E Juice not a tobacco product????

[stevegmu]

It really is semantics and how you want to look at it. Nyquile is 10% alcohol and has no regulation on it and no one would try to call it an alcoholic beverage even tho it is technically more so than beer.

I stand by my statement that what is in my e-juice (~ 85% glycol, 12% nicotine, 3% flavoring) is a Glycol product with nicotine and flavoring added.

The government can look at any way they want (and they will) but that does not make them correct.

Pretty sure NyQuil is regulated by the FDA- as are all other over-the-counter medications. Doesn't one have to show ID when buying it?

 

[stevegmu]

Sometimes your Post are Not that Obvious.

But OK... So you Boil Down 800lbs of Eggplant and then do a Nicotine Extraction to get your 30mg of Nicotine.

Then you sell it. What does that Prove?

At a Buck a Pound for Eggplant, is Making Eggplant Nicotine really Gonna be a Game Changer at $800+ per Bottle?

That's up there with 5 Pawns...

 

[zoiDman]

In Minnesota, it would have a different status if it were derived from eggplant or tomatoes, or synthesized without use of tobacco:


"The cartridge [of an e-cig] contains nicotine which is ordinarily derived from tobacco.... The department [of revenue] assumes that all nicotine is derived from tobacco and the taxpayer will bear the burden of proving otherwise. If it can be documented that the nicotine has been derived from sources other than tobacco, it would not be taxable as a tobacco product."

http://www.revenue.state.mn.us/law_policy/revenue_notices/RN_12-10.pdf

It's unusual for me to agree with the department of revenue, but this makes sense to me. If the product is extracted from tobacco, then it seems reasonable that it is a "tobacco product". If it's extracted from tomatoes, then the identical substance would be a "tomato product".

Ya Know...

If Tobacco wasn't a Multi Billion Dollar Annual Tax Stream, we wouldn't be having this Discussion Either.

Just Say 'n

 

[BigBen2k]

...
But OK... So you Boil Down 800lbs of Eggplant and then do a Nicotine Extraction to get your 30mg of Nicotine.

Then you sell it. What does that Prove?

At a Buck a Pound for Eggplant, is Making Eggplant Nicotine really Gonna be a Game Changer at $800+ per Bottle?

It only serves to demonstrate that Nicotine shouldn't be classified as a tobacco product, because it can be derived from other sources.

Practical or not.

The purpose here is to re-qualify nicotine into its own category, similar to caffeine.

 

[rpc1]

Yes, for the time being, I don't suppose the revenuers are very worried. If I start selling bottles of ketchup made from genetically modified super high nicotine tomatoes, I suspect the legislature would quickly amend the statute and tax all nicotine.

 

[zoiDman]

...

The purpose here is to re-qualify nicotine into its own category, similar to caffeine.

How would that Serve BT, the FDA or the Tax Collectors?

 

[dr g]

In Minnesota, it would have a different status if it were derived from eggplant or tomatoes, or synthesized without use of tobacco:


"The cartridge [of an e-cig] contains nicotine which is ordinarily derived from tobacco.... The department [of revenue] assumes that all nicotine is derived from tobacco and the taxpayer will bear the burden of proving otherwise. If it can be documented that the nicotine has been derived from sources other than tobacco, it would not be taxable as a tobacco product."

http://www.revenue.state.mn.us/law_policy/revenue_notices/RN_12-10.pdf

It's unusual for me to agree with the department of revenue, but this makes sense to me. If the product is extracted from tobacco, then it seems reasonable that it is a "tobacco product". If it's extracted from tomatoes, then the identical substance would be a "tomato product".

Bingo!

Sometimes your Post are Not that Obvious.

But OK... So you Boil Down 800lbs of Eggplant and then do a Nicotine Extraction to get your 30mg of Nicotine.

Then you sell it. What does that Prove?

At a Buck a Pound for Eggplant, is Making Eggplant Nicotine really Gonna be a Game Changer at $800+ per Bottle?

It depends on what the ruling says, but like many things while it may be prohibitive to produce the test case, and even more expensive to litigate it, the results can indeed have paradigm-shifting effects. For example, if it sets up two classes of product such as in the example above, then we move that much closer to examining the sensibility of regulating nicotine per se as a tobacco product.

 

[stevegmu]

It only serves to demonstrate that Nicotine shouldn't be classified as a tobacco product, because it can be derived from other sources.

Practical or not.

The purpose here is to re-qualify nicotine into its own category, similar to caffeine.

There is a pending bill brought to a legislator by BLU in Ohio which will do just that.

Anti-smoking advocates say that below the surface of House Bill 144 is a tobacco-industry-crafted “Trojan horse” designed to ensure that the emerging electronic-cigarette market and other alternative nicotine products remain taxed at a lower rate than traditional cigarettes and stay outside the state’s indoor smoking ban.

“What they’re trying to do is carve out a new definition that will muddy the waters for many other tobacco products now, and new and emerging products that we don’t know about yet,” Stephens said.

The bill was brought to Rep. Stephanie Kunze, R-Hilliard, by Lorillard Tobacco Co., the nation’s third-largest cigarette manufacturer, which also purchased e-cigarette company Blu in July 2012. Ohio’s current tobacco laws do not cover e-cigarettes.

E-cig bill called a


It would make them an 'alternative nicotine product.'

 

[BigBen2k]

How would that Serve BT, the FDA or the Tax Collectors?

Hopefully not anymore than caffeine!

 

[zoiDman]

...

It depends on what the ruling says, but like many things while it may be prohibitive to produce the test case, and even more expensive to litigate it, the results can indeed have paradigm-shifting effects. For example, if it sets up two classes of product such as in the example above, then we move that much closer to examining the sensibility of regulating nicotine per se as a tobacco product.

See Post #85

 

[Capt.shay]

Pretty sure NyQuil is regulated by the FDA- as are all other over-the-counter medications. Doesn't one have to show ID when buying it?

I should have said that Nyquill is not regulated as an alcohol product. And no, you do not have to show an ID to buy it, at least not in the state of Ma.

But again, we are talking about what the government decides to call it and not about what it actually is. To me, it is still mashed potatoes.

 

[dr g]

See Post #85

Not relevant.

 

[jpargana]

It currently isn't. If it were, it wouldn't fall under the control of the Tobacco Control Act. As it is, the only source for nicotine in e-liquid available today is tobacco, which makes it a tobacco product.

Well, I'm not so sure about that... true, e-juice may be considered a tobacco product because, currently, the most efective way to obtain nicotine is to extract it from tobacco leaves. Not potatoes, tomatoes, whatever, but from tobacco.
But remember, it's not just the origin of the active substance that is taken into account... but also it's intended use. The court decided that e-cigarettes were not to be considered medicines (like patches, who also have nicotine in them) but instead should be considered as a tobacco product taking in consideration it's intended use: a recreational one, not to 'treat a condition or disease', but only as an alternative to regular cigarettes. So, IMHO, even if in the future we get lab-produced nicotine, by synthetic means only, it still does not change the facts that

1) Nicotine is nicotine. Whatever it's origin, it is still the active substance mainly found in tobacco leaves.
2) We will still be using the e-cig in a recreational way: not as a medicine, but only to substitute for another, nastier habit that we had before. (Not that I see myself as a smoker anymore - I don't - but I have to admit that I did not quit the behavioral aspect of the cigarette addiction. In fact, not having to quit that behavioral aspect is probably why the e-cig is much more effective than pharma NRT's)

All in all, I believe the classification as tobacco product is actually a fair one (provided, of course, that the e-juice actually has nicotine in it: otherwise, point 1) above would not apply)... It sure is better than what they're trying to do in the EU: treating the e-cig as a medicine.

 

[dr g]

Well, I'm not so sure about that... true, e-juice may be considered a tobacco product because, currently, the most efective way to obtain nicotine is to extract it from tobacco leaves. Not potatoes, tomatoes, whatever, but from tobacco.
But remember, it's not just the origin of the active substance that is taken into account... but also it's intended use. The court decided that e-cigarettes were not to be considered medicines (like patches, who also have nicotine in them) but instead should be considered as a tobacco product taking in consideration it's intended use: a recreational one, not to 'treat a condition or disease', but only as an alternative to regular cigarettes. So, IMHO, even if in the future we get lab-produced nicotine, by synthetic means only, it still does not change the facts that

1) Nicotine is nicotine. Whatever it's origin, it is still the active substance mainly found in tobacco leaves.
2) We will still be using the e-cig in a recreational way: not as a medicine, but only to substitute for another, nastier habit that we had before. (Not that I see myself as a smoker anymore - I don't - but I have to admit that I did not quit the behavioral aspect of the cigarette addiction. In fact, not having to quit that behavioral aspect is probably why the e-cig is much more effective than pharma NRT's)

All in all, I believe the classification as tobacco product is actually a fair one (provided, of course, that the e-juice actually has nicotine in it: otherwise, point 1) above would not apply)... It sure is better than what they're trying to do in the EU: treating the e-cig as a medicine.

Ah but once you separate the intended use from the effects of burning tobacco and the evil spectre it conjures, actual science as far as safety comes into play. It is then fair to raise the question of why the product needs to be regulated as much as tobacco is.

This is why the "third classification" route is probably the best we can hope for. Both medicine and tobacco regulation are more than vaping should get.

 

[bluecat]

Think of it this way. Would we call Pepsi a coffee product ?

Interesting. I gotta say I never looked at this way. Very true mate.

 

[Uncle Willie]

Ah but once you separate the intended use from the effects of burning tobacco and the evil spectre it conjures, actual science as far as safety comes into play. It is then fair to raise the question of why the product needs to be regulated as much as tobacco is.

I don't think you'll find any credible science that does not point straight at nicotine as the addictive substance in either an analog or in nic liquid ..

Since the FDA has the power right now to regulate the amount of nic in an analog, that likely gives them the defacto power to regulate it in e-liquid ..

The source of the nic is really moot .. once it's nicotine, that's what it is .. a chemical is not differentiated based on source ..

 

[zoiDman]

Not relevant.

Not Relevant? I think you are using Too High of a Wattage or Something.

Taxes and how a Product is Classified to be Taxed IS the Most Relevant thing in this Thread.

Perhaps the Only Relevant thing if you Think About It.

 

[DC2]

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.

The FSPTCA mandates that the FDA come up with rules for being accepted as a Modified Risk Tobacco Product.

Here is the Draft Guidance that they issued in March 2012...
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/UCM297751.pdf

Here is a critique of that Draft Guidance as issued...
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/04/fda-guidance-on-modified-risk-tobacco.html

 

[DC2]

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.

I think what you are actually seeing, for the most part, is people being vehemently against being treated like smokers.
That does not, however, make those people anti-smoking or anti-tobacco.

 

[dr g]

I don't think you'll find any credible science that does not point straight at nicotine as the addictive substance in either an analog or in nic liquid ..

Since the FDA has the power right now to regulate the amount of nic in an analog, that likely gives them the defacto power to regulate it in e-liquid ..

The source of the nic is really moot .. once it's nicotine, that's what it is .. a chemical is not differentiated based on source ..

Addictiveness is not per se a reason to grant the right to regulate, any more than it is for caffeine, fat or sugar. In this case, the conflation with burned tobacco IS a factor, because of the public stigma burned tobacco has acquired.

A chemical doesn't have to be different to be regulated differently by source (see: marinol), there are politics involved and that's where things change for nicotine.

Not Relevant? I think you are using Too High of a Wattage or Something.

Taxes and how a Product is Classified to be Taxed IS the Most Relevant thing in this Thread.

Perhaps the Only Relevant thing if you Think About It.

No, it is not relevant to the various venues of civil action against the regulating regime. This kind of thing happens and has happened many times.

The alternative, simply rolling over and taking it because rich and powerful people might try to stop you ... would be practically unethical for a product like ecigs which has very little intrinsic harm (but really has almost staggering lifesaving potential).