Ecigs have been banned?

[tA71ana]

We don't need regulation, we need test strips we can place a drop of e-liquid on to check the nic levels.

Works for me!

 

[dam718]

We don't need regulation, we need test strips we can place a drop of e-liquid on to check the nic levels.

Honestly, I would be fine with this... But there are a lot more vapers out there who have no idea this type of testing material is available than there are that do. And even more vapers still who don't worry about it because they trust the integrity of their vendor so they wouldn't ever test.

My point is, we shouldn't HAVE to test our juice... ever

It should be a simple, hey the label says it has this much, so it does...

And right now, that's not the case. Right now if I want to truly know the level of the nic in my juice, I have to test it myself.

Don't you feel better knowing the restaurant you go to has rules and regulations imposed upon them by state health officials, and has to maintain certificates proving as much in order to legally sell you a meal? I know I do... And, if it's nasty, I also know who to call to get the place shut down...

Not all regulations have to be bad.

 

[Leatherneck]

My point is, we shouldn't HAVE to test our juice... ever

But child car seats fail. Breaks fail. Airbags fail. We spend untold millions of dollars for the government to make us safe from the threats they're supposed to protect us from and yet...they fail.

 

[denali_41]

gooberment will be regulating,,like it or not,,it is not a if,but a when !! and when that comes it will be a sad day for all

 

[zapped]

I believe people are saying this. I observe people saying this on vaping forums. I could start on this forum and provide evidence for that if desired?



I disagree with the last statement and think the future of vaping is very promising / good reason to be optimistic. With that said, I think engaging in debate and constructive dialogue with the FDA is something to continue to do. Equating the FDA to a boogeyman who seeks to ban eCig products from the market is, as I stated earlier, disingenuous. Furthermore, even if this alleged boogeyman had that sort of power / jurisdiction (which I believe they do), I still think future of vaping is very promising / good reason to be optimistic. That the market may drastically change in the near future could occur even if no boogeyman / FDA were around to influence that process.

We vapers are pretty much taking care of that all on our own.

With all due respect, you just joined this forum this month and have 39 posts under your belt. Who are you to come in here and tell us were being paranoid or going about this wrong?

Youre honestly going to come in here and discount all the contributions and collective experience of people that have been vaping for the last 4+ years?

Ive seen first hand the results of the FDA overstepping their bounds and putting my company out of business as a result. 15k in inventory might not seem like a lot to some people but it made one hell of a difference to my family.

The burden isnt on anyone here to show you the proof of the FDA's intentions.Its incumbent upon you as someone relatively new to vaping and to the forums to do your own research and to make sure you know what youre talking about BEFORE posting.

Mark my words well, if the FDA doesnt end up destroying vaping as we know it then people like this within our own community will.

 

[Jman8]

So Jman if you cant understand the vast majority of us looking to protect ourselves from the impending doom we (being many not all) have seen in our illustrious smoking careers, you are either too young to understand or just plain naive or both.. But for us who have been around the block a few times and have some common sense as to the manner we have been treated in the past are in righteous defense of it happening again to us and therefore are being proactive and prepared for the coming of what anyone with a little intuition can feel coming. Do you get it now ?? I don't need to see a written docket proposed to know where the FDA is heading with this, just as Hitler didn't give a speech on dressing up Germans in Polish uniforms to start WWII.. you don't get a written address, you just get screwed!

Then I will be engaging in debate with you and the FDA, and my words may be as strong as yours. I hope you are prepared.

 

[supergerbil]

Not all regulations have to be bad.

You're absolutely right. And if they kept their regulation to enforcing quality standards I would be ok with that. However I doubt thats what they are up to. Again I reference back to this post:

I am posting this on behalf of Kristin (at her request) because she can not post in the New Members forum
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The FDA issued a statement in July 2009 that showed its prejudice against e-cigarettes (and its lack of concern for the health and well-being of consumers who use them) by greatly exaggerating and sensationalizing the significance of findings in lab tests of 18 samples of two brands of e-cigarettes. Misinformation, exaggeration and lies about e-cigarettes remain on the site today.
FDA and Public Health Experts Warn About Electronic Cigarettes


In 2008, the FDA attempted to ban electronic cigarettes by claiming that they were "unapproved drug treatments." They began seizing product at customs. Two e-cigarette companies sued to get the FDA to release their products and stop seizing products. They argued that the "intended use" of e-cigarettes is not a treatment for nicotine addiction but as an alternative to smoking traditional cigarettes. The judge agreed and ruled in 2010 the FDA could not treat e-cigarettes as an unapproved drug treatment without specific theraputic claims. The judge suggested that the recent passage of FSPTCA would allow the FDA to regulate e-cigarettes as a "tobacco product." The category of "tobacco product" includes any products made or derived from tobacco for human consumption. So, the FDA has power to regulate any e-cigarettes that contain tobacco-sourced nicotine as "tobacco products."
http://casaa.org/uploads/SE-vs-FDA-Opinion.pdf


In January 2013, the FDA issued notice of intent to propose "deeming" regulation by April, 2013 (to apply Chapter IX of FSPTCA to e-cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, shisha/hookah and other tobacco products not currently subject to Chapter IX regulations) "and to specify additional restrictions."
Regulation of E-Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products


To quote CASAA President Elaine Keller on the above FDA "deeming regulations":
Section 201(rr)(4), for example, prohibits the marketing of a “tobacco product” in combination with any other article or product regulated under the FD&C Act (including a drug, biologic, food, cosmetic, medical device, or a dietary supplement).


This is disturbing, as it indicates that the FDA may continue its efforts to ban e-cigarettes by using the argument that e-cigarette liquid is being delivered in combination with a battery and atomizer.


"The additional tobacco product categories would be subject to general controls, such as registration, product listing, ingredient listing, good manufacturing practice requirements, user fees for certain products, and the adulteration and misbranding provisions, as well as to the premarket review requirements for “new tobacco products” and “modified risk tobacco products.”
Registration, product listing, ingredient listing, and good manufacturing requirements are reasonable controls. However, most e-cigarette companies are small businesses that cannot afford the level of user fees levied on huge corporations (tobacco companies). The mention of premarket review requirements for “new tobacco products” sends up a red flag.


“Tobacco products” marketed as of February 15, 2007, which have not been modified since then are considered “grandfathered” and are not subject to premarket review as “new tobacco products.” A “tobacco product” that is not “grandfathered” is considered a “new” tobacco product, and it is adulterated and misbranded under the FD&C Act, and therefore, subject to enforcement action, unless it has received premarket authorization or been found substantially equivalent. FDA has already developed draft guidance explaining how manufacturers can request a determination from FDA that a “tobacco product” is “grandfathered.”
The above provision was written for the purpose of preventing the proliferation of combusted cigarettes. Applying it literally to to both hardware and liquid will have the effect of removing all models that were not being sold before February 15, 2007. If there are any such models still being made, they are the early ones that had leaky cartridges, batteries that died too quickly, and other quality control issues.


Nothing within the deeming announcement even hints at the idea that Center for Tobacco Products will be tailoring regulations to fit our innovative products. Applying all exactly as written would decimate the e-cigarette industry. The effect on consumers would be devastating, creating a public health crisis instead of helping to solve one.
So, while there is no announced "intended ban" on e-cigarettes, FDA actions could easily result in a "de facto ban" by making it nearly impossible for e-cigarette companies to sell their products in the US. Based on previous action by the FDA regarding electronic cigarettes; and that the FDA is currently considering allowing NRT products to be used in a similar fashion; and that the FDA gets it's funding from payments made by the pharmaceutical companies for drug approvals, there is every reason to suspect that the FDA is prejudiced against e-cigarettes and still intends to either remove them entirely from the market or render them so ineffective as to decimate the market.

 

[Jman8]

I do not have insurance, I am totally disabled, unable to work. I can not go to see a doctor on a regular basis. Should I suffer because people like yourself believe that it should be legislated that nicotine should be prescribed.

I don't believe it should be legislated, I observe it is inevitable. If this leads to undue suffering from your end, I would say get prepared.

Any additional costs could perhaps force some people to go back to smoking as they can no longer afford to buy supplies. Or, simply don't want to bother seeing a doctor just to get a script.

Force people to go back to smoking is not something I can go along with. An underground market will emerge and is essentially what is in place right now if you think about it. Would be somewhere between impossible and implausible to police such a market out of existence. If you go back to smoking, knowing the costs associated with that, it is because at some level there is a desire for that, not because someone outside of you forced that decision.

 

[Ken_A]

There are places where they are already banned. In the U.S.!!
Gargulinski | Gargulinski | Tucson Weekly

 

[Jman8]

With all due respect, you just joined this forum this month and have 39 posts under your belt. Who are you to come in here and tell us were being paranoid or going about this wrong?

I didn't just join this month, I joined today. If you believe outright banning is on the slate, and you can't back that up with sourced information from FDA, then I stand by my claim.

Youre honestly going to come in here and discount all the contributions and collective experience of people that have been vaping for the last 4+ years?

Nope, but that's a nice way to dodge the point I did raise.

The burden isnt on anyone here to show you the proof of the FDA's intentions.Its incumbent upon you as someone relatively new to vaping and to the forums to do your own research and to make sure you know what youre talking about BEFORE posting.

I have and will continue to do so. If you don't have the links of which I asked for, it is perfectly fine. Makes it more clear of what I'm up against in this discussion.

Mark my words well, if the FDA doesnt end up destroying vaping as we know it then people like this within our own community will.

Funny, I feel the same way about some of you all.

 

[ClippinWings]

There are places where they are already banned. In the U.S.!!
Gargulinski | Gargulinski | Tucson Weekly

I'd love to read the full wording of the Pima ban.... I'm betting I could get away with vaping freely... because I don't use an e-cigarette(I use a personal vaporizer) and my product does not contain tobacco.... (nicotine, but not tobacco)

I suspect i'd be stopped, by some ignorant fool, even if I was vaping 0mg liquid... but I'd fight it... and win...

Someone needs to go stand in front of Tucson city hall and Vape 0mg from a GG or Provari and then fight it all the way up.

Sent from the ether using the power of my mind... and the Tapatalk app.

 

[Jman8]

Someone needs to go stand in front of Tucson city hall and Vape 0mg from a GG or Provari and then fight it all the way up.

Very much agreed!

 

[ClippinWings]

I have and will continue to do so. If you don't have the links of which I asked for, it is perfectly fine. Makes it more clear of what I'm up against in this discussion.

It's official, you sir are a troll.

I warned you.

I and others gave you links, gave you proof, you continue to ignore it in order to facilitate your trolling.


Sent from the ether using the power of my mind... and the Tapatalk app.

 

[wadeeforum]

its the same situation in my country. probably government got angry because this item is not tax-able

 

[Unforeseen]

This topic is very important to all of us. However, there is no need for personal attacks. Please keep the discussion civil and free from any discouraging remarks. We are all entitled to our own personal opinions and have the right to voice our concerns within this forum.

 

[Jman8]

It's official, you sir are a troll.

I warned you.

I and others gave you links, gave you proof, you continue to ignore it in order to facilitate your trolling.

There is been one link in this thread that maybe dealt with FDA banning. If there is more, please provide those.

Go ahead with the troll label if it makes you feel better, and do what you must for I'm guessing now that the nanny state thing is how best we deal with people who we disagree with and can't respond directly to their inquiries.

I got trolled earlier on this thread, but didn't bring it up til now. Did I flag them or warn them? Nope.

 

[DC2]

Force people to go back to smoking is not something I can go along with. An underground market will emerge and is essentially what is in place right now if you think about it. Would be somewhere between impossible and implausible to police such a market out of existence. If you go back to smoking, knowing the costs associated with that, it is because at some level there is a desire for that, not because someone outside of you forced that decision.

So you are saying that we should all be happy to work the black market?

And that includes all the 70 year old grandmothers?
All the 40-year-old fathers of five?

Or the doctors who are trying to recommend these products to save the lives of their patients?
All the people with minimal incomes, who are looking to save a buck or ten?

I guess we'll see all the vaping policemen, firefighters, and nurses all clamoring to figure out how to buy their juice without getting arrested.

If these people go back to smoking, it will be because they were forced to do so.
I don't know how anyone could see that any other way.

And we haven't even touched on the topic of all the current smokers who haven't yet been exposed to this life-saving product.
How will they get an opportunity to save their lives when their only choice is to dive into a black market situation?

 

[tA71ana]

I don't believe it should be legislated, I observe it is inevitable. If this leads to undue suffering from your end, I would say get prepared.



Force people to go back to smoking is not something I can go along with. An underground market will emerge and is essentially what is in place right now if you think about it. Would be somewhere between impossible and implausible to police such a market out of existence. If you go back to smoking, knowing the costs associated with that, it is because at some level there is a desire for that, not because someone outside of you forced that decision.

Firstly regarding undue suffering...you said "If this leads to undue suffering from your end, I would say get prepared".
If you are a vaper/ex-smoker then you should know what kind of suffering it would cause..there would be no "if" about it, really.

As far as returning to smoking, if vapers wanted to burn tobacco they would have continued to do so.
There will be those that if regulation becomes oppressive enough they will either A: Return to smoking B: Find other sources for nic that may or may not be safe, or C: Stop vaping.
Forcing people to go back to smoking is not something you can go along with..ok, so the only other option if they can't vape and won't smoke is to do neither.
Mission accomplished
By fiat.

 

[Jman8]

So you are saying that we should all be happy to work the black market?

Nope, not saying that.

If these people go back to smoking, it will be because they were forced to do so.
I don't know how anyone could see that any other way.

And I don't see how anyone could see it as being forced to.

And we haven't even touched on the topic of all the current smokers who haven't yet been exposed to this life-saving product.
How will they get an opportunity to save their lives when their only choice is to dive into a black market situation?

Again, we are essentially operating in a unregulated / black market as it stands now. The difference is some won't have the desire to stay in that business for fear of being reprimanded / fined. Plenty of others will.

And all this is under the assumption that eCigs / eCig related products will be deemed illegal to purchase, sell or manufacture in the U.S. And that it will come without any notification or reasonable input from we the people. I realize for some reading this, that is going to happen very soon (April), and for others, probably in a few years. And then someone like me, I just don't see that happening, but am very considerate of the idea that it could happen.

 

[Jman8]

if vapers wanted to burn tobacco they would have continued to do so.
There will be those that if regulation becomes oppressive enough they will either A: Return to smoking B: Find other sources for nic that may or may not be safe, or C: Stop vaping.
Forcing people to go back to smoking is not something you can go along with..ok, so the only other option if they can't vape and won't smoke is to do neither.
Mission accomplished
By fiat.

Some vapers do continue to burn tobacco. Not because they are forced to.
Those who don't and are already entertaining the idea as if it is 'necessary' are making a claim that perhaps a non-addict might not understand. As one who is an addict, I would say it is desire more than necessity. In fact, I am hard pressed to think of it as necessity, but understand (quite well) the huge counter argument to that position. We might never agree on this, and in the end our disagreement won't matter to that desire/need for nicotine by the addict.