stopped smoking...uuhh..lessee now... how do you put medical regulation on a 'cold turkey' ?
The govt recommends hot turkey
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal...poultry-preparation/lets-talk-turkey/CT_Index
FDA Big news coming out of FDA
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
The govt recommends hot turkey
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal...poultry-preparation/lets-talk-turkey/CT_Index
Yup, nic is THE crucial element. Everything else - a bit of ingenuity, a small lathe and a few tools to fashion portable air moisteners shouldn't be too much of a problem. Flavours, PG, VG ... way too many uses for that stuff to keep it away from our grubby hands
And there's hope even for the nic... in anticipation of a possible vapegeddon, I did look up some chemisty forums. Seems DIY extraction from raw tobacco can be doable without turning the neighborhood into a smoldering crater. Although it's degree of toxicity has come under a lot of scrutiny recently, it's serious stuff. Hence I am not going to post any links.
Agreed. The info is there to be found if one but looksYup, nic is THE crucial element. Everything else - a bit of ingenuity, a small lathe and a few tools to fashion portable air moisteners shouldn't be too much of a problem. Flavours, PG, VG ... way too many uses for that stuff to keep it away from our grubby hands
And there's hope even for the nic... in anticipation of a possible vapegeddon, I did look up some chemisty forums. Seems DIY extraction from raw tobacco can be doable without turning the neighborhood into a smoldering crater. Although it's degree of toxicity has come under a lot of scrutiny recently, it's serious stuff. Hence I am not going to post any links.
tbh I'm a bit unconvinced myself, but still hopeful!! Then again I'm also sitting on a freezer full of 100mg -- thank my paranoia for that, esp as I moved back to AR right before the new laws hit. I have a love/hate relationship w my home state, lemme tell ya...
Re nicotine not derived from tobacco:
Let's not forget that only because of the FSPTCA and the fact that it is derived from tobacco and the court ruling by Judge Leon it is not already considered a drug by the FDA. Otherwise we wouldn't even be here talking about it except maybe to lament the fact it was illegal already. Any large scale production of synthetic or other nicotine not derived from tobacco can be shut down quickly by the FDA as a drug.
Let's not forget that only because of the FSPTCA and the fact that it is derived from tobacco and the court ruling by Judge Leon it is not already considered a drug by the FDA. Otherwise we wouldn't even be here talking about it except maybe to lament the fact it was illegal already. Any large scale production of synthetic or other nicotine not derived from tobacco can be shut down quickly by the FDA as a drug.
Government is frequently ill-informed and highly prone to follow the cries of the masses. In this case it's a fight to replace loss of taxation from the dwindling numbers of smokers. The real threat to health these days is sugar and fat. Do we see them taxing sugar free alternatives for foods that provide questionable chemicals to satisfy the addiction to sugar? Should we see them declaring sugar free alternatives as medical substances just because they prevent users from going back to the real thing?
Both arguments are ridiculous, but government, especially the states who have borrowed on future tobacco tax settlement payments, are just looking at legal ways to recoup tax money from nicotine addiction as people switch from cigarettes to ecigs. You have to wonder why they don't hold ecigs up as an example of a significantly less harmful product that prevents people from killing themselves with smoke from burning plant products.
You have to wonder if the public would respond with a huge outcry if government decided to put a 15% health tax on foods with high fat content, high sugar content, or any product with a component known to cause (whatever). What? They are going to tax my Twinkie?
Both arguments are ridiculous, but government, especially the states who have borrowed on future tobacco tax settlement payments, are just looking at legal ways to recoup tax money from nicotine addiction as people switch from cigarettes to ecigs. You have to wonder why they don't hold ecigs up as an example of a significantly less harmful product that prevents people from killing themselves with smoke from burning plant products.
You have to wonder if the public would respond with a huge outcry if government decided to put a 15% health tax on foods with high fat content, high sugar content, or any product with a component known to cause (whatever). What? They are going to tax my Twinkie?
Last edited:
It would seem to me that this is dependent on where the 'dividing line' end up between raw materials and "vaping juice" being sold to the public.
FDA approved losenges, gum and patches have been available for years and I suspect (I don't have evidence to back this up so its only an opinion) that bottled nicotine has also been available for the public to purchase for some time. If we remove all the 'vaping centric' vendors where would one purchase nicotine in bulk? What would we use it for? (if not for vaping?)
My point being is that while historically the FDA has regulated end products (IE: nicotine replacement and quit smoking aids) they did not regulate the raw materials that go into the products themselves.
Nor should they. The FDA needs to leave people alone, plain and simple, unless they plan to also ban the much more harmful added and artificial sugar. Then again there's more butter huffers than vapers, maybe they would be worried about the stampedes from the herds of rhinos, ...... they can't shovel 50 cupcakes in a day. -_-
You mean the discussion evolved? Outrageous! You should lock the thread.
Haha, this will be a fun one to watch when the politicians realize the FDA will be the ones getting richer instead of them.
It won't be sin taxed, MSA approved, fined in towns, ... the cps will lose out on child theft, HHS their homeless funds, ...
The FDA charges by the ml, mg, flavor, label, changes, ...it will be unaffordable to the avg Joe after BP has to charge an arm & a leg to recoup, and will lower the quality & quantity of products. They woulda coulda improved on the old products if each test on improved (changed) products weren't bank breaking.
The government gets their money, for now.
The politicians will lobby to change it back to their ball park, the money will fly. Unless too many Vapers go back to smoking & kids pick up a smoke instead of a free market vape pen.
Obama will smile proud that he stirred the economy once again.
It won't be sin taxed, MSA approved, fined in towns, ... the cps will lose out on child theft, HHS their homeless funds, ...
The FDA charges by the ml, mg, flavor, label, changes, ...it will be unaffordable to the avg Joe after BP has to charge an arm & a leg to recoup, and will lower the quality & quantity of products. They woulda coulda improved on the old products if each test on improved (changed) products weren't bank breaking.
The government gets their money, for now.
The politicians will lobby to change it back to their ball park, the money will fly. Unless too many Vapers go back to smoking & kids pick up a smoke instead of a free market vape pen.
Obama will smile proud that he stirred the economy once again.
Last edited:
It seemed like they were trying to widen the net on what constitutes a cessation claim. So it wouldn't be necessary that the manufacturer or seller made those claims, they could look beyond that. If it was widely considered to be a way of quitting smoking, and people talked about it that way, that would be enough. The fact that they took the time to publish that language suggests that they see it as a possible future tactic.
I'm sorry - it appears that some confuse the FDA and its approval (or not) with TAXES.
I don't seem to recall the FDA having the authority to tax anything, however they do have the authority to control how and if 'food and drugs' are marketed and sold in the US. If the FDA decides "vapor juice" needs to have FDA approval before being sold to the public in the US then all juice sales will be illegal until such time that a "juice" gets approval. The process usually involves costly scientific studies. The cost of these studies will be passed onto the consumer when/if a juice gets FDA approval. (the makers have to pay for that research somehow)
Your city, county, state and the Federal government can levy taxes on whatever they like to.
Please don't be confused as these are two separate actions.
Its actually in local, state and federal's best interest that "juice" does NOT require FDA approval. Why?
Its rather useless to apply a tax to something that is illegal to be sold.
I don't seem to recall the FDA having the authority to tax anything, however they do have the authority to control how and if 'food and drugs' are marketed and sold in the US. If the FDA decides "vapor juice" needs to have FDA approval before being sold to the public in the US then all juice sales will be illegal until such time that a "juice" gets approval. The process usually involves costly scientific studies. The cost of these studies will be passed onto the consumer when/if a juice gets FDA approval. (the makers have to pay for that research somehow)
Your city, county, state and the Federal government can levy taxes on whatever they like to.
Please don't be confused as these are two separate actions.
Its actually in local, state and federal's best interest that "juice" does NOT require FDA approval. Why?
Its rather useless to apply a tax to something that is illegal to be sold.
Last edited:
No but they have an extensive and extremely expensive approval process. Only the largest manufacturers could even attempt to get a liquid approved, thousands of dollars for a maybe...for each juice.
I'm in full agreement.
Thankfully "juice" has been out "in the wild" for sometime so its rather doubtful that anyone could get a patent on its content. Furthermore, since the basics: Nicotine, VG and/or PG may be found in all juice that may get regulated, one "formulation" approval opens the door for everyone else with the same recipe or formulation.
I don't believe the FDA is like this and even if they were it would kill creativity, 143 vanilla custards from 143 vendors that are exactly the same.
At least Twinkies are back lol. The government banned Twinkies for a few years (I'm kidding but they really discontinued them for a few years so maybe it was a government conspiracy?!)
Doesn't one then have to prove with additional validated scientific study that it is in fact
the exact recipe or formulation? I am under the impression one has to prove substantial
equivalence.
Regards
Mike
I don't think every generic drug has to go through the same long and expensive approval process as once the "base" is approved all they have to do is prove their version is the same (with a different brand or label on it).
If one vendor wanted to be 'different' then they would have to get approval for their unique difference.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
