Donate to Dr Farsalinos' new study

[Kent C]

How will they control and differentiate food flavoring to be used for food or eliquid? Ask the purchaser what they're going to use it in? They may have some control over ecig vendors because they'll be buying in bulk and the nature of their business is for ecig use; but, how about a diy'er? If they asked me, I would say I like to bake different flavor cupcakes.

EDIT: If they increase the tax on flavorings across the board, then they'll not only have ecig vendors/user up in arms but also bakeries.

I fully understand and frankly don't know how they'll differentiate. It would be easier for the hardware parts but with the PG, VG and flavorings, they'll almost have to get a list (perhaps from here ) as to who is using what for what. Just a decade ago, that would seem out of the question. Now... I'm not so sure.

 

[Kent C]

And there's the vary damned rub.

Exactly - a 'rub' with sandpaper on a grinder

 

[aubergine]

But Kent, you might be able to answer me on this one. Cigarettes contain D&A and all sorts of toxins, and that's permitted by the FDA. So how can they go after lower levels in e-cigs without going after BT on that as as well? I've seen no mention of that from those quarters since 2010. Their angles are all about children and gateway and second hand vape and all, it seems. But I dunno.
(I just posted an almost identical question elsewhere, sorry to sort of cross post but seems more appropriate here.)

I should know the answer to this but am drawing a blank.

 

[Kent C]

But Kent, you might be able to answer me on this one. Cigarettes contain D&A and all sorts of toxins, and that's permitted by the FDA. So how can they go after lower levels in e-cigs without going after BT on that as as well? I've seen no mention of that from those quarters since 2010. Their angles are all about children and gateway and second hand vape and all, it seems. But I dunno.
(I just posted an almost identical question elsewhere, sorry to sort of cross post but seems more appropriate here.)

I should know the answer to this but am drawing a blank.

Such good questions and I think you hit upon one answer - the focus on children. Despite all the bad stuff for adults that is contained in the document, it's almost all couched in 'concern for the kids' again. So it's more of a PR piece, for those who fall for the 'it's all about the children' argument (a bit like Hamas and their supporters). It's a powerful argument ploy.

Another factor relates to ADHD of the people who will be reading the press releases concerned with the letter. Since I'm into golf right now, and some won't know to what I refer, but right now Rory McIlroy is on a tear and Tiger Woods is no longer a contender. All the stories are about Rory. So ecigs are 'Rory' and cigarettes are 'Tiger' - and that is where the focus is. It makes little sense in the big picture because only a few have achieved what Tiger has in his sport. But again, that doesn't matter because Rory is hot now! And so are ecigs.

There is the thing of 'renormalizing' and it has some weight. So all these ANTZ's life work looks like it's going down the drain. And they don't see how ecigs may be their biggest victory. Sad really.

To answer more directly, D&A are incidental, BUT IF they can be used against ecigs, then they become a dominant factor. If they can use it in their drive to cessation, then they will and ignore any implications that they are in cigarettes as well. It doesn't make rational sense, only current PR sense. And unfortunately, that works on a lot of people.

 

[aubergine]

Such good questions and I think you hit upon one answer - the focus on children. Despite all the bad stuff for adults that is contained in the document, it's almost all couched in 'concern for the kids' again. So it's more of a PR piece, for those who fall for the 'it's all about the children' argument (a bit like Hamas and their supporters). It's a powerful argument ploy.

Another factor relates to ADHD of the people who will be reading the press releases concerned with the letter. Since I'm into golf right now, and some won't know to what I refer, but right now Rory McIlroy is on a tear and Tiger Woods is no longer a contender. All the stories are about Rory. So ecigs are 'Rory' and cigarettes are 'Tiger' - and that is where the focus is. It makes little sense in the big picture because only a few have achieved what Tiger has in his sport. But again, that doesn't matter because Rory is hot now! And so are ecigs.

There is the thing of 'renormalizing' and it has some weight. So all these ANTZ's life work looks like it's going down the drain. And they don't see how ecigs may be their biggest victory. Sad really.

To answer more directly, D&A are incidental, BUT IF they can be used against ecigs, then they become a dominant factor. If they can use it in their drive to cessation, then they will and ignore any implications that they are in cigarettes as well. It doesn't make rational sense, only current PR sense. And unfortunately, that works on a lot of people.

Yeah, good answer, but there are Antz, and their endless PR and lobbying and all, and there's the FDA and its current project, and it's ability/willingness to actually rule on this one. The Antz have wanted cigarettes banned forever, and that gets nowhere with the FDA, though they've pushed some fairly severe stuff through. Two different groups, ultimately. There's obviously overlap and influence, but I'm looking specifically at the FDA here. Whether or not the agitprop people decide to make PR hay with this particular concern, I'm still thinking that the FDA can't, for instance, officially rule that e-liquid must be certified free of diacetyl unless they did the same for cigarettes. Or demand that vapor be free of anything that's also in cigarettes. I think there's some assumption in these threads that "oh, well, the FDA will take care of that one anyway, like it or not", and I've heard, '"well, at least the regs will make sure my juice is 'pure', I approve that part"; ironically, maybe they won't give a rat's .....
All speculation, again, dunno.

 

[Kent C]

Yeah, good answer, but there are Antz, and their endless PR and lobbying and all, and there's the FDA and its current project, and it's ability/willingness to actually rule on this one. The Antz have wanted cigarettes banned forever, and that gets nowhere with the FDA, though they've pushed some fairly severe stuff through. Two different groups, ultimately. There's obviously overlap and influence, but I'm looking specifically at the FDA here. Whether or not the agitprop people decide to make PR hay with this particular concern, I'm still thinking that the FDA can't, for instance, officially rule that e-liquid must be certified free of diacetyl unless they did the same for cigarettes. Or demand that vapor be free of anything that's also in cigarettes. I think there's some assumption in these threads that "oh, well, the FDA will take care of that one anyway, like it or not", and I've heard, '"well, at least the regs will make sure my juice is 'pure', I approve that part"; ironically, maybe they won't give a rat's .....
All speculation, again, dunno.

I understand the 'apparent' tension between the ANTZ and the FDA. I think it's mostly for show. As far as differentiating between two products, the FDA does this in the deeming with ecigs vs cigars. I found it a bit laughable how they go through the 'dangers' of cigars, nothing of which is the case with ecigs, yet they attempt (or offer options) that give cigars a pass. Whether that will happen will be interesting either way along with the fallout of some of Congress if they come down on premium cigars. So it isn't so much out of character for the FDA to do something like ban it for one product and allow it for another. But all the FDA has done to date is consider ingestion of diacetyl as GRAS. (although there may be articles of which I am unaware - although I did do a search on that

 

[Anjaffm]

How will they control and differentiate food flavoring to be used for food or eliquid? Ask the purchaser what they're going to use it in? They may have some control over ecig vendors because they'll be buying in bulk and the nature of their business is for ecig use; but, how about a diy'er? If they asked me, I would say I like to bake different flavor cupcakes.

EDIT: If they increase the tax on flavorings across the board, then they'll not only have ecig vendors/user up in arms but also bakeries.

Hm..... ban flavorings that have been declared safe for vaping.... hm...... ice cold, cynical assumption on my part:

That would really serve their original purpose.
Let vapers go and buy food flavorings (which have not been declared safe for vaping) and dump them into their base liquid. Some of those might not be quite wholesome for vaping (oil and stuff) - thus, people may get problems with their lungs.
And BINGO: the incidence of lung disease goes up again. To the great joy and happiness of BP and, for example. the Lung Association.
Just like smoking: people do something that makes them sick - and the CDC, BP and a lot of so-called "public health" organizations profit from that sickness and are very happy. While having some sickness to point out as a basis for claiming that "vaping is baaaaad and makes people sick" (never mind that they themselves caused the situation in the first place). (I seem to remember some parallel with "denatured" = poisoned alcohol during Prohibition).
Yes, that would serve the original purpose very well indeed.

Call me a cynic. But I see a pattern.

(And to anybody lurking: yes, we know that "public health" does not give a rat's behind about either the public or health. We know evil when we see it. And we know greed when it stares us in the face.)

Addition:

If they increase the tax on flavorings across the board, then they'll not only have ecig vendors/user up in arms but also bakeries.

Bakeries? How about the entire food processing industry? Have you ever checked an ingredients list? On any kind of packaged foodstuff? The food processing industry literally stuffs its customers with flavorings. Oh yes, they are considered extremely safe to eat. It is only when it comes to vaping that the nanny staters start to whine.

 

[RosaJ]

Hm..... ban flavorings that have been declared safe for vaping.... hm...... ice cold, cynical assumption on my part:

That would really serve their original purpose.
Let vapers go and buy food flavorings (which have not been declared safe for vaping) and dump them into their base liquid. Some of those might not be quite wholesome for vaping (oil and stuff) - thus, people may get problems with their lungs.
And BINGO: the incidence of lung disease goes up again. To the great joy and happiness of BP and, for example. the Lung Association.
Just like smoking: people do something that makes them sick - and the CDC, BP and a lot of so-called "public health" organizations profit from that sickness and are very happy. While having some sickness to point out as a basis for claiming that "vaping is baaaaad and makes people sick" (never mind that they themselves caused the situation in the first place). (I seem to remember some parallel with "denatured" = poisoned alcohol during Prohibition).
Yes, that would serve the original purpose very well indeed.

Call me a cynic. But I see a pattern.

(And to anybody lurking: yes, we know that "public health" does not give a rat's behind about either the public or health. We know evil when we see it. And we know greed when it stares us in the face.)

Addition:

Bakeries? How about the entire food processing industry? Have you ever checked an ingredients list? On any kind of packaged foodstuff? The food processing industry literally stuffs its customers with flavorings. Oh yes, they are considered extremely safe to eat. It is only when it comes to vaping that the nanny staters start to whine.

In the early 1900's during Prohibition the government (yes, the government) ordered manufacturers of alcohol to put poison in their formula to deter people from drinking the pharmaceutical grade alcohol. I forget how many people died from this act (by the government) because they were alcoholics in the first place and couldn't stop drinking. From documentaries I've seen (they're available on Netflix) this was one of the reasons Prohibition came to a halt.

I'm a cynic sometimes too, and wouldn't put it past the government or the FDA to do the same with glycerin or any other component of eliquid.

 

[Kent C]

Similar stuff in the 70's

Paraquat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
section 6

... looks like it turned out to be a hoax though.... according to the EPA anyway...

 

[Anjaffm]

@RosaJ:
Thank you for the explanation!

@Kent C.:

Wow!
And yeah, everything is a hoax, if it exposes government misdeeds. Or a "conspiracy theory", of course. I bet the Watergate papers were a conspiracy theory as well.

Say, the EPA, are those not the guys who went with heavy body armor and automatic assault weapons against an American farmer the other day?
Something about the farmer refusing to pay money to the EPA for using land for grazing his cattle? The same land that that his family had been using for grazing cattle for generations? Only that now the EPA suddenly "owned" this public land and demanded money for the use of the land for grazing cattle?
Not the kind of people I would trust, I should say.

And I agree that I would not put it past (any) government to poison its own population. "For their own good", of course.
Obey your master or die. Nice "democracy" indeed.

........
Yeah, and I am sometimes searching for a stronger thing than cynicism.
I think it goes: humor - irony - sarcasm - cynicism. Cynicism is supposed to be the strongest form of this... attitude.
But now, for the second time in my life, I need something stronger. Cynicism is no longer enough.... not by a long shot.

 

[M Onan Batterload]

In the early 1900's during Prohibition the government (yes, the government) ordered manufacturers of alcohol to put poison in their formula to deter people from drinking the pharmaceutical grade alcohol. I forget how many people died from this act (by the government) because they were alcoholics in the first place and couldn't stop drinking. From documentaries I've seen (they're available on Netflix) this was one of the reasons Prohibition came to a halt.

I'm a cynic sometimes too, and wouldn't put it past the government or the FDA to do the same with glycerin or any other component of eliquid.

Here's a good article on the topic -
The little-told story of how the U.S. government poisoned alcohol during Prohibition.

A few quotes from the article:

...To sell the stolen industrial alcohol, the liquor syndicates employed chemists to "renature" the products, returning them to a drinkable state. The bootleggers paid their chemists a lot more than the government did, and they excelled at their job. Stolen and redistilled alcohol became the primary source of liquor in the country. So federal officials ordered manufacturers to make their products far more deadly...

...by the time Prohibition ended in 1933, the federal poisoning program, by some estimates, had killed at least 10,000 people...

...an official sense of higher purpose kept the poisoning program in place. As the Chicago Tribune editorialized in 1927: "Normally, no American government would engage in such business. … It is only in the curious fanaticism of Prohibition that any means, however barbarous, are considered justified." Others, however, accused lawmakers opposed to the poisoning plan of being in cahoots with criminals and argued that bootleggers and their law-breaking alcoholic customers deserved no sympathy. "Must Uncle Sam guarantee safety first for souses?" asked Nebraska's Omaha Bee...

 

[Kent C]

@RosaJ:
Thank you for the explanation!

@Kent C.:

Wow!
And yeah, everything is a hoax, if it exposes government misdeeds. Or a "conspiracy theory", of course. I bet the Watergate papers were a conspiracy theory as well.

Say, the EPA, are those not the guys who went with heavy body armor and automatic assault weapons against an American farmer the other day?
Something about the farmer refusing to pay money to the EPA for using land for grazing his cattle? The same land that that his family had been using for grazing cattle for generations? Only that now the EPA suddenly "owned" this public land and demanded money for the use of the land for grazing cattle?
Not the kind of people I would trust, I should say.

And I agree that I would not put it past (any) government to poison its own population. "For their own good", of course.
Obey your master or die. Nice "democracy" indeed.

........
Yeah, and I am sometimes searching for a stronger thing than cynicism.
I think it goes: humor - irony - sarcasm - cynicism. Cynicism is supposed to be the strongest form of this... attitude.
But now, for the second time in my life, I need something stronger. Cynicism is no longer enough.... not by a long shot.

Alinsky says ridicule is the best. I agree ...for now That EPA/farmer thing was so convoluted but it starts with government owning land rather than private hands. Once that happens then any rational solution goes out the window. But yeah, the EPA as well as the IRS, and other agencies where it seems preposterous are buying up ammo. The FBI, DEA and Homeland Security are jealous.

So, why is the USDA requesting to buy submachine guns? « Hot Air

 

[Anjaffm]

@M Onan Batterload:
OMG!

and argued that bootleggers and their law-breaking alcoholic customers deserved no sympathy

Now, what does that remind us of, in this day and time?

@Kent C:
OMG!

Machine guns in the hands of bureaucrats who get paid to allegedly "serve" the citizens. Serve them a round of bullets, or what?

I am not often speechless. But this is too much. OMG!

 

[pamdis]

But Kent, you might be able to answer me on this one. Cigarettes contain D&A and all sorts of toxins, and that's permitted by the FDA. So how can they go after lower levels in e-cigs without going after BT on that as as well? I've seen no mention of that from those quarters since 2010. Their angles are all about children and gateway and second hand vape and all, it seems. But I dunno.
(I just posted an almost identical question elsewhere, sorry to sort of cross post but seems more appropriate here.)

I should know the answer to this but am drawing a blank.

That's an easy one. The FSPTCA basically said: you can continue selling all current cigs with all same additives, good or bad. New cigs that are just as bad can be sold too, as long as you show they are the exact same bad (substantial equivalence).

Nowhere did it state that they had to improve them, or remove any bad additives.

The ONLY thing this law did was freeze the recipe. It prevents BT from making them worse, AND prevents BT from making them better by making it almost impossible to prove they are better (MRTP and PMTA applications).

Now, since e-cigs are completely new, there is nothing to freeze, and they can demand anything they want about them.

 

[Kent C]

That's an easy one. The FSPTCA basically said: you can continue selling all current cigs with all same additives, good or bad. New cigs that are just as bad can be sold too, as long as you show they are the exact same bad (substantial equivalence).

Nowhere did it state that they had to improve them, or remove any bad additives.

The ONLY thing this law did was freeze the recipe. It prevents BT from making them worse, AND prevents BT from making them better by making it almost impossible to prove they are better (MRTP and PMTA applications).

Now, since e-cigs are completely new, there is nothing to freeze, and they can demand anything they want about them.

The 'children PR line' is still a factor, but this answers her question better

 

[pamdis]

The 'children PR line' is still a factor, but this answers her question better

The 'children PR line' is the anti's answer to the 'why' question. Mine was the answer to 'how'.

 

[Kent C]

The 'children PR line' is the anti's answer to the 'why' question. Mine was the answer to 'how'.

My thoughts exactly... I was going to put that in and decided not to.

And yours shows how insane it all is. I remember when I first read through the 'cigar' part where they list all the downsides, then offer options Ecigs are just too new, no established 'constituency' or lobby. That may change....

 

[dragonpuff]

My thoughts exactly... I was going to put that in and decided not to.

And yours shows how insane it all is. I remember when I first read through the 'cigar' part where they list all the downsides, then offer options Ecigs are just too new, no established 'constituency' or lobby. That may change....

That's what we need, lobbyists! really, money is the only way people in congress actually listen anyway...

 

[Kent C]

That's what we need, lobbyists! really, money is the only way people in congress actually listen anyway...

Shouldn't have to but with the corruption (some will call it 'the way things are')...so with the corruption .... it is needed, esp. for contributions for re-election. And for getting gov't grants... that's in there too. Ask Glantz. Well, he'll lie....

 

[sonicdsl]

I believe the AVA is/has hired a lobbyist, right? Or am I thinking of someone else? Or is that something being worked on yet?