An idea for avoiding FDA approval or control

[Satire]

I guess we could agree to disagree

Sounds good to me, I'm no legal expert and have no idea how it will be classified in the end. Just had an idea and thought I'd throw it out there
But since we are placing bets put me down for $200 on 'a ban won't affect the people who can make their own anyway.'

Speaking of which I am working on that home-extraction process, I did one that was pretty solid but I think I can make a better/purer recipe without adding additional labor to the process, but in either case it will be written up for you after I finish the toxicity report I've been workin on.

[TropicalBob]

I really look forward to your discoveries on that. I've not been satisfied with my homebrew, and not knowing the nicotine content is troubling. Obviously, a user doesn't want too much or too little.

I love these things and have used them since last January. I've posted reasons why I think they should be allowed (although regulated). I also think people need to get real that not everyone thinks our present practice is hunky-dory. I sometimes refer to blissful souls wearing rose-colored glasses; Trog calls them happy bunnies in la-la land. Those are the folks who need to think hard on how we obtain approval with realistic arguments and science on our side, and/or how we become self-sufficient if nicotine liquid becomes a banned substance.

[Lithium1330]

ok TB i think i got the answer.. The problem is that the juice " may " contain Nicotine, for those that want it.. and since the liquid is not " approved" yet... Would that mean we can use the device and juice without Nicotine? If so then we just slap a nicotine patch on our arm, and then vape from our e-cig.. and we are set .

I know people that have done this, they followed the patch program for quit and now they are nic free and still vaping 0 nic, we need to think on the aspect of vaping 0 nic because then the devices can have a chance.

If they are banning the cartridges just because of the nicotine...a Simple solution to this entire mess would be to have all the nicotine from the cartridges/device be removed.

Then leave it up to the consumer to actually add their own nicotine to their cocktail. But it's entirely too late to change how things have been operating so far.

I've been kicking around the idea of selling only juice/cartridges with 0 Nicotine in it...yet for some reason I don't think the idea will sell to too many customers.

Maybe you would be surprised if you try this, for A LOT of smoker the pure action of smoking without nicotine is really pleasant, maybe you could sold it with a patch quit program like in a "health pack".

We will always have a source of nicotine, we just need the knowledge for get it, maybe even can be taken from patches or gum and then be added to PG and flavor, the main concern to me is the fact that anti-smokers will succeed to ban the device due to the shape and design can encourage people to smoke (analogs or electronics), they have succeed to put smoking as a terrible habit, and they will want to keep it that way.

We really NEED to change the design and consider seriously the BIG fact that this things can be used without nicotine (the user will can add it anyway).

[TropicalBob]

New designs that do not resemble traditional tobacco products are coming. But remember that it is the customer driving the design in many cases. How many newbies come to this forum and their first question is: "Which e-cig looks most like my Marlboro and which flavor tastes most like my Marlboro?"

Makers all raise their fistfulls of money to beckon the newbie over to the Super-Mini Side. It's the plot adjacent to Returned To Real Cigarettes Side. No one should go there.

But you are absolutely correct the appearance of e-smoking devices might well doom them -- in many countries besides yours.

[Sun Vaporer]

If they are banning the cartridges just because of the nicotine...a Simple solution to this entire mess would be to have all the nicotine from the cartridges/device be removed.

Then leave it up to the consumer to actually add their own nicotine to their cocktail. But it's entirely too late to change how things have been operating so far.

I've been kicking around the idea of selling only juice/cartridges with 0 Nicotine in it...yet for some reason I don't think the idea will sell to too many customers.

That is all some of us buy is the zero e-liquid now that we have been using the e-cig for a couple of months. We were able to get off nicotine thanks to the e-cig but still like the psychological aspect of vaping--that is just as powerful as any addiction to nicotine--getting off the nicotine was easy compared to the habit of vaping. I think that a lot us failed with patch and gum because we still wanted the actual relaxation the ritual of vaping brings (use of hands, the draw, the throat hit, etc.

[taz3cat]

I fell for the super-mimi when I first started and that was a waste of money. I really enjoy my penstyle and I tell everyone they are the best buy.

[Sun Vaporer]

I fell for the super-mimi when I first started and that was a waste of money. I really enjoy my penstyle and I tell everyone they are the best buy.

I keep buying new styles and versions, but I always return to the Penstyle--hopefully something new will come out that will beat it. I hear PureSmoker.com - Your #1 Source For ECigs, Parts, & Accessories! might be releasing a new one and I will be jumping on it just as soom as it as released!!!

[Smooth]

Two weeks ago an order of mine was held at customs, when i stated to ask questions i found out the FDA was holding it and then received this e-mail. At this point no one has contacted me and i'm not ure what to do. I know there must be some way everyone else , smokingeverywhere.com and minicig.com is getting around these laws. If you hae any idea's please tell me. Thanks!

Please be aware that electronic cigarettes that we have reviewed are drug-device combinations under section 503(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) (21 U.S.C. 353(g)(1)) with their "drug" uses, as defined by section 201(g) of the Act (21 U.S.C. § 321(g)), as the primary mode of action. In this regard, these products contain no tobacco leaf or stem material, but are designed to look like conventional cigarettes. They are intended to be manipulated and used (inhaled) in ways similar to how a smoker manipulates and uses conventional cigarettes. And, like conventional cigarettes, they are intended primarily for the delivery of volatilized chemical substances to affect the body's structures and functions and/or to mitigate or treat the symptoms of nicotine addiction through a chemical or metabolic action on the body. The "electronic cigarettes" that we have reviewed are designed with a re-chargeable battery-operated heating element that volatilizes the chemical constituents contained within replaceable cartridges. These cartridges may or may not include nicotine. Since we are not aware of any data establishing that such products are generally recognized among scientific experts as safe and effective for these "drug" uses, they are "new drugs," as defined by section 201(p) of the Act (21 U.S.C. § 321(p)) requiring approval of an application filed in accordance with section 505 of the Act (21 U.S.C. § 355) to be legally marketed in the United States. None of these so-called "electronic cigarettes" is covered by an approved NDA. Thus, the marketing of them in the United States would be subject to enforcement action, which is why your products have been detained.

Furthermore, the "electronic cigarettes" that we have reviewed are not subject to the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA), Pub. L. No. 89-92, (15 U.S.C. §§ 1331 et seq), nor are they subject to the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act (CSTHEA), Pub. L. No. 98-474 (1986), (15 U.S.C. §§ 4401 et seq). Thus, they do not fit within the regulatory scheme that Congress has established for tobacco products.

[TropicalBob]

You have posted the first volley in the War on E-Cigarettes to be waged by the FDA.

[Myk]

Someone needs to sick a lawyer on them,

Furthermore, the "electronic cigarettes" that we have reviewed are not subject to the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act (FCLAA), Pub. L. No. 89-92, (15 U.S.C. §§ 1331 et seq), nor are they subject to the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act (CSTHEA), Pub. L. No. 98-474 (1986), (15 U.S.C. §§ 4401 et seq). Thus, they do not fit within the regulatory scheme that Congress has established for tobacco products.

Pipe tobacco is not covered under FCLAA or CSTHEA either and I get plenty of that from UK companies.