My opinion on the labeling of e cigs

[motordude]

What is the source of all nicotine in e-liquid?

So my house is made of mostly wood, which I derived from tree's, so I live in a tree?

 

[mcclintock]

Speaking of nicotine from eggplants or synthetic -- what if a small portion of that was used? For example 1 out of 100 bottles are non-tobacco nic, no tobacco at all, then shuffled in with the others? But it sounds like if regulation becomes strong enough, synthetic would become competitive, IF legally that ploy would work, which I have no idea.

 

[bluecat]

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...

From recent legislation, I am beginning to believe they do live in clouds.

There has never been a need to artificially make nicotine. It is very very cheap now to harvest. Maybe down the road it will be artificially made. Would that preclude it from being labeled a tobacco product?

The powers that be also want to include zero nic in as a tobacco product. That should be a tell all sign.

 

[kaahn]

I've seen a petition floating in the threads here about wanting ejuice to be classified as a non tobacco product. I've been doing a lot of research to see how this claim can be made. Of course cigarettes, chewing tobacco, smokeless tobacco such as snuff or snus is most definitely a tobacco product for the simple reason it contains tobacco leaf.


Conversely, products such as nicotine patches, gum, lozenges, inhalers, etc ..are considered "Nicotine Replacement Therapy" (NRT) products and, therefore, classified as pharmaceuticals. I could not find any information at all definitively stating these products were or were not classified as a tobacco product, but rather NRT's.


IMO there is a semantic argument over the obvious tobacco products and those deemed as NRT's. Both contain nicotine which is derived from tobacco. There is no such thing as synthetic nicotine, so I fail to see the differentiation between the two classifications seeing that they both contain nicotine. Yes, one is classified as a pharmaceutical giving it a more "legitimate" face in the eyes of the public. But the key word that seems to differentiate cigarettes vs. NRT's is the word "cessation". NRT's are deemed to be smoking cessation products. Once again we are venturing into the field of semantics.


When I Googled "Are nicotine patches considered tobacco products" the results presented gave no results to articles that definitively answered this question. However, I came across a blog entitled "Glimpses Through the Mist" authored by a CASAA board member Glimpses Through The Mist: Are nicotine e-cigarettes a tobacco product?

I've read many blog and posts on the CASAA web sites and I'm really surprised at what they have to say. Let me first say that I am all for vaper's rights and hope that impending legislation is not as harsh as some of the doomsayers are claiming it might be. In this blog the author gives a clear and concise presentation on much of what I have already stated. It is well written as far as what facts are already known on the topic of tobacco classification. However, one statement strikes me odd by saying, "Yes, e-cigarettes are going to be classified as a tobacco product, but the point being missed by many vapers is that there shouldn't be anything wrong with that." This blog post was dated July 25, 2013. This begs the question, "Why are some wanting to deem e cigs as a non tobacco product?" Differing opinions and viewpoints obviously.


CASAA seems to be spearheading the "fight for vaper's rights" and I applaud their efforts. However, after reading many posts by their board members and supporters, I am starting to question their methods and rhetoric. First of all the term "ANTZ" (anti tobacco zealots). This may seem to many as a harmless acronym, but I see it as a derogatory attempt to label those who have the right to express their opinion just as much as vapers do. This is pretty much "name calling" to demonize these ANTZ as "the enemy". And this is pretty much what I am seeing across the board by many vaping supporters is making this issure an "us vs. them" scenario. I'm quite sure that in the ANTZ camp they see some of us as "vaping zealots". I would have to agree that there are a few vapers out there that are very passionate about vaping, as am I, but all this name calling and the stances that some are taking are making this issue very adversarial.


I agree with the basic premise of CASAA and most others in the vaping camp that education is a key component to help our cause. The demonization of tobacco over the past few decades has most certainly not helped us at all, however, I feel that education is the answer to help our cause. I believe all these petitions to try and get ejuice to be classified as a non tobacco product are futile and the CASAA blogger pretty much agrees, at least that what's I gather from the quote in her blog.


I definitely don't want to see stifling regulations imposed on the e cig industry. I would hate to have to limit my selection of gear and juice to a bare minimum of what the impending regulations may impose. On the other hand there would be many upsides to these regulations some of which would be:

--Quality control on dosage delivery of nicotine (testing has revealed that measurable nicotine in e-cigarettescan vary considerablyfrom the amount stated on the packaging) and a complete listing of all ingredients in ejuices. (I see this as a great regulation after seeing all of the threads on potentially harmful chemicals used as flavor enhancers)

Some of the downsides could be:

--Limited ability to advertise, similar to regulations imposed on the tobacco industry

--Restrictions on free samples or vending machine sales

--Limitations on the number of tasty flavorings on offer

--Restricted online sales

I by no means am trying to start a great debate on these issues and am just simply stating my opinion as to the growing dissention amongst those who are campaigning for what vapers see as a legitimate grievance to what these impending regulations may bring and how they will affect our future vaping experiences. The vaping camp seems to be divided on the "classification" issue and of course not everyone will agree with my opinion as is to be expected. However, without any long-term studies of vaping and its effects on the vaper and if it is a viable cessation method from smoking, I don't see how it can be classified as such at this point in time. It seems to me that if vaping were to be classified as a cessation method then it would give that "legitimate" face to our cause and hopefully be more accepted by those who are not familiar with vaping. My reasoning here is because no one seems to look twice at the nicotine gums and patches and they have become very commonplace in our society as a viable means to quitting smoking.

It's all in the words it seems. As I've stated, the semantics between non tobacco and cessation classifications are not going to help. However, since there will always be varying opinions on this issue our camp will be split and that's cool! Differing viewpoints lead to better ideas upon collaboration. Maybe we can come to a consensus one day, but as of now I really don't see the point of trying to label e cigs as one or the other. As suggested in the blog, I agree that a new classification on e cigs would help that is neither labeled as cessation or non tobacco. The feds are going to want testing, testing and more testing before deeming any regulations on e cigs and that is more than likely going to take years. A little more self-regulation within the vendor community would help immensely. But in this exponentially growing market, there are going to vendors out there trying to make the quick buck and cut corners in order to see a higher profit margin. Without any regulations at this time, we as consumers can only avoid such vendors and encourage others to do the same until they decide it's time to do the right thing.

Unlike Chicken Little, I don't see the sky falling down on our vaping rights in the near future as many are crying out now. Yes there are some local and state ordinances that are oppressive in nature, but most of these are a knee jerk reaction because of the stigma of nicotine and its relationship to tobacco. I believe that once all the testing is said and done that it will improve vaping as a whole. We just have to let the testing and feds run their course and eventually they will see that vaping is no where near as bad as other forms of nicotine use.

Yeah, if the feds were honest about vaping then maybe but that is a fantasy. It is still all about the money. I see no way that this will play out favorably for our cause unfortunately.

 

[stevegmu]

So my house is made of mostly wood, which I derived from tree's, so I live in a tree?

Technically, the lumber would be a tree product...

 

[skoony]

-Quality control on dosage delivery of nicotine (testing has revealed that measurable nicotine in e-cigarettescan vary considerablyfrom the amount stated on the packaging) and a complete listing of all ingredients in ejuices. (I see this as a great regulation after seeing all of the threads on potentially harmful chemicals used as flavor enhancers)

this is what i competently do not understand.
technically by all rights all the ingredients used in e-juice
are already made to food or pharmaceutical grade
quality. all the rest of the ingredients are are GRAS
at least for eating. with ingredients already made
to such high standards what quality is there to control?
the only critical ingredient is the nicotine. this should be
precisely controlled. who ever adds the nicotine should
have sufficient training to do it properly. that would
take about maybe ten minutes training. a little less time
if you use a monkey.the worst possible out come is
bad tasting juice. i do not buy the argument people
are going to put anything in it.why would they do that?
it would be criminal for one thing and any substitute
ingredient would probably cost more and or wouldn't
work.
there are already sufficient laws and regulations on the
books concerning the manufacture of consumer goods
to offer all the protection we as consumers need.
so what about the labeling?
there is not enough room on a 30 ml bottle to list all
the ingredients if you break down the flavorings into
there individual chemical components and add all
the warnings necessary. AP and DP are not the only
chemicals they think may cause harm.
for me personally i am not concerned enough to worry
about the labeling or lack there off. my concern is
i have been labeled. i am not a vaper any more.
i do not exist.read the newer stories. more and more
when ever a official is quoted concerning anything
related to us and the issues surrounding vaping its
not e-juice or e- cigarettes its, the nicotine and
or this new generation of "tobacco products".
we do not exist anymore.vaping does not exist
anymore. we are nothing more than users of
a new generation of "tobacco products"
after they take away our identity its easy
for them to take away everything they want
from us.

regards
mike

 

[Robert Cromwell]

A synthetic nicotine patent application right here:


Patent EP2487172A1 - A Process for the Preparation of (R,S)-Nicotine - Google Patents

 

[motordude]

I'm so glad we have people like Lessifer in this forum who actually do something rather than analyze every thing to death.

 

[englishmick]

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.

Well said. There's an old saying, "don't hang your flag on a sinking ship". The cigarette ship has already sunk.

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.

Well said again.

 

[skoony]

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...

?
regards
mike

 

[WattWick]

What is the source of all nicotine in e-liquid?

It's not like I can actively stop you from missing the point. Nor do I see any benefit rephrasing it until there's some loose thread to pull at.

 

[stevegmu]

?
regards
mike

Could, as in nicotine could be extracted from tomatoes, or so many other plants. Doesn't matter. It is not...

 

[stevegmu]

It's not like I can actively stop you from missing the point. Nor do I see any benefit rephrasing it until there's some loose thread to pull at.

Can you provide a list of e-liquid vendors who use nicotine from sources other tobacco extractions? How about just one?

 

[skoony]

Could, as in nicotine could be extracted from tomatoes, or so many other plants. Doesn't matter. It is not...

are you following your own threads?
mike

 

[WattWick]

Can you provide a list of e-liquid vendors who use nicotine from sources other tobacco extractions? How about just one?

Show me a source for poppy seeds that does not come from poppies, and you may be on your way to getting my point.

Edit: Now that I'm at a keyboard, let me spell it out. The tiny black seeds that you find on many loafs of bread comes from the papaver somniferum plant. Which also happen to produce several of the most regulated substances on the planet. Still, kids can buy loafs of bread with the seeds on them. Or a bag of the seeds to DIY their own loafs. No questions asked - no ID given. Point being: the legality and regulations of the end product is not based on its source.

 

[stevegmu]

Show me a source for poppy seeds that does not come from poppies, and you may be on your way to getting my point.

Edit: Now that I'm at a keyboard, let me spell it out. The tiny black seeds that you find on many loafs of bread comes from the papaver somniferum plant. Which also happen to produce several of the most regulated substances on the planet. Still, kids can buy loafs of bread with the seeds on them. Or a bag of the seeds to DIY their own loaves. No questions asked - no ID given. Point being: the legality and regulations of the end product is not based on its source.

You may have missed my post which mentioned intent. Sometimes intent is everything...

 

[stevegmu]

are you following your own threads?
mike

You don't see the silliness comparing nicotine in e-liquid- which only comes from tobacco, to poppy seeds, wood, soda, coffee, or eggplants? No wonder the opposition has such an easy time of it...

 

[WattWick]

You may have missed my post which mentioned intent. Sometimes intent is everything...

I'll leave it to you to dig it up and tell me how it relates.

 

[Jman8]

I must be confused this morning. Are we trying to classify my insecticide as tobacco products.
I need more coffee.

Is your insecticide intended for human consumption?

 

[skoony]

You don't see the silliness comparing nicotine in e-liquid- which only comes from tobacco, to poppy seeds, wood, soda, coffee, or eggplants? No wonder the opposition has such an easy time of it...

i was replying to your post stating that the caffeine in soda
comes from kola beans.it indeed does.
regards
mike