Why shouldn't the FDA interfere? - Page 14 - E-Cigarette Forum

Nuck · 03-17-2009, 09:59 PM

That scenario is my biggest concern with vaping. It's one thing to say parents have to keep their kids safe, but its another to make it so damn likely that some very bad sh.t will happen.

A vaper without kids leaves his carts or bottle of 'coca cola' juice at a restaurant or on a beach and the next family that comes along has a child... There are endless ways something this dangerous, that is taken around and used so frequently, could fall into young hands.

I think the first step is to just not buy liquid from suppliers who don't spend the few pennies extra to at least take minimal packaging precautions. The next step, which will require government intervention, is to develop a sealed cart that is pierced by the atomizer and that reseals when removed.

I've come up with 2 designs that could potentially work without putting much effort into it. Surely the real engineers that design these could come up with realistic and workable solutions BEFORE they are forced into it with a ban.

The future isn't grim..but it sure is going to be a bumpy ride.

Grody · 03-17-2009, 10:46 PM

Well, I'm glad to hear the dangers of skin contact aren't as bad as I'd imagined. I get the stuff on my fingers all the time, but never more then a drop or two. I wasn't sure what would happen if I came in contact with larger amounts. I was worried that if I dropped a bottle in the summer, everyone wearing shorts within a 5 foot radius would die.

As far as babies swallowing cartridges; I've thought about that as well. If e-cigs are approved, I'm sure there will be rules with regards to the size of carts, amount of nicotine, and them being sealed, in which case the child either can't swallow it, or if they do swallow it, the cartridge will pass through them without the seal being broken and the nicotine leaking out.

I'd have no problem in the future paying $3.00-$5.00 for a pack of e-cigs. (1 pack actually equalling one pack of smokes). And I view the cheapness of using e-liquid as being only temporary. The biggest reason I bought the e-liquid is because the carts were so crappy. I'd much rather just slap on a cart, then be dripping, refilling, etc, as long as the experience was the same.

Once my orders come, I'll have around 1100ml of liquid, so hopefully when/if a ban comes, I'll have enough to last me until they come up with some good solutions. It'd be awesome to go to the store, buy a pack of carts, and slap them on an e-cig that always works without all the worries and the bs.

Lorddrek · 03-17-2009, 11:40 PM

Quote:

That's my nightmare scenario. And, yes, there's enough liquid in that little cart to kill a toddler. And who will understand that the screams of pain a short time later signify nicotine poisoning?

The FDA is supposed to approve this?

Nope. But I do see the other components being able to get past whatever ban/regulation comes along. Of course along with this comes additional cost.

Lorddrek

markab · 03-18-2009, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kate

Our only real hope is an ethical win.

Can banning something untested and unproven be justified on the grounds of greater public good when it infringes on the rights of individuals?

Should harm be proven before we are protected from it?

Hi Kate,
I value your input here but I can't say I agree with allowing people to become human guinea pigs in testing a new product. As much as we enjoy our new smoking alternative we simply don't know the long term health affects. Odds are they're better than traditional cigarettes, but until more thorough scientific testing is done we simply don't know. E-cig manufacturers really dropped the ball by not having their product tested and proven safe before bringing it to market.

Mark

Kate · 03-18-2009, 12:45 AM

Hi Mark. How should those tests be carried out?

DisMan · 03-18-2009, 12:48 AM

Quote:

I'm sorry to have flown off the handle in this discussion. Everywhere I look today, it seems doors are slamming shut. The economy. Newspapers dying. And my beloved e-cigs in imminent danger. It's damn depressing. I'm .. touchy right now! Sorry I took it out on you, Disman.

Hey, it's all good. We're having good debate. Sorry that I triggered a response.

I don't think the doors are closing, myself. I think there are people who really need to justify their jobs right now so they are taking hardline approaches to the situation. The FDA's involvement, I believe, is not about money...it's about a group of people showing the world that they are *needed* and making a case to keep their current employment.

I see this every day at work...somebody referring to rules and regulations to ensure management sees their position as important. There's really nothing *wrong* with doing so...but we all need to recognized these closing doors as what they are....and that's people fearing they will lose their income and can no longer pay their mortgage.

This depression we are seeing...it's being amplified by people covering their own asses. The removal of e-cigs is somebody worrying that *somebody* will state that letting e-cigs in the country is a lack of them doing their job. So, the FDA is reacting by taking a single stance.

It'll pass. All things will pass. In the words of Samwise the Brave from Lord of the Rings:

Frodo: I can't do this, Sam.

Sam: I know. It's all wrong. By rights we shouldn't even be here. But we are. It's like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger, they were. And sometimes you didn't want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer. Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going. Because they were holding on to something.

Frodo: What are we holding onto, Sam?
Sam: That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo... and it's worth fighting for.

markab · 03-18-2009, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kate

Hi Mark. How should those tests be carried out?

Hi Kate,
I don't claim to be a research scientist or the like, but I would imagine that it would be tested under controlled conditions, would include chemical and gas analisys. And probably involve animal testing.

Mark

DisMan · 03-18-2009, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markab

Hi Kate,
I don't claim to be a research scientist or the like, but I would imagine that it would be tested under controlled conditions, would include chemical and gas analisys. And probably involve animal testing.

Mark

Mark,

Do you think Corn Flakes went through this kind of testing?

We're not talking about a new chemical here...we're talking about an already tested chemical. And everybody who has purchased it is well aware of the possible side effects.

Not sure where the justification to pull off dozens of tests comes into play...

markab · 03-18-2009, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DisMan

Mark,

Do you think Corn Flakes went through this kind of testing?

We're not talking about a new chemical here...we're talking about an already tested chemical. And everybody who has purchased it is well aware of the possible side effects.

Not sure where the justification to pull off dozens of tests comes into play...

Hi DisMan,
Although I don't have a box of Cornflakes handy I'm pretty confident in stating that more than corn is listed under its ingredients. There are probably such items as perservatives, artificial agents, colouring, ect... Which have required government testing.
There have been no long term studies that I am aware of that show the long term health affects of inhaling Proplyne Glycol, e-liquids primary ingredient. Until professional studies are conducted we are all in the dark.

Mark

Kate · 03-18-2009, 02:04 AM

Well I suppose I think somebody has to test it and I'd rather do that than some poor lab animal that hasn't got any decent quality of life. This is my choice and I take responsibility for my vices. I'd like to be as educated about it as possible and make informed decisions but I don't want someone else to do this stage of the testing for me, I'm enjoying it too much.

I hate the way we use other animals and cause suffering for our own vices and vanity, it's not right. Medical treatments might have a different argument but I don't see that a non essential habit has the same justifications.

View Poll Results: What requirements should the FDA put on e-liquid?
Childproof caps	56	76.71%
Prominent poison warnings on label	55	75.34%
Ingredient listings on label	57	78.08%
3rd party analysis results available	32	43.84%
Batch testing performed and certified	38	52.05%
Restriction of sale to minors	58	79.45%
Expiration date on label	53	72.60%
Manufacturer listed on label	44	60.27%
pH level listed on label	9	12.33%
Nicotine concentration in standardized format [mg/ml] listed on label	62	84.93%
Safety pamphlet in box (dosing, interaction, OD treatment info)	46	63.01%
None at all	5	6.85%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 73. You may not vote on this poll

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

03-17-2009, 09:59 PM	#131
Nuck Ultra Member ECF Veteran Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 2,142 Tweet this post!	That scenario is my biggest concern with vaping. It's one thing to say parents have to keep their kids safe, but its another to make it so damn likely that some very bad sh.t will happen. A vaper without kids leaves his carts or bottle of 'coca cola' juice at a restaurant or on a beach and the next family that comes along has a child... There are endless ways something this dangerous, that is taken around and used so frequently, could fall into young hands. I think the first step is to just not buy liquid from suppliers who don't spend the few pennies extra to at least take minimal packaging precautions. The next step, which will require government intervention, is to develop a sealed cart that is pierced by the atomizer and that reseals when removed. I've come up with 2 designs that could potentially work without putting much effort into it. Surely the real engineers that design these could come up with realistic and workable solutions BEFORE they are forced into it with a ban. The future isn't grim..but it sure is going to be a bumpy ride.

03-17-2009, 10:46 PM	#132
Grody Full Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 23	Well, I'm glad to hear the dangers of skin contact aren't as bad as I'd imagined. I get the stuff on my fingers all the time, but never more then a drop or two. I wasn't sure what would happen if I came in contact with larger amounts. I was worried that if I dropped a bottle in the summer, everyone wearing shorts within a 5 foot radius would die. As far as babies swallowing cartridges; I've thought about that as well. If e-cigs are approved, I'm sure there will be rules with regards to the size of carts, amount of nicotine, and them being sealed, in which case the child either can't swallow it, or if they do swallow it, the cartridge will pass through them without the seal being broken and the nicotine leaking out. I'd have no problem in the future paying $3.00-$5.00 for a pack of e-cigs. (1 pack actually equalling one pack of smokes). And I view the cheapness of using e-liquid as being only temporary. The biggest reason I bought the e-liquid is because the carts were so crappy. I'd much rather just slap on a cart, then be dripping, refilling, etc, as long as the experience was the same. Once my orders come, I'll have around 1100ml of liquid, so hopefully when/if a ban comes, I'll have enough to last me until they come up with some good solutions. It'd be awesome to go to the store, buy a pack of carts, and slap them on an e-cig that always works without all the worries and the bs.

03-18-2009, 12:45 AM	#135
Kate Moved On Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: UK Posts: 7,336	Hi Mark. How should those tests be carried out?

03-18-2009, 02:04 AM	#140
Kate Moved On Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: UK Posts: 7,336	Well I suppose I think somebody has to test it and I'd rather do that than some poor lab animal that hasn't got any decent quality of life. This is my choice and I take responsibility for my vices. I'd like to be as educated about it as possible and make informed decisions but I don't want someone else to do this stage of the testing for me, I'm enjoying it too much. I hate the way we use other animals and cause suffering for our own vices and vanity, it's not right. Medical treatments might have a different argument but I don't see that a non essential habit has the same justifications.