regulating e liquid as if it is tobacco product...

Discussion in 'FDA Regulations' started by ElmosRevenge, Jul 24, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ElmosRevenge

    ElmosRevenge Full Member

    Regulating e liquid as if it is tobacco product is like trying to regulate ice cream as if it were the same as a steak. That being said, I will explain my comparison. E liquid has nicotine in it as does tobacco. Ice cream has water in it just like steak has water in it.

    To the best of my knowledge nicotine is the only thing that e liquid and processed tobacco have in common. E liquid is vaporized and can't be burned (I just tried to do it). Tobacco cannot be vaporized but can be burned (I know, it's not rocket science).

    I guess I just cannot wrap my head around how these bureaucrats think that e liquid is the same as tobacco. It is not. One is solid and can be burned, the other is a liquid and cannot be burned. One has FDA approved ingredients, the other has poisons, carcinogens, and a ton of other crap in it that could remove paint from a wall.

    What do you think?
     
  2. Cullin Kin

    Cullin Kin Ultra Member Verified Member

    The kicker is, a lot of e-juice doesn't even contain nicotine. I use 0mg/mL juice. How can something without any nicotine at all be classified as a tobacco product? And isn't the 0mg e-juice the base for juices with nicotine?

    Therefore, going with your analogy, classifying e-juice with nicotine added as a tobacco product is like cooking meat in alcohol and classifying it an alcohol product (yes I know the alcohol burns off but still).
     
  3. wv2win

    wv2win ECF Guru ECF Veteran

    You are inferring that there should be some logic and common sense in how the FDA proposes to regulate vaping, as it relates to the public's health. But for that to occur, the premise that the regulations are about public health, must be true. There is the rub: these regulations have nothing to do with public health.

    These regulations are about protecting the financial interests of the FDA's primary constituency: the Big Pharmaceutical Industry.
     
  4. Jcdew67

    Jcdew67 Senior Member ECF Veteran

    I had someone come up to me and start a conversation after seeing me vape about vaping. He said "I think those should be taxed and regulated like cigarettes since they mimic them". I then asked him if he thinks cap guns should require a waiting period and be 21 or older to purchase,he no that's silly. I said but it mimics the shooting of a real gun and can be hazerdoes to your health since noone would know it was a toy gun. Then I told him water should require being 21 or older since it does mimic Vodka, he didn't have anything to say after that.

    Vegetables and such have Nicotine in them,the amount is moot,I guess we need to regulate them also and you will have to be 18 or older to consume.
     
  5. Bobbilly

    Bobbilly Super Member ECF Veteran

    I love that analogy


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  6. ctruth

    ctruth Super Member ECF Veteran

    You are citing Science as the compelling reason for FDA decisions.
    The opinions of the FDA are more in line with Theology (see Politics, Bribes, and embedded industrial board members). Also, as suggested by wv2win, see BP (Big Pharma).


    Capitalism = Selling something for way, way more than it's worth, plain and simple.
    Any questions?
     
  7. ElmosRevenge

    ElmosRevenge Full Member

    It was like 2 am when I wrote that. I could have worded it better, but obviously I got the point across.
     
  8. ElmosRevenge

    ElmosRevenge Full Member

    I am totally stealing this the next time someone gets diarrhea of the mouth regarding e cigs.
     
  9. ctruth

    ctruth Super Member ECF Veteran

    That you did. Good topic for getting crap off our chests.
     
  10. ElmosRevenge

    ElmosRevenge Full Member

    Good point. I didn't think of that.
     
  11. zoiDman

    zoiDman My -0^10 = Nothing at All ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    What do I Think?

    I think there comes a Point where the Effort should be Placed more on Trying to Fight for Fair and Equitable e-Liquid use than to Argue if a Nicotine Containing e-Liquid is a "Tobacco Product".

    Because Very Shortly, e-Liquids which contain Nicotine derived from Tobacco Plants will have a Statutory Definition as a Tobacco Product. And that is Not Going to Change.

    Have you Written your State and Federal Representatives telling them what type of e-Cigarette Market you want?

    Have you ask your Husband/Wife to do the Same?

    Have you ask your Friends and Family to do the Same?

    Have you gone to this Site and Considered what they Suggest? CASAA: First Call to Prepare for FDA Proposed Regulations - Prepare Draft Comment

    Discussing if Nicotine containing e-Liquids should be a Tobacco Product or Not is Fine. But they are Going to be Legal Defined as such soon.

    So maybe More effort should be Placed in Trying to shape how we can Still Use these "Tobacco Products".
     
  12. Jman8

    Jman8 Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    I think, similar to Zoid, that it is inevitable, and does make a little sense. If the nicotine in eLiquid is derived from tomatoes, Zeller has already said they wouldn't regulate that under this framework (implying it would need new proposal). So, what are items are on the market that contain nicotine derived from tobacco? Well, lots of tobacco products (like smokes, chew, etc.) and NRT's, which had to go through lots of hoops to be considered NRT, and which eLiquid could go through if it wanted to position itself in that light.

    Where I differ, I think, from many is if you want to see this change drastically, you'd go after FSPTCA. You'd scrutinize the heck out of the tobacco control act, and seek changes with how all tobacco products are regulated. If there is little desire to do that, then I don't see the way to the golden road for eLiquid, as reality is that even some vapers (perhaps majority) are inadvertently working against basic principles of eLiquid regulation (saying they don't want that, but essentially supporting the act that does just that).

    I also think the kicker, cited in post #2 on this thread, throws a wrench into the regulatory framework, and I'm very pleased with that.
     
  13. DC2

    DC2 Tootie Puffer Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Gotta comment on that...

    Capitalism is really selling something for what the market will bear.
    Which means free-market competition and product improvement and innovation and reputation.

    What it doesn't mean is getting regulatory bodies to pass regulations that will hinder the development of all of the above.
    That is called something else entirely.

    I think the word is Oligarchy.
     
  14. zoiDman

    zoiDman My -0^10 = Nothing at All ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
  15. Kent C

    Kent C ECF Guru Verified Member ECF Veteran

    It is the basic, metaphysical fact of man’s nature—the connection between his survival and his use of reason—that capitalism recognizes and protects.

    In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate. They can deal with one another only in terms of and by means of reason, i.e., by means of discussion, persuasion, and contractual agreement, by voluntary choice to mutual benefit. The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree—and thus keeps the road open to man’s most valuable attribute (valuable personally, socially, and objectively): the creative mind.

    Ayn Rand “What Is Capitalism?” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
     
  16. Anjaffm

    Anjaffm Dragon Lady ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    So we have an oligopoly of a few corporations getting rich and an oligarchy with respect to just who has laws and regulations passed to serve their own interests, and not those of the average citizen
    America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or republic, university study finds - Washington Times

    With those corporations influencing the politicians to pass regulations that suit their own goals - and by no means the goals of the average citizen (Big Pharma and vaping, anyone? Monsanto and GMOs, anyone?)

    Not a good time to be an average citizen, eh?
     
  17. bigdancehawk

    bigdancehawk Super Member Verified Member ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    And basketballs and lipstick are derived from crude oil. Therefore, they are both petroleum products and should be regulated in the same way as gasoline. What's the problem?
     
  18. Anjaffm

    Anjaffm Dragon Lady ECF Veteran

    Supporting member
    Hm... as to nicotine derived from tobacco. I found this today:

    Regular flavor electronic cigarette cartridges | GreenSmartLiving e-cig refill

    I have no idea whether this product is viable.
    But I would love to see the so-called "experts" hem and haw and choke on their silly lies.
     
  19. Bobbilly

    Bobbilly Super Member ECF Veteran

    There is no argument - cause there is no tobacco. Full stop

    The ANTZ show their true colour each time they won't support a common sense bill all over a category. Dont ever give them that.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
  20. granolaboy

    granolaboy Super Member Verified Member

    Whenever you ask the question "Why", the answer is almost always "Money".

    As is in this case. E Liquid cuts into profits of tobacco, other nicotine cessation products, and all the pharmaceuticals prescribed for smoking, not to mention all the money that is made off of people's bad health as a result of smoking tobacco.

    Why are they doing this? Money. Money, money, and more money.

    edit: I guess you where asking "How", but it could have been re-phrased as a "Why"...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page