Ie. underage drinking vs legal in much of Europe. We are not really a people who sit idly by and just let the government rule us as they see fit. Even though it might be hard to recognize anymore it still exists in our American Spirit!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-26-2009, 07:45 PM	#83
TropicalBob ECF Veteran Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Port Charlotte, FL USA Posts: 5,076	Here's the problem: A ruling will likely be all inclusive. The FDA likely -- likely -- won't issue piecemeal rulings on parts of the device, the carts, the liquids, the whole nine yards. The FDA has said these are drug-devices. The drug is NOT nicotine, but that poisonous and addictive substance -- a drug -- is in a concoction of many ingredients, all vaporized and inhaled without any scientific proof of the consequences. We call it e-liquid. This drug cocktail has not been approved for sale in this country. Should sales be allowed to continue when this country carefully spells out how drugs can be brought to market and sold? Let's say the FDA allows the present situation to continue. It will have, in essence, approved the manufacture and sale of unknown, untested, unproven drugs from China for U.S. consumers. It will have approved containers that aren't childproof, but a half-thimble of e-liquid will kill a child. It will have approved containers that aren't tamperproof, so they could be easily contaminated at any point prior to sale. It will have approved liquids without proper labeling of content, danger, side effects, place of manufacture. It will have approved a device that is easily broken apart to remove a cartridge so small a three-year-old could swallow it. It will have approved a new, cheap, unapproved, unregulated addiction system for nicotine, where approved systems delivering nicotine have already sought and been given FDA approval. It will tacitly allow recreational use of nicotine, a drug it calls both poisonous and highly addictive. That's if it sides with us, as we are petitioning it to. I do not see that happening. That's irresponsible on its face. Here's the best I hope for: The FDA allows that e-cigs have done no demonstrable harm in the past year, with hundreds of thousands of users now e-smoking daily. It will realize that these e-smokers are doing what they think is best for them, and their health. It acknowledges a low success rate with existing NRT products. It knows tobacco cigarettes are hazardous. It can only make assumptions about e-cigs. So it gets mad, to be sure, at what is now the reality. It issues demands much as Congress makes to automakers with fleet fuel efficiency standards. The demands are spelled out, with a timetable for each. Eg. You have 30 days to childproof and tamperproof your liquid containers or they cannot be sold in the U.S. You have 30 days to prove a person under 18 cannot purchase from your site or sales location. You have 60 days to label e-liquid with all relevant information, with prominent poison warning labels for first responders. Each step gets a timetable to be met. The final step would be for each manufacturer to submit evidence -- as should have been done last year -- that a particular device and liquid is safe and efficient when used as directed. That would be a year from now. Give this one more year. E-smoking needs only time to become the smoking method of the future. If killed now, it will likely experience years of delay -- and needless illnesses and deaths of smokers -- until a successful marketing attempt is made. It will return. That might be too late for many. From all this, take that the present situation is essentially indefensible, in my opinion. It is untenable. It should not have been allowed to remain as long as it has. But be open to change that brings assurances of safety. It's not your "rights" that are being stolen; it's your welfare that is being guarded by drug regulators. It's not a game without rules. Yours don't trump the ones we've had for many years, the ones designed to protect us all from unscrupulous snake oil salesman. No matter how you phrase it, you do not have a Right to Snake Oil.

03-26-2009, 08:02 PM	#88
Nuck ECF Veteran Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,073 Tweet this post!	TBob..you and Sun have posted that same argument many, many times. The 'drug-device' is the hardware and the drugs combined as has been pointed out numerous times. Can you name a time that a device was banned because it may or may not be used for something illegal? The obvious and frequently used analogy is all the various drug delivery devices used for weed and other illegal substances. IF they could ban them, they would. Now, take it further, the device is a battery and a heating element with some wick. Even if the government gave itself brand new authority to ban hardware, how would the government describe the article that would be banned that wouldn't impact a multitude of other devices? The idea that hardware will be banned just isn't realistic.

03-26-2009, 08:09 PM	#90
TropicalBob ECF Veteran Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Port Charlotte, FL USA Posts: 5,076	Those are not my phrases, Nuck. That's how the FDA defines e-cigs. It also has absolute control to approve or disapprove "medical devices". If it declares the e-cig to be a medical device, the game goes into extra innings, doesn't it? We won't argue nicotine in a chemical solution is a drug, but we better have a good argument on the device that Ruyan patented to deliver that drug. It seems very much a defendant here. Bongs are not a good argument, BTW. The FDA will not be amused.