There may be an easy answer to the FDA ban

[dEFinitionofEPIC]

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.

Haha. I hear you. SEE my response on that post

[gnsmith]

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.

TB you are right, as long as it carries the e-cig name and comes from a company that markets it as a e-cig it can be ban. If it's marketed as something else let say any herbal inhaler with no ties to be used with nicotine, with labeling that informs the customer that it is not to be used with any type of unapproved products there would be no problems with the product in the eyes of the FDA.

I personally would like to see regulations and studies to make it safer. I think all of us have blown off some steam, myself included. and as much as I hate to admit it. The FDA is doing there job.
No matter what the bottom line motive is.
The job of the FDA is our health. Granted all of us here say that vaping is safer and all the evidence suggest that. But the fact is, we don't really know.
Can we honestly say what is actually being put into our juice?
Is our juice manufactured in a sterile environment?
Is the nicotine being extracted safely?
What other chemical are being used in the process of extracting nicotine?
Is there any type of lead contamination?
Is the manufacturers doing everything possible to avoid cross-contamination?
Is our juice being manufactured right next to the manufacturing of batteries?
These are just a few of the questions.
I can't say that I approve of how the FDA is handling this, and I still think there is money as the underlying motive here. But I still would like to see regulations and studies.

[liquor]

it is said one US company get the juice FDA approved.
anyone know it,please let me know!
Thanks!

[smokinsimon]

There's only one US company that I know of making juice, and thats Johnson creek. But they aren't FDA approved but are just registered with FDA to do business. I'm still a newbie, but I've read and learned a lot, I could be wrong though, I know Njoy has been in the works for making stuff in Texas, maybe in went through, don't know. It would be on the site if it did. So far site just says patents applied for.

[TropicalBob]

There is no approved liquid (it's not "juice"!). Johnson Creek merely registered with the FDA, as required by law.

[DoubleTrouble]

I concur with Terraphon that we're in unchartered territory here. What could likely happen would be a preliminary ban on e-cigs, which then would go through the courts for a definition of "smoking." The problem for the FDA will be to ban e-juice, while still allowing patches and gum.

If I understand it right, there already have been several studies done on nicotine itself. Although it is a poison if administered directly, there must be some sort of legal position to allow nicotine distribution in patches and gum. Otherwise, those would have not only been banned, but would continue to be prescription-only. As we know, they moved to over-the-counter a decade ago.

This whole issue will revolve around whether or not nicotine is a drug, a chemical, a substance, a food, or some other definition. The entire anti-smoking issue has been based on smoke, as in anti-"smoking." Since vapor is not smoke, the initial logic would indicate there cannot be any crossover into anti-smoking laws.

That being said, nicotine is an essential part of tobacco. So is nicotine a "tobacco product?" Or is it a standalone chemical...etc. And there's the need for a legal definition of nicotine.

[NewAgePastime]

As we know money rules the world and of course politics, who else other than big tobacco to have a vested interest in making e-cigarettes illegal. Who else can flip the bill? Maybe i'm just following the principle of the simplest answer usually being the correct one...

[TropicalBob]

Ever since joining this forum in January 2008, I've said "follow the money". Lots of folks say the same. But, mind you, this is far more than taxes. Try to think of any group -- besides the trade one -- that supports e-smoking. Zero. Zip.

Now, think of groups that oppose e-smoking. Big Government. Big Tobacco. Big Pharma. Big Health. Why? Money. Not taxes, but money at stake. Until money from e-smoking can benefit them, they will fight to maintain the status quo.

The FDA has absolutely nothing to do with your taxes. It doesn't give a rats patootie about taxes, but those who influence the FDA do. Sorry to disagree with some, but it's a minor factor. The FDA has other influences far more important -- political and corporate pressures. And the FDA is the umpire who can toss us out of the game. Our team manager best not get in the FDA's face and shout obscenities .... Let's not do foolish things.

We can understand Big Tobacco and Big Pharma being opposed. Income is threatened. Each would view this practice and want a piece of it. Big Pharma has made it clear it wants to control the future of the drug nicotine. Big Tobacco might have to settle for selling devices to deliver Big Pharma's drug.

Big Health needs opposition to keep contributions flowing in. So it will oppose e-smoking, as it does smoking. Any organization is really NOT about its titled purpose; it's about maintaining itself, growing and prospering. The American Cancer Society would be dead in the water if a cure for cancer were being distributed. It needs cancer. Tobacco-Free Kids needs kids smoking tobacco -- or lots of charitable jobs would be lost.

And Big Government not only needs taxes, but it needs popular causes. Smokers and e-smokers are now such a minority that their votes can't swing a playground toy, much less an election. Their "influence" is all negative. No politician wants association with anything smoking or tobacco related. We look like smokers to them. They will oppose us.

All we have on our side is reason and right. That must fight profit and perception.

Anyone who thought e-smoking would breeze into widespread popular usage surely must be rethinking that logic now .

[Closet Toker]

As usual TB., you are correct.

[waskel]

On a lighter note, without sounding too 'airy faery' there has been a real shift away from the black-and-white hysterical mind-set of the Conservative forces, granted your conservatives in the US are far scarier and downright evil pro-active demon spawn, the new Democratic regime has instilled a sense of reason once more so maybe it is the right climate for the future of e somoking to look rosier.

True the Left-Socialist powers have stronger 'Nanny State' instincts but they also understand that things are rarely Black and White, they comprehenend the concept of 'Harm Minimisation' and they actually listen to the educated professionals who have credibility deciding if e-smoking should be banned or not. Surely the majority of doctors and health workers will eventually support it once proper testing prove it is safe and effective.

The Clean Air Zelots are not rational and will never think that e-smoking isd a good idea. Their damaged brains are simply incapable of understanding that their opinions of what other people do is NONE OF THEIR GOD-DAMN BUSINESS, if it not hurting them or their loved ones directly nor the people engaging in the activity then their reasons to object are personal or, GOD forbid 'Moral'. So then these people channel their energy into spinning lies and justifications supporting their Zelous mission...

Without getting sidetracked. I think this will work out one way or another simply because the general mind-set of the world has recoiled from this Irrational conservative mind-set, those hysterical shreiking voices have faded away along with the cranky old border-line-senile, white-male, sociopaths who have lost power their grip on world affairs.

Excuse me, but... BS.
The "hysterical shrieking voices" are not those of conservatives, but of the liberal groups and the politicians in their pockets. True conservatives believe in the preservation of our liberties and freedoms in the US (as well as those of other countries), which have been bought and paid for by many, many lives.
The last 6 months of liberal policy has seen the destruction of these liberties and freedoms in the form of a soft tyranny including huge generational debt, the further breaking down of the free market and millions of jobs lost. Homes stand empty due to liberal policies set into motion in the 1970's and to this day are supported and protected by the most radical liberal mindset ever seen in American politics.

If e-cigs are banned in the US, it will be because of liberals who wish to impose yet more control over our lives.