Are ecigs illegal
- Thread starter bob123
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
They are not illegal, there is a court case going on about their status, etc, which is detailed in the news sub forum.
EDIT: Their use has certain restrictions that change on a state by state basis, and they're illegal in some countries, but not the USA at this time.
EDIT: Their use has certain restrictions that change on a state by state basis, and they're illegal in some countries, but not the USA at this time.
Well, that's the million dollar question - fact is that big tobacco companies and big pharmaceuticals stand to lose a lot of dough if these things catch on. That's probably the real reason.
The 'reason' is because they've not gone through 25 years of clinical trials, so there's no proof that removing 4000 chemicals and all known carcinogens from the smoking process actually makes it healthier.
Added to that is the fact that the anti-smoking extremists don't want anything available that even resembles a tobacco cigarette and you've got a controversial item indeed!
If it's round, gives off somke (or Vapor) and delivers nicotine by sucking on it, then some don't see the differnce. These same peole just want it all gone and are currently refusing what seems to be a great compramise.
if there concern is that its shaped like a cig. Then It could easily be changed to something else...
But The Truth of it is there going to lose lots of money. & In Time may sell Liquid Nic At Pharmacies. Won't be normal stores or Gas stations Cause it is also a poison.
The Above is my Personal Thoughts & Not intended to Be negative or Harmful
But The Truth of it is there going to lose lots of money. & In Time may sell Liquid Nic At Pharmacies. Won't be normal stores or Gas stations Cause it is also a poison.
The Above is my Personal Thoughts & Not intended to Be negative or Harmful
It is likely that if they are not made illegal, they will be controlled severely and taxed heavily. Do not expect to be able to buy high-nic juice for DIY for long. Many here are stocking up for the long term. Logic and common sense in terms of health are not at play here, but the logic of following the money is quite sound. Sad, but expected. We all hope this will not happen, but it seems wise to plan for the future if vaping is working well for you.
I'm going to play Devil's advocate here, and argue that neither big tobacco, nor big pharma are likely to lose money over e-cigarette use. It stands to benefit both of them. Philip Morris has been in talks with Runyan, and wrote an appeal to the FDA.
Common speculation has it that RJ Renalds has also expressed interest in e-cigarettes. And rightly so. Those two companies alone stand to make more money in e-cigs than virtually anyone. Think about this logically for a minute... other than big tobacco, who has the distribution network, and the love and undying devotion of most all smokers? Think it's big pharma? Think again.
In terms of marketing, it's a great fit for big tabacco. It's a product that looks and feels like their existing product, with the same addictive qualities, but absolutely none of the side affects that have turned them into popular punching bags by advocacy groups and the government. If I were working in big tobacco... I wouldn't be interested in E-cigarettes; I would see them as my salvation.
These days, the only people who make any money in Tobacco are those that make the regulations and the laws. Ever increasing taxes on cigarettes have taken the profit margin out of it for the big tobacco companies, and forced them to drop their base prices in some cases as low as thirty cents a pack, to be able to come up with something that can sell for $4 a pack in Kentucky or $4.50 in Misourri.
Not only are e-cigarettes taxed differently, if at all; but the whole rational behind tobacco taxation simply doesn't apply to electronic cigarettes. Even if prices of juice go down in retail to about the same price they are on the internet... if big tobacco had a piece of that, their profit margins would expand by damn near fifty thousand percent. Seriously, they already have the resources to grow tobacco and extract nicotine. They have the ability to manufacture e-juice if they wanted to, and they have the brands people would buy if they could. Why the heck wouldn't they do it?
Blaming that big tobacco for the stance of the FDA is an easy non thinking approach to take, but it's not the one that jives with reality and the mathematics of the situation at hand. It's like saying something along the lines of, "Yeah, she was asking for it. You could tell by the way she was dressed." Makes about as much sense too.
Common speculation has it that RJ Renalds has also expressed interest in e-cigarettes. And rightly so. Those two companies alone stand to make more money in e-cigs than virtually anyone. Think about this logically for a minute... other than big tobacco, who has the distribution network, and the love and undying devotion of most all smokers? Think it's big pharma? Think again.
In terms of marketing, it's a great fit for big tabacco. It's a product that looks and feels like their existing product, with the same addictive qualities, but absolutely none of the side affects that have turned them into popular punching bags by advocacy groups and the government. If I were working in big tobacco... I wouldn't be interested in E-cigarettes; I would see them as my salvation.
These days, the only people who make any money in Tobacco are those that make the regulations and the laws. Ever increasing taxes on cigarettes have taken the profit margin out of it for the big tobacco companies, and forced them to drop their base prices in some cases as low as thirty cents a pack, to be able to come up with something that can sell for $4 a pack in Kentucky or $4.50 in Misourri.
Not only are e-cigarettes taxed differently, if at all; but the whole rational behind tobacco taxation simply doesn't apply to electronic cigarettes. Even if prices of juice go down in retail to about the same price they are on the internet... if big tobacco had a piece of that, their profit margins would expand by damn near fifty thousand percent. Seriously, they already have the resources to grow tobacco and extract nicotine. They have the ability to manufacture e-juice if they wanted to, and they have the brands people would buy if they could. Why the heck wouldn't they do it?
Blaming that big tobacco for the stance of the FDA is an easy non thinking approach to take, but it's not the one that jives with reality and the mathematics of the situation at hand. It's like saying something along the lines of, "Yeah, she was asking for it. You could tell by the way she was dressed." Makes about as much sense too.
stores already sell poisons , insecticides for one . I am sure you can buy cleaners like bleach at corner stores and gas stations which are poisonous as well . are they going to remove those products ? I think not and that wouldn't really fair now would it ...
Maybe it's the Libertarian in me coming out, but I don't understand why the government needs to be in the business of protecting us from ourselves at all. Just isn't logical. If someone wants to do something harmful to their own body, it really should be up to them. It serves no good to freak out at unproven technology like e-cigs. I think most of us (as in, the overwhelming majority of us) can protect ourselves just fine.
It's just like the electric and biofuel cars the oil companies used to fight that (not in court) they would buy up pattents for designs and products that brought down gas consumption. It's all about the dough. Money rules the world.
Heres one for ya, There is more tar in a charbroiled hamburger than in a whole pack of cigarettes and they're not taxed to death or outlawed. The government only cares about the taxes not your health as they claim.
We have our answer to the OP's question. Judge Leon ruled that the FDA cannot ban them and that they must release any shipments they are holding. Since they have been determined to NOT be an "unapproved drug-delivery device", there is no basis in Federal Law for them to be illegal to sell or own. Locally, "Void where prohibited."
interesting tar in a charbroiled burger hmm.
never heard that 1 b4.
But I have heard a big mac is healthier then a whopper.
But the whopper tastes so much better then a yucky bigmac
never heard that 1 b4.
But I have heard a big mac is healthier then a whopper.
But the whopper tastes so much better then a yucky bigmac
Here's the heart of the matter. If it does not hurt anyone else [and there is not a scintilla of evidence demonstrating that e-cigs hurt those around e-cig users] then there should be a presumption of legality. The problem is that this analysis lessens government control. Mosh-style libertarianism and citizens' desire to be in charge of themselves is a theme that nearly all politicians and large corporations dislike since it diminishes they're ability to manipulate the product [not to mention the citizens] for their own aggrandizement of money or power.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
