My opinion on the labeling of e cigs

[DoctorJ]

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.

 

[Papillon61]

All the downsides you envisage are already embodied in the EU TPD which considers electronic cigarettes as tobacco products. So, wish you luck in the US.

 

[Thrasher]

Whew, my brain hurts now.


Ok first let me say I dont care either way.

So- how about this... when nicotine is extracted it is just the single molecule, it is the chemical clean and pure. To be classified as a tobacco product, shouldnt it actually contain tobacco alkaloids?

If someone extracted the nicotine from an eggplant or tomato ( they do have trace amounts) this too would have to be classified as a tobacco product then when it had nothing to do with tobacco in any way.

Look at it this way, people go to mcdonalds and get an ice cream cone, but mc donalds never said it is ice cream, they say it is a frozen dairy treat containing real dairy products. Should it be classified as ice cream anyways?

 

[DaveSignal]

So what if they just sell the e-juice without nicotine. And then sell the nicotine as an add-on. Then it is clearly not a tobacco product in any way, so tobacco regulations do not apply. And stop referring to it as an e-cigarette. This will cause problems with PayPal transactions as PayPal suspends accounts for sales of tobacco products. There is nothing 'cigarette' about it. Just call it a vaping device. problem solved.

 

[bluecat]

Nicotine is found in the nightshade family of plants which tobacco is one. It is also found in tomatoes potatoes and green peppers. Caffeine is found in 60 plants most common being coffee and teas. It is added to different beverage but we don't say diet coke is a coffee based drug.

Eliquid can be nicotine based. It should be treated as a nicotine product not a tobacco product.

 

[VHRB2014]

When the the tail wags the dog, it, the tail, determines what the meaning of is......is.

Now if you told the world that a person could quite cigarettes with a quality NRT product that is 1-tenth the cost, or less, where is the money in that I ask you?
Dripping sarc here, LOL.

 

[VHRB2014]

Whew, my brain hurts now.


Ok first let me say I dont care either way.

So- how about this... when nicotine is extracted it is just the single molecule, it is the chemical clean and pure. To be classified as a tobacco product, shouldnt it actually contain tobacco alkaloids?

If someone extracted the nicotine from an eggplant or tomato ( they do have trace amounts) this too would have to be classified as a tobacco product then when it had nothing to do with tobacco in any way.

Look at it this way, people go to mcdonalds and get an ice cream cone, but mc donalds never said it is ice cream, they say it is a frozen dairy treat containing real dairy products. Should it be classified as ice cream anyways?

Eggplant plantations as far as the eye can see............. I could get behind that.

And they also taste pretty good when dipped and fried with a little red sauce. :?)

 

[Rabbit Slayer]

Nicotine is found in the nightshade family of plants which tobacco is one. It is also found in tomatoes potatoes and green peppers. Caffeine is found in 60 plants most common being coffee and teas. It is added to different beverage but we don't say diet coke is a coffee based drug.

Eliquid can be nicotine based. It should be treated as a nicotine product not a tobacco product.

Is that where a majority of the nicotine we vape comes from or does it come from tobacco plants?

 

[Mad Scientist]

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.

ANTZ do more than just express their opinions. They want to control my behavior under the point of the government's guns. Big difference.

In addition, I think an issue is that labeling ecigs as a pharmaceutical would then trigger FDA control of clinical trials and regulation and would require ecigs to prove they are safe and effective to diagnose, treat or cure a medical condition. That costs a lot of money, would take many years, and would shut down all but the big pharma players who have no interest in ecigs anyway. Goodbye ecigs.

Remarkably, contrary to all the nanny state adherents, the market has so far done a pretty good job of shaping vaping safety. While the fear of government involvement has played some part in that, it is clear to me that more actual government involvement at this point would only detract from the availability of a product for smokers that is less harmful than cigarettes.

Given my age and years of smoking, not smoking is not a realistic option. So my options are I can smoke or I can vape. As a result, I see people who think they need to "protect" me from vaping as enemies and as idiots who don't understand the questions they are asking or the answers they propose to those questions.

 

[ckquatt]

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 take issue with this statement. I'm a firm believer of freedom of speech and whatnot, but when you resort to outright lies and shenanigans to do nothing but further your agenda*, you have lost that freedom in my opinion and should be called out for the liars and pieces of crap that you are! I'm sorry.

*Demonizing ecigs not due to health reasons, but purely out of fear of losing money, support and taxes etc.


Sent from my Commadore 64 using Tapatalk

 

[Lessifer]

There is a difference between defining something as a tobacco product, and deeming it a tobacco product under the auspices of the FSPTCA. I don't care if people call e-liquid that contains nicotine a tobacco product, but subjecting them to all of the regulations that come with being Deemed a Tobacco Product is a completely different story.

In your research did you happen to see what the actual regulations are under the FSPTCA? Did you read through the proposed deeming regulations? Do you understand that with a 2007 SE date, nearly none of the products that we have today will be legal?

ETA: The FSPTCA is written to halt cigarette development. The only changes they are allowed to make are superficial. To bring a new product to market there are an insane number of tests, studies, etc. that need to be done. Vaping is a wholly different animal, and unless you want the only products available to be those supplied by BT, you really should be opposing the deeming regulations also. But hey, it's your dime, you do what you want with it.

 

[Racehorse]

Eggplant plantations as far as the eye can see............. I could get behind that.

And they also taste pretty good when dipped and fried with a little red sauce. :?)

I like mine with applesauce or sour cream.

 

[VHRB2014]

I like mine with applesauce or sour cream.

That`s the beauty of deep fry, you can put just about anything on it and it`ll taste good.

 

[AndriaD]

The thing about the "ANTZ" term... they are ZEALOTS. That tells you right there, there isn't a rational bone in any of their bodies -- they're all about CONTROL -- those who persecuted Jews and "heretics" under the auspices of the Inquisition were also zealots, who did evil in the name of their god, who would no doubt be appalled at the whole thing.

To embrace zealotry is to leave rational discourse behind, to insist on your own way, come hell or high water -- control freaks. Like those "upright" goodwives and bible-thumping judges in New England persecuting "witches." If there really had been any witches, too bad they didn't vanish the whole lot of their persecutors... or turn them into frogs!

I'd dearly love to turn all the ANTZ into frogs. Then all you'd hear from them would be "ribbit" instead of all the asinine insanity they currently spew.

Andria

 

[crxess]

Nicotine is a chemical found in MANY plants.

The fact that we have genetically manipulated Tobacco and Farmed to maximum production to produce the highest availability of Nicotine does NOT in Any Way, Shape or Form make Nicotine Tobacco.

Oxygen is found in Water - Oxygen is NOT Water

Freakin' Political Games!

 

[VHRB2014]

CR, Spot ON man. Spot on.

The thing about the "ANTZ" term... they are ZEALOTS. That tells you right there, there isn't a rational bone in any of their bodies -- they're all about CONTROL -- those who persecuted Jews and "heretics" under the auspices of the Inquisition were also zealots, who did evil in the name of their god, who would no doubt be appalled at the whole thing.

To embrace zealotry is to leave rational discourse behind, to insist on your own way, come hell or high water -- control freaks. Like those "upright" goodwives and bible-thumping judges in New England persecuting "witches." If there really had been any witches, too bad they didn't vanish the whole lot of their persecutors... or turn them into frogs!

I'd dearly love to turn all the ANTZ into frogs. Then all you'd hear from them would be "ribbit" instead of all the asinine insanity they currently spew.

Andria

Well I would think you would vanquish most of DC with that. I call that a Win-Win, :?)

 

[Verb]

Synthetic Nicotine does exist.

Nicotine Polacrilex, 20 Percent, USP | | N1175 | Spectrum Chemical

200mg/ml cost is way over the top in small quantities. For 5gm it comes out to around $86 just for the nic in 30ml of 6mg/ml liquid.

At the 1kg it comes in around $6.50 for the nic in 30ml of 6mg/ml liquid. Quite pricey but lower than some proposed taxes.

They also sell pure synthetic nicotine. If you have the qualifications to handle the stuff (certified lab or university), purchased in their largest 10kg package, the 180mg you'd need for 30ml of 6mg/ml comes out to about $.47. So, it is viable for a very large juice producer.

Nicotine Ditartrate, Dihydrate | 6019-06-3 | N2352 | Spectrum Chemical

 

[Frenchfry1942]

Good reading. Slow at first, but grateful that it didn't get rant-like. When I see that, I just skip and whatever I miss,...I miss.

Anyway, I see a lot of money/profit/control getting potentially lost by corporations and that brings out the actions against the use of nic juice for MY staying away from smoking cigarettes.

Thanks all.

(Edit: It's that darn free-market democracy)

 

[Jman8]

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.

I concur with you on this point. You said more than this paragraph to explain your point, and most of it I agree with, some I disagree, but in general, I saw you making 2 or 3 points, and this is the one I see is near the center of your assertion.

I would note that politically speaking, it would be in our best interest to not have it classified as nicotine product, but also not as pharmaceutical. Best to say, it is neither and come up with own classification, but really only best as it is just a delay mechanism.

IMO, if you are vaping nicotine and that nicotine is derived from a tobacco plant, you are vaping a tobacco product. Yet, same goes with gum, mist, or patches.

Historically, TPTB tried to get vaping products deemed as pharmaceutical products, to then be controlled in that fashion. That failed legally. Judge ruled it was closer to recreational tobacco smoking than to pharmaceutical claim, and from this TPTB decided to tackle the control / regulation angle via the recreational tobacco angle. I didn't see this bit of history noted in your long post, and so not sure if you are aware of it, but I do think it is critical to this point, though isn't the totality of how to frame or understand this issue.

I do see it as plausible that if vaping were in its own distinct category that regulations could be worse. But as that would take likes of FDA another 5 years to get to that point, it would possibly mean that politically the industry could get stronger / better funded to tackle the issues both politically and legally. As it stands right now, the legal issues won't be easy for TPTB to go full steam ahead based on way they have framed things. Especially considering obvious fact that it is very possible to vape and not use nicotine. Thus devices are items that very obviously do not contain nicotine (in many cases) and so a bit ludicrous to deem them as tobacco products.

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.

This would be the one area where we disagree. I think my main response would be that 'they' started the name calling, stigmatizing, demonizing and really deceptive practices. Way way before vaping came around. And they are using the same tactics to try to take vaping down a notch.

ANTZ is the adversarial position. There are full blown ANTZ that really don't hide their perspective and if anything have schools set up to indoctrinate more into this camp. I'm pretty sure they take pride in this sort of thing, and the basis of their ongoing onslaught is an us vs. them scenario that will end a day or two after nicotine is eliminated, for recreation use, from the planet.

Then there are ANTZ who are lesser entrenched and who are pretty much everyone, due to the social engineering that has been done since 1950's. I have stated that when I went cold turkey from smoking, I engaged in ANTZ logic and rhetoric. In some ways, I think it is inescapable. In other ways, it makes me more militant for the vaping enthusiast perspective but with counter rhetoric for I find ANTZ logic really, super duper easy to defeat most of the time. I'd love to battle ANTZ type on smoking politics. With the non full blown types, this type of debate is usually very short as I find most people are just parroting rhetoric that is super duper easy to poke holes into, i.e. that second hand smoking is dangerous. Truth = it is not.

Anyway, I find ANTZ works as a way to identify the politics at work, and being expressed. Sometimes by vaping enthusiasts. Like when fellow vaper says we should never vape in public because vaping ought to be treated just like smoking, with idea that banning public smoking is a great thing - that be ANTZ rhetoric. It ought to be called out for what it is. It is an extreme anti position against vaping in public. And it is precisely taken from ANTZ playbook. And I do mean an actual playbook.

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.

Most would say you are being naive here. If you aren't aware of ANTZ playbook, then IMO, you kinda sorta are being naive, but also not very different than most of us before we really did some research.

Yet, I do agree that the vaping sky is not falling and have not been shy about this since my first post here on ECF. I do fluctuate on this point, but claims like 99% of products will be (outright) banned are just chicken little rhetoric intended to use fear to rally the troops.

I disagree that TPTB will let up on vaping down the road after certain things have played out. Like if it were known that SHS is not dangerous, do you see that being allowed in places any time soon? I would say no because society (including smokers) are so used to not doing it in public, that I don't see that changing. I think the only way it would be eased up on is if some big Pharma type company got into the game, and understood it as recreational, but still spun it in way of "great for getting away from that evil smoking habit." Still a chance they'd be vilified, but depending on their clout, it could have a bunch of anti-leaning types say, 'now wait a second, maybe there is some positive benefits to this vaping thing.'

I also think the ex-vaper factor is something that is a wildcard. There are issues that come up from our side of the equation than lead to debates about "danger" or "latest concern." Say we have about 10 of those, and then say we have 10,000 ex-vapers roaming the planet who feel liberated from no longer being tethered to their vape gear. If even 1% of them were wanting to save future users from the same 'ugly, dangerous, poor choice' that they once made, it would be akin to how ANTZ playbook was able to tap into ex-smokers who felt lied to, cheated out of years of enjoyment and able to provide inside scoop on the vaping enthusiast camp. I'm pretty sure this will happen, and that there are ANTZ among us. Not the full blown kind, but the sort that would make it easy to exploit certain things that camp Vaper is aware of, but that general public might not yet get. All the current stuff that team ANTZ is floating out there is mostly to all so grade school in its approach that it would be hard to take a friend or family member seriously if they were approaching us with that. But if they were quoting article by ex-vaper who was able to frame issues in way we do, but spin it toward team ANTZ, then those discussions might go differently.

But that's probably a good 5 years away, and so those who think things like flavors will be all gone after FDA deems their voodoo are IMO off base. So off base that I was glad to have an ECF member do a wager on just this type of thing.

FYI - TPTB = the powers that be

 

[edyle]

To say that a liquid that happens to contain nicotine is a tobacco product
is like saying that
a soft drink (example cocacola) which contains caffeine is a coffee product.