E Juice not a tobacco product????
- Thread starter TFL!
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Being a product containing one of it's parts "derived from" is different than being the product itself.
To put it another way, just because I put butter on my baked potato does not make it a beef product.
To put it another way, just because I put butter on my baked potato does not make it a beef product.
From a common sense standpoint, yes.
From a legal standpoint? Not in this case.
Well, not yet. At least not officially.
But it's coming eventually.
If the butter came from a cow, the butter would not exist without the cow .. so yes, it is a product of the cow ..
You're confusing semantics .. tobacco product can be defined as "coming from the tobacco plant" .. IOW, it is a product of the tobacco ..
Every tobacco product contains TAR, which is the killer ! There is absolutely no tar in pharmaceutical nicotine. Just the alkaloid.
According to the DC District Court decision in Sottera vs FDA, upheld by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, e-cigs could not be regulated as a drug/delivery device under FDCA, but that they can be regulated by FDA as a "tobacco product" under the FSPTCA, which was passed in 2009 in response to a US Supreme Court decision in FDA vs Brown and Williamson.
In Brown and Williamson, the FDA attempted to regulate regular cigarettes as a drug/delivery system under FDCA and the courts slapped them down. FDA attempted then to regulate e-cigarettes under FDCA, again claiming that they were drugs/delivery systems, and was sued by the makers of NJoy, Sottera. The courts again slapped them down.
In Sottera, the court found that the products could only be regulated based on their intended use and how they were being marketed. FDA claimed that they were intended for and marketed as smoking cessation therapies and therefore fell under its authority under FDCA.
The court disagreed with FDA's analysis and instead, ruled that the products were intended as a recreational form of using tobacco products, and could therefore be regulated under FSPTCA, which is where we are now.
Since the Sottera decision, FDA has announced the intent to regulate e-cigs under FSPTCA as "tobacco products," every six months, since the DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision in 2010. They haven't pulled the trigger yet, and I frankly think they'll either punt again come October, or they'll announce some toothless or otherwise unenforceable draft regulations that we call at point at and laugh.
Last edited:
It seems like we do all the Sematic Plays on Words we Want. Or site Other Plants, Fruits or Vegetables that may contain Trace amounts of Nicotine.
But it Isn't going to Change where we Currently stand FDA-wise.
But it Isn't going to Change where we Currently stand FDA-wise.
Yep. And, it's worth pointing out that US federal agencies issue regulations that they think the stakeholders will let them get away with, given their power to do so by Congress.
Under FSPTCA, FDA could create a new category of tobacco products for e-cigs, calling them "recreationally useful tobacco harm reduction methods." Even though there's no specific language in FSPTCA that grants them that authority. They could even craft those regulations using language that doesn't give the ANTZ crowd legal standing to file suit.
The tobacco companies interested in entering the e-cig market would likely accept that, as would most of the current e-cig marketers currently in business today. Endorsing the "tobacco harm reduction" meme lets all who support harm reduction come to a court with clean hands. Even those tobacco companies who poured millions into research to make regular cigs as addictive as they possibly could.
"Your honor, we recognize the errors of our ways and we seek to market safer products to consumers in order to reduce the negative health effects that our products cause."
You watch.
I want to thank every oun that has replied to this post.
We can agree that nic that we use is derived from the tobacco plant and it as pure as it can be done.
So when we are asked about vaping, as part of our talk on the PVS, Yes we are still getting nic but none of the bad things that comes with reg cigs.
We can agree that nic that we use is derived from the tobacco plant and it as pure as it can be done.
So when we are asked about vaping, as part of our talk on the PVS, Yes we are still getting nic but none of the bad things that comes with reg cigs.
If I understand the FDA's definition - I would like to call an E Cig a device and therefore FDA would not be able to regulate it.
Last edited:
I just tell people it is the future of smoking and leave it at that. If they say I am still smoking, so be it. I don't carry the anti-smoking/anti-tobacco sentiment many vapers seem to.
If E Liquid mfgs could find a cheaper way to extract nico from non Tobacco sources or a cheaper way to make it in the lab - wonder what would the FDA try to cal it then? (key word "could").
A lot of that sentiment comes from the media's demonization of Big Anything. We have Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Wall Street and heaven knows what other Big Boogeymen that are all out to get us and make sick profits in the process.
For some reason, making money in this country is no longer a good thing.
If you extract nicotine from an eggplant, it is an eggplant product. If you extract nicotine from tomatoes, it is a tomato product. If you extract nicotine from tobacco, it is a tobacco product.
Nicotine can be taken from fruits and vegetables. Should we call them tobacco prpducts?
The point here is nicotine used in e-liquid comes from tobacco .. not anything else ..
My point is, if nicotine was extracted from other sources, would it be subject to regulation as well?
Nicotine, just like caffeine, is a naturally occurring substance. If the nic was extracted from eggplant or tomatoes, would it demand such attention as if it were extracted from tobacco? Yes it would.
The arguement is invalid.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
