Firm wants e-cigarettes to be considered tobacco, not drug
- Thread starter Satyr
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Being a tobacco product it is more likely to be avail OTC and without a prescirtion which it seems the FDA is bucking for. Containing tobacco absolute may squeek this by. That being said if it is a tobacco products, the FDA could not legally require it to meet any more stringent guidelines than tobacco and unless they could cut out the burning aspect of the analog, the FDA would be forced to admit it is a safer alternative.
I could live with the stupidty of being relegated to smokers areas for the time being.. the proof of lack of second hand smoke can be another battle. We can only win this one battle at a time.
I could live with the stupidty of being relegated to smokers areas for the time being.. the proof of lack of second hand smoke can be another battle. We can only win this one battle at a time.
I agree the only 2 real downfalls i see with it as a tobacco product will be the limited area of use, which will come but like you said another battle and the sin tax that will go with it as a tobacco product.
I think the point you're having difficulty grasping here is that a delivery device is a delivery device. The changing of composition is irrelevant and is not what confirms a drug delivery device as a drug delivery device. It is the intended use. And the intended use of a PV can vary from inhalation of standalone PG to nicotine PG, just as a straw can be used in a glass of caffeine-free soda to caffeine soda.
It looks like Smoking Everywhere is going the easiest route it can find. My biggest worry is that classifying e-cigarettes as tobacco products might keep the FDA monkey off their back, but then open them up (and everyone else) to massive sin taxes and use restrictions, neither of which e-cigs deserve.
It really doesn't matter if it's tobacco or a drug delivery device, the FDA will rule in favour of whoever greases their palms the most and right now that is Big Tobacco and Big Pharma. I thought there was one company that made juice with NO extracts of tobacco (JC); 100% pure nicotine + artificial tobacco flavour, I could be wrong (or they could be lying).
I wonder if I made Tobacco flavoured ice cream (with or without nicotine) would that be considered a tobacco product or a drug delivery device?
It really doesn't matter if it's tobacco or a drug delivery device, the FDA will rule in favour of whoever greases their palms the most and right now that is Big Tobacco and Big Pharma. I thought there was one company that made juice with NO extracts of tobacco (JC); 100% pure nicotine + artificial tobacco flavour, I could be wrong (or they could be lying).
I wonder if I made Tobacco flavoured ice cream (with or without nicotine) would that be considered a tobacco product or a drug delivery device?
I agree about the tax, however at this point for my health, I will be willing to pony up when I have to. I did it for 28 years for something that was killing me.
It looks like Smoking Everywhere is going the easiest route it can find. My biggest worry is that classifying e-cigarettes as tobacco products might keep the FDA monkey off their back, but then open them up (and everyone else) to massive sin taxes and use restrictions, neither of which e-cigs deserve.
It really doesn't matter if it's tobacco or a drug delivery device, the FDA will rule in favour of whoever greases their palms the most and right now that is Big Tobacco and Big Pharma. I thought there was one company that made juice with NO extracts of tobacco (JC); 100% pure nicotine + artificial tobacco flavour, I could be wrong (or they could be lying).
I wonder if I made Tobacco flavoured ice cream (with or without nicotine) would that be considered a tobacco product or a drug delivery device?
You know, I am starting to wonder about the Big Pharma thing. I recently had to buy a new type of medication that cost me $11 for 15 pills. However, next time I went to my doctor, I was told to get a much bigger script for it so I mentioned the cost to him. He said that he thought that I already have the special card that is offered through that doctors office for a specific pharmacy around here. (I'm very poor so I go to a doctor that goes off of income and lets me go for $5 a visit, through a state program)
I get the card, go to the pharmacy and only had to pay $13 for 60 pills this time! And this is some heavy duty medication, I must remind you. Something that is not to be taken lightly. The point is that even though I can't remember what all they said, they mentioned something about the drug company and some way that they are cutting the cost for people who go to that clinic. It was something something 40b or something like that. Some thing through the government and company I think. I wonder how the drug companies get a kick back from that. Does the government pay them the difference of what I would have paid if I would have not had the card?
Ok,
so nicotine is a tobacco product? Correct me if Im wrong but the factory in spain uses potatos to make e liquid. I have also been told the factory in the check republic also uses potatoes, (will have to e-mail intellicig to find out how they make ecopure). PG is an over the counter chemical as is VG so can't see that being banned.
If the worse comes to the worse you could use the butain powerd vapourisors that use leaf not liqued.
so nicotine is a tobacco product? Correct me if Im wrong but the factory in spain uses potatos to make e liquid. I have also been told the factory in the check republic also uses potatoes, (will have to e-mail intellicig to find out how they make ecopure). PG is an over the counter chemical as is VG so can't see that being banned.
If the worse comes to the worse you could use the butain powerd vapourisors that use leaf not liqued.
I've seen those, the cops would be all over you like white on rice. Those things look like they belong in a head shop.
I agree, however if it is considered a tobacco product the in public places we'll have to vape in smoking areas and then we might as well smoke with all the second hand smoke.
You are right nicotine is not a tobacco specific drug/poison, it s also found in tomato plants and several other vegetation. The problem with the FDA is if these companies go any other route than tobacco products they will be considered a drug delivery system and most likely will not be approved.
Has any one seen the History of Tobacco on the History channel. It was made late '90s early ealry '00s? I can't seemed to find it any where but remember it. It talked about in the late '80s early '90s the tobacco companies came out with a similar product but was not liquid, a little hard piece of material. When it went through the FDA approval process it was denied because it was considered a high tech drug delivery system, then of course the whole second hand smoke issue came, which that device claimed it had none. Wonder why the tobacco companies aren't getting into this game? Because they have all ready tried.
So, just my opinion, SE and NJoy only have one option is to go the tobacco product rout or cessation, which would require a lot of studies and show people can use and quite nicotine all together. Just my opinion and NOT want I want, just my opinion.
If anyone can find the History Channel video I'm talking about, please link it.
It isn't the same at all.
Compare the PV to a glass and cart material being the straw, then maybe.
You see, you can drink something without a straw (coke in a glass, milk out of the carton), but you can't vape without a PV.
Yes, and you can get nicotine without a PV (tobacco cigarette, chew, snuff, Snus, PV). The point is, the PV doesn't have to be used to "vape" nicotine. It can be used to vape standalone PG, hell, it can probably be used to "vape" crack. I truly can't understand why this analogy is so difficult for you to grasp.
It isn't that it is difficult. It is that it makes no logical sense. You are focusing on ingredients (nicotine, caffeine) and I am focusing on the analogy you are trying to make (straw = PV).
JUST looking at the analogy:
1. You DON'T need a straw to consume fluids (regardless of caffeine content)
2. You DO need a PV to vape (regardless of nicotine content)
Run with the analogy all you like, but for those amongst us who are more analytical, know that it comes across as apples and oranges is all.
Vape on!
JUST looking at the analogy:
1. You DON'T need a straw to consume fluids (regardless of caffeine content)
2. You DO need a PV to vape (regardless of nicotine content)
Run with the analogy all you like, but for those amongst us who are more analytical, know that it comes across as apples and oranges is all.
Vape on!
No, this is not correct. The clean air acts/smoking bans all prohibit smoking - the burning/combustion of tobacco. As there is no ignition/burning/combustion involved with ecigs, and no smoke-production whatsoever, it is a complete fallacy to equate their potential classification as a "tobacco product" (simply because the nicotine is extracted from tobacco) with their automatic placement in the category of something covered by the smoking bans. That simply does not follow!
If any legislative body wanted to prevent vaping in public places, they would have to specifically enact new legislation to accomplish that - much as Suffolk County is actually proposing to do at this time. That is because there is no smoking ban in existence to date that would cover vaping. But if they do want to do that, it would have nothing whatever to do with whether ecigs are classified as "tobacco products" or not.
Yes, and you don't need a glass to consume liquids. A container (such as a glass) can be used for many things, i.e. holding plants, storing foodstuffs, mixing ingredients.
A straw is exclusively a delivery device, as is a PV. A glass isn't.
The straw is manufactured as an accessory to deliver the desired product whatever that may be, just as the PV is.
My analogy isn't "straw = PV" my analogy is "Straw = delivery device, PV = delivery device."
Last edited:
Being Canadian we have smoking bans all over. Can't even sit on a porch outside a coffeeshop and smoke. But the laws here specifically say tobacco burning, if they do enact law to consider the e-liquid tobacco it might be covered by the smoking ban. Although it's fine to chew in a restaurant. {Much more disgusting habit imho} And leave coffee cups full of nicotine spit.
Also if nicotine addiction is a disease, then why do we have safe injection sites for crackheads but not safe smoking sites for smokers? Why is anything related to quitting smoking priced so bloody high and not covered by our medicare?
Double standards and hypocrites, they were even trying to propose free wine for winos here so they'd quit drinking lysol and mouthwash.
Also if nicotine addiction is a disease, then why do we have safe injection sites for crackheads but not safe smoking sites for smokers? Why is anything related to quitting smoking priced so bloody high and not covered by our medicare?
Double standards and hypocrites, they were even trying to propose free wine for winos here so they'd quit drinking lysol and mouthwash.
If A > B and B > C than A cannot be < C.
The "straws" for coffee are designed as stirrer sticks. Have you ever seen someone drink coffee out of a "coffee straw"? The hollow ones shaped like a figure 8 aren't even wide enough to get liquid through them.
The "straws" for coffee are designed as stirrer sticks. Have you ever seen someone drink coffee out of a "coffee straw"? The hollow ones shaped like a figure 8 aren't even wide enough to get liquid through them.
Yep, you are right. We'll just have to wait and see how it all pans out but just my opinion we'll be stuck in some corner or outside.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
