ok, now just think about it...
Responding to this post because I was once where you were on this forum. I haven't changed drastically, and do (still) think the original FDA proposal is rather tame IF you are one who thinks forbidding minors usage/purchasing is a good thing. I think it is a very normal position, and is why I see the original proposal as tame (relatively speaking).
I say we dont know what they put into ejuice
you say read their ingredients or you say just google it (like that would be an answer) would any company say we make this juice in a rat infested basement and use whatever we have on hand when we run out (including pee, and seman (like some young high boy wont really think thats funny), or even worse some kind of addicting drug)
you say all other ingredients are more expensive so why would they, people also said this of tobacco and we found out why they would - to make them more addictive, to keep the market base, etc
I say even in a heavily regulated market, people won't know (with certainty) what is put into eLiquid. They'll think they know. I grant that. But really just got to look at say Chantix which went through lots of vetting before it got to market. Had all ingredients listed. Had its product produced in labs that likely cost millions, if not billions, of dollars. So, I'm saying that even if you think you know the ingredients in product, you really don't know what's in there, and/or if it is actually safe. Chances are very good that if it is made of substances from this planet (or this universe), it'll carry with it a degree of harm. And that harm may not be realized until years after FDA approval.
So, I am one who is rather convinced that incidents of harm will go up after FDA intervention. Because people will think the ingredients being used are vetted for safety. That may be accurate / hard to argue against. But the key determination will be to compare incidents of harm prior to FDA involvement and after involvement.
I say we dont know that they even know how to mix it right
you say recipes are not rocket science, but I still say we dont know if they know how to read them
I see this as cynicism (at best). My cynical response is the best mixers in the world, in the best lab environment don't know if they know how to mix. But the consumers know what they like, and know if they want more, or less of whatever is mixed for them, hopefully chosen by them.
I say, it might be a good thing that they are regulated
you say regulation is the killer of this business, you say we are adults and know how to look out for ourselves, but I still say having something that is ingested by people should at least be looked at by some regulating body to make sure they are actually using the ingredients they put on their bottles or that they are doing this in a clean way, or that they handle nicotine properly. We ar adults but we dont go visit all the companies to see how they make it and if their rooms are clean and proper procedures are used. We dont have machines in our homes to test ingredients to make sure they are what they put on the label.
Already addressed above, I think sufficiently. Lemme know if you disagree.
I originally posed this as a question - why it this bad, wouldnt it be good to have someone make sure the ingredients are safe? And every one that commented came on real strong trying to make me feel small for asking. But all you have done is show me that you are the ones that need to think about it a little more. Ask yourself, wait "just think about it", how could this go wrong? When big pharma or big tobacco take over (which sooner or later we all know its a possibility) what will they do to ejuice? Do we really want a product that we ingest to NOT be reviewed? To have no regulations?
Who regulates the regulators? That would be my rhetorical response to what I see as a loaded question that I don't think has thought things through.
Where are these "safe ingredients" of which you speak? Please name, even one.
I honestly think anecdotal evidence for harms/safety of eCigs outweighs the scientific evidence now, and will be the case going forward. In this era where things are not being heavily regulated, and theoretically anything could be put in eLiquid, we are not noticing 'great harm' from eLiquid. Closer to 'non-existant' incidents. So, one then would be right to have a 'see I told you so' attitude if regulation does increase incidents of harm. I think it will. I do hope I'm mistaken, but because of anti-vaping sentiment, I think that even while a whole lots of "big whatever entities" will be appeased through heavily regulated market, that anti-vaping will still have purpose to second guess every thing that the vaping market still produces. I think they will influence people who have doubts about vaping and convince some (hard to say how many) that what they are using is inherently unsafe. Lawsuits will happen. Product recalls will happen. Incidents of harm will go up.
Being the only voice asking the question with so many of you coming on quite strong to tell me I am wrong, kind of sucks. But when you say "just think about it", I actually AM just thinking about it, and I actually was just asking why you felt it would shut down the industry and the responses I got didnt quell my questions, they actually made me wonder why in the world, with everything we have seen happen with other industries, you believe that nothing untoward will happen in this one without regulations?
I was doing this in original FDA thread. Me and from what I recall about 3 other people were going against the grain in that thread. A lot of what I said then I stand by. I for sure stand by the kids issue and still think it is the one regulation that drives them all. Perhaps even you disagree with this, which would tell me that perhaps you haven't thought this through as well as you think you have. But, perhaps that has nothing to do with what you are driving at.
A very key thing to understand from naysayers (or those who talk about FDA ban) is that they ONLY mean de facto ban, and not outright. Sometimes (rarely) they'll say or strongly imply 'outright ban' but they are probably basing that on some leaked info, such as "FDA will make emergency rule to eliminate flavors."
A de facto ban, IMO, is very likely under FDA regulations unless another branch of federal government steps in and tells the FDA you cannot charge more than say $1000 for businesses to get into this market. Instead, FDA is free to charge whatever it wants AND then after that is paid, FDA is still free to say, your application has been denied. Then if you realize the FDA lost in a MAJOR court battle from this particular industry, it would seem like they have incentive to deny a whole lot, just because (they are jerks). Thus, the fact that costs could be so prohibitive, that anyone thinking of getting into vaping business post FDA rule, ought to have a $100 million business loan, and then assurance from investor / loan types that the money may be spent on FDA applications which, very easily could be denied. Those with that existing capital will be taking a gamble. A gamble that could pay off (and net them billions of dollars down the road). Or a gamble that could cause them from what right now looks like they are primed to be around for at least another 10 years, but because FDA denied their application means they are no longer a viable player in the market.
Regardless of how 'safe' and 'proper' you think their production line is, or was.
