Am I the only person who has a problem with ppl making juice in their homes?

[Tangaroav]

You provide no reasoning for your disagreement. Who wants this analysis and for what purpose? I submit that as this discussion has been going, consumers want it. I think certain vendors may wish to provide it, but do not think they need to be required to do so, as that will lead to a whole bunch of unintended consequences from the (die hard) consumer perspective. ANTZ will be involved in analysis just as much as eCigs will be regulated. IMO, that needs to be front and center in this type of debate, otherwise I see it being highly naive to go down this road.

You say it 'only costs $250' as if that's no big deal for the vendor. But I'm thinking you'd treat this as really big deal if it were entirely up to the consumer. So reads as, "as long as it isn't my money paying for it, then let's just say it is only $250," as if that is small peanuts.



They are naturally occurring substances. The currently known 'safe stuff' is synthetics. I find that laughable when considering the ANTZ aspect in this. I strongly believe it will be a short few years til ANTZ exploits that and produces new harms on par with 'what is wrong with smoking.'


I would say taste / quality is a highly valid reason. Perhaps if I did taste test and 9 times out of 10 couldn't tell the difference, then you'd have legitimate points here. But if I (or anyone) could tell difference, then I would say you are the one that is mistaken here. You also fail to neglect what ANTZ (and their scientists, who heavily influence mainstream perspective) will have on all this. Thus, the 'recipe for disaster' is equally, if not more, on your plate and for what you are advocating for. I am saying, 'yes, have analysis, as may be desired. And yes, have utmost concern for safety, as may be desired.' But if requiring those items of someone (namely a vendor) outside of you, then I see that as a) irresponsible and b) passing the buck. Or 250 bucks in this case. I don't see this as requirement for the consumer, nor for the vendors. But you and stevegmu want to argue that it must absolutely be requirement for vendors. I'm always up for that debate as I see the "should be required" position as undeniably misguided.

You are defending vendors who sell e-liquids that may have higher that established safety levels of chemicals. You are saying that they should not spend the $250 to have those liquids tested and informing their customer of the risks of vaping their e-liquids, BECAUSE IT TASTES GOOD ....

You are saying that they should not indicate it with labeling on their bottles. You say safety is the problem of the customer.

I'll say it again, this is a recipe for disaster. This is not the world we live in. Caveat emptor only goes so far. IMO, this kind of behavior can only bring strict govt intervention.

Edit: Here is a post that might be of interest:

'' Originally Posted by KFarsalinos

This story verifies that we were right when we decided not to mention the names of the samples we tested. Now there is a big story about one vendor, while for most of the other none knows if there is any diacetyl or acetyl propionyl.

I think it is more important to expose the lack of data and evidence from the industry rather than focus on one case where a bad result was found. In this way, everyone will have to go for testing and release the results.''

 

[Tangaroav]

Not to drift further off topic (but I will), that's one thing I've tried to impress on some of my co-workers, and it often gets lost in translation. Businesses don't pay salaries, taxes, or fines. Consumers do.

Back on topic, I'd rather see AEMSA be the "regulating" body for e-liquid manufacturers, with the .gov keeping its grubby paws off what little of my life I have to myself. Industry regulation is the way to go, because they tend to be more aware of the needs of business.

Individual retailers should have a choice when it comes to getting certified, and the consumer will vote with his (or her) wallet.

I agree that AEMSA is part of the solution to self regulation.

AEMSA has rules and regulations, one of them is that Diacetyl or acetyl propionyl can not be added to the e-liquids. How can someone who mixes ingredients to make e-liquid comply without an analysis of the e-liquid ?

IMO, the reasons vendors who do not have their e-liquid analyse has nothing to do with the ridiculously low cost of $250. It is because they know that their liquids will fail the test and do not care what the consequences will be to the consumer.

.... and yes IMO it is naive to think that the average consumer will be informed enough to choose the safe vendor from the negligent ones.

 

[stevegmu]

And who pays (via consumer pricing on the end product) the company for the lost profits when producing a simple product becomes more expensive due to this testing?

This quote clearly outlines a gross misunderstanding of the most basic principles of business. Costs increase, prices increase, period. It's how profits are made and businesses stay afloat.

ADDIT: We won't even touch on that comment about the water. Just glad I won't be drinking coffee at your house.

Wow, I wonder how every other business in the US is able to survive, given they are operate under some type of regulation...

 

[Tangaroav]

And who do you want to be in charge of making sure labels are on eLiquid bottles that indicate presence of harmful chemicals? As I see it, that will be coming and from a group that most ECF'ers deem ANTZ like or heavily influenced by ANTZ.
.....

..... Also, just to reiterate, that my position is not, even a little bit, against minimal protection and find that insulting if that implication is about me. I am debating the requirement aspect of this, and strongly suggesting the person truly desiring minimal protection be willing to bear all the costs. If not willing to do so, I'm up for debating that point precisely, for I'm suddenly not buying that those who say they desire this, are proceeding with a responsible outlook on the topic.

AEMSA is a very good start at self regulations. They make labeling mandatory for their membership. They also strickly forbid diacetyl and acetyl propionyl . They certainly are NOT ANTZ .

Suicide bunny is not AEMSA certified as their website does not have the logo. I bet the other vendors that failed Dr. F lab analysis are not either.

IMO, it is not for the consumer to have any product certified. It is the vendor's responsibility to inform the consumer of the risks of their product, Only then can consumers make an informed choice.

If you want to vape an e-liquid 'chuck full of Diacetyl' , it is ok with me. All I am saying is that it should say so on the bottle so I don't vape it.

 

[Thespis]

How's that Mark Ten device going for them?? Not good at all. Blus sales are slumping. Njoy can't give there stuff away lol, if the tobacco companies want to make profits on vaping and sustain those profits they will have to bottle e liquid because as we all know CIG a likes are bull and those tiny kits are a joke.

Or they will have to eliminate the competition so that their product is the only one available. The proposed regulations indicate that this is the plan.

 

[sub4me]

Back to DIY, I was at the weekend market and of course sits a few guys at a booth all set up to sell their e liquid (made in USA they say) explaining to anyone who will listen how healthy it is to vape, how safe it is, and how much better they will feel.

I asked where the liquid is made?? They answered here in the USA with all safe ingredients . I asked how they know its all safe ingredients being used?? They answered because its made in the USA so its safe (they never gave any real answer). I asked where its made?? They said in a clean room. I said where?? They refused to answer saying it's a matter of privacy cause they don't want others copying their recipe. LMAO, yea right. In other words it's made in their garage or basement. I asked how can they be sure of the nic levels and how is it tested?? No answer from them other then buy it and try it. I also saw other e liquids being sold with and without nicotine in them. These liquids I was told are legal technically because they contain no banned (as of yet) substances. Now there's some scary stuff.

 

[Thespis]

I know what it means but I haven't been able to find a USA supplier that sells to the USA companies which leads me to believe that not only DIY but also USA companies are importing the nic, gross.

So if it doesn't come from the USA, it's "gross"? What contaminants need to be present to produce a finding of "gross"? Is there a scientific "grossness" scale?

 

[sub4me]

Or they will have to eliminate the competition so that their product is the only one available. The proposed regulations indicate that this is the plan.

Proposed being the operative word here.

 

[Thespis]

Proposed meaning planned.

 

[sub4me]

So if it doesn't come from the USA, it's "gross"? What contaminants need to be present to produce a finding of "gross"? Is there a scientific "grossness" scale?

Yes unclean environments. Have you ever been to China or India?? If you have you would know exactly what I'm saying. Next time your in China ask about health codes and human rights or when your in India have a big drink of some local water.

 

[Thespis]

So all Chinese and Indian facilities are contaminated?

 

[sub4me]

LOL, yea we the consumers should bear the cost up front for a business to test their own product offered for human ingestion.

Each business has it's own costs to deal with and is free to set prices to offset start up cost, recoup initial costs, cover day to day business expenses, and make a profit. They can sell their liquid for any price they want. But right now I will pass on the 3 for $10 10ml bottle deals coming from overseas or from someone's basement lab.

 

[sub4me]

yes,its USP grade though.
the confusion is US companies are selling it.
it is their product.people don't realize a lot of their plants are overseas.
regards
mike

Not true.

stevergmu just posted a vendor that extracts its own nicotine right here in the USA. Thanks Steve I will be giving them a try. I also have contacted Halo and JC to ask if their nicotine is sourced in house or purchased overseas.

 

[sub4me]

nytimes.
com/2014/03/24/business/selling-a-poison-by-the-barrel-liquid-nicotine-for-e-cigarettes.html?_r=0

 

[beckdg]

Expecting me to pay for a vendor to test for known dangerous substances is as silly as expecting me to test the water coming into my house...

And who pays (via consumer pricing on the end product) the company for the lost profits when producing a simple product becomes more expensive due to this testing?

This quote clearly outlines a gross misunderstanding of the most basic principles of business. Costs increase, prices increase, period. It's how profits are made and businesses stay afloat.

Wow, I wonder how every other business in the US is able to survive, given they are operate under some type of regulation...

Double face palm!

Good going Stever.

Don't worry about it. Your taxes cover everyrhing. [emoji56]

 

[rondasherrill]

nytimes.
com/2014/03/24/business/selling-a-poison-by-the-barrel-liquid-nicotine-for-e-cigarettes.html?_r=0

To be fair... Caffeine in high concentrations is equally dangerous and I can buy mini-thins at any gas station I walk into.

 

[sub4me]

E-cig vapor has been shown to contain tin, copper, nickel, and silver silicate beads.3 In some cases, the levels are greater than what you might be exposed to from smoking a conventional cigarette.

Breathing metal nanoparticles has additional risks because they can more easily enter your bloodstream and body tissues, as their microscopic size allows them to better evade your body's natural defenses. They also carry the potential for harming your developing fetus or newborn baby.4

According to Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights (ANR), secondhand e-cigarette aerosol contains at least 10 chemicals identified on California's Proposition 65 list of carcinogens and reproductive toxins, listed in the table below. Scientists have also found measurable amounts of propylene glycol, diethylene glycol, and carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines.5, 6

Acetaldehyde Benzene
Cadmium Formaldehyde
Isoprene Lead
Nickel Nicotine
N-Nitrosonornicotine Toluene

 

[sub4me]

So maybe it's Not as safe as some would have you think.

 

[Krashman Von Stinkputin]

I am not quite sure you understand how taxes work, or business for that matter.
It is up to a vendor to disclose if their product is using ingredients known to be dangerous at certain levels, not the consumer. Regulations, which my taxes help fund, ensure vendors like Suicide Bunny do these tests...

Expecting me to pay for a vendor to test for known dangerous substances is as silly as expecting me to test the water coming into my house...

You do pay to have the water tested.
And you pay for all costs a vendor incurs when you buy from a vendor or he won't be a vendor for long.

Every Capri-Sun or Budweiser we drink, every Twinkie we eat, every Blow-Pop we suck on has the cost of manufacturer's QC compliance checking, HAACP tracking and all associated development, labor,manufacturing, distribution and advertising costs built in to the price we consumers pay for it.

 

[sub4me]

I'm Not anti vaping or smoking. I just think people need to use their heads more and stop acting like vaping is so healthy and good for you. Common sense tells you it's not.