If BP gets it, it will taste like sh*t, produce no vapor, and have no entertainment value. It will also require a prescription and be cost prohibitive. If BT gets it, it will remain appealing, cost no more than their currently overpriced tobacco products, and can be made with flavorless nicotine which can be enhanced with our own flavors. Be certain though....one of the two will be taking over.That would be an interesting tug-o-war! What if? We would have one ecig in the big Pharm camp and one in big Tob. camp! Wow! Now that I would love to see!
Hey... someone out there sell themselves to BT! Sheri and I are up for some entertainment!
FDA Spokesperson Rita Chappelle Shoots Down Both the Device and The Nicotine For a Ban
- Thread starter Sun Vaporer
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- revolution
- Status
Personal Vaporizers are presently illegal in Mexico. It has got to be the most ridiculous thing ever, but it is true.
Sheri -
If the FDA wants to do it the correct way, they will not bring a hammer down on everyone, only those who are truly stepping within the FDA's jurisdiction. They have every right to go after the "health" word in any variation and "quit" and "safe".
I have a pretty solid source that tells me the FDA is completely unaware that these "devices" can deliver substances without Nicotine. Which is interesting because that means I can't really think of a supplier who doesn't offer no nic juice!
My fingers are crossed that the FDA looks to the language of Health Canada's ruling. If the FDA is going to be realistic about this, then that is the direction they will follow.
If the FDA wants to do it the correct way, they will not bring a hammer down on everyone, only those who are truly stepping within the FDA's jurisdiction. They have every right to go after the "health" word in any variation and "quit" and "safe".
I have a pretty solid source that tells me the FDA is completely unaware that these "devices" can deliver substances without Nicotine. Which is interesting because that means I can't really think of a supplier who doesn't offer no nic juice!
My fingers are crossed that the FDA looks to the language of Health Canada's ruling. If the FDA is going to be realistic about this, then that is the direction they will follow.
Last edited:
Well... just waiting on BT to pick one of us because BP has their player.
I'm going to start by saying that the PV did help ME, personally, quit smoking.... Haven't had the want or desire for one since I picked up my first one. And, my plans have always been to drop to zero nic formulas, or mix my own zero nic.
Now, we're going to hear from the "other side"
You could market a gun as an stop smoking device - just put it up to your temple and squeeze the trigger - BLAMO - you'll never smoke again! Unfortunate side effects to include..........
Cold hard fact.....Nicotine is a POISON. Marketing a POISON as a healthy alternative for inhaling something equally hazardous (cigs) is irresponsible. We are using a POISON as a recreational DRUG.
What was the last recreational drug deemed socially and legally acceptable??? The only 2 I can think of are alcohol and cigarettes. And these 2 are so deeply entrenched in the American culture that the gov't won't touch them without fear of touching off a mass outrage. Alcohol and cigs have been "grandfathered in" as tolerated deviant behavior.
This is what the FDA's assumptions are. If they allow a new recreational drug (which is, in fact, a poison) they are NOT doing their job...
Last edited:
The whole freaking out by our government is due to the unintended consequences of their actions. Massive cigarette and loose tobacco tax increases will drive people to seek out alternative methods of obtaining their fix. It's not really about getting people healthy or quitting smoking by raising taxes. If it were, they would simply outlaw tobacco and be done with it. They are worried about the tax loss.
Statists never learn economics. Imagining that simply raising taxes will cause revenue to increase has been shown time after time to simply not work. We've fought this battle over and over in the USA. We quickly forget our history or simply fail to teach economic history in our government schools.
SCHIP funding anyone? 60 billion dollars in funding (taxes) directly on the backs of smokers. This is why they don't ban tobacco.
Statists never learn economics. Imagining that simply raising taxes will cause revenue to increase has been shown time after time to simply not work. We've fought this battle over and over in the USA. We quickly forget our history or simply fail to teach economic history in our government schools.
SCHIP funding anyone? 60 billion dollars in funding (taxes) directly on the backs of smokers. This is why they don't ban tobacco.
Vicks, that's not being devil's advocate. That's telling the honest truth.
Bottom line: The FDA is charged with regulating drugs in America. You want to introduce a new drug? Big Pharma does all the time. Fine, then you follow the procedure to thoroughly test that drug, in clinical trials, you obtain scientific results and you present an application for your new drug. When you mix nicotine (Vicks has an accurate description) with other chemical ingredients and market the mixture to be vaporized and inhaled - well, you've got yourself a new drug. One that does not have approval.
No matter the feelings about government, this issue is about following spelled-out procedure to protect consumers. Not conspiracy. Not taxes. Not loss of personal choice. There is simply no way to justify the marketing of an untested drug inhaled by thousands to treat a defined medical condition called nicotine addiction.
There are so many offbase arguments being made when only one matters: Should the FDA do its mandated job of regulating the sale and marketing of new drugs and drug delivery devices? Or should it -- just this time -- look the other way? With what consequences? Just .. think about it. You'll surely see what will -- and must -- be done.
Bottom line: The FDA is charged with regulating drugs in America. You want to introduce a new drug? Big Pharma does all the time. Fine, then you follow the procedure to thoroughly test that drug, in clinical trials, you obtain scientific results and you present an application for your new drug. When you mix nicotine (Vicks has an accurate description) with other chemical ingredients and market the mixture to be vaporized and inhaled - well, you've got yourself a new drug. One that does not have approval.
No matter the feelings about government, this issue is about following spelled-out procedure to protect consumers. Not conspiracy. Not taxes. Not loss of personal choice. There is simply no way to justify the marketing of an untested drug inhaled by thousands to treat a defined medical condition called nicotine addiction.
There are so many offbase arguments being made when only one matters: Should the FDA do its mandated job of regulating the sale and marketing of new drugs and drug delivery devices? Or should it -- just this time -- look the other way? With what consequences? Just .. think about it. You'll surely see what will -- and must -- be done.
Raising the tobacco tax most certainly has something to do with it. Government creates yet another program and then has to fix the mess that the program created. When taxes go insanely high, people are going to modify their behavior. How many people would bother looking at e-cigs if smokes were $1.00 per pack?
If the FDA was so concerned about our health, they would ban tobacco and alcohol. Why don't they?
If the FDA was so concerned about our health, they would ban tobacco and alcohol. Why don't they?
First off, just because it's banned in Mexico doesn't mean we're screwed... unless the Northern Union plans come to fruition. If you don't know what that is... trust me there are bigger issues out there.
Second, it's no great secret why the FDA wants so much involvement in the electronic cigarette situation... see attached.
FDA and Electronic Cigarettes
Second, it's no great secret why the FDA wants so much involvement in the electronic cigarette situation... see attached.
FDA and Electronic Cigarettes
Sorry, can't let this go:
Because that is not their job! They do not have authority over either tobacco or alcohol. They have authoritiy -- carefully spelled out in detailed law -- over food and drugs. E-smoking relies on a drug. That drug has never been approved as formulated.
It's NOT nicotine. Nicotine is usually 3% or less of the mix we vaporize and inhale. It's a drug mixture. And manufacturers didn't do their job, meet their responsibility, to get it approved before marketing it. We bought it. We became addicted to it (duh). We like it. It's not our fault we might lose it. Just don't think the FDA is doing something it doesn't have authority to do, or is overstepping its bounds, or isn't following prescribed procedure. It is doing exactly what it should be doing -- preparing to rule on a new drug.
Because that is not their job! They do not have authority over either tobacco or alcohol. They have authoritiy -- carefully spelled out in detailed law -- over food and drugs. E-smoking relies on a drug. That drug has never been approved as formulated.
It's NOT nicotine. Nicotine is usually 3% or less of the mix we vaporize and inhale. It's a drug mixture. And manufacturers didn't do their job, meet their responsibility, to get it approved before marketing it. We bought it. We became addicted to it (duh). We like it. It's not our fault we might lose it. Just don't think the FDA is doing something it doesn't have authority to do, or is overstepping its bounds, or isn't following prescribed procedure. It is doing exactly what it should be doing -- preparing to rule on a new drug.
I love government regulation. There are so many shiny examples of how it works so well
They can't take the sky from me.
Please be real and call this what it is. This is a ban on electric cigarettes to save the interest our elected officials have in tobacco copmany's. Many test have already been run on this product and show how safe it is.Her wording is ( approved through the Federal cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act ) In other words, turn this product over to the cigarette company's so we do not loose our investments because of how popular this product is becomming.
I guess it is time for me to accept the fact that Bob is right. I don't want to have any part of a black market, but if I want to keep vaping, I better get ready for when the Black Market arrives. It is coming, Thanks USA! You will soon make me a criminal.
They're doing such a bang up job with food and drug safety now. They can't even make sure my peanut butter is edible or my salad won't kill me.
Let's throw another couple or tens of billion dollars their way. We just got new printing presses at the treasury and we need to break them in!just gotta say bravo TB!
i wish i had your half of your patience. lol
i've been watching you try to separate the wheat from the chaf for so long now and you're still holding up.
i wanted to let you know it is greatly appreciated.
You keep saying the E-cigarette makers did not test this product. They have done extensive testing and submitted them to the FDA. Because these Company's are from China the FDA refuses to look at this testing and the results of how safe this product is. If these same test were submitted by by American Tobacco company's we would now be using and buying this product without any problem. The problem now is that China invented the product the product while the U.S. company's took the gamble China's product would fail, But what a shock, The product turns out to be good and thousands of times safer than tobacco cigarettes and Americans are buying them.This product can save many lives and is a much healthier choice for current smokers but cannot yet supply the same amount of taxes produced by tobacco cigarettes. So the product will be banned in the U.S. until the U.S. can find a way to make it a U.S. product and tax it to the point of idiocy.
- Status
Similar threads
