NRT = "Nicotine Replacement Therapy". None of those words is "cessation".
You can cease smoking cigarettes by using NRT.
When you cease smoking cigarettes, it does not necessarily mean you cease using nicotine.
My opinion on the labeling of e cigs
- Thread starter DoctorJ
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
NRT = "Nicotine Replacement Therapy". None of those words is "cessation".
You can cease smoking cigarettes by using NRT.
When you cease smoking cigarettes, it does not necessarily mean you cease using nicotine.
Thing is, as a soda drinker, I wouldn't have issues with this label. The stigmatizing / demonizing factor is very different. I do sometimes drink caffeinated soda in a similar way (or for similar reasons) to why coffee drinker drinks caffeinated coffee. If anything, right now, soda is more under the microscope than coffee. And it ain't because of the caffeine.
You might feel different if coffee(and subsequently soda) were:
only available to those 18 and older
subject to $1 per cup federal excise taxes
subject to $2 per cup state excise taxes
only available in light or medium roasts, dark roasts are found to attract too many new drinkers
required to chemically alter the caffeine to ensure uniformity and addictiveness
barred from consumption indoors or in the presence of minors
I would feel different, and felt I implied that in the previous post.
I dislike that smoking nic is demonized. Like really really dislike this.
But also don't see need to disassociate vaping nicotine that is derived from tobacco from smoking nicotine that is made from tobacco leaves. I see the political need, and am on board with the petition. But if that were to lead to a 5 year game plan that is worse than FSPTCA, I think that would be (very) bad. In the short run, it would be great. In the long run, it could theoretically be worse.
I just assume poke holes in the FSPTCA rhetoric and win on that front, than play around with constant side battles. But realize it is all, way out of my hands, so doesn't really matter if I think it is a tobacco product or not. Agree with OP that it mostly just seems semantical at this point.
Oh yeah, I forgot to add that coffee would only be available in "coffee" and "vanilla" flavors, people like vanilla and the vanilla industry has lobbied to keep it available. Unfortunately this means that soda will now only be available in coffee and vanilla flavors as well.
I know you understand all of this @Jman8
I was just using your post as an illustration.
I do agree that eventually the FSPTCA should be dealt with, as a whole. However, I think poking holes in the anti-smoking rhetoric is a bigger fight than I want to take on. The truth is there, but there's a lot of fear and hatred there as well. The general population isn't at that point with vaping yet, though the TC groups are trying really hard to get them there.
The words "tobacco product" are a semantic issue, if they called it a nicotine product but still put it under the guidelines of the FSPTCA, it would be just as bad. It's the regulatory framework that is the issue.
I know you understand all of this @Jman8
I was just using your post as an illustration.
I do agree that eventually the FSPTCA should be dealt with, as a whole. However, I think poking holes in the anti-smoking rhetoric is a bigger fight than I want to take on. The truth is there, but there's a lot of fear and hatred there as well. The general population isn't at that point with vaping yet, though the TC groups are trying really hard to get them there.
The words "tobacco product" are a semantic issue, if they called it a nicotine product but still put it under the guidelines of the FSPTCA, it would be just as bad. It's the regulatory framework that is the issue.
there is nothing merely semantic about trying to deem one item by another name so that certain laws or regulations can be applied to that item.
It is perfectly sensible to have regulations for 100% liquid nicotine
but to call my 0.3% grape flavoured 70% glycerine "liquid nicotine" or a tobacco product, is such a gross exaggeration of reality it reeks of fraud.
It is perfectly sensible to have regulations for 100% liquid nicotine
but to call my 0.3% grape flavoured 70% glycerine "liquid nicotine" or a tobacco product, is such a gross exaggeration of reality it reeks of fraud.
Then what would you call your product? Or more to the point, how would you classify it? And see if you can look at it how a modern day regulator might.
If I had a glass that was filled with 99.5% lemonade and .5% gin, would it be okay to serve that to a minor? If not, why not?
Can you provide the name of one e-liquid maker who uses nic derived from a source other than tobacco?
The caffeine in most soft drinks come from the kola nut, not coffee beans... Where does the nicotine in all e-liquid with nic come from?
Realistically, e-liquid with nic should be classified as a recreational nicotine product...
What is funny is that while the trend is to liberalize the use of {Other stuff} governments are trying (and actually succeeding) in restricting the use of vaporizers and eliquids to the point of suffocation. Need there be more proof that the motivation is not health or "think of the children" or gateway concerns? It's all about money. Actually liberalizing {Other stuff} works in their favour since they can eventually tax it, if they don't already do.
Don't expect rational and logical thinking from politicians - their brains are simply not programmed to work that way.
Don't expect rational and logical thinking from politicians - their brains are simply not programmed to work that way.
Last edited by a moderator:
In the US that would be perfectly legal as a product containing .5% alcohol has been deemed nonalcholic.
Edit: sorry, it's less than .5%. So, you are perfectly legal serving a minor a lemonade at .44% alcohol.
Last edited:
I must be confused this morning. Are we trying to classify my insecticide as tobacco products.
I need more coffee.
I need more coffee.
Government entities are casting a very wide net with their current deeming regulation. If they can't call it a tobacco product, they can't tax it (and control it) like a tobacco product.
It's a helluva lot more than 'just semantics' when the motivation is taken into account.
It's a helluva lot more than 'just semantics' when the motivation is taken into account.
it comes from tobacco plants. You don't roll up a tobacco leaf and put it in you equipment though. The highest % ingredient in eliquid is typically pg or vg. If taking a route, one could argue that it is a vegetable protein if one is using high vg based liquid.
the point is if there was no kola nuts one could get it from coffee beans.
both caffeine and nicotine can be sourced from different plants.
perhaps a more correct comparison would have been cola's are
not considered chocolate products.
mike
Nicotine should be no more affected by its ties to its origin than - say the little black seeds found on some kinds of bread.
Which - by the same logic as nicotine being a tobacco product - is an opiate.
Which - by the same logic as nicotine being a tobacco product - is an opiate.
I don't live in a world of coulds; neither do legislators... From some brief research, many energy drinks and diet supplements use synthetic versions of caffeine, rather than any extractions...
I cant. That is not the point though. Just because the smallest ingredient in our liquids comes from a very small percentage of a tobacco plant doesn't quantify a statement calling it a tobacco product. That is just silly. It is a a product that contains a bit of nicotine.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
