Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
still...my mind is going to stuff like Nicotinic Acid/Niacin/B3
Niacin - Wikipedia
History
Niacin was first described by chemist Hugo Weidel in 1873 in his studies of nicotine.[73] The original preparation remains useful: the oxidation of nicotine using nitric acid.[74] For the first time, niacin was extracted by Casimir Funk, but he thought that it was thiamine and due to the discovered amine group he coined the term "vitamine". Niacin was extracted from livers by biochemist Conrad Elvehjem in 1937, who later identified the active ingredient, then referred to as the "pellagra-preventing factor" and the "anti-blacktongue factor."[75] Soon after, in studies conducted in Alabama and Cincinnati, Dr. Tom Spies found that nicotinic acid cured the sufferers of pellagra.[76]
Niacin is referred to as vitamin B3 because it was the third of the B vitamins to be discovered. It has historically been referred to as "vitamin PP", "vitamin P-P" and "PP-factor", that are derived from the term "pellagra-preventive factor".[77] When the biological significance of nicotinic acid was realized, it was thought appropriate to choose a name to dissociate it from nicotine, to avoid the perception that vitamins or niacin-rich food contains nicotine, or that cigarettes contain vitamins.[78] The resulting name 'niacin' was derived from nicotinic acid + vitamin.[77][79]
Carpenter found in 1951 that niacin in corn is biologically unavailable, and can be released only in very alkaline lime water of pH 11.[80]
In 1955, Altschul and colleagues described niacin as having a lipid lowering property.[81] As such, niacin is the oldest lipid lowering drug.
Niacin - Wikipedia
History
Niacin was first described by chemist Hugo Weidel in 1873 in his studies of nicotine.[73] The original preparation remains useful: the oxidation of nicotine using nitric acid.[74] For the first time, niacin was extracted by Casimir Funk, but he thought that it was thiamine and due to the discovered amine group he coined the term "vitamine". Niacin was extracted from livers by biochemist Conrad Elvehjem in 1937, who later identified the active ingredient, then referred to as the "pellagra-preventing factor" and the "anti-blacktongue factor."[75] Soon after, in studies conducted in Alabama and Cincinnati, Dr. Tom Spies found that nicotinic acid cured the sufferers of pellagra.[76]
Niacin is referred to as vitamin B3 because it was the third of the B vitamins to be discovered. It has historically been referred to as "vitamin PP", "vitamin P-P" and "PP-factor", that are derived from the term "pellagra-preventive factor".[77] When the biological significance of nicotinic acid was realized, it was thought appropriate to choose a name to dissociate it from nicotine, to avoid the perception that vitamins or niacin-rich food contains nicotine, or that cigarettes contain vitamins.[78] The resulting name 'niacin' was derived from nicotinic acid + vitamin.[77][79]
Carpenter found in 1951 that niacin in corn is biologically unavailable, and can be released only in very alkaline lime water of pH 11.[80]
In 1955, Altschul and colleagues described niacin as having a lipid lowering property.[81] As such, niacin is the oldest lipid lowering drug.
I think you are 100% right, and nicotine absolutely should be a dietary supplement.
It meets all the criterion, and there is no downside other than money.
But even though I've broached the subject a few times over the years, it falls on deaf ears.
Look, we're either going to get an expanded e-cig market where pricing goes up some due to taxation, or get them banned. I think the USA is too savvy to try and ban e-cigs given the market share and the fact that never-smokers are on the rise, really, tobacco is shrinking and harm reduction products are on the rise.
I don't think just being ignored (my preference) is going to happen. If they are going to allow e-cig products, they will be taxed. Perhaps less than tobacco (at least for the non nic products) but the prices will rise, IMO. America, with its hx of prohibition of alcohol is *not* going to try to regulate a product out of existence when they know the black/grey market availability is always going to be there, and they're not going to let a potential taxation source pass them by. It's CHEAPER for them to strongly encourage e-cig use and then slowly raise taxes, just like a frog in water than to try and ban ecigs and anything that isn't tobacco, and there *perhaps* was enough outcry raised to CAUSE the regime change to flip around.
So, I'm still not sorry I stocked up, but the rise of any new product, especially something as polarized as "ooh, nicotine," is eventually going to be taken advantage of tax wise by the government, as they know it's something people are going to have a hard time doing without, and that many people won't have taken measures *now* to reduce cost *later*. Unfortunately, a lot of people aren't going to realize this until it's too late.....
I don't think, in the end, that continued innovation is going to be the issue, but maybe pricing, esp. on e-juice, honestly. I think a lot of vapers will eat the cost because it's already happening with the gas station market, etc.
I notice nothing at ALL being said about taxation, just harm reduction at this point. It would be lovely if our current FDA head would say some stuff about encouraging vaping by keeping prices *low* but I haven't seen anything like that yet, and I doubt I will. I think that will be saved until last.... Probably.
Nicotine replacement devices like lozenges and gum are not inexpensive. Especially if used in an ongoing, all the time way. Many are in fact more expensive than cigarettes. I would be pleasantly surprised if the same did not hold true, in the end, for e-cigs, but of course I can't know definitively.
All I can do is stock myself up as best I can for whatever future "pot" I end up in. With that being said, I'd rather have e-cigs legal, encouraged, and preferred by those who need nicotine than cheaper than dirt. Depending on JUST how much taxation we end up talking about. Neither is my preferred outcome, but I don't live in Utopia (if only that *were* a country) and I never have. I'm glad I don't live in Thailand though, I can say *that* for certain, and it helps me have gratitude, regardless.
That said, I'm a bit loopy from my final step with dentures, (5 hours with denture guy, yayyyy....not) so I may be unrealistically trying to make myself feel optimistic. But I can chew food again!!!! NO implants fell out (I thought at some points in the process that they were going to).
(Polly)Anna
I don't think just being ignored (my preference) is going to happen. If they are going to allow e-cig products, they will be taxed. Perhaps less than tobacco (at least for the non nic products) but the prices will rise, IMO. America, with its hx of prohibition of alcohol is *not* going to try to regulate a product out of existence when they know the black/grey market availability is always going to be there, and they're not going to let a potential taxation source pass them by. It's CHEAPER for them to strongly encourage e-cig use and then slowly raise taxes, just like a frog in water than to try and ban ecigs and anything that isn't tobacco, and there *perhaps* was enough outcry raised to CAUSE the regime change to flip around.
So, I'm still not sorry I stocked up, but the rise of any new product, especially something as polarized as "ooh, nicotine," is eventually going to be taken advantage of tax wise by the government, as they know it's something people are going to have a hard time doing without, and that many people won't have taken measures *now* to reduce cost *later*. Unfortunately, a lot of people aren't going to realize this until it's too late.....
I don't think, in the end, that continued innovation is going to be the issue, but maybe pricing, esp. on e-juice, honestly. I think a lot of vapers will eat the cost because it's already happening with the gas station market, etc.
I notice nothing at ALL being said about taxation, just harm reduction at this point. It would be lovely if our current FDA head would say some stuff about encouraging vaping by keeping prices *low* but I haven't seen anything like that yet, and I doubt I will. I think that will be saved until last.... Probably.
Nicotine replacement devices like lozenges and gum are not inexpensive. Especially if used in an ongoing, all the time way. Many are in fact more expensive than cigarettes. I would be pleasantly surprised if the same did not hold true, in the end, for e-cigs, but of course I can't know definitively.
All I can do is stock myself up as best I can for whatever future "pot" I end up in. With that being said, I'd rather have e-cigs legal, encouraged, and preferred by those who need nicotine than cheaper than dirt. Depending on JUST how much taxation we end up talking about. Neither is my preferred outcome, but I don't live in Utopia (if only that *were* a country) and I never have. I'm glad I don't live in Thailand though, I can say *that* for certain, and it helps me have gratitude, regardless.
That said, I'm a bit loopy from my final step with dentures, (5 hours with denture guy, yayyyy....not) so I may be unrealistically trying to make myself feel optimistic. But I can chew food again!!!! NO implants fell out (I thought at some points in the process that they were going to).
(Polly)Anna
My thoughts too Classy. I've brought this up in letters to the FDA, reps and even the surgeon general and it always fall on deaf ears because" nicotine is evil"
Nicotine replacement devices like lozenges and gum are not inexpensive. Especially if used in an ongoing, all the time way. Many are in fact more expensive than cigarettes.
(Polly)Anna
Tried the gum back in the early 80s when they were still prescription only. Nasty stuff! Never tried lozenges... Patches however, can be cheaper than cigarettes if you have a pair of scissors
Ignore the warnings not to do so! Pure 'cover thy buttocks' and maximize profit rhetoric. Quit four or five times with them so have a bit of experience. Just wish vaping had been invented sooner so my life would have been different.
I don't think anyone here is "on board" with it, but...Am I the only one that sees what they are doing. It seems most everyone is OK with being deemed a tobacco product. Once we all get on board with that concept it is a very slippery slope down to vaping being treated just the same as smoking. The powers that be will end up with everything they want with our blessing. Looks like smoke, must be controlled and TAXED
Better a slippery slope than the cliff edge we were teetering on, no?
Think of it as regulatory harm reduction. The FDA's new scheme is not harmless to us, but it's a whole lot less harmful than what they were going to do.
Yes, that would be A Good Thing. And if I were the Benevolent Dictator of the US (or the world), I would make it so. But I doubt it's in the cards given the current realpolitik.
Few things not founded in principle are ever effective…unless you happen to have a million monkeys handy. But yes we could and often do call it practical.
Good luck.
p.s. I'm voting for you Ros. I'd rather have a principled leader than try to teach the monkeys to type.
Good luck.
p.s. I'm voting for you Ros. I'd rather have a principled leader than try to teach the monkeys to type.
Last edited:
Et tu Ros?
Extract vaping from tobacco legislation.
Good luck.
Extracting vaping from tobacco legislation.would be a useful first step, except then how will it be regulated? Because there's no way it will ever float on the consumer market without being regulated by someone in the US.
Supplement? FDA is still involved although without the same stringent oversight, although plenty of recalls have still been ordered by the FDA. Doesn't eliminate oversight.
Agricultural product (it is derived from a going plant)? USDA is not tackling this with zero expertise in this stuff.
Consumer electronic device? CPTC covers that stuff, and after the first few exploding batteries pop up in their inbox the entire industry could be frozen through a broad recall.
This popped up today
Nicotine addiction, reduction, and smoking cessation
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32240-7/fulltext?elsca1=etoc
The Lancet is paying attention to the FDA's actions as well.
Nicotine addiction, reduction, and smoking cessation
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32240-7/fulltext?elsca1=etoc
The Lancet is paying attention to the FDA's actions as well.
I look at buying nicotine for vaping as no different than buying caffeine tablets.
That's really the way it should be.
That's really the way it should be.
I can't imagine anything that the FDA would love better than to extend a like kind authority over nutritionals as it has tobacco. Shall we by example give it to them? It's perhaps where we're headed.
Unfortunately, we have not seen a scenario of warranted lawfully justified regulation of the subject. I'm no categorical opponent of regulation. We drive on the right side of the road don't we? But licensing vehicles for example is nothing more than a taking if revenues exceed their intended appropriate purpose.
If the vaping industry had not been so maliciously attacked along with the constructive social culture of vaping itself, we'd have no problem. Let's just not forget it happened because we've now been "relabeled".
Personally I'd find it difficult to trust an establishment that fails to rescind the legalistic chains they used to bind us. Edicts and pronouncements don't work for me when they serve to leave the cage up. In other words, extract vaping from tobacco legislation. Then maybe we can talk on equal and rational terms.
I don't believe it was the explicit intent of Congress to create a quasi-independent self-funding government in the form of the FDA. What's happened to us should be adequate proof as to why not.
However, if we now fail to seize this present quiet in the storm to recover our lost and threatened interest in property it will remain mired in the political hypocrisy we have so far seen.
A return to orderly equitable process requires government abide by the rules set for it. So I don't care how many sound judgments affirm badly implemented law. The cure is to target the latter.
Good luck all.
Last edited:
Notice that residue on the walls from cigarette smoking is called, "nicotine stains"? The nicotine content in those "nicotine stains" is probably negligible at most. But it gets the blame. Nicotine just brings up a horrible image in most people's minds.
And I am guilty of occasionally saying that I needed to get my nic fix when it was in fact needing to get my cocktail of chemicals fix.
Am I the only one that sees what they are doing. It seems most everyone is OK with being deemed a tobacco product. Once we all get on board with that concept it is a very slippery slope down to vaping being treated just the same as smoking. The powers that be will end up with everything they want with our blessing. Looks like smoke, must be controlled and TAXED
It seems to me like we think there are only 2 categories we can fall under...either a tobacco product or a drug. There has to be another option but it seems to me the ones that can do something about getting vaping classified as something new seem to be OK with being classified as tobacco and are at the table begging for crumbs.
I guess I am just beating a dead horse at this point in time.
I'm glad somebody else is saying it.
Nobody listens to me.
Shrug
Guns don't kill people, virgins do! -Jim Jeffries
Or rather yet think of it as the first in a long line of steps necessary before reality sets in with the pols and lives get saved without sin bin finger pointing, regulation and massive taxation.
We're still in that grey area.
Behind us is total darkness.
Ahead is the light.
I choose to not stare back as I attempt to walk forward.
Guns don't kill people, virgins do! -Jim Jeffries
Similar threads
- Locked
