View Poll Results: What requirements should the FDA put on e-liquid?

**DisMan** · 03-17-2009, 03:09 AM

I'll even let you have the final word -- which I'm certain you'll take advantage of. I promise to respond to you no more. Why try? Realities escape you.

Why do you have to make it personal?

While you may feel you are powerless, then fine, that is you. Your hopelessness does not translate to reality, although you may feel it does.

I'm not looking to be right...I'm looking to stimulate conversation. If that is too much for you, I apologize for your lack of interest. But don't try to act like I'm some dude who can't see reality.

Sorry my analogies just don't make you feel all warm and fuzzy....but, in the end, my analogies *are reality* to your hopelessness.

The government drives me nuts...but I have to have faith that our politicians will eventually *not* be purchased by the highest bidder. So many people think our democracy is great and free enterprise is the greatest thing in the world...the reality is that it has failed.

But why would I throw in the towel in hopes that somebody smart would end up at capitol hill? I'm not as dedicated to feeling powerless as you are.

Sorry...I wouldn't sign an affidavit saying my e-cig is for NRT if there was a gun pointed at *my head*. There's a certain level of apathy that I would not be willing to give into at the price of my freedom.

Of course, we could go the whole democratic-communism approach that I proposed in the other forum...but then people will preach how great the failed free enterprise system is, etc.

Anyway, there, I took the last word. Took a couple personal jabs back since I can't be realistic, etc. In the end, at least you can say I'm predictable.

I still like ya TB....just shocked that you would take a personal jab.

**Lorddrek** · 03-17-2009, 03:10 AM

That's like saying alcoholics who no longer drink alcohol, but drink coffee instead, or feeing their alcohol addiction...do you ban coffee? Now what if it's caffeine free coffee?

Really, that's a reach...a very long one. After all, somebody who eats a lot of lifesavers in a day to feed that habit of their mouth being busy after quitting smoking...should we ban the lifesavers now?

You're just speaking crazy talk.

Now that's some crazy talk!

**TropicalBob** · 03-17-2009, 03:15 AM

You're just speaking crazy talk.

And all was fine up to that point. I took it VERY personally. How else would it be taken? And it irritated hell out of me. Obviously.

**DisMan** · 03-17-2009, 03:17 AM

Originally Posted by TropicalBob

And all was fine up to that point. I took it VERY personally. How else would it be taken? And it irritated hell out of me. Obviously.

My bad. I guess the smiley on the end of the sentence didn't pass the tone correctly.

**strayling** · 03-17-2009, 04:42 AM

I view my PV as Tobacco Replacement Therapy; I'm quite happy with the nicotine, I just don't want all the other crap that comes along with burning tobacco. Having said that, why people insist that it should be a therapy of any kind baffles me.

**Bellinghamster** · 03-17-2009, 05:24 AM

The debate which started this all was:

Should the FDA interfere with the current eLiquids to enforce purity standards and proper labeling so that we as intelligent, free people can make our decisions rationally?

This thread was never about child-proof caps, NRT, conspiracies, or personal liberty. It was about (the fantasy of?) government ACTUALLY protecting us in the way it should. NOT by attempting to legislate our behavior for their own "moral" or financial reasons and making us all criminals, but by acting as an advocate for the people in ensuring that unscrupulous or careless manufacturers don't sell us cyanide cotton candy. They have absolutely no business telling me or anyone else how to manage their health or happiness, provided we don't infringe on another's right to the same. Unfortunately, the legality of the matter today is in stark contrast to this belief.

As for the other topics, they make for lively debate. There are some that want to sue McDonald's for the hot coffee they spill in their lap. There are those who by all accounts would prefer total anarchy to any infringement on their desire to act any way they please. Most want "rights" until they are called to own up to the cost of having those rights. Everybody is their own special interest group of one.

Personally, I subscribe to the "Cigarettes kill people the way spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat" school where personal choices should be allowed, provided we accept the consequences of our actions.

**tpboles** · 03-17-2009, 05:58 AM

Originally Posted by TropicalBob

And all was fine up to that point. I took it VERY personally. How else would it be taken? And it irritated hell out of me. Obviously.

"Lotta "straw men" brought into this thread. Disregard them all."

In DisMan's defense he could have taken that statement personal also.

Gonna tiptoe away now

BTW - I literally rolled on the floor after I read this lol - "Cigarettes kill people the way spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat"

**HK45** · 03-17-2009, 07:03 AM

DisMan,

There are also other medical reasons the e-cig might be used. Just like the Nicotrol Inhaler it could be prescribed to people with respiratory ailments and most likely a variety of other reasons. Most NRT's originally needed a doctor's prescription but are now over-the-counter.

**caywen** · 03-17-2009, 07:58 AM

First, the FDA will be very bad for us if it goes ahead and bans everything with no data, and then sits on their hands until kingdom come. That's one outcome, and that will infuriate me pretty well.

But another outcome is that the FDA will temporarily ban them, conduct thorough analysis, and then instate specific guidelines by which they can be sold.

Should the latter happen, we'll see huge investment in e-cig companies. That will mean some real technical advancements and a more warm fuzzy knowing you're not going to die of cyanide poisoning from some Chinese factory.

**mctriple** · 03-17-2009, 10:20 AM

This may be a little off from where this thread has gone, but I just wanted to chime in with agreement of the OP's overall opinion.

Eliquids should definitely be more regulated than they are now. I obviously don't feel that they should be banned, but nicotine is a drug, and it only makes sense that eliquid should be taken more seriously than it is right now. Most esmokers take on 100% blind faith that what we're inhaling is safe, but right now there is nobody to hold manufacturers accountable for anything. This should be changed, imo.

Ya, things will change. We all like where things are right now. We save a lot of money compared to smoking analogs, we love the convenience of clicking a few buttons and having more liquid show up on our doorstep, etc. But paying a somewhat higher price to have this drug regulated seems like a pretty good idea to me..