Why don't people want e-liquid labels changed?

[scrabble]

Ecigarettes have never been proven to be a safe product. they have all been labeled as a SAFER ALTERNATIVE. The FDA's regulation is simply putting warnings on it and taxing it to put it out of price range of the children. Their regulation does not improve safety.. if anything, it makes it worse. When the FDA took charge of cigarettes, they did not alter the ingredients of cigarettes.. They still contain the same ingredients as when they were first introduced. They have increased the tax, forcing cigarettes to be extremely expensive. The one thing that has been changed since regulation, is they have required an additive in cigarettes to hinder the burning of a cigarette to prevent fires.. this made the cigarettes even worse.

So, looking at past regulations, the FDA does not make it safer, it has not improved anything. The FDA won't ban ecigarettes, they highly tax it. one recent proposal to tax ejuice was in Washington, and I believe it was $.08 per Milligram of nicotine. A 15ml bottle of 18mg juice contains about 270 MG of nicotine. for that $.08 tax, it would add a $21 tax on a 15ml bottle. So if the juice cost $10, that would be $32 for a 15ml bottle.... THAT is how the FDA regulates to get it away from children. They do not make it safer, just more expensive.

I think the taxation is a heist and nothing but a heist.

 

[scrabble]

Lol.. I'll never get the yard mowed.. this'll have to be my last post for today.

I don't mind the no vaping in public places that much. I don't do that anyways. But it's their method of how to impose that rule. To impose that rule, they will lump ecigarettes in the same class of device as regular cigarettes. That will increase the tax. One reason I switched to ecigarettes was because it was cheaper. It was a motivation for me to switch. I believe Ecigarettes are much safer than regular cigarettes. I have even cut down on the nicotine to a great deal. If ecigarettes are lumped in and taxed like cigarettes, it will remove that motivation for people to switch over to a safer alternative. It will, in fact, dissuade people from quitting. I think FDA regulation will end up killing people.

Ecigarettes should be handled as their own devices.. and that's something the FDA is not willing to do. They are lumping it in as a tobacco product.. with all the regulations, taxes, and restrictions as regular cigarettes.

I agree that e-cigs should be treated / handled separately. And I agree that taxing e-cigs in the same ill-manner that they've taxed cigarettes would hurt people. Very badly. There are so many of us who need to heal and recover in EVERY way: physically, emotionally and financially. E-cigs are that opportunity. I definitely agree that they shouldn't be taxed the way tobacco / cigarettes are. It would be criminal of them to do that.

 

[NealBJr]

The FDA has no power to tax...

No, but they have the power to classify. And if they classify Ecigarettes as a tobacco product, then they will impose all the taxes associated with cigarettes on Ecigarettes.

 

[skoony]

Yes, it was from vaping. Mucus is a known adverse response to VG and PG. If it causes an allergic reaction that means it's toxic (for that person).

oh,the mysterious delayed after i went to sleep toxic reaction.

 

[stevegmu]

No, but they have the power to classify. And if they classify Ecigarettes as a tobacco product, then they will impose all the taxes associated with cigarettes on Ecigarettes.

You think the FDA will just say, well, we thought we could regulate e-nic under the TCA, but we now don't think it is a tobacco product, so won't do anything? It is a tobacco product, hence why some states have proposed to tax it as a tobacco product...

 

[AndriaD]

Yes, it was from vaping. Mucus is a known adverse response to VG and PG. If it causes an allergic reaction that means it's toxic (for that person).

No, not really a "known adverse response." PG is pumped into the air in hospitals, for its anti-microbial effect. If an adverse effect was known, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't do that.

However, waking up in the night unable to breathe, sounds a great deal like my reaction to VG. Rather than indicting "PG and VG", what is necessary is that you find the right balance of the two ingredients for YOUR body -- as I said, I have to vape 84/16, because any more VG than that gives me a huge breathing problem, but I also discovered some months ago that 90% PG causes burning in my throat, nose, and sinus passages. 84/16, or even 85/15, causes me no issues whatever.

Vaping is NOT "one size fits all" -- every body is different, therefore every body must find the right balance for that particular body -- which the FDA doesn't see, won't see, and will not regulate for -- to them, if something causes ONE person a problem, well then it oughta just be BANNED! Or, if they're getting paid a gadzillion bucks by BP, they'll say something like Chantix is safe, despite a 500+ death toll (so far!). Or another gadzillion bucks from Big Ag, they'll go along happily with sulfites, which don't do a blessed thing except preserve color -- but could kill asthmatics.

Put not your trust in government... government doesn't care about individuals; all they really seem to care about is putting more money in the gov't pocket.

Andria

 

[caramel]

I think that's where the government should draw the line. It should be no different from stated warnings about nicotine and cancer. They haven't banned cigarettes so I seriously doubt there will be a ban (in the United States) on e-cigs. But should appropriate warnings be on the labels of liquids? I think so, yes. Very much so.

Why doesn't the "public healthcare" industry affix (graphic) warning labels on themselves:

Medical Mistakes are 3rd Leading Cause of Death in U.S. - Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont

it's obviously a larger issue than e-liquid.

 

[caramel]

government doesn't care about individuals;

They actually do. Except that most of the time it's about a few select individuals.

 

[caramel]

Yes, it was from vaping. Mucus is a known adverse response to VG and PG. If it causes an allergic reaction that means it's toxic (for that person).

It actually means that it's an allergen not a toxin.

 

[scrabble]

oh,the mysterious delayed after i went to sleep toxic reaction.

Are you hell-bent to continue to insult me? Does the truth offend you that badly? Look, it was from vaping. At first I thought it was from the PG but the more I read the more I find that it actually might've been caused by the VG.

I just read this a little while ago,

But now doctors have raised concerns about e-cigarette vapor separate from those about nicotine. A 42-year-old woman who had used e-cigarettes for seven months experienced shortness of breath, cough, and fever over the same period. The diagnosis was lipoid pneumonia—a chronic inflammation caused by fatty substances (lipids) in the lungs—due to e-cigarette use. The specific cause was repeated exposure to glycerin-based oils found in e-cigarette nicotine vapor. The patient’s symptoms improved after she stopped using e-cigarettes.1

A recent study also found that using an e-cigarette for five minutes began to restrict lung function. It was not clear which e-cigarette ingredient or combination of substances caused these reactions. However, other studies have shown that propylene glycol, the source of the e-cigarettes’ visible vapor, can bring on respiratory irritation and increase the chance of developing asthma.2

My only point is this: vaping has risks. I'm not afraid to admit it. Those particular risks are not going to keep me from vaping, but one thing that's really important to me is facts. I need information to be available to me. It was by reading information that I was able to confirm what that choking was about and I'm glad the information was available. Now I have the opportunity to contribute in building that body of information, because I experienced an adverse effect! I'm not going to keep it to myself and pretend like nothing bad happened just because some people want to maintain an idea of total safety so that the government won't interfere. It's just not all that safe. It isn't.

 

[KattMamma]

It's sort of like, wanting to ban vaping in public places. Why do people get so upset over that? I agree that I shouldn't be vaping in the isles while I'm grocery shopping. I agree that I shouldn't be vaping while sitting in the lobby area of a doctor's office. I agree that I shouldn't be vaping while walking through the mall. That's just basic respect for other people. It's not a big deal, at all.

It IS a big deal. I don't get upset if a business posts a "no smoking/no vaping" sign. That's their perogitive, and I can choose to do business there or go elsewhere. When the gov't steps in and bans vaping, my choices are gone, and the bans are far-reaching. Some local governments have gone so far as to ban smoking on balconies, porches, decks, even in apartments. I don't want to see the same happen to vaping.

The one thing that has been changed since regulation, is they have required an additive in cigarettes to hinder the burning of a cigarette to prevent fires.. this made the cigarettes even worse.

Yep - and those FSC additives nearly killed me. I was forced into rolling my own cigs to avoid the FSC toxins.

THAT is how the FDA regulates to get it away from children. They do not make it safer, just more expensive.

While the FDA does not directly tax, their regulations help justify high taxes. When a big tax hike on cigs pushed a lot of people to rolling their own (which I was already doing for health reasons - see above), they saw the loophole and stepped in with a 2800% tax increase on RYO tobacco (yes - that number is correct - 2800%). At the time, I was paying about $16 a pound for tobacco - 1$ of that was taxes. I (incorrectly) figured - ok, 28 plus 16, my next pound will cost $44. WRONG. Since the tax was pre-paid by the store owner, their markup was applied. My next pound cost $59. We're likely looking at the same scenario with ejuice.

If it causes an allergic reaction that means it's toxic (for that person).

I understand what you're saying, but people can be allergic to nearly anything. I know - I'm allergic to lots of stuff - some things I am violently allergic to (like the FSC stuff - it made me break out in hives and caused my throat to swell.) But I don't want gov't to regulate or ban the stuff I'm allergic to.

 

[scrabble]

It actually means that it's an allergen not a toxin.

If I ate a crayon and got sick, I don't have an allergy to eating crayons. It's just toxic. Same thing, for some people, with VG and / or PG.

 

[KattMamma]

It was by reading information that I was able to confirm what that choking was about and I'm glad the information was available.

So you're saying you found the info you needed to make your own decisions - now what do you want the government to do?

 

[caramel]

If I ate a crayon and got sick, I don't have an allergy to eating crayons. It's just toxic. Same thing, for some people, with VG and / or PG.

You'll most likely suffer from mechanical trauma not poisoning. Why don't you check a few definitions for "toxins":

Toxin - Glossary Entry - Genetics Home Reference

 

[scrabble]

It IS a big deal. I don't get upset if a business posts a "no smoking/no vaping" sign. That's their perogitive, and I can choose to do business there or go elsewhere. When the gov't steps in and bans vaping, my choices are gone, and the bans are far-reaching. Some local governments have gone so far as to ban smoking on balconies, porches, decks, even in apartments. I don't want to see the same happen to vaping.


Yep - and those FSC additives nearly killed me. I was forced into rolling my own cigs to avoid the FSC toxins.


While the FDA does not directly tax, their regulations help justify high taxes. When a big tax hike on cigs pushed a lot of people to rolling their own (which I was already doing for health reasons - see above), they saw the loophole and stepped in with a 2800% tax increase on RYO tobacco (yes - that number is correct - 2800%). At the time, I was paying about $16 a pound for tobacco - 1$ of that was taxes. I (incorrectly) figured - ok, 28 plus 16, my next pound will cost $44. WRONG. Since the tax was pre-paid by the store owner, their markup was applied. My next pound cost $59. We're likely looking at the same scenario with ejuice.


I understand what you're saying, but people can be allergic to nearly anything. I know - I'm allergic to lots of stuff - some things I am violently allergic to (like the FSC stuff - it made me break out in hives and caused my throat to swell.) But I don't want gov't to regulate or ban the stuff I'm allergic to.

Haha, I know what you mean! Well, I'm allergic to antibiotics. They're toxins to me and I can't take them. I certainly want greater studies, facts and regulations to protect me from doctors and hospitals.

 

[scrabble]

So you're saying you found the info you needed to make your own decisions - now what do you want the government to do?

Establish the facts and indicate warnings where it's most appropriate, like packaging.

 

[KattMamma]

I think FDA regulation will end up killing people.

I agree 1000%

 

[scrabble]

You'll most likely suffer from mechanical trauma not poisoning. Why don't you check a few definitions for "toxins":

Toxin - Glossary Entry - Genetics Home Reference

I'm not offended that a toxin is a toxin. It doesn't hurt my feelings or scare me to acknowledge when something is toxic to me.

 

[KattMamma]

If allergens are declared toxins, we need to cut down all of the pine and mountain cedars because they're toxic (to me)

 

[scrabble]

If allergens are declared toxins, we need to cut down all of the pine and mountain cedars because they're toxic (to me)

Why does it bother you that VG / PG is toxic to some people? Are you afraid that the government is going to take e-cigs away?

Let me say it this way: VG / PG is not entirely nontoxic. It might not cause death and it might not cause permanent damage but in my case it was not nontoxic.