Can Someone Please Explain This?

[JustMeAgain]

I just went to the Philip Morris website and looked at the list of ingredients and PG is plainly listed.

Tobacco & Flavor Ingredients - Philip Morris USA

So, since ecigs have the same ingredients as cigarettes, can they not be considered a non-flammable cigarette with all of the other ingredients excluded?

Why would a product with less ingredients be required to obtain approval since the same thing is already being sold with, only with more ingredients?

And hasn't there been a push for 'fire safe' cigarettes? Does the ecig not answer that problem?

This makes sense to me...

Can somebody tell me where I'm wrong?

 

[magnolia]

Hey, I just came in here to read the list ...
very interesting....
also what i find interesting is the list of what I "think" are essential oils that are in a cigarette.

Such as
CHAMOMILE FLOWER, HUNGARIAN, OIL
FENUGREEK EXTRACT AND OLEORESIN
GERANIUM ROSE OIL
ORRIS ROOT EXTRACT
SANDALWOOD OIL, YELLOW

and there's coffee and cocoa?

Seriously??!
....I didn't know all of that was in cigarettes when I was smokin them.
Thanks for sharing the link

 

[SpitfireSMS]

I just went to the Philip Morris website and looked at the list of ingredients and PG is plainly listed.

Tobacco & Flavor Ingredients - Philip Morris USA

So, since ecigs have the same ingredients as cigarettes, can they not be considered a non-flammable cigarette with all of the other ingredients excluded?

Why would a product with less ingredients be required to obtain approval since the same thing is already being sold with, only with more ingredients?

And hasn't there been a push for 'fire safe' cigarettes? Does the ecig not answer that problem?

This makes sense to me...

Can somebody tell me where I'm wrong?

I would say e-cigs are fire safe, but they could still fall victim to electrical malfunctions and burn entire houses down.
They are no any more dangerous to plug in than say, a cell charger, but the threat is still there.
I still think they could be labeled fire-safe.

And as for your other question, heres my take:
E-cigs dont burn.
They vaporize, not combust.
Its a different chemical reaction, and therefor unknown toxins could be formed in the process.
What goes in is not what comes out so to say.
Im not a chemist, so if someone knows better correct me.

I personally believe this different chemical reaction is the reason why research suggests we dont absorb nearly as much nicotine from e-cigs than cigs. Theres a thread regarding this somewhere..
I believe the chemical compounds separate in a different way than they do in a combustion reaction, and because we have a TON of studies on cigarettes, we know exactly what is produced on that side of the chemical equation.
The e-cigs is completely unknown.
It could be 10 times deadlier, we dont really know.
This is unlikely, considering the testimonies from people on this site I am very confident that theres nothing (too) harmful that can come from vaping.
This would be the cause for alarm from the FDA, they realize something completely different is happening and they dont want people dying while they descover exactly whats going on.
They didnt react the same way 60+ years ago with regards to cigarettes because they probably werent as strict on what they allow through the standards.
A good example to compliment that would be something I have heard from my sister, who works at the FDA; "If sugar and salt were proposed today, they wouldnt pass the first tests, and wouldnt be allowed in any food products"
As the times change, the standards to as well.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

I just went to the Philip Morris website and looked at the list of ingredients and PG is plainly listed.

Tobacco & Flavor Ingredients - Philip Morris USA

So, since ecigs have the same ingredients as cigarettes, can they not be considered a non-flammable cigarette with all of the other ingredients excluded?

Why would a product with less ingredients be required to obtain approval since the same thing is already being sold with, only with more ingredients?

And hasn't there been a push for 'fire safe' cigarettes? Does the ecig not answer that problem?

This makes sense to me...

Can somebody tell me where I'm wrong?

One word---------NICOTINE--that is where the FDA has us----Sun

 

[happily]

my opinion is "money talks and bull**** walks"............when e-cig's start funding congressmen, the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, the
FDA and state sponsored health Insurance, like big tobacco and pharmaceutical companies do no one will see a problem with them. There are also PLENTY of studies to suggest that vaporizing nicotine and propylene glycol is infinitely safer than cigarettes. If 300,000 of us quit and 20 of us die from it, Shouldn't it still be considered a victory

 

[SpitfireSMS]

Agreed on all points

 

[Vapor Pete]

It could be 10 times deadlier, we dont really know.

I agree with everything you said until I got to the above quote. As Leaford once said, and I love it: "What could be 10 times deadlier than dead?". This is of course in reply to those who say e-cigs could be deadlier than cigarettes.
So it really is a moot point. At the end of the day, no we dont know if e-cigs are deadly. But we know cigarettes are. And 10 times deadlier still equals dead.
My best,
-VP

 

[SpitfireSMS]

Thats a valid point when concerning a single individual.
Makes perfect sense.

Im talking about a sample size of hundreds of thousands.
100 dead is 10 times deadlier than 10 dead (wow what a jumbled sentence lol) just speaking statistically.

It could also refer to the amount it takes to kill you, it could be a fraction of that in cigs.

Im very doubtful theres anything in e-cigs thats going to directly kill anybody.

Im not debunking your point because its a very valid one, Im just clarifying on my behalf.

 

[Vapor Pete]

Thats a valid point when concerning a single individual.
Makes perfect sense.

Im talking about a sample size of hundreds of thousands.
100 dead is 10 times deadlier than 10 dead (wow what a jumbled sentence lol) just speaking statistically.

It could also refer to the amount it takes to kill you, it could be a fraction of that in cigs.

Im very doubtful theres anything in e-cigs thats going to directly kill anybody.

Im not debunking your point because its a very valid one, Im just clarifying on my behalf.

No problem my friend
When you put it statistically, I see your point. We are on the same page, just different paragraphs

My best,
-VP

 

[JustMeAgain]

One word---------NICOTINE--that is where the FDA has us----Sun

Sun, I think what I am not understanding is why nicotine is a problem since it's just an extract from tobacco and extracts are sold everyday.

I am thinking of it along the lines of essential oils. Eucalyptus is readily available, but it is a toxin. Once when I was making cinnamon candy and wanted to buy pure cinnamon oil, I had to buy it in a pharmacy.

So why couldn't ecigs be sold with zero cartridges and then we purchase the nicotine as an 'essential oil'?

I think that liquid nicotine is used in pesticides. I'm not saying we should be smoking pesticides...lmao... but the manufactureres of pesticides get their liquid nicotine from somewhere.

I know there's a way around all this mess.

 

[Sun Vaporer]

Sun, I think what I am not understanding is why nicotine is a problem since it's just an extract from tobacco and extracts are sold everyday.

I am thinking of it along the lines of essential oils. Eucalyptus is readily available, but it is a toxin. Once when I was making cinnamon candy and wanted to buy pure cinnamon oil, I had to buy it in a pharmacy.

So why couldn't ecigs be sold with zero cartridges and then we purchase the nicotine as an 'essential oil'?

I think that liquid nicotine is used in pesticides. I'm not saying we should be smoking pesticides...lmao... but the manufactureres of pesticides get their liquid nicotine from somewhere.

I know there's a way around all this mess.

JustMeAgain--I agree with you. Problem is the FDA's position is that the e-cig itself is, according to them the "medical device" employed to deliver the "drug" (nicotine). The FDA looks at it like a "Gun" and the ammunition is the "Nicotine". We argue that using no-nic just like as if one used "blanks" in the "gun" instead if real bullets. Problem is the FDA has regulatory power over medical devices just as they do with "drugs" and this is the position they have taken.

So when the FDA sets out to ban, they are going after the "Gun" as well as the "bullets"

Obvioulsy we, as consumers are thought of as being too ignorant to use our e-cigs in the "responsible" way that the FDA mandates????

---------Sun