LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThanks Nuck. This is very clear to me but seems to be falling on deaf ears with others.... I keep getting a recording of the same message....Originally Posted by Nuck
Thanks Nuck. This is very clear to me but seems to be falling on deaf ears with others.... I keep getting a recording of the same message....
Not my Stand--the FDA's Nuck
Nuck--as I have stated before--it is not my logic or argument--rather the words of Rita Chapelle of the FDA who is making the argument for the FDA that the the device is a drug deliver system and is illegal to be sold in the FDA. So it is not my logic or yours Nuck--it is our friends at the FDA. IMO there is no logic to their stance--but it is their stance and some entity with the money to back them has to take them on---Sun
I was asked to spell it out. I did. If you want to believe a different reality, have at it. We'll all have an answer before long, it seems.
Those are not my phrases, Nuck. That's how the FDA defines e-cigs. It also has absolute control to approve or disapprove "medical devices". If it declares the e-cig to be a medical device, the game goes into extra innings, doesn't it? We won't argue nicotine in a chemical solution is a drug, but we better have a good argument on the device that Ruyan patented to deliver that drug. It seems very much a defendant here.
Bongs are not a good argument, BTW.The FDA will not be amused.
Granted. But like Nuck said, what defines what an e-cig is (which apparently is defined as a "medical device") ???? Is it anything with a battery and an atomizer? The issue gets too sticky for them to ban the device IMHO. You could just as easily sell it as a mini fog machine for your kid's GI Joes. Where do you draw the line. At the end of the day I think its too technical of an issue for them to do anything about it....
It's actually the interpretation that is in debate. I think it's pretty clear that they meant the hardware when combined with nicotine whereas you choose to assume it's the literal interpretation of the quote by a media rep.
The FDA can claim that water when combine with ... is illegal (which it would be) but that wouldn't make water illegal by association. The FDA doesn't have the authority to ban the devices.
Nuck--Hope you are right
I hope you are right Nuck-. I, like you do not want to see the FDA mess with my devices or yours---------Sun
I think they'll mess with the juice. I don't see any way they could look the other way. Honestly though, I think it will be just to force issues with quality control, child safety, warning labels, ensuring no access to minors, etc. I think with juice it's going to be a bumpy ride.
But like you said, we'll see
Oh yeah..I got mad stores of juice now..and gonna grab more. Sort of going for a Walrus Jr level of supply.
I'd like to suggest that manufacturers try another tact. I suggest they sell "novelty items." Seriously. Make no claims. Make no association with cigarettes or tobacco. Sell items that do not look like cigarettes and could be used at parties, etc. In fact, the future is already happening.
The first two devices -- fanciful indeed -- are ready to be marketed. Even Janty has announced a Janty E-Hookah is on the way. The device on the right is the Philip Morris Aria. PM is ready when the market is. This one is dead serious, however.
The FDA damns our devices for their "essential purpose." Those are critical words the FDA uses. Yes, the e-cigs can be used without nicotine liquid. No, that is not their essential purpose. A screwdriver is not an icepick, etc. And without nicotine, I have no interest in a toy that lets me pretend I'm smoking a cigarette. I want liquid and a vaporizing device. Legal.
The above devices, marketed solely as novelty device toys, might fly -- for awhile.
There you go TB. Now you got the right idea. Like I said earlier I would love if e-cigs were recognized and accepted as a legitimate device... But if that doesn't happen there are a million and one ways to still sell them without marketing their "essential purpose" --- which, regardless, still leaves those of us who have no interest in 0-nic up the creek. There is no way I'm going to be in my kitchen trying to abstract pure nicotine to make my own vape... I'll feel like I'm running a meth lab....I'd like to suggest that manufacturers try another tact. I suggest they sell "novelty items." Seriously. Make no claims. Make no association with cigarettes or tobacco. Sell items that do not look like cigarettes and could be used at parties, etc. In fact, the future is already happening.
The first two devices -- fanciful indeed -- are ready to be marketed. Even Janty has announced a Janty E-Hookah is on the way. The device on the right is the Philip Morris Aria. PM is ready when the market is. This one is dead serious, however.
The FDA damns our devices for their "essential purpose." Those are critical words the FDA uses. Yes, the e-cigs can be used without nicotine liquid. No, that is not their essential purpose. A screwdriver is not an icepick, etc. And without nicotine, I have no interest in a toy that lets me pretend I'm smoking a cigarette. I want liquid and a vaporizing device. Legal.
The above devices, marketed solely as novelty device toys, might fly -- for awhile.
Nor will many other people even try. I tried. I stopped that unsuccessful nonsense. And getting nicotine from a Big Pharma inhaler? You talk about expensive!!!! Sorry, no way.
No. We need legal products and legal liquids. If we're shut down with today's e-cigs, we move on to new products. But after reading that post on the attack on dissolvable tobacco products, I fully understand that my opponents want me dead. They want a planet without nicotine addicts, and my death would be a breath of fresh air to them.
Hard to fight such idiocy.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks