Common sense would dictate otherwise. Not to mention trying to prove you had 600 lbs of eggplant sitting around for the extraction process. Let's get real here.
Are nicotine e-cigarettes a tobacco product?
- Thread starter AgentAnia
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Common sense would dictate otherwise. Not to mention trying to prove you had 600 lbs of eggplant sitting around for the extraction process. Let's get real here.
I don't think it's because they are lazy. There's already precedent set for the current so called "fair" taxing of cigarettes and other tobacco products. Why would the FDA want to do anything to compromise the government's ability to EASILY tax e-cig products in a similar fashion? The FDA's function seems to have less to do with safety for consumers than it does to 'justify' taxation. Anything the government 'regulates' = tax whether it's products or businesses.
OK. Active ingredient for the Nicotrol Inhaler is S-3-(1-methyl-2-pyrrolidinyl) pyridine. Whip over to nist.gov and we see that ingredient listed as nicotine.
Pyridine, 3-(1-methyl-2-pyrrolidinyl)-, (S)-
This would leave me to believe that they're not using a tobacco extract, but rather are synthetically making their own nicotine.
Sorry if I am misunderstanding, but I'm not following the logic here... why would the fact that they are calling it by the chemical name make you think it is synthesized? Pyridine, 3-(1-methyl-2-pyrrolidinyl is listed as a chemical component of tobacco smoke and that is certainly not synthesized. That's just the name of nicotine using a particular naming convention. For example, the systematic name for sucrose is β-D-Fructofuranosyl α-D-glucopyranoside, whether it comes from nature or a beaker.
Last edited:
OK. Active ingredient for the Nicotrol Inhaler is S-3-(1-methyl-2-pyrrolidinyl) pyridine. Whip over to nist.gov and we see that ingredient listed as nicotine.
Pyridine, 3-(1-methyl-2-pyrrolidinyl)-, (S)-
This would leave me to believe that they're not using a tobacco extract, but rather are synthetically making their own nicotine.
Wow, that was a good one, retire1. I really had to do my homework to figure out how pyridine relates to nicotine!
I found out that nicotine is a pyridine alkaloid found in the nicotania family of plants (which includes all tobacco.) Cornell University Department of Animal Science
And "3-(1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinyl)pyridine" is just another common (chemical) name for nicotine.
CDC - The Emergency Response Safety and Health Database: Systemic Agent: NICOTINE - NIOSH
So, it's entirely likely inhaler nicotine is extracted from tobacco.
Me, too. Which is why I was asking for the source of his statement that inhaler nicotine wasn't extracted from tobacco.
But I've searched high and low online to actually confirm (beyond doubt) that pharmaceutical-grade nicotine used in NRT and e-cigarettes is derived from tobacco or other sources and haven't found it. I can find a lot of sites selling pharmaceutical grade nicotine from US tobacco and sites making the unsubstantiated statement that "nearly all nicotine sold comes from tobacco," but that doesn't settle the argument made by some folks that pharmaceutical nicotine comes from other sources. I'm looking for a solid, reputable source stating that pharma grade nicotine comes from tobacco - or not.
And as I mentioned before, synthetic nicotine (not extracted nicotine, which some media and vapers erroneously call "synthetic nicotine") is extremely expensive and has only been approved in industrial grade for use as a pesticide. We know that at nicotine gums, patches and lozenges contain Tobacco-specific nitrosamines, which clearly means the nicotine came from tobacco and is NOT synthetic nor sourced from other plants. If pharma companies are using pharmaceutical grade tobacco nicotine, then it's likely to be the main source of nicotine for human consumption in the U.S. and unlikely that e-cig manufactures will turn to non-tobacco sources of nicotine. If it truly is so cost prohibitive to produce synthetic or non-tobacco nicotine, the cost of e-liquid would probably be so high that it would make even a tobacco sin tax seem affordable. (But we can argue against tobacco sin taxes on e-liquid, because that is SUPPOSED to be based on proven public health risks and costs, which e-cigarettes have not been shown to have either.)
You're still missing my point. Yes, I agree that nicotine is primarily extracted from tobacco. It's nicotine. Not tobacco.
All I was ATTEMPTING to do was make a quick analogy. Just because nicotine is primarily extracted from tobacco doesn't mean it is tobacco. Nicotine CAN be a product of tobacco unless it is made in another fashion.
Anyway, I'm done rambling. Nothing to see here.
You're still missing my point. Yes, I agree that nicotine is primarily extracted from tobacco. It's nicotine. Not tobacco.
All I was ATTEMPTING to do was make a quick analogy. Just because nicotine is primarily extracted from tobacco doesn't mean it is tobacco. Nicotine CAN be a product of tobacco unless it is made in another fashion.
Anyway, I'm done rambling. Nothing to see here.
People seem to be misunderstanding that the FDA is calling e-liquid "tobacco" but it isn't saying that. It is saying nicotine e-liquid is a "tobacco product" because the nicotine in it is derived from tobacco and not approved for therapeutic use.
The FDA considers non-therapeutic nicotine to be a "tobacco product," which is defined by the Tobacco Control Act as "any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product. This includes, among other products, cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco. The term "tobacco product" does not apply to raw materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing a component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product. Nor does it mean something that is defined as a drug, device, or combination product under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act."
The nicotine in e-liquid clearly fits the definition of "derived from tobacco" and because e-liquid is not an approved drug, it clearly falls under the Tobacco Control Act definition of "tobacco product."
Last edited:
OK.
I don't extract my own nicotine because the process is too complicated for me.
This is a serious matter with ramifications for all vapers. Because nicotine e-juice has been classified as a tobacco product it will be taxed. The justification for this tax is tenuous at best.
Tobacco tax has always been justified by Government to pay for the extra cost in health. The health aspect of vaping is still unknown. Ergo there is no valid reason to tax nicotine e-juice.
Just thought that if the Gubbermint could play fast and loose then perhaps i could throw a crazy statement out there.
My bad..
I think this goes back to Kristin's original point in the blog post--it's the intended use and how the stuff is marketed that matters. e-cigs and juice are marketed as an alternative to tobacco smoking, and they are effective alternatives because they contain the same chemical that hooked smokers to begin with. That chemical, since it's derived from the same plant we burned in cigarettes, is defined as a tobacco product not primarily because it comes from the same plant but because it has a similar intended use and comes from the same plant.
Tobacco taxes are a complicated matter. Not all tobacco is taxed equally and even cigarette taxes vary wildly from state to state. Each tobacco product has a specific law that dictates the tax. So, being a "tobacco product" does not mean e-liquid will automatically be subject to current tobacco taxes. First the state must legally define e-liquid as a tobacco and then establish at what rate it will be taxed and how (by milligrams of nicotine, volume, weight, per unit, etc.) For example, the one state that has defined e-liquid as a tobacco for purposes of taxation is Minnesota.
Minnesota taxes are set up this way-
Cigarettes: $2.83 per pack
Moist snuff: $2.83 per container or 95 percent of the wholesale sales price (2014)
Cigars: $3.50 per cigar or 95% of the wholesale price, whichever is less.
Other tobacco products: 95 percent of the wholesale price
Minnesota changed it's law in 2010, adding e-cigarettes and other novel tobacco products (strips, sticks lozenges) under the state definition of "tobacco product." This added the 95 percent tax on the wholesale cost of cartridges or an entire disposable. (I cannot find information on how it taxes refill liquids. Presumably, if the store buys it wholesale by the bottle, it will be per bottle, if a company makes their own, it would be wholesale cost of the nicotine.)
In spite of the e-cigarette tobacco tax, e-cigarette stores are booming in Minnesota because the new cigarette tax increase made cigarettes so much more expensive. Because, while cigarettes can now cost upwards of $8 per pack, the wholesale cost of e-liquid is pretty cheap, so the tax barely makes a dent. You can get a 30 ml bottle of e-liquid wholesale for less than $5.25, but retail can be around $20 plus the state and local sales taxes would have made it as high as $21.58. (Remember that e-liquid sold in stores would be taxed either way - either a sales tax or a tobacco tax.) The tobacco tax in Minnesota taxes on a $20 bottle of liquid (with a $5.25 wholesale) would make it cost $24.99, a total increase of $3.41. (In Minnesota, tobacco is exempt from all sales tax in lieu of the tobacco tax.) E-cigarette companies could easily reduce prices to account for that small increase, which would spark competition.
Of course, CASAA still fought that Minnesota tax increase, arguing that tobacco taxes were based on established health risks and e-cigarettes have no established health risks. CASAA agrees the "sin tax" is not justified by any stretch of the imagination. But even though it still passed, the equivalent of around 10 packs of cigarettes in e-liquid still costs only around $25 compared to 10 packs of cigarettes costing up to $80. And it doesn't mean the state can't be lobbied later once more science is available showing e-cigarettes are a reduced harm product that should be exempt from punitive taxation.
The Federal government, on the other hand, does not have a tax rate established for "other" tobacco products. It has very specific laws regarding cigarettes, cigars, snuff, pipe, roll-your-own and chew only. It would take an act from Congress to create an e-cigarette liquid tax rate. That would be a very complicated process (how to tax e-liquid in it's various forms) and could take years to complete - that's IF it isn't voted down by legislators convinced by us that it is completely unjustifiable.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
