Why shouldn't the FDA interfere?

[b00stzx3]

My Volcano isn't sold as a weed vaporizer which is why I can legally buy it, they can legally advertise it and I can (not quite so legally) use it whenever I get a bit stressed.

The Volcano has one real use and that's to vaporizer an illegal drug. Far worse than nicotine in most governments eyes. They may not like it, but they can't ban based on an assumption of use.

The nic juice is the real issue but given how easy it is to produce bootleg, the government finds itself in a bit of a bind. They can try to prohibit it, but that will just create profit for those willing to bend the law. On the other hand, they could legalize it, regulate it and tax it.

I'm quite confident I know which way it ends up.

Maybe this is off-topic, but from what the local "tobacco" shop said here, Homeland Security had something to do with the ban on importing Volcanoes into US. Don't know how true it is, but the price went from 500 to 800 relativley quick

[tpboles]

drug-device combinations

I'm not sure if the ecig "device" would be a problem to the FDA. Seems like the problem was the ecig device coupled with nicotine cartridges.

Am I reading into that wrong T-bob?

[Nuck]

Maybe this is off-topic, but from what the local "tobacco" shop said here, Homeland Security had something to do with the ban on importing Volcanoes into US. Don't know how true it is, but the price went from 500 to 800 relativley quick

Just do a quick search on volcano vaporizer. It's all over the place.

[TropicalBob]

TP, I can't say. And I don't think anyone can say with assurance what the FDA position will ultimately be on this. Wish I knew -- I'd stock up on atomizers instead of just liquid.

Canada is supposed to issue some kind of statement this month, and if it goes beyond a judgment on liquid, then we'll have a clue on how the U.S. might view these. I do think the present liquid situation is untenable, indefensible. Devices? Another story.

[skex]

Here's the reality check.

Every regulation that exists that was not put in place at the request of industry to create barrier to competition (which frankly represent most) you know the things that the corporate lobbiests and the GOP are bitching about when they talk about over regulation.

Everyone of those came about because private companies didn't behave responsibly in the first place and some tragedy took place that caught the public ire. Congress wasn't jsut sitting around bored one day and say "gee I think we should pass a law saying that companies have to have fire exits that are able to be opened so their workers can keep from burning to death" No a bunch of ****ing workers burned to death (in this case a bunch of women seamstresses who were working in a factory where management had chained the exits so they couldn't sneak out of work) which resulted in a pissed off populus and a bunch of elected officials getting up on their soap boxes and bloviating about some feel good measures.

The best hope for e-smoking is for it to fly under the radar long enough that it becomes a fait acompli from a regulatory standpoint. Meaning that it's been around long enough that the politicians will catch enough heat for baning it to stay the regulatory hand.

Right now it's pretty much doing that. The press it's gotten so far has been relatively positive. Most people are sympathetic to smokers at this point particularly after all the bans have gone through and are getting a bit tired of the Anti's nonsense.

Also government usually moves at the speed of a glacier there is limited funding and frankly as long as there isn't some great public outcry about E-smoking it will most likely be left alone for some time.

However the first time some kid chugs a bottle of 24mg cherry E-juice that's all going to change. You can bet the anti's are going to be over that incident like fly's on ****. They have the media connections and funding to get the story out. Suddenly the coverage will shift from "Safer alternative to smoking?" to "Puffing Poison".

Now the best way to deal with this is for we consumers to demand better quality control and best safety practices from our supliers. If the industry self regulates effectively the government won't step in because they have bigger fish to fry.

So from this day forward I'll only be getting my liquids from suppliers who provide proper packaging. I suggest we all do the same.

Suppliers need to understand that a small additional investment today (the cost of which they can frankly pass on to us) may save their livelyhoods in the future.

[Sun Vaporer]

TP, I can't say. And I don't think anyone can say with assurance what the FDA position will ultimately be on this. Wish I knew -- I'd stock up on atomizers instead of just liquid.

Canada is supposed to issue some kind of statement this month, and if it goes beyond a judgment on liquid, then we'll have a clue on how the U.S. might view these. I do think the present liquid situation is untenable, indefensible. Devices? Another story.

TB-- I concur. The present liquid situation is in fact "untenable" indeed. You have, what is and will be perceived by anti-groups as, "poision in a bottle" with little if any information on dosing. Will the FDA mandate regulations like any other OTC such as Tylenol? Just take a look at a bottle of Tylenol or any other OTC drug--Warning lables containing dosing, interactions, contratictions, phone numbers for questions, etc. All the requiste infromation--some of it common sense, others pertinent. The point being that any argument against regulation of some type for a substance like nicotine liquid is a tough one at best.

Over the last 60+ days we have scene manufactures like Johnson Creek, Totally Wicked, etc step up their efforts by labeling their ingrediants and giving prudent warnings, including empoying childproof bottles--Is this enough for the FDA? Is the FDA going to want to see testing, quality control, and regulated mandates of nicotine content limits? To think that the FDA is going to look the other way on a substance like nicotine is a little too naive, as we witnessed with Nicotine Water.

As for the device itself, again that is a hard sell, but maybe--and that is a big maybe, that the FDA might allow that to slide. If Suppliers would stop the false claims as many of them have, their might be a slight chance there--but I think that is wishful thinking on my part--I try to look though the prism and see the many arguments on both sides, and from my vantage point I contend that thinking that there will be no regulation of our devices, is at best a blinding view. Agencys like the FDA always prevail on any argument where saftey is the issue. It is very plausable that the FDA will in fact call our devices "medical drug delivery systems" and mandate regulations for them as well--I hope not.

When and what the overall scope that the FDA will mandate is really the only questions left--big questions indeed for people like us looking to stay away from a known killer like cigarettes---Sun

[b00stzx3]

Can't we market it as something else? Don't people use those VCR cleaners to get high? Especially gay dudes? Label it nicotine incense or somethign along those lines.

[taukimada]

Can't we market it as something else? Don't people use those VCR cleaners to get high? Especially gay dudes? Label it nicotine incense or somethign along those lines.

that comment prolly just brought you a flaming

[Kate]

.....

[Nuck]

Sun, I understand you are pessimistic, but what exactly do you base it on. I can't for the life of me think of a single time when hardware has been banned, even the hardware that is obviously used for illegal activities FAR worse than nicotine.

Call it a personal vaporizer and detach it from the nicotine and it's untouchable. I guess I just don't see what precedence your grim outlook is based on.