LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksTB - I have run across this in my homeopathic adventure. Going tobacco is always a route... Update: I do have an email into a couple of manufacturers asking about regulating homeopathic and the lobelia inflata. We shall see
TB - I have run across this in my homeopathic adventure. Going tobacco is always a route... Update: I do have an email into a couple of manufacturers asking about regulating homeopathic and the lobelia inflata. We shall see
e-smoker 4eva
You probably should've kept your silence.Originally Posted by TropicalBob
The odds of big pharmaceutical companies extracting nicotine from tobacco plants is just about zero. It's a lot easier and cheaper to synthesize than extract from plants. When extracting pure chemicals from plants you end up with a lot of toxic waste.
They even try to get away from using opiates opting for synthetic versions and pushing them instead of real codeine.
I'm glad you think that the FDA should be in on herbals since many of our modern drugs were synthesized out of herbal remedies like the active ingredient in Valerian is synthesized into being the active ingredient in Valium.
Thankfully you're not the one who makes the rules.
http://www.nicorette.com/Quit_Before_List.aspxNicorette is a form of Therapeutic Nicotine. Therapeutic Nicotines reduce the intensity of nicotine withdrawal cravings so you can focus on changing your behavior.
Get that? It's a FORM of nicotine.
The e-liquids are tobacco extract.
If they had a drug FORM of nicotine like Nicotine Water originally had then they would be a "new drug". But they don't, they have a version of nicotine taken from tobacco that is so unrefined that it's easily traced back to tobacco.
It is possible that the form of nicotine was altered during the making of the extract making it not the form of nicotine that is in tobacco.
If that is the case I'm all for the FDA stepping in. But at this point it seems as though they are simply seeing a means to get their hands on a tobacco product and protect the pharmaceutical companies that are in their pocket.
Sorry, but statements like the last sentence are just a complete turnoff. You know nothing about the FDA, but feel free to impugn the agency and every employee with your group slam of bribery and/or extortion.
As for the rest .. more of the same warped logic I've come to expect from you.
Let's just see how this plays out, shall we? We're both making assumptions: you, that e-liquid is a tobacco product above FDA jurisdiction; me, that e-smoking is drug delivery and is going to be required to get FDA approval.
Ladies and gentlemen, let's get ready to rummmmmble.
Allrighty guys... just be careful because I am in the middle with the little "green" flag and I think it is homeopathic.
e-smoker 4eva
Why was Zyban approved for tobacco cessation? Have you ever read up on reports about it? Ever tried it? Funny how the UK reports on Zyban were very different than the ones in the US.
Why are there so many class action suits against drugs the FDA approved and yet here they are trying to stop e-cigs with no reason?
Why does the FDA threaten doctors who hand out Xanax which costs pennies a pill and acts instantly for panic disorder but push SSRIs which cost many dollars per pill and take weeks to know if it's the right one for the individual and then coming off them gives worse panic than you had before them?
Why was Chantix approved for nicotine cessation and yet there's a class action going on with it?
I'll believe the FDA isn't selling to the highest bidder as soon as I see other government agencies and officals not doing that same thing and start seeing better results from the FDA testing.
Warped logic is better than the complete lack of logic that comes from you.
My "assumption" is the same one Lacey came up with that you seem to have agreed with until I pointed out it was the one I was making all along.
My non-assumption is that the FDA person who told someone on this forum that as long as it wasn't marketed as NRT it wouldn't be looked at. Come to find out the FDA's definitions clearly says claims to not qualify something as a drug.
The problem comes when you try to get a tobacco product approved as a NRT.
My non-assumption is that Nicotine Water used a drug form of nicotine and was banned. They then came back with a tobacco extract form of nicotine and have not been banned.
If you want to rumble with the FDA you'd better come up with a better plan than the bend over and take it plan you seem to be proposing.
e-Cigs Banned On ebay - Read This From eBay
Unfortunately, we had to remove your listing because the following information violates our policy:
Nicotine cartridges are not permitted on eBay and sellers are not permitted to include information regarding where such items can be bought.
We notified members who placed bids on the item that the listing has been canceled.
eBay does not allow members to sell narcotics, steroids, controlled substances, and drug paraphernalia. Drug paraphernalia are items that are designed or primarily intended for making, concealing, or using a controlled substance. eBay also does not permit members to sell any drug that requires a prescription from a medical practitioner such as a doctor, dentist, optometrist, or veterinarian. This is because the sale of these drugs may be prohibited by law, regulated by the government, or harmful to the eBay Community.
For more information on this eBay policy, please visit:
(URL deleted because of forum post restriction)
Please note: violation of this or other eBay policies may result in forfeit of eBay fees on cancelled listings, limits on account privileges and account suspension.
You can review our list of prohibited and restricted items here:
(URL deleted)
Thanks for your understanding.
Sincerely,
eBay Trust and Safety team
WTF?! I just searched on ebay and there are plenty of Gamucci and Mirage carts for sale, as well as some generics. Not tons, but plenty to keep the curious vaper happy. I have no idea when they were listed though.
How scary
burnt,
You can't post the URL's concerning ebay rules?
Double post... sorry
Last edited by Cage; 01-30-2009 at 10:06 PM.
A marketer got a notice from Google today that it will not accept e-smoking devices or liquid for adverts. New policy.
Dear It's a Tobacco Product dude:
The World Health Organization has released a statement that clarifies its position on e-smoking. WHO had a conference last November to consider our practice. A French poster on ecigtest.com got the response, which Kate posted on this forum. Read it and take it to heart. Every point Kate itemizes is TRUE. It follows verbatim:
There is a considered statement from WHO on their current position here - WHO - Marketers of electronic cigarettes should halt unproved therapy claims - *E-Cigtest, the ultimate electronic cigarettes review site and forum* Le site de la cigarette électronique
Their definition is - nicotine delivery system and health product.
These points seem particularly important to me:
... products including the electronic cigarette cannot be supported unless they meet national regulatory criteria for efficacy, safety and quality of a new public health product.
... scientifically rigorous, peer-reviewed studies to substantiate claims for the electronic cigarette as an effective smoking cessation aid. In this respect, WHO does not equate a manufacturer’s undocumented claims of safety or toxicity to peer-review by a science based committee.
... the generation of theoretically adequate safety data by one manufacture is not tantamount to validation of all electronic nicotine delivery devices.
... WHO is not aware of any set of data that establishes the safety of nicotine and/or propylene glycol (in addition to other constituents of the product which are present to confer the claimed cigarette mimicking sensory characteristics) when heated and delivered to the lung. WHO is not convinced of the precise nature and amount of the constituents of the emissions.
... WHO is concerned about the variety and lack of uniformity of these products. [I wonder what the significance of that statement is]
... WHO does not discount the possibility that the electronic cigarette could eventually be regarded as a useful smoking cessation aid. That said, rigorous pharmacokinetic studies, safety and efficacy trials, and review and approval by national authorities which regulate NRTs must be conducted.
... the burden is on product sponsors to satisfy regulatory agencies and to ensure public health institutions that their products are safe (and effective if such claims are made) - not on WHO or regulatory agencies to prove all aspects of potential harm when there is a plausible basis for harm.
... substantiation of smoking cessation and other health claims would include rigorous pharmacokinetic studies, safety and efficacy trials, and review and approval by major drug regulatory authorities of the following types data and studies: (1) the complete listing of ingredients in electronic cigarettes, (2) the effect on smoking cessation of these products compared to NRT and placebo, and (3) adverse effects caused by these products.
... WHO urges its Member States to require manufacturers to provide adequate scientific data in accordance to the criteria set by national regulatory bodies.
... WHO TobReg also recommends that claims for safety relative to cigarettes, health benefits, or claims such as effectiveness as smoking cessation aids or as cigarette substitutes be prohibited until such claims are substantiated with data accepted by scientific organizations and approved by regulatory agencies.
... WHO TobReg strongly recommended that these class of products not be exempted from clean air laws that restriction restrict cigarette smoke exposure (see WHO FCTC, Article 8) until adequate evidence is provided to assure the regulatory authority that use of the product will not expose people to toxic emissions. [How would this effect us? Will we be unable to vape in no smoking areas?]
... Research is needed on the delivery and absorption of nicotine in relation to these devices, both acutely and chronically, in order for regulators to establish the dosage and formulation for regulatory approval.
... This class of products should be regulated as nicotine delivery systems and must meet the scientific, efficacy and safety criteria established by regulatory authorities prior to sale and marketing.
Lemme guess. You're gonna whine and cry about WHO. Do go read the entire post. The above are only highlights, but they serve to shred your silly argument.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks