- Status
WOW! Sounds like a flame to me!
I mearly made a statement on equipment that can be used. I didn't make a personal attack on you. I'm not stupid either. I suppose If I made my own rba, I could be breaking the law one day.
I mearly made a statement on equipment that can be used. I didn't make a personal attack on you. I'm not stupid either. I suppose If I made my own rba, I could be breaking the law one day.
Last edited:
The FDA does regulate grapes.
Just one example but this thread and others like it in the past just seem to attract sensationalism. Think about it, BT wants your money, thats it. Do you really think that they are going to take the technology backwards and ignore all the ready made innovations that have been achieved over the years? Make juice with low nic content the norm when nic is obviously the most addictive substance in the current juice we use? Do you really think that they are going to risk money if a back room deal hadn't already been done guarantying that there would be no ban? What does the gov get out of that deal, tax revenue of course. Do you really think BT sees cottage industry online vape shops as competition? If anything they see them as vendors.
BT controls the market for nicotine, they can produce it and manipulate the market price in ways that are probably going to make sure their vendors make the most profit and want to push their brand, not to mention all the incentives they can offer on top of that. I'm sure BT sees "gourmet juice" as nothing more than a handmade cigar. Sheep don't buy the best product in general, they buy the product that has been advertized the best. Again, BT wants your money, they are not going to put something on the market that is inferior to any other currently mass produced system, it may be different but I can guarantee it will be well thought out, very well tested and no worse than any disposable out there. Disposable? Of course, their target customer has $5-$10 in his pocket when he makes his purchase. Rechargeable? Probably, the other target customer is at the drug store with $50 in his pocket buying some gum. They are greedy, they want everyone's money.
As far as the Gov is concerned, no doubt their will be tax. It is a recreation drug and it will be treated as such. Any attempts at denial are wasted here. As a consequence of tax it will have to be regulated in order to set the rates and monitor the industry. Of course the FDA will be task with regulation and we will be at the mercy of the BT lobby to fight that battle. I personally think thats a good thing because they have a bit more money to lobby than Halo does. They will ask for the moon, they wont try and limit any possible revenue stream. Then the lawyers from both sides will finish the deal, from what I have seen lately BT has a considerable edge in this department. I mean really, if states can make recreational pot legal and the AG sits back and has to think about it, are we really thinking that we have the short end of the negotiating stick? BT is not going to try and slide in on a loophole, they want to ensure a guaranteed revenue stream, it is in their interest to ensure that a tax is in place so the gov has some skin in the game too, I'm sure RJ Reynolds $5000/hr legal team are aware of this and the rules will be clearly laid out ahead of time (if they have not been already).
Those are just my thoughts anyway, I could be wrong.
I finally had time to read the whole thread. I see BT being demonized and I get that BUT this is capitalism at its worst. Capitalism per se is not a bad thing. Does anyone actually think that mom and pop are in it strictly because they care about you? Really? Just in the short time I've been vaping I've see some mom and pops turn from their original "helpful" intent to... well... lets just say a more self-interested one. Why does anyone scan the sites to see what quality, safety, etc is there? Could it be because not all mom and pops care that much about what you're inhaling? I still say not to let this become just another emotional/prejudicial matter. Use logic. The BTs do bring the benefits of fighting money and research... they have a strong lobby and need to cover their a$$e$ on safety. Mom and pop, in fact, will benefit from that too. Everything has its pluses and minuses and its up to us as consumers to beware and keep our heads screwed on right. Just because they're in the game doesn't mean any of us have to buy their juices but we will definitely benefit by their presence.
EDIT: I just read gsa's excellent post. Very well said. Certainly better than I did.
EDIT: I just read gsa's excellent post. Very well said. Certainly better than I did.
Last edited:
Not for nothing but judge Leon already made a ruling about ecigs not being drug delivery devices I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong though, I could be
He did and he was right. A syringe saves lives but can also contain some bad stuff and then snuff them out. Its not the device but what one puts in it. I think we all forget about how PVs are being used other than for nic. I think the crappy inhalers asthmatics and allergy sufferers are stuck with since pharmeceuticals got the helpful over-the-counter ones taken off the market to destroy their competition is a good example of the very positive PV uses sure to be on the horizon.
I don't know some of us will welcome this. But something tells me it could go either way now that Big T is here.
They will work with the FDA to Protect THEIR Business! Even if that means bullying the smaller Purveyors somehow - this will of course only involve the Juice & Liquid makers.
I'm so scared that the powers that be will want to Tax Juice, and then we will see those silly tax stamps on the bottles of our favorite potion. And no I'm not talking about Gentleman Jack or Delerium Tremmens here!
No way in hell I'm paying more than Sales tax on a Non Tobacco Product.
Could you imagine only being able to buy eJuice in 20ml bottles?
They will work with the FDA to Protect THEIR Business! Even if that means bullying the smaller Purveyors somehow - this will of course only involve the Juice & Liquid makers.
I'm so scared that the powers that be will want to Tax Juice, and then we will see those silly tax stamps on the bottles of our favorite potion. And no I'm not talking about Gentleman Jack or Delerium Tremmens here!
No way in hell I'm paying more than Sales tax on a Non Tobacco Product.
Could you imagine only being able to buy eJuice in 20ml bottles?
Yup its crap like that I'm talking about.
I don't want to be importing all the ingredients I need to make my juice from abroad just to avoid Fascism.
I don't want to be importing all the ingredients I need to make my juice from abroad just to avoid Fascism.
WOW! Sounds like a flame to me!
I apologize it came across that way, no flame-age intended, just disagreeing with each other, which is fine! I understand, in fact even agree with your point, I don't think they should classify it as a nic delivery device either, but they could is all I'm saying. They could also classify it a number of other ways that could allow them to have oversight and regulatory authority of these devices, not just the nicotine juices. They may not decide to do that, and I certainly hope they don't!
This is most likely a good think if you think about it, in Australia , (as you know ) we are regulated up to the eye balls an everything, smoking, guns, taxs etc,.But on the whole we tend to follow the FDA and follow suit on these matters. America has the user base/market to make this kind of product acceptable, which is the cig-a-likes, GrimmGreen has an interesting take VAPING IN 2013 WITH THE NJOY KING ( cant seem to cut n paste the link dagnabit). This device is a convience one only, for most of us it was an introduction to Vaping, we worked out its weak points and moved on ( damm quickly for some of us), and thats a good thing, Undoubtly a good many who try these will stay on them but Ill bet more will move onto more decent systems. Also Big Tobacco is already Networked into political systems all over the world, let them spend the money getting legislation through, were such a small group at the moment the accountants will ignore us , hopefully.
So we have all the makings for a TV melodrama here:
1. We have the good guys. That's us.
2. We have the enemy. That's BT.
3. We introduce someone even worse. That's the EPA.
(OK, so maybe it's a little out of order, but you get the point). The purpose of such a plot devise is to push #1 and #2 into an alliance against #3. Once #3 is destroyed, nothing is resolved. Thus, if it's a series instead of a single-episode movie, you can occupy the plot with fighting between #1 and #2 until a new #3 comes along.
Here's the kicker: Sometimes, the author will problematize the alliance between #1 and #2 by having them focus on their differences rather than their common enemy. In these instances, the audience will shout at the television, "Get your heads out of the sand and focus on the big picture!" Then, there's always the variation where #2 and #3 combine against #1 -- you don't see this as much on TV, because it's difficult to make a happy ending out of it that isn't altogether contrived.
Reading this thread, I have to say that I had this response described in the proceeding paragraph. We have our differences with BT, but the real threat is the FDA. People here have explained in the most lucid logic possible why the FDA won't do this or that. The basic problem, however, is the underlying assumption that logic guides the actions of the FDA.
The way that I see it, we have 3 choices:
a. Stay independent from BT and the FDA, and let them battle it out. This may feel like the morally righteous thing to do, but it forfeits our voice by allowing more powerful interests to dominate the discussion. In other words, enjoy your feeling of moral uprightness while it lasts, because you're setting yourself up to get screwed, at which point you'll enjoy little else. I'm sorry to say that this seems to be the direction that many in this thread have seemed to favor.
b. Align with the FDA against BT. This doesn't really seem possible. The FDA has no target market that it must satisfy and there is no reality that keeps their BP-dominated worldview in check.
c. Align with BT against the FDA. Sure, BT is only interested in money, but that makes us their target market, and that gives us power. They want our money, plain and simple. By allying with them, we can help negotiate the terms according to which they'll get it. This gives us influence over the way that new vapors get introduced to the product, which in turn could impact the vaping market for decades.
Besides: I understand that BT has been selling a poisonous product for decades. Now they're turning their site on something that's safe that will largely supplant that market. Isn't that a good thing? Why would anyone want them permanently relegated to being mere purveyors of poisonous products, when there are healthier alternatives available? Whatever differences we have, we can worry about them after we navigate the FDA issues. And lets face it: BT is uniquely situated to handle big FDA issues.
So, the question is how we organize to begin partnering with BT. Something like CASAA would probably not be appropriate, because it would tarnish the independence of its brand. But how about the TVECA? It would give them some good publicity among the existing vaping community, and in exchange it may allow existing vapers to shape BTs approach to e-cigarettes.
Or maybe BT will just push us aside and proceed on its own anyway. But we won't know unless we try.
1. We have the good guys. That's us.
2. We have the enemy. That's BT.
3. We introduce someone even worse. That's the EPA.
(OK, so maybe it's a little out of order, but you get the point). The purpose of such a plot devise is to push #1 and #2 into an alliance against #3. Once #3 is destroyed, nothing is resolved. Thus, if it's a series instead of a single-episode movie, you can occupy the plot with fighting between #1 and #2 until a new #3 comes along.
Here's the kicker: Sometimes, the author will problematize the alliance between #1 and #2 by having them focus on their differences rather than their common enemy. In these instances, the audience will shout at the television, "Get your heads out of the sand and focus on the big picture!" Then, there's always the variation where #2 and #3 combine against #1 -- you don't see this as much on TV, because it's difficult to make a happy ending out of it that isn't altogether contrived.
Reading this thread, I have to say that I had this response described in the proceeding paragraph. We have our differences with BT, but the real threat is the FDA. People here have explained in the most lucid logic possible why the FDA won't do this or that. The basic problem, however, is the underlying assumption that logic guides the actions of the FDA.
The way that I see it, we have 3 choices:
a. Stay independent from BT and the FDA, and let them battle it out. This may feel like the morally righteous thing to do, but it forfeits our voice by allowing more powerful interests to dominate the discussion. In other words, enjoy your feeling of moral uprightness while it lasts, because you're setting yourself up to get screwed, at which point you'll enjoy little else. I'm sorry to say that this seems to be the direction that many in this thread have seemed to favor.
b. Align with the FDA against BT. This doesn't really seem possible. The FDA has no target market that it must satisfy and there is no reality that keeps their BP-dominated worldview in check.
c. Align with BT against the FDA. Sure, BT is only interested in money, but that makes us their target market, and that gives us power. They want our money, plain and simple. By allying with them, we can help negotiate the terms according to which they'll get it. This gives us influence over the way that new vapors get introduced to the product, which in turn could impact the vaping market for decades.
Besides: I understand that BT has been selling a poisonous product for decades. Now they're turning their site on something that's safe that will largely supplant that market. Isn't that a good thing? Why would anyone want them permanently relegated to being mere purveyors of poisonous products, when there are healthier alternatives available? Whatever differences we have, we can worry about them after we navigate the FDA issues. And lets face it: BT is uniquely situated to handle big FDA issues.
So, the question is how we organize to begin partnering with BT. Something like CASAA would probably not be appropriate, because it would tarnish the independence of its brand. But how about the TVECA? It would give them some good publicity among the existing vaping community, and in exchange it may allow existing vapers to shape BTs approach to e-cigarettes.
Or maybe BT will just push us aside and proceed on its own anyway. But we won't know unless we try.
i guess this could be a good thing and a bad thing...good they will have the funding for research and help from keeping them from being baned,bad thing is they will try to corner the market and edge out all the smaller guys and cut down on our options.
Very, very, well said and what you propose is EXACTLY HOW the nut jobs gain, and anyone else who seeks a move and shake gains, some control and how they win.... politicians know it and we should get savy. Get on the INSIDE and defeat from within.
I wasn't really intending to start a thread of this nature, honest 
I really don't think BT is the enemy here, I really do not believe with the history of industry that will end up tinkering with e-juice to come up with something more addicting as they already have plenty addicted and everything they do in that regard will be watched under a micorscope. I'm pretty sure they are well aware of that. I think we at the very least least gaining a allies with the most experience of anyone in these matters even thou they are acting in interest of their bottom line, but really is capitalism a new idea to anyone here?
BT does not control the nicotine, at least not the nicotine we are using. That would be Dow Chemical, the primary manufacture of USP grade nicotine. Track your nicotine source back far enough you end up with them or Dekang in China. As far as I am aware, tobacco is grown by independent farmers and then sold to companies who process it into products, in the US anyway. Whether Dow is one of these or if they synthetically produce it, I do not know.
I complete agree the FDA is enemy here over BT. For those who have not dealt with the FDA from the side of being regulated, it is absurd. I will not comment further, I have risked my job enough on these forums.
You bet your ... BT will be creating a new standard of products, they won't share the market with everyone else. But really, Njoy is pretty much doing this now. The Njoy king, which I just tried myself today, is not a 510 or 808 or even reusable nor do they sell the juice. They made a product in which you can only get that level of cigarette like experience by buying another Njoy King. They also priced it slightly cheaper then traditional cigarettes, surely not a coincidence. I would almost say the anti BT arguments would also apply to Njoy, the only major company to stand up to FDA when they claimed e-cigs weren't any safer that traditional cigarettes a few years back. I believe they even paid for independent review of the FDA's research.
I wouldn't be so quick to judge BT as friend or foe just yet. They will without doubt make waves in the industry and drive several Mom and Pops out of business but at the end of day, it's up to us whether they actually do it.
I really don't think BT is the enemy here, I really do not believe with the history of industry that will end up tinkering with e-juice to come up with something more addicting as they already have plenty addicted and everything they do in that regard will be watched under a micorscope. I'm pretty sure they are well aware of that. I think we at the very least least gaining a allies with the most experience of anyone in these matters even thou they are acting in interest of their bottom line, but really is capitalism a new idea to anyone here?
BT does not control the nicotine, at least not the nicotine we are using. That would be Dow Chemical, the primary manufacture of USP grade nicotine. Track your nicotine source back far enough you end up with them or Dekang in China. As far as I am aware, tobacco is grown by independent farmers and then sold to companies who process it into products, in the US anyway. Whether Dow is one of these or if they synthetically produce it, I do not know.
I complete agree the FDA is enemy here over BT. For those who have not dealt with the FDA from the side of being regulated, it is absurd. I will not comment further, I have risked my job enough on these forums.
You bet your ... BT will be creating a new standard of products, they won't share the market with everyone else. But really, Njoy is pretty much doing this now. The Njoy king, which I just tried myself today, is not a 510 or 808 or even reusable nor do they sell the juice. They made a product in which you can only get that level of cigarette like experience by buying another Njoy King. They also priced it slightly cheaper then traditional cigarettes, surely not a coincidence. I would almost say the anti BT arguments would also apply to Njoy, the only major company to stand up to FDA when they claimed e-cigs weren't any safer that traditional cigarettes a few years back. I believe they even paid for independent review of the FDA's research.
I wouldn't be so quick to judge BT as friend or foe just yet. They will without doubt make waves in the industry and drive several Mom and Pops out of business but at the end of day, it's up to us whether they actually do it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
