Don't confuse silence with support. The most Obama has is the opposition is worse.
FDA may soon propose regulation that could ban many/most e-cigarette products, eliminate many/most companies
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- innokin nicquid revolution revolver
- Status
Don't confuse silence with support. The most Obama has is the opposition is worse.
There's an excemption for products already on the market; i.e. all the cigarettes. No new products have been approved and it appears based on the requirements, no new products will ever be approved due to buildt in catch 22's. That's why this is a ban without saying the word.
Are you aware of what was on the market in 2007? It's back to the stone-age. Vaping has come a long way.
Why don't I know what's in cigarettes?
Why are tobacco cessation products approved that kill?
I don't agree that lung cancer is worse than a heart attack or suicide. Chantix needs to be taken off the market and it should have never been approved. The FDA needs to clean up their own backyard before they make claims to anything more. Maybe pay more attention to menegitius?
Why are tobacco cessation products approved that have less than a 20% effectiveness rate?
No other medical condition allows such low successful 'treatment' rates from approved products. Those products also tend to cost more than the habit of smoking does. With every doctor, websites and ads, I don't think most people realize how ineffective they are. It's discouraging to fail every time, no matter what. There's a good chance that people give up trying to quit as a result of "known, approved treatment cessation products".
Both tobacco and pharmecuticals have a very bad history (and present) for honesty, integrity, ethics. They don't deserve the publics trust. Those industries don't serve the 'public's interest' either.
I trust someone making juice in their garage a million times far more than those in these industries. At least e-cigarettes haven't killed anyone.
I think it would be a stretch to name one "benefit" made to public health and safety that has come from tobacco, pharmecutical industry + FDA.
Last edited:
Oh really?
Cigarettes= Red herring
Current legislation= Red herring
Retired1 didn't mention either one, and neither did I. I understand what's going on and it makes my blood boil.
Juice labeling is a separate topic that has nothing to do with cigarettes. Also, if I was going to compare apples and oranges, I do get more info from a pack of smokes. I at least know the company I'm buying from. Maybe things have recently changed, but I distinctly remember being 15-17 years old and comparing the different amounts of nicotine and tar in different Camel cigarettes. That was only 8-10 years ago.
With respect, if you agree that labels should at least include a nic %, then leave it at that. We agree. All the logical fallacies posted in response to retired1 really irritate me.
If everyone agrees with proper labeling, good. If not, I want to hear a rebuttal start with "I don't care if my juice has a nic% on it because..."
They weren't jumping down anyone's throat (imo) simply educating them. Saying that if they didn't want to buy unknown juice made in someone's basement then they should do a little research and find out where their juice is coming from. It's really not that difficult, especially with this giant forum called ECF that you appear to be at least somewhat familiar with.
...as Bsidb stated, do some research. They won't tell you? Make your own informed decision on whether you want to purchase from someone that won't divulge their sources. That is what the whole research/informed decision thing is about.
It's all a matter of personal preference. If you didn't want to buy poison then why didn't you research beforehand? Do you think that everything on store shelves is perfectly safe to consume? Have you never heard of a recall? Nothing is perfectly safe...nothing. Not even the all-powerful government can make everything safe. Not that they even try, they are in it for the money too. They really couldn't care less about your safety.
I'm not quite sure if you are saying that the pic you posted is the only juice you can buy locally or not since there's a question mark there. Fwiw, I live in Houston and know for a fact that the juice in the picture is not the only juice you can buy locally. Unless your definition of locally is within 1 block of your dwelling.
You are correct, people aren't expected to know everything about everything. However if people want to make an informed decision and not accidentally buy poison then people should research it and make an informed decision. That is pretty much the answer to most of your rant although you started by calling that advice disgusting. I don't get it
Oh really?
Cigarettes= Red herring
Current legislation= Red herring
Retired1 didn't mention either one, and neither did I. I understand what's going on and it makes my blood boil.
Juice labeling is a separate topic that has nothing to do with cigarettes. Also, if I was going to compare apples and oranges, I do get more info from a pack of smokes. I at least know the company I'm buying from. Maybe things have recently changed, but I distinctly remember being 15-17 years old and comparing the different amounts of nicotine and tar in different Camel cigarettes. That was only 8-10 years ago.
With respect, if you agree that labels should at least include a nic %, then leave it at that. We agree. All the logical fallacies posted in response to retired1 really irritate me.
If everyone agrees with proper labeling, good. If not, I want to hear a rebuttal start with "I don't care if my juice has a nic% on it because..."
Take a look at cigarettes now. There is no information. No nicotine listed. No tar listed. Buy a pack of "naturals" and want to know what that means? Too bad. It's not explained, not justified, not verified. There is nothing supporting the labeling as "natural" beyond another marketing gimmick. Kinda like "lights" - which I doubt if most people realize is also a gimmick since they still call them "lights" when ordering. I did not know there had been a change until I came into the forum.
Your right on one count. I know the company's involved. That's why they don't get my trust.
If we let them control e-juice, we will become victims again. Why would they want smokers to quit when that destroys their customer base and income faster than cancer can?
Why wouldn't you compare this with cigarettes? Getting off and away from cigarettes is the primary reason choose to vape. That doesn't need advertising because smokers can feel a difference sometimes within days, usually within a week and definatley within a month, their health IMPROVES noticably.
A common complaint lobbied by the FDA and drug industry is that devices, nicotine juices, vapor production vary so widely - and it does. But that's called "personalization" and it's because individuals can customize what they need that there is no reason for anyone who still smokes not to quit. If we have to go back to standards of what non-smokers see fit, then it will be like the stone ages and cigarette sales will continue to climb.
It's pretty obvious your a troll.
Please everyone keep it civil and clean in here or we will be forced to take action.
I understand that you can order good quality juice online, I mentioned that. My point was, if I need juice (like now) but I have to wait 3-7 days for good quality juice that I trust and did tons of research on, that means I'm smoking for a week. I would prefer not to do that. I have a feeling I'm not the only person who will find a way to get nicotine if they have no juice. I'm not going to check every headshop in town for juice. It's a big city lol. I've found 2 places that have a big selection of unlabeled juice, the tobacco shop off Mason Rd. and a tobacco shop close to Nasa/45. I'm only picking up juice an hour from my house if I'm dropping off my son at his moms house.
All of the other points about the gov, I GET. I've done actual research on topics far worse than all this. I get it. No one has to convince me there is evil in this world. Thank you though
All of the other points about the gov, I GET. I've done actual research on topics far worse than all this. I get it. No one has to convince me there is evil in this world. Thank you though
I understand that you can order good quality juice online, I mentioned that. My point was, if I need juice (like now) but I have to wait 3-7 days for good quality juice that I trust and did tons of research on, that means I'm smoking for a week. I would prefer not to do that. I have a feeling I'm not the only person who will find a way to get nicotine if they have no juice. I'm not going to check every headshop in town for juice. It's a big city lol. I've found 2 places that have a big selection of unlabeled juice, the tobacco shop off Mason Rd. and a tobacco shop close to Nasa/45. I'm only picking up juice an hour from my house if I'm dropping off my son at his moms house.
All of the other points about the gov, I GET. I've done actual research on topics far worse than all this. I get it. No one has to convince me there is evil in this world. Thank you though
GotVapes is in Sugarland, I get packages from them in 2 days at the most (not counting weekends of course).
There's also an ecig shop off Westhiemer.
Personally I don't trust head shops. They just look...not trustworthy. But, to each their own.
There's also the once a month vape meet where lots of juice is given away free, can be bought, traded, won, etc.
If you have FB I recommend joining the Houston Vapers group. Lots of great local info there. I think there's even a few local vendors on there although their names escape me at the moment. Black Widow Vapor perhaps? At the meets you can meet the owners and mixers of the juice. Very nice for research purposes.
And there's a website: Electric Cigarette|Eliquid|Supplies|Electronic Cigarette|Ejuice|Smokeless|Vapor Search USA
Woooooow. I'm a troll....
I have a feeling you don't know what a red herring is, and didn't bother to look it up either. All you are doing is wasting your breath by spewing logical fallacies all over the place. I told you I don't care about any other ADHD points you have, because you aren't staying on topic. You said you agree that nic% should be listed, let's leave it at that.
I'm not going to argue with you about the gov and fda, when I'M ON YOUR SIDE. Do you just want to argue for the sake of arguing? Please look up "red herring".
PS I would be extremely disappointed if any action needed to be taken. I did kind of blow up and I apologize for my tone. I do stand by my statements though. Being a responsible consumer and researching a company doesn't work when you don't know the company. Unlabeled juice being sold is a legitimate strike against this entire community. Period. If we are going to win this, we have to have public support. Media propaganda is a powerful tool. If they start saying "hey folks, look at this dangerous bottle of unlabeled nicotine! How reckless and irresponsible!" Educated people might just think, 'hey, that is reckless and irresponsible'. If they show a nicely labeled bottle with a child-proof cap, people might just think 'oh look, the media is lying to us again'.
We can all turn our heads to vendors who don't label, or sell 200mg/ml nic as 100, or devices with trace amounts of toxic chemicals. Yeah we can ignore it, be smarter consumers, and buy a better product. BUT that only hurts us all in the long run, when the media makes the masses think e-cigs are dangerous and should be banned or taxed just as high as tobacco. It's already started, let's not allow them to have any more ammunition. Or am I way off base and need to just shut up until we're spending $200/month to vape?
I have a feeling you don't know what a red herring is, and didn't bother to look it up either. All you are doing is wasting your breath by spewing logical fallacies all over the place. I told you I don't care about any other ADHD points you have, because you aren't staying on topic. You said you agree that nic% should be listed, let's leave it at that.
I'm not going to argue with you about the gov and fda, when I'M ON YOUR SIDE. Do you just want to argue for the sake of arguing? Please look up "red herring".
PS I would be extremely disappointed if any action needed to be taken. I did kind of blow up and I apologize for my tone. I do stand by my statements though. Being a responsible consumer and researching a company doesn't work when you don't know the company. Unlabeled juice being sold is a legitimate strike against this entire community. Period. If we are going to win this, we have to have public support. Media propaganda is a powerful tool. If they start saying "hey folks, look at this dangerous bottle of unlabeled nicotine! How reckless and irresponsible!" Educated people might just think, 'hey, that is reckless and irresponsible'. If they show a nicely labeled bottle with a child-proof cap, people might just think 'oh look, the media is lying to us again'.
We can all turn our heads to vendors who don't label, or sell 200mg/ml nic as 100, or devices with trace amounts of toxic chemicals. Yeah we can ignore it, be smarter consumers, and buy a better product. BUT that only hurts us all in the long run, when the media makes the masses think e-cigs are dangerous and should be banned or taxed just as high as tobacco. It's already started, let's not allow them to have any more ammunition. Or am I way off base and need to just shut up until we're spending $200/month to vape?
I don't trust headshops either haha. I just found out about gotvapes location a few days ago. That's awesome! I was curious about the mail situation. If I could set up a PO box or something at the first post office that gets their stuff I would be soooooo happy. Most of the time a few days is nothing, but like I said, bad experience recently. I couldn't breathe good and it was really freaking me out. That's why I flipped when I saw that one comment, because what if you need it now but everything really close (that you know of) is horrible? It just really sucked for me for about a week. I hope I don't seem like a totally terrible person lol.
Also, yeah I want to come to one of the meetups at some point! Sounds pretty cool.
Last edited:
I don't have the option of getting juice at a b&m store. I think a good majority of people still don't have the option of buying juice at b&m stores. Every juice that I have bought online has been well labeled; nic content, date, base, supplier, etc. I have been very impressed with how forthcoming and transparent juice suppliers have been with what they use and their sources. I also tend to follow reviews and buy from reccomendations. So the thought that a juice is unlabeled is unheard of. There is an element of 'free market' in this in that no one forces you to buy unlabeled juice and I would think someone supplying it unlabeled wouldn't stay in business long.
I just read that Got Vapes is near you. How lucky! I buy from them online regularly. Ask them about their sources for nicotine and juices are. They will tell you. They are closer to the norm or they wouldn't stay in business. It's a competitive climate right now, and in my mind, that's the way it should be.
The regulations the FDA is looking at will not have anything to do with labeling, cigarettes or juices. There is nothing in it stating they are going to require consumers have more information or they are going to set standards so that we (consumers) know what's in the products. If anything, based on previous performance, getting approval from FDA almost insures obscurity and lack of transparency; lots of patents and trademarked names for ingredients (which is another reason I'm sure some companies want to control the market).
There is no element of public health or safety in this bill.
Industry DOES come into these forums. I've seen published results and comments about our comments. We are being watched.
I just read that Got Vapes is near you. How lucky! I buy from them online regularly. Ask them about their sources for nicotine and juices are. They will tell you. They are closer to the norm or they wouldn't stay in business. It's a competitive climate right now, and in my mind, that's the way it should be.
The regulations the FDA is looking at will not have anything to do with labeling, cigarettes or juices. There is nothing in it stating they are going to require consumers have more information or they are going to set standards so that we (consumers) know what's in the products. If anything, based on previous performance, getting approval from FDA almost insures obscurity and lack of transparency; lots of patents and trademarked names for ingredients (which is another reason I'm sure some companies want to control the market).
There is no element of public health or safety in this bill.
Industry DOES come into these forums. I've seen published results and comments about our comments. We are being watched.
Last edited:
Me neither. In fact, I have never even seen another vaper in real life. Got to think ahead a little bit in order to make dang sure that there's absolutely no chance I'll run out of juice, PVs, or delivery devices. I'm set for at least the next 365 days although it's pretty much guaranteed that I'll buy new stuff anyway.
I understand the effect this bill will have on vaping - I was not talking about this bill. I was debating the either/or proposal for regulation being asserted. My point was that there is a role for regulators to play with products like e-cigs and analogs that would benefit everyone.
As for the Tobacco Control Act, this legislation has already affected cigarettes.....you may have noticed that cigarettes no longer have "light" or "mild" labels. Cigarettes are not exempt from mandates in the legislation passed regardless of when they hit the market. But again, I understand how this will be detrimental to the vaping industry and thus I am staunchly against this ham-handed bill.....I'm merely saying that we shouldn't live in a world where products such as these are completely unregulated because the analog makers have shown that the free market is not the silver bullet that some think it is.
I agree. I don't think I've ever heard anyone argue against some sort of inspection, labeling, etc. of products so we know what we are getting. There is an assumption that is what the FDA and this tobacco control act will do - and it doesn't. That's why I bring up labeling on cigarettes because it's a good example. The tobacco control act required manufacturers to supply a data base of ingredients, which they still have not complied with and the few who did, listed propietary names that no one can decipher. It's that way with pharmecuticals too. Doctors don't have a clue what's in medications they are prescribing. I discovered this reading a case study of someone truely allergic to pg. Doctor's didn't have the information to figure out what it was in. It was enough of a mess to write a case study on. It was spooky how much they don't know and the walls they had to crash to get what they needed.
This bill adds an additional layer of obscurity.
It also does excempt the majority of regulations that would apply to e-cigs from products already existing. Tobacco manufacturers would be grandfathered in. There is a false sense of complacency thinking this bill has anything to do with public health or safety and that's one of the myths that is propelling lack of action for many. They don't see regulation as bad, but they assume that's what will happen and it's not.
I'd be much more on the fence about this if something productive would occur. It's just not there.
There's a couple of knowledgable websites that have torn this bill down into bite sized pieces. One is from Boston Public Health and they have done a number of qualitive studies on the results of e-cigs also - which are also ignored by the FDA. There's another public health advocate that examines the regulatory process required for new products and it's 100% catch 22 that there is no way for a single approval. "It's impossible" was their conclusion and they are right. One regulation requires large participation (typical) for smoking cessation but another regulation doesn't allow studies for smoking cessation until after approved. So it's impossible to even do a study. It's that insane.
Tobacco and drug companies will not have to do that to market e-cigs as cessation products.
That's what's in the bill. Nothing about labeling, consumer safety, nicotine level, standards - notta. That's not in the bill. It's amazingly clear.
The reason RJR is joining for higher taxes in states is due to the fact that e-cigs have an "unfair advantage" and that has been published in economic press. They don't even bother to hide.
This bill adds an additional layer of obscurity.
It also does excempt the majority of regulations that would apply to e-cigs from products already existing. Tobacco manufacturers would be grandfathered in. There is a false sense of complacency thinking this bill has anything to do with public health or safety and that's one of the myths that is propelling lack of action for many. They don't see regulation as bad, but they assume that's what will happen and it's not.
I'd be much more on the fence about this if something productive would occur. It's just not there.
There's a couple of knowledgable websites that have torn this bill down into bite sized pieces. One is from Boston Public Health and they have done a number of qualitive studies on the results of e-cigs also - which are also ignored by the FDA. There's another public health advocate that examines the regulatory process required for new products and it's 100% catch 22 that there is no way for a single approval. "It's impossible" was their conclusion and they are right. One regulation requires large participation (typical) for smoking cessation but another regulation doesn't allow studies for smoking cessation until after approved. So it's impossible to even do a study. It's that insane.
Tobacco and drug companies will not have to do that to market e-cigs as cessation products.
That's what's in the bill. Nothing about labeling, consumer safety, nicotine level, standards - notta. That's not in the bill. It's amazingly clear.
The reason RJR is joining for higher taxes in states is due to the fact that e-cigs have an "unfair advantage" and that has been published in economic press. They don't even bother to hide.
Last edited:
No one is making assumptions that proper labeling is in any bill or legislation.
It's a completely separate discussion and I thought that was made clear. Oh well.
No one is lucky to have local juice available if it has too much nic and for some reason makes it difficult to breathe.
I don't get it, you're preaching to the choir with all the other points.
It's a completely separate discussion and I thought that was made clear. Oh well.
No one is lucky to have local juice available if it has too much nic and for some reason makes it difficult to breathe.
I don't get it, you're preaching to the choir with all the other points.
Sorry, but this is what the government regulation of food manufacture and packaging are allowing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6ZavVJ7YLA
TheTruth About Your Food with FOOD, INC. Filmmaker Robert Kenner - YouTube
I warn you, you will not like this one bit! It's much worse than you think!
AND
It's enough to make you sick, real sick!
So much for our government regulation....
Last edited:
People get sick from FDA regulated products all the time. Some even die from bacteria that gets into FDA approved food sources. I'll try and come up with the list later, but right now, I've got to get back to work.
Well, there was labeling mandates in the bill (the new warning labels that analog products were to have before it went to court) but that is a side issue.
As far as how moronic this legislation is, we couldn't agree more. It is a shame that they don't use their powers to make for better educated and safe consumers and start in with trying to dictate which products stay and which go and use arbitrary dates to say if a new product can come to market and all that. I was just speaking to regulatory absolutism.
The hypocrisy of all of this is that all tobacco products (and e-cigs eventually as well) are so demonized and the people that use them are treated like lepers yet they will never just ban them. Why? Because they love to tax them. This has nothing to do with public health - this is about money they can use to fund programs like S-CHIP and universal pre-K.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
