Equal treatment under the law.

[mboutin]

If e-liquids that contain nicotine are considered a drug to be used with a drug delivery system then regular (analog) cigarrettes are also a drug delivery system containing the same drug and must be controlled by the FDA. If flavored e-liquids must be banned and/or controlled because they give off vapors and all other products that give off vapors of those flavors must be banned and/or controlled.
(i.e. An apple flavored e-liquid is not allowed then any product that gives off an apple smell (vapor) must also be banned. Good bye apple pie, turnovers, and apples.)

No special treatment; just equal treatment under the law. Let us see how fast vaping is then allowed or even encouraged.

 

[Rosa]

If e-liquids that contain nicotine are considered a drug to be used with a drug delivery system then regular (analog) cigarrettes are also a drug delivery system containing the same drug and must be controlled by the FDA. If flavored e-liquids must be banned and/or controlled because they give off vapors and all other products that give off vapors of those flavors must be banned and/or controlled.
(i.e. An apple flavored e-liquid is not allowed then any product that gives off an apple smell (vapor) must also be banned. Good bye apple pie, turnovers, and apples.)

No special treatment; just equal treatment under the law. Let us see how fast vaping is then allowed or even encouraged.

Cigarettes are controlled by the FDA.

 

[Trouble]

I think we have to wait until the e-cig industry has as much lobbing power as tobacco does. And one must remember tobacco was the first product that came from the first settlements.

 

[Rosa]

I just think it's funny how some people want to ban them because we can't prove if prolonged use is safe, and yet we KNOW that cigarettes are NOT safe but they are still legal anyway - and regulated by the FDA.

I have a new slogan for the tobacco industry:

Cigarettes: FDA approved​

 

[bmwjen]

I'm just mad that the PV doesn't get equal treatment to the nicotine gum, or the patch. I think it's total BS.
I guess because big tobacco, and big pharmacuticals can't regulate juice...........that's why the PV doesn't get equal treatment.

 

[Sshado]

They can't regulate and right now they aren't really taxing it, hence they don't like it.

Bunch of BS if you ask me.

(Not to say that there aren't acceptable reasons to put moderate control on it, but what the FDA was aiming for is ridiculous)

 

[Rosa]

I'm just mad that the PV doesn't get equal treatment to the nicotine gum, or the patch. I think it's total BS.
I guess because big tobacco, and big pharmacuticals can't regulate juice...........that's why the PV doesn't get equal treatment.

I'm hoping they'll never be regulated as a cessation device like the patch or whatnot... try getting juice over 12mg then. And, here's hoping it doesn't cost as much as chantix for a 10ml bottle of juice.

I'd much rather if they gave it a tobacco tax per mg/ml of nicotine, that way at least I could still have whatever strength I want even if there's a tax on it.

To be honest, I don't know how it can be put into either catagory: the device is only a device, so they can't have a say over that. The juice can be made with nic or without, so it's not really a drug device if you aren't using nicotine and it's not really tobacco if there's no nicotine... but it can have nic if you want it to.... I think their hands are tied.

 

[Sassyonemeis]

The FDA has only recently been given control over cigarettes, and that control is very limited as there were already a number of laws in place for cigarettes. It is not that the FDA has approved cigarettes, it is that cigarettes are grandfathered in, and the FDA cannot change that without an act of Congress - literally.

 

[Rosa]

The FDA has only recently been given control over cigarettes, and that control is very limited as there were already a number of laws in place for cigarettes. It is not that the FDA has approved cigarettes, it is that cigarettes are grandfathered in, and the FDA cannot change that without an act of Congress - literally.

then what's the hold up? I think it's wussy-talk to claim to have the public's best interest in mind and NOT try to make cigarettes illegal, especially when you hold as many cards as the FDA. And ESPECIALLY when, instead of making a real difference, they scape goat something that merely resembles the enemy. Sounds like a way to divert attention from their wussy-ness to me.

 

[mwa102464]

I would like to know how they can ban the use of PV's or vaping if 0mg Nig is being used just flavored and I think this should be discussed more than anything yet all as I see is this Nicotine thing being flown around. Nicotine is what they want to tax here one way or another I believe but again, what about vaping with 0mg No Nic just flavors ???

 

[Rosa]

I would like to know how they can ban the use of PV's or vaping if 0mg Nig is being used just flavored and I think this should be discussed more than anything yet all as I see is this Nicotine thing being flown around. Nicotine is what they want to tax here one way or another I believe but again, what about vaping with 0mg No Nic just flavors ???

That's what I think it will eventually pan out as: a tax on nicotine mg/ml and no tax on 0 nic juices. It's the only way that makes any sense iMO.

 

[porkchopsisgood]

I, for one, do not want to see the PV marketed as a cessation device in any way, shape, or form, and here's why: I believe quitting analogs is a by-product of using a PV; a benefit you get from using the device, as opposed to the main goal. I believe that is why more people are showing success in quitting than with other methods (or so it seems...but time will certainly tell).

Most of us can say, with honesty, that we enjoy the act of smoking as much, if not more, than smoking itself. There's enjoyment in the ritual. Well, that part is certainly covered when you vape. So in my humble opinion it should be marketed as an alternative to smoking.

If the main goal is to lobby the PV as a life-saving device that aids in smoking cessation, it will be considered a drug, and regulated as such. If, however, the PV is lobbied as an alternative to smoking which allows for the enjoyment and ritual to be maintained, while eliminating most, if not all, of the carcinogenic properties from the equation, then we might just win.

If we used the PV only to stop smoking most of us would be back to analogs in a week. The fact that it's enjoyable to use, and acts as an acceptable transition to a smoke-free existence is the thing here.

And that's why I'll fight tooth-and-nail to protect my right to use it.

 

[bmwjen]

The FDA already says that the device itself can't be regulated by them. However for the safety of underage, and to prevent dumb nicotine burn accidents the juice itself may be able to be regulated. (though I don't know how).

My point is that many establishments recognize the patch and gum as nicotine replacement. I use my JUICE as a nicotine replacement. With so many places becoming "smoke free workplace", "smoke free establishment", "smoke free county" (yes my county is going smoke free ?!?!?!, but will continue to sell cigarettes otc). These same workplaces, establishments, and counties 100% accept the patch and gum, but do not accept juice as nicotine replacement.

I am not saying the PV is a smoking cessation device, rather used as nicotine replacement therapy. For me at least, or else i'd just go pick up a pack of Camel Menthols instead of using my CHOICE of NRT. One of the reasons that juice is my choice of NRT is because of the "ritual".

 

[Sassyonemeis]

That is not true. The Federal Court said that the FDA cannot regulate it as a drug delivery device. The FDA can regulate it as a tobacco product. The FDA just hasnt figured out just yet HOW to regulate it and/or tax it.

This IS a new thing, and of course it's the common knee jerk reaction to it. The problem is they arent even TRYING to see it from all perspectives, they just want to see it as negative especially since they lost a court case over it, AND an appeal.

They are acting like spoiled rotten children who dont get their own way. They will get over it, I'm sure they already are, they just arent letting anyone know they are so that the individual states can continue wasting tax payer monies on these frivolous freedom stripping laws they are trying to pass in order to further the FDA's agenda.

 

[porkchopsisgood]

That is not true. The Federal Court said that the FDA cannot regulate it as a drug delivery device. The FDA can regulate it as a tobacco product. The FDA just hasnt figured out just yet HOW to regulate it and/or tax it.

This IS a new thing, and of course it's the common knee jerk reaction to it. The problem is they arent even TRYING to see it from all perspectives, they just want to see it as negative especially since they lost a court case over it, AND an appeal.

They are acting like spoiled rotten children who dont get their own way. They will get over it, I'm sure they already are, they just arent letting anyone know they are so that the individual states can continue wasting tax payer monies on these frivolous freedom stripping laws they are trying to pass in order to further the FDA's agenda.

Hear, Hear....well stated.