FDA approves E-cig

[UncLeJunkLe]

Don't really understand your response buddy,no idea what a Covid shot or AddictoNix OTC (no idea what it is by the way,tried google and no luck) have to do with what i posted.
Maybe it's me and my post wasn't reflecting what i meant,then that is on me...

In my post i was just trying to say that Nicotine for vaping shouldn't be paying the same tax as cigarettes and alcohol.

This article i found is pretty good:

https://taxfoundation.org/state-vaping-taxes-2021/

When i wrote ''vaping should be considered a medical grade aid towards addiction to cigarettes'' i meant that it should clear by this time already that vaping is healthier than smoking and that it is a good step to take for those that want to quit smoking.

Wasn't suggesting that nicotine (or any vaping products) be subsidized by the government,but they should be accepted as an aid or ''help'' to those who want to achieve a healthier lifestyle by switching to vaping.

Over taxing of nicotine or any vaping products will just lead to people going back to smoking,raising taxes by a lot just seems like a bad way to make up for the loss of revenue because of people that stop smoking and start vaping.

My response was to you saying that you believe vaping needs to be regulated as a medical device...

Vaping should be considered a medical grade aid towards addiction to cigarettes and as such it should require little to no tax.

I'm saying that regulating it as a medical device to reduce or eliminate taxes is a fallacy because you're going to pay dearly for that medical device in the form of bloated costs and/or insurance premiums and/or taxes (assuming government-run healthcare). The "god-almighty" government and the corporations that control them make you pay for your "sins" one way or another. That's where some of the highest revenue lies.

The two products I mentioned (Astra Zeneca Quitrolia XR or AddictoNix OTC. ) are just fake product names I made up (the former being a prescription cessation vape product and the latter being an over-the-counter product) as comic relief. Neither will fill the needs of the recreational user, like most people here.

Over taxing of nicotine or any vaping products will just lead to people going back to smoking

So will removing recreational vape gear off the market and forcing people to a sub-par "medical device".

Yes, exorbitant taxation is never a good thing. But regulating vape as a medical device isn't either.

You could use the same argument for alcohol. Everyone who drinks alcohol does so recreationally. But some abuse it and are alcoholics. Does that mean alcohol should be regulated as a medical device? And in doing so, will it be cheaper. And will you be able to use it recreationally at that point. Nope.

Anyway, like @GeorgeS above, I personally don't have a dog in this fight. I bought all the supplies I need to be free of this nonsense and I did it tax-free, with the exception of a few dollars in small state sales taxes. I know how the US Mafia Government works and I try to stay a few steps ahead of them when I can.

But I want smokers and vapers to be able to vape recreationally, not be forced to use a cessation device and treated like a medical patient and a second-class citizen. If I were a drinker or a pot smoker, I would be a 1st class citizen. But as a vaper, I'm treated & looked-upon as a poor, lowly life-form that needs to be "cured" lol. I don't think so.

 

[UncLeJunkLe]

After all (as the story goes) if kids simply can't AFFORD the product(s) they won't use them.


g.

Yet, a large portion kids in the western world today are the richest demographic, blessed with spending their parents' money and credit like tomorrow's their last day on earth. They'll get it, I'll guarantee you that.

 

[Javichu]

My response was to you saying that you believe vaping needs to be regulated as a medical device...

That is my bad then,didn't express my opinion well enough.
Days like this with my allergies my mind just doesn't seem to work at full capacity (doubt it did before anyway hehe)

What i meant to say is that it shouldn't be put in the same group as alcohol and cigarettes,apart from that i wasn't trying to say it should be regulated as a medical device.

By saying ''Vaping should be considered a medical grade aid towards addiction to cigarettes'' just meant that it should be acknowledged that it is healthier than cigarettes.
Just that...a simple nod and a declaration that it is nothing like cigarettes and that switching from cigarettes to vaping can actually prolong your lifespan.

Taxation wise on nicotine? Sure go ahead but let it be the same amount of tax you would pay when you buy Kool-Aid or coffee.

Sorry if you thought i meant to sat that vaping needs to be regulated as a medical device,that couldn't be further from the truth.

If a smoker goes to a doctor the doctor should be allowed to suggest vaping to said patient but that won't happen until they actually take off the blindfolds and see the truth,this is just some wishful thinking to be honest.

The justification will always come down to "the children".

The taxation of tobacco products while it can generate lot$ of revenue is more often than not justified by attempting to price the products out of the spending abilities of children.

After all (as the story goes) if kids simply can't AFFORD the product(s) they won't use them.


g.

Said this before,it is sad that all we see in the media is the mention of kids,they never mention adults...
Is the life of a kid worth more than an adult? they seem to think so.
One side of the balance we got a kid who vapes and has nicotine addiction on the other side of the balance we have an adult with cancer, heart disease, stroke, lung diseases, diabetes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
Seems pretty clear to me which side of the balance should be the priority.

 

[Opinionated]

Don't really understand your response buddy,no idea what a Covid shot or AddictoNix OTC (no idea what it is by the way,tried google and no luck) have to do with what i posted.
Maybe it's me and my post wasn't reflecting what i meant,then that is on me...

In my post i was just trying to say that Nicotine for vaping shouldn't be paying the same tax as cigarettes and alcohol.

This article i found is pretty good:

https://taxfoundation.org/state-vaping-taxes-2021/

When i wrote ''Vaping should be considered a medical grade aid towards addiction to cigarettes'' i meant that it should already be clear by this time that vaping is healthier than smoking and that it is a good step to take for those that want to quit smoking.

Wasn't suggesting that nicotine (or any vaping products) be subsidized by the government,but they should be accepted as an aid or ''help'' to those who want to achieve a healthier lifestyle by switching to vaping.

Over taxing of nicotine or any vaping products will just lead to people going back to smoking,raising taxes by a lot just seems like a bad way to make up for the loss of revenue because of people that stop smoking and start vaping.

In the US the vaping community fought against vaping being classified as a medical product. It is umpteen million times more difficult and costly to get medical products approved and puts vaping itself out of the reach of the people who need it most...

I understand your sentiment, but I don't think you understand how impossible a medical classification on vaping would be here in the US, yea, in most western nations.

 

[UncLeJunkLe]

Taxation wise on nicotine? Sure go ahead but let it be the same amount of tax you would pay when you buy Kool-Aid or coffee

Where I live, there's no tax on Kool-Aid or coffee (unless bought at a restaurant, then the tax is minimal). So yeah, I'm all for taxing vape like Kool-Aid or coffee

 

[Fidola13]

On the one side i agree with you on the other what worries me is the tax issues that will come with this.

What if they over tax the hell out of vaping products?
Vaping should be considered a medical grade aid towards addiction to cigarettes and as such it should require little to no tax.
Sure tax the devices with the normal tax,same as you would pay if you bought a smartphone or a blender,same for e-liquid...but when it comes to nicotine they will go overboard.

They will tax nicotine since it has no other use than for vaping,PG/VG has many uses so i don't see them taxing those aswell.

vaping taxes are already 90% in Massachusetts. I can’t afford to buy vape gear unless I order from across the ocean which is too bad since I’d prefer to buy from stateside shops. It’s quicker shipping as well by like 1-2 weeks.

 

[kristin]

I don't understand approving just one product, though we know big tobacco buys what it wants from puppet government.

The Vuse Solo applications were submitted way back in September 2019, one of the earliest products to do so. The FDA has been reviewing the application for over 2 years, while most other products waited until right up to the deadline to submit their applications.

So, this isn't the FDA authorizing "just one" vape product so much as the FDA authorizing the first vape product. It also explains part of why they were the first to get authorized. The other reason being that FDA had clearly stated its desire to see only closed systems and no non-tobacco flavors. It should be noted that Vuse Solo does come in non-tobacco flavors, which were rejected just like every other company's non-tobacco flavors.

The article says the Vuse Solo is refillable, but I'm pretty sure it's not.

As others mentioned, it's the reporter's lack of understanding how the products work (which is so common.) He meant that you can replace the empty carts with new carts, as opposed to disposables, with which both the cart and battery are one-use.

Do people really vape 50 mg? 5 percent nic.

Keep in mind this is not a mod. It's a cigalike that doesn't have anywhere near the same power as the devices most ECF members use. Something we found out in the old days of "modding" on ECF to improve nicotine delivery, one could either increase the nicotine percentage in the e-liquid or increase the power in the device (but doing both was typically too much for just about anyone.)

At 50, 24 or 18, to me, it seems an attempt by Vuse to keep you addicted to nicotine, hence, continue to buy.

See my note about nicotine strengths vs device power above.

Also, don't forget that the vaping industry avoided being completely wiped out in 2010 by claiming it was NOT for nicotine cessation, but rather an alternative for smoking. If Vuse or any other big tobacco device was sold with "step down" strengths, it would open them up to being accused of selling smoking cessation devices by FDA. By selling nicotine strengths that compete with cigarettes, Vuse and similar brands are adhering to the claim that they are sold to replace smoking, not be a smoking/nicotine cessation product (ie. weaning off.)

If I recall from past reading, nic salts are more addictive than freebase nicotine.

If you want to believe that nicotine absent smoke is actually "addicting," that argument could be made. It's only because nicotine salts are more effective at delivering nicotine to the brain. That could be interpreted as making it more "addicting" (although, what that means exactly is still debated,) but it also could be interpreted as needing to use less of the product to get the same or better results (ie. less exposure to the other ingredients in vapor.)

It's approved as an alternative (recreational) tobacco product that's "appropriate for the public health".

Just to make that point even more accurate, it's not "approved" by the FDA, it's "authorized." That's a significant distinction.

What if they over tax the hell out of vaping products?

Which they're absolutely already trying to do. I hope everyone has done the CASAA Call to Action against the Federal nicotine tax!

Click here: Stop An Excessive Federal Tax on Safer Nicotine Products

In the US the vaping community fought against vaping being classified as a medical product.

More precisely, we fought against being classified as a medicinal product and argued that vaping was an alternative to smoking, not a treatment for smoking or nicotine addiction. Had FDA been successful in winning the Sottera vs FDA case, every vape product on the market in 2010 would have to have been immediately removed from the market--and every product introduced since-- would have had to conduct clinical studies proving effectiveness as a smoking cessation product. The idea of using nicotine recreationally or for enjoyment (not dissimilar to coffee, tea, alcohol and cannabis) would have never been considered. Also, the fact that many who switched without any intention of quitting (ie. "accidental quitters") would have never happened, because access would have been only intended for those trying to quit. We may also have even been required to get a doctor's prescription--similar to what is happening in Australia.

 

[Rossum]

Just to make that point even more accurate, it's not "approved" by the FDA, it's "authorized." That's a significant distinction.

Yes, you're right.

And of course we now live in a land where anything not "authorized" is forbidden.