As far as I know Dow synthetic nicotine is the purist nicotine on the market. It is more expensive and can only be bought in large quantities.
However for as long as it is not regulated maybe we should look into ways of buying it. A coop perhaps?
FDA Common misconceptions about FDA regulations ( I hope CASAA will address at some point in the next few weeks)
- Thread starter Roger_Lafayette
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
As far as I know Dow synthetic nicotine is the purist nicotine on the market. It is more expensive and can only be bought in large quantities.
However for as long as it is not regulated maybe we should look into ways of buying it. A coop perhaps?
Roger, there are outliers in every group. Dayton and Shumlin may be good guys on this topic, but if you look at their entire careers it is a different story.
I was not trying to argue politics with you, I was simply agreeing with wv's assessment that this administration and group of Democrats in charge of these agencies is a problem. IF there are Republicans pushing this agenda, I promise to be even more angry with them. I expect the command and control philosophy from folks on the left. Any Republican supporting that philosophy is a traitor to myself, and those like me that supported them at the ballot box. We will flush them the next time around.
The fact that the current group of Republicans are remaining silent on this issue is disturbing. I hold them in no great regard. I have no double standard. Either they represent the issues in the manner that they promised when they ran for office, or I take my vote to a candidate who does. I am very angry with the Republicans right now as well.
Last edited:
I hear that the better ECF vendors will give you their COAs (certificates of analysis), and what one gets is quite pure. Whether Dow would deal with some co-op formed from ordinary vapers is something that I don't know. It is also said that a freezer is a rather useful thing to have ;-)
Some folks like this link: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ttle-help-freezing-nic-juice.html#post2126610
P.S.: SeniorBoy, thanks for the props! You, too can be a CASAA Reg. Rep. - all you have to do is to sign up for it on their web site. If you're already registered, just register again and follow the instructions. (I think you're a regional rep. if you sign up for their national mailing list.)
Oh for Pete's sake.
I'm a passionate, long-time, politically educated, active progressive liberal. I want federal oversight on many things, including things that prevent oversight by and intrusion of right-wing interests. Not going to get into that in here, because it's unproductive.
I want big money out of government. That means that I vehemently oppose this effort to hand the e-cig industry to big tobacco (which is very precisely what this is). Unless someone in here believes that corporate interests should rule us all - oligarch, anyone? - this should not be framed as a partisan issue or conflated with generalized libertarian/right wing/conservative or generalized progressive/left wing/liberal priorities.
I understand that all sorts of arguments might be launched about what hipbone is connected to which thigh bone, but in here we're in this together. That's sometimes about as painful to me as it is to those who believe that this is a Liberal Plot, but this isn't the place to sort out those differences.
There's something to be said for a rare moment of common ground, let's go with that and save the rest for our favorite political rant locales.
I'm a passionate, long-time, politically educated, active progressive liberal. I want federal oversight on many things, including things that prevent oversight by and intrusion of right-wing interests. Not going to get into that in here, because it's unproductive.
I want big money out of government. That means that I vehemently oppose this effort to hand the e-cig industry to big tobacco (which is very precisely what this is). Unless someone in here believes that corporate interests should rule us all - oligarch, anyone? - this should not be framed as a partisan issue or conflated with generalized libertarian/right wing/conservative or generalized progressive/left wing/liberal priorities.
I understand that all sorts of arguments might be launched about what hipbone is connected to which thigh bone, but in here we're in this together. That's sometimes about as painful to me as it is to those who believe that this is a Liberal Plot, but this isn't the place to sort out those differences.
There's something to be said for a rare moment of common ground, let's go with that and save the rest for our favorite political rant locales.
Last edited:
Just as a thought...
Has anyone else thought about the FDA making these regulations merely to appease BP and BT? I mean, they HAVE to do SOMETHING right?
They, (the government) cannot just let this BIG MONEY get away, so let's just say they put a strong effort in regulating this thing called "Vaping" all the while knowing they cannot possibly succeed (well, assuming they can't) showing they are trying to help out and appease the powers that be so that they can at least say they tried...therefore not losing any of the "support" from BT,BP, ANTZ, ACS,AMA, etc.
Hopefully I made myself clear. I am not any kind of an eloquent speaker, just an average, very happy, now unsmoker who happens to think coverups and scapegoating is the norm in this government.
Has anyone else thought about the FDA making these regulations merely to appease BP and BT? I mean, they HAVE to do SOMETHING right?
They, (the government) cannot just let this BIG MONEY get away, so let's just say they put a strong effort in regulating this thing called "Vaping" all the while knowing they cannot possibly succeed (well, assuming they can't) showing they are trying to help out and appease the powers that be so that they can at least say they tried...therefore not losing any of the "support" from BT,BP, ANTZ, ACS,AMA, etc.
Hopefully I made myself clear. I am not any kind of an eloquent speaker, just an average, very happy, now unsmoker who happens to think coverups and scapegoating is the norm in this government.
A fairly popular Washington state YouTube vaper has a second separate channel that deals with "other stuff," which I watched a few of his videos out of curiosity...
I've seen him use a ProVari & other PVs to consume this "other stuff"..
Basically, the difference lies in the toppers, which also utilize a 510 connection...
It's not always the dry "other stuff".. There are other forms out there these days which can be chunky, gooey, sticky, waxy.. sort of like the consistency of peanut butter, for example..
I'm not sure if any forms of this can be used in any e-cig topper(s) out there...
But with PVs being used for zero-nicotine e-liquid, for flashlights & for "other stuff," how can the FDA possibly classify them as a tobacco product?
Which brings up the question: Is the FDA even aware that PVs have these multiple uses?
Would it surprise you if I told you that those of us on the left view the anti-vaping actions of high-profile Republicans as just another example of the GOP's morality-driven Bible-thumping prohibitionist streak? (BTW your list should include some more folks like MI Gov. Snynder-R)
The problem is that vapers use their political perspectives as lenses through which to view anti-vaping government action.
This is what I'm inveighing against. We could get into a debate about which party is worse. You might cite guns as one example. I'd point to OTHER_STUFF (a certain green, leafy substance - the legalization of which Republicans have generally very strongly opposed everywhere).
Vapers who generally support Republicans tend to regard Christie, Snyder, and Kasich as folks who have strayed from The Path, and dismiss Shumlin and Dayton as exceptions who prove the rule. (This is pretty much what you're saying, isn't it?)
Those of us on the other side will just flip the analysis around. Naturally, we say to ourselves - the Repubs who want to stop people from vaping are typical. That's what morality-obsessed prohibitionists do. Of course we view Dayton and Schumlin as the "real" Democrats, and Durbin and his ilk as the "traitors" because they're siding with BP against "the little guy."
I personally don't think the situation with the FDA would be any different if Romney had been President. (In fact, it might have been even worse, given that Romney's for all intents and purposes from Utah. You are aware of what the environment in UT is like for vapers, right?) Oh okay. Maybe's he should be regarded as from Massachusetts. Which is another really bad state for vapers.
(That fact alone should make one think - scarlet-red Utah and deep-blue Massachusetts. Hmm. Wonder how that happened?)
It's not so pretty in NJ, either. Except that the local pols in Jersey who are making life difficult for Christie and his state heath Dir are - surprise! - more Democrats. More exceptions that prove the rule, right? They're not the real Democrats, are they? If they were "real" Democrats, they'd be cheering Christie on! Like the "not-real" Dems in MI's legislature who refused to back GOP Gov. Snyder?
Do you see a trend here? We take the evidence that doesn't fit with our desire to see "the enemy party" (or political bent) as anti-vaping, and then we simply interpret it as exceptional. The evidence that fits is what we tout as salient.
Getting back to the Presidency, I don't think it will make a hoot's worth of difference for vapers whether a Dem or a Repub is elected in '16. I'm not even sure it matters what happens this Nov. w/ the Senate.
Can you at least take off your political/partisan/ideological lenses for a moment, to see how this all seems perfectly logical from both sides? (And why it's actually harmful to our cause as vapers?)
I'm not "arguing with you about politics" ... I'm disagreeing with you about how we apply politics and political philosophy to vaping.
You aren't going to change my voting habits, and I'm not going to change yours. That's not what this is about.
The problem is that vapers use their political perspectives as lenses through which to view anti-vaping government action.
This is what I'm inveighing against. We could get into a debate about which party is worse. You might cite guns as one example. I'd point to OTHER_STUFF (a certain green, leafy substance - the legalization of which Republicans have generally very strongly opposed everywhere).
Vapers who generally support Republicans tend to regard Christie, Snyder, and Kasich as folks who have strayed from The Path, and dismiss Shumlin and Dayton as exceptions who prove the rule. (This is pretty much what you're saying, isn't it?)
Those of us on the other side will just flip the analysis around. Naturally, we say to ourselves - the Repubs who want to stop people from vaping are typical. That's what morality-obsessed prohibitionists do. Of course we view Dayton and Schumlin as the "real" Democrats, and Durbin and his ilk as the "traitors" because they're siding with BP against "the little guy."
I personally don't think the situation with the FDA would be any different if Romney had been President. (In fact, it might have been even worse, given that Romney's for all intents and purposes from Utah. You are aware of what the environment in UT is like for vapers, right?) Oh okay. Maybe's he should be regarded as from Massachusetts. Which is another really bad state for vapers.
(That fact alone should make one think - scarlet-red Utah and deep-blue Massachusetts. Hmm. Wonder how that happened?)
It's not so pretty in NJ, either. Except that the local pols in Jersey who are making life difficult for Christie and his state heath Dir are - surprise! - more Democrats. More exceptions that prove the rule, right? They're not the real Democrats, are they? If they were "real" Democrats, they'd be cheering Christie on! Like the "not-real" Dems in MI's legislature who refused to back GOP Gov. Snyder?
Do you see a trend here? We take the evidence that doesn't fit with our desire to see "the enemy party" (or political bent) as anti-vaping, and then we simply interpret it as exceptional. The evidence that fits is what we tout as salient.
Getting back to the Presidency, I don't think it will make a hoot's worth of difference for vapers whether a Dem or a Repub is elected in '16. I'm not even sure it matters what happens this Nov. w/ the Senate.
Can you at least take off your political/partisan/ideological lenses for a moment, to see how this all seems perfectly logical from both sides? (And why it's actually harmful to our cause as vapers?)
I'm not "arguing with you about politics" ... I'm disagreeing with you about how we apply politics and political philosophy to vaping.
You aren't going to change my voting habits, and I'm not going to change yours. That's not what this is about.
Last edited:
I think the FDA is absolutely aware of the various uses for PVs.
I'm not sure what you're asking when you inquire about "how" they can regulate something with multiple uses. Legally, the consensus seems to be that they can, until and unless someone decides to put up the money to fight them in court, after the FDA has actually sent out a "cease and desist" letter, or taken other action. Like siezing and destroying the product, which is what they did in '09.
Speaking of legalities, the statute doesn't say anything about multiple uses. It just refers to "components or parts." Those of us who have suggested that 186xx batteries and O-rings are likely to be safe were simply talking about practicality. We don't think the FDA is going to tick off the users of all these other consumer products that use them.
Knowing what we do now, would you invest part of your retirement account in a company that made vaping equipment, after the 2-year window closes? If you were an online distributor of various products, would you stock vaping equipment, knowning that the FDA has the right to sieze and destroy it, and all you can do is sue them after the fact?
I'm not sure what you're asking when you inquire about "how" they can regulate something with multiple uses. Legally, the consensus seems to be that they can, until and unless someone decides to put up the money to fight them in court, after the FDA has actually sent out a "cease and desist" letter, or taken other action. Like siezing and destroying the product, which is what they did in '09.
Speaking of legalities, the statute doesn't say anything about multiple uses. It just refers to "components or parts." Those of us who have suggested that 186xx batteries and O-rings are likely to be safe were simply talking about practicality. We don't think the FDA is going to tick off the users of all these other consumer products that use them.
Knowing what we do now, would you invest part of your retirement account in a company that made vaping equipment, after the 2-year window closes? If you were an online distributor of various products, would you stock vaping equipment, knowning that the FDA has the right to sieze and destroy it, and all you can do is sue them after the fact?
Last edited:
The FDA has morphed into a government sponsored MAFIA that runs a protection racket for the large corporations of this country including Big Food (Monsanto, Cargil, etc) Big Pharma and Big Tobacco to name only a few. And who is at the helm of FDA's tobacco gestapo? None other than Mitch Zeller, former lobbyist for Big Pharma. Conflict of interest anyone? Who appointed him? That would be Mr Barry Soetoro AKA Barack Obama, but that's another rant for another time.....
Some of you may have seen this in the Bill Godshall Commentary thread but for those who haven't it's well worth the 1.5+ hrs to understand who we're dealing with based on their past track record. Oh yes, they will look the other way if you have a drug or GMO food product you wish to bring to market even if trials show a risk of death or disease from using it. Products that threaten the profits of BF, BP, and BT are not necessarily "banned", they simply make it economically unfeasible to market them. Different tactic, same result.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfBPgM7vOBA
I plan to submit my comments once CASAA gives their take on all this but I have little hope it will make any difference. People driven by greed and avarice have no empathy for others. I believe it will be more effective for ALL of us to write a letter to each of our respective representatives and senators as well. I have read that some of our elected officials have stated that they feel the FDA has overstepped it's bounds in other matters. If we can convince them they have done so in this matter and enough of us take the time to write, we may gain some important advocates with enough power to reign in an out of control FDA. Hopefully not wishful thinking on my part.......
Last edited:
New Jersey is a case study in bipartisan stupidity. The state (politicians) is beholden to big pharma, and a very liberal slant.
If you have lived and worked in NJ for a time, everyone has a line or two where they have worked for or been associated to big pharma.
Republicans here are too liberal to be elected as Democrats in many states. Our current draconian regulations are in place due to a democrat governer (Corzine) and was given token resistance by repubs, much as Christie is getting token resistance by dems now. In the end the "grand compromise" will screw the people. It's a NJ tradition....
I oppose and vote against anybody from either party that looks to restrict me "For my own Good" or to "Save the Children"
Well, it appears they're aiming to tick off the users of zero-nicotine e-liquid, flashlights & "other stuff" -- again, who are *not* using this hardware for *any* nicotine or tobacco..
Which means this hardware is completely out of their jurisdiction & they would be overstepping their bounds as defined by Congress...
I'm proud to say I ignored tb months ago. My mission in life is to Vape among other things, yada yada....
I'll not be deterred by whimsical knowledge and pure and utter junk science's.
Awaiting CASAA direction, I know for a fact that most like 99% of us are doing this same wise thing.
NORML may be an ally in this fight, just as they have been against CA's AB 1500.
As far as zero-nic. users, there may not be enough to matter. Although I still believe that's a potential cessation path - albeit one of reduced value. Some companies are already marketing sealed cartridge PVs to take advantage of it.
Are they exceeding their authority under the statute? Unfortunately a federal court will not be able to decide this until some manufacturer puts themselves in the line of fire, and decides to pony up the cash to fight the FDA. Congress probably didn't intend to stop people from quitting using 0% e-liquid. But then legislation often has many unintended consequences that are never redressed.
As far as zero-nic. users, there may not be enough to matter. Although I still believe that's a potential cessation path - albeit one of reduced value. Some companies are already marketing sealed cartridge PVs to take advantage of it.
Are they exceeding their authority under the statute? Unfortunately a federal court will not be able to decide this until some manufacturer puts themselves in the line of fire, and decides to pony up the cash to fight the FDA. Congress probably didn't intend to stop people from quitting using 0% e-liquid. But then legislation often has many unintended consequences that are never redressed.
I'm going to have to see more information on this, as Dow has been known to call their vegetable glycerin synthetic as well, even though it comes from the exact same sources as everyone else's VG. There's also references in some of their writings that say synthetic nicotine but then qualifies with (derived from a tobacco source). I can't for the life of me find any info on a synthetic made by them. Anyone?
Edit: An interesting blast from our past on the subject of synthetic, complete with some of our resident chemists. I ran across it while speaking with Professor Google
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...nthetic-nicotine-there-really-such-thing.html
Last edited:
Geez, that's complicated. I read about half the posts in the thread and I became totally lost regarding the isomers (or whatever the variants are) and so forth. What I didn't see was any evidence that something usable could be derived without tobacco. I believe there's a Wikipedia article on this subject as well. ECF interest in synthetic nic. seems to pop up here and there, usually these waves of curiousity parallel the threats of government action. (As now.)
Anyway good luck. I can only hope that your quest, as well as that of the folks who are looking for pre-Feb-07 solutions come to fruition.
I'm not holding my breath, just hoping against hope
Anyway good luck. I can only hope that your quest, as well as that of the folks who are looking for pre-Feb-07 solutions come to fruition.
I'm not holding my breath, just hoping against hope
I'm going to have to see more information on this, as Dow has been known to call their vegetable glycerin synthetic as well, even though it comes from the exact same sources as everyone else's VG. There's also references in some of their writings that say synthetic nicotine but then qualifies with (derived from a tobacco source). I can't for the life of me find any info on a synthetic made by them. Anyone?
Edit: An interesting blast from our past on the subject of synthetic, complete with some of our resident chemists. I ran across it while speaking with Professor Google
New Jersey is a case study in bipartisan stupidity. The state (politicians) is beholden to big pharma, and a very liberal slant.
If you have lived and worked in NJ for a time, everyone has a line or two where they have worked for or been associated to big pharma.
Republicans here are too liberal to be elected as Democrats in many states. Our current draconian regulations are in place due to a democrat governer (Corzine) and was given token resistance by repubs, much as Christie is getting token resistance by dems now. In the end the "grand compromise" will screw the people. It's a NJ tradition....
I oppose and vote against anybody from either party that looks to restrict me "For my own Good" or to "Save the Children"
My knowledge of NJ completely agrees with your analysis, Stosh. I don't think the fact that Christy is a republican governor lends any weight to Rogers argument that both parties are against vaping. The reality since 2009, support the fact that overwhelmingly, liberal democrats are leading the charge against vaping at a national level and republicans are just keeping their mouth shut, unfortunately.
I also don't buy into the argument that if a different administration was in power, vaping would still be attacked. More than likely it have been just left alone if for no other reason than small business would be affected.
How people vote has consequences and in our case, negative ones.
And I'm willing to wager with those who hold this view. Thus far, no takers. Wonder why that is?
I do not believe this, and so doesn't impact my positive outlook on future of vaping.
I do not believe this. The proposed rules are established as proposed. Comments can shape what final rules will go into effect.
I do not believe this and do believe it is all "market applications" from this point forward for those who wish to be in compliance with the FDA. I believe, strongly, that not all businesses / distributors, starting now, will seek compliance with the FDA. I believe many will and believe more than BT and cigalikes will be approved.
I do believe this, but doesn't matter really. If you want a product to be legally sold, and compliant with FDA, you will get it approved. Many will not seek FDA compliance.
I believe this, but also doesn't matter. You're saying "might" take many years. I think that is arguably true. It might not. Would be great if it does. Would be par for the course on FDA processing. But if things go swiftly, it would be better, IMO, for those who don't see the sky falling, and who would be on winning side of wager I've put forth.
I believe this, and realize jury is still out on this one. I kinda hope it goes up to a billion dollars per application (but not really). Will make winning the bet a little bit easier.
I believe this, but realize there's no way to offer proof for this at this point. I kinda hope it excludes small businesses with an iron fist (but not really). Will make winning the bet much easier.
You call this doubtful, I call this likely. Same thing I was saying above. Let 'em go this heavy handed way. Will guarantee I win the bet.
It is almost tempting to bet on this point alone. Especially with your "false" ruling. But you got just enough tagged on the end to make it a questionable wager. I believe it'll be one flavor (at all nic strengths) per application. I believe many will pass, and it'll be similar process for other manufacturers, as if they helped each other. I believe it's possible FDA rejects all flavors for eCigs. Again, will make winning the bet much easier.
This one I am willing to bet on, on its own. My only stipulation is distributor doesn't have to advertise product as "for vaping" for it to be 'not affected.' This one is partially why I'm confident I'll win the larger bet.
On the contrary. Clones are another reason why I feel confident to win the bet. Clones won't seek FDA compliance. Why should they?
I believe this is plausible. Would ultimately favor FDA. Either way, winning the bet is still intact.
Oh, I would say much longer than forever. This is one I'd bet on. At the end of forever, or much longer than forever, if they do not last, I'll be sure to pay up.
Who says this? Of course the FDA can stop all foreign sellers from all forms of business. They have magical powers, and undeniable ability to make everyone everywhere comply with their will. Underground market and foreign sellers don't stand a chance against the FDA.
IOW, bet will be easy to win for those who think this believe is 'doubtful.'
Had to keep your answer on this one public.
Your "hard to evaluate" makes you an "easy target for my bet."
Really easy.
Last edited:
Another wall of text about how good the FDA is, without a single real world instance referenced where the FDA actually ruled in the manner you "believe" in any case, concerned with vaping or not. Just hope the FDA is paying you well.
I didn't say that I knew for sure what would happen. Although the War on Drugs provides some interesting parallels. Hopefully the Grand Old Party of Small Business will look look kindly upon the small businesses in CA who are selling OTHER_STUFF, if people vote the "right" way in 2016.
The GOP is torn between small business and drug (of all kind) abstinence -- the Dems are torn between total surrender on the War on Drugs and "nanny state" control of every drug, food or drink we ingest. Sorry guys but I don't see the group large enough or strong enough to put the FDA in it's place....
Perhaps if the FDA approves a drug for schizophrenia and pipes it into congress and the White House....
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
