That would be a disaster for us. You would get one ineffective PV like the Blu with 2 and 4 mg's of nicotine, one flavor that would taste like the bottom of your shoe and it would cost $45 for a week's supply.
General question about the source of e cig nicotine
- Thread starter jlarsen
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
That would be a disaster for us. You would get one ineffective PV like the Blu with 2 and 4 mg's of nicotine, one flavor that would taste like the bottom of your shoe and it would cost $45 for a week's supply.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this exactly how the FDA works? They want things tested and ok'ed first. The real problem was companies were trying to market these as quit smoking products. Which implies something along the lines of curing an addiction which is defined as a disease thus making it a drug/medical device. I imagine this is what spurred the FDAs action. Not everything can be 100% safe in the world of drugs, they don't focus necessarily on safety of a product but more so how effective it is at what it's advertised to do and identifying the predominant dangers/sideffects so so they can be disclosed. Pharma companies need years to get approval to release a drug because they need to perform studies to prove the drug actually does what it's intended and determine the sideeffects on individuals as well as interactivity with other drugs, hence the expensive costs associated with them.
I don't much like the FDA in many cases but they also posed what I think is a legitimate concern, namely the ingredients and consistency of our juice.
Last edited:
I get where you are coming from, there probably should be at least a minimum of regulation in the juices we use,
...BUT the FDA regulates cigarettes for crying out loud and they are definitely not safe so why are they giving e-cigs such a hard time? If their purpose is to keep unsafe products from US citizens consumption then they should ban cigarettes too (or instead). The part that bugs me the most about it is that there is not one ingredient in our e-liquid that is not also present in cigarettes and yet they are throwing this conniption fit.
In your quest for the finger on the trigger of this gun aimed at PVs, don't forget our own state and federal government. They don't really need impetus from BT and BP to want PVs gone. Think of how much tax revenue they've lost just to the relatively small minority of members of this forum...now imagine if even just HALF of all smokers switched to PV? Reserves in most states are already dangerously low. The fact is if this went mainstream and 80% of those smokers left cigarettes and STAYED off cigarettes (as some studies indicate this can do), can anyone say bankrupt states?
The reality is this technology has the very real ability to SEVERELY deplete a source of income most government entities have become reliant upon. Add to that BT and BP and the money THEY stand to lose, and then (and this is the epitome of S A D) the anti-smoking organizations who receive the vast majority of their funding from BT and BP (and the govt.) stand to lose EVERYTHING, as they frankly wouldn't be needed anymore if a large percentage if the smoking population suddenly quit. Never mind that's what they're supposed to WANT! It would mean they would be out a job! Ideals are great, as long as they don't interfere with the paycheck!
Is it any wonder this technology is facing the war it is? It's simply too damn effective! And that scares the hell out of too many people who are too reliant upon OUR addiction to cigarettes.
The reality is this technology has the very real ability to SEVERELY deplete a source of income most government entities have become reliant upon. Add to that BT and BP and the money THEY stand to lose, and then (and this is the epitome of S A D) the anti-smoking organizations who receive the vast majority of their funding from BT and BP (and the govt.) stand to lose EVERYTHING, as they frankly wouldn't be needed anymore if a large percentage if the smoking population suddenly quit. Never mind that's what they're supposed to WANT! It would mean they would be out a job! Ideals are great, as long as they don't interfere with the paycheck!
Is it any wonder this technology is facing the war it is? It's simply too damn effective! And that scares the hell out of too many people who are too reliant upon OUR addiction to cigarettes.
I really don't see how their purpose is not to keep harmful products away from the public, that job stops at the Food part IMO.
Some drugs may cause death. It's the reality of drugs, you can't make a perfect one for every condition so the only thing to do is to assess and manage risk.
I'm quite certain the FDA is prohibited from banning cigarettes by law.
Well the FDA has been in bed with big pharma for a while now. Of course there will be risks associated with many drugs, but the FDA has actually made it easier to get drugs to market by fast tracking processes. Also, the fact that they rely on the research done by the companies wanting to bring new drugs to the market creates an incredibly flawed system. I mean just search for how many notorious cases there have been of pharma companies manipulating data to get drugs through. They don't mind getting sued or being taken off the market after the fact because by then they've already made their money and something new is in the pike.
And if you think the FDA isn't aware and profiting directly from this you have been sadly misled.
In your quest for the finger on the trigger of this gun aimed at PVs, don't forget our own state and federal government. They don't really need impetus from BT and BP to want PVs gone. Think of how much tax revenue they've lost just to the relatively small minority of members of this forum...now imagine if even just HALF of all smokers switched to PV? Reserves in most states are already dangerously low. The fact is if this went mainstream and 80% of those smokers left cigarettes and STAYED off cigarettes (as some studies indicate this can do), can anyone say bankrupt states?
The reality is this technology has the very real ability to SEVERELY deplete a source of income most government entities have become reliant upon. Add to that BT and BP and the money THEY stand to lose, and then (and this is the epitome of S A D) the anti-smoking organizations who receive the vast majority of their funding from BT and BP (and the govt.) stand to lose EVERYTHING, as they frankly wouldn't be needed anymore if a large percentage if the smoking population suddenly quit. Never mind that's what they're supposed to WANT! It would mean they would be out a job! Ideals are great, as long as they don't interfere with the paycheck!
Is it any wonder this technology is facing the war it is? It's simply too damn effective! And that scares the hell out of too many people who are too reliant upon OUR addiction to cigarettes.
The only thing with this statement that doesn't work is that fact that states also pay Medicaid (not medicare) and the savings from lower health bills may offset the lost tax revenue. Treatment of disease from smoking costs state governments a lot of money - much more than the tax revenue from tobacco.
You do know that many states fund their health care expenditures from cigarette taxes? In my state, coverage for children is directly paid for by cigarette taxes. Take away those funds (cigs), and there goes those programs. There is a vested interest in maintaining smoking revenue. So what they will do is try to decrease smoking, but raise taxes on it. This way they can try to find that balance. But, they have no desire to loose those funds (eliminate smoking). It's the same fine line the fed. gov walks with tobacco. They want to seem like they are against smoking, but they rely heavily on the taxes generated from them.
Of course it would be much more logical to get everyone off of tobacco and the medical savings would more than make up for the loss in taxes like you pointed out, but unfortunately when that much money is involved, politicians don't think rationally.
Last edited:
hhmm. so eliminating cigarette use severely depletes tax revenues for government? but lower cost of health care as a result will offset the loss of revenue? which means the health care industry takes a hit also. now you can throw another major player into the mix, because the loss of profits from that industry would be passed onto the consumer just like they do now. Just sayin.
So if all these big, powerful groups are influencing the government so much, why are 35 states now non-smoking in public areas? If there was all this revenue from cigarette taxes floating around that everyone is dependent on, why is the trend to ban smoking? Common sense tells me that they have figured out smoking costs them more than they make in revenue. Conspiracy theories aside, it doesn't add up.
And lower costs of healthcare is actually a good thing for everyone. Insurance companies pass the high costs along today and disperse it across a large population in the form of insurance premiums. Lower costs will lead to lower premiums.
And lower costs of healthcare is actually a good thing for everyone. Insurance companies pass the high costs along today and disperse it across a large population in the form of insurance premiums. Lower costs will lead to lower premiums.
Last edited:
I can't imagine that extracting pure nicotine is a very difficult process. After all, nicotine is just a natural bug-poison, invented by newly evolved flowering plants sometime in the Cretaceous or early Tertiary. Also, tobacco plants aren't the only plants what make nicotine: potatoes, egg plants, tomatoes, nightshade, etc.
For what it's worth, the FDA banned use of nicotine as an insecticide in the U.S. in 2001 by not permitting any detectable level of nicotine in fruits, veggies or animal products (milk, meat, etc.). There are some obvious exceptions: tomatoes, potatoes, lettuce, etc., which make their own nicotine.
Most of this info came from wikipedia.org.
For what it's worth, the FDA banned use of nicotine as an insecticide in the U.S. in 2001 by not permitting any detectable level of nicotine in fruits, veggies or animal products (milk, meat, etc.). There are some obvious exceptions: tomatoes, potatoes, lettuce, etc., which make their own nicotine.
Most of this info came from wikipedia.org.
Well the ever increasing taxes on cigarettes should be the first clue. How much do you think the tobacco companies make off a pack of smokes? I can gaurantee you it's change. The rest goes to the gov. That's a lot of cash. If not cigs would have been taken off the market a long time ago. They know they loose more money from health problems of tobacco but if you completely take them off the market you loose a huge amount of revenue immediately while the gains in medical savings wouldn't come for years. Look at how many states are in the red now. They can't afford to take that much money off the books at one time.
Last edited:
The key to your answer lies in the term "public areas." I'm willing to bet that few people quit smoking because they can't do it in public areas. Ergo, the public smoking bans only put a dent in cig tax revenue by limiting the amount that SOME people smoke, even then, increased taxes have more than compensated for that loss. Smoking has decreased from about 22.X% of adults down to about 19.X% in the past decade, and smoking awareness and subsidized cessation programs have had as much, if not more, to do with that than public smoking bans.
Most public area bans only ban smoking in public buildings, and still allow smoking as long as you are X number of feet from the entrance to a public building. Smoking in ones home or private business, in cars and on private property is still legal. I know not one analog smoker (and I know many) that has quite because of smoking bans.
Smokers here in Montana will stand outdoors, 30 feet from the entrance to a bar, in subzero temperatures to get their nicotine fix. I've done it myself.
States pass smoking bans reluctantly under pressure from groups opposed to second hand smoke. I'm glad smoking is publicly banned, second hand smoke always bothered me more than inhaling directly off the end of an analog when I did smoke. Smoking in bowling alleys and shopping malls, restaurants, etc. was certainly an affront to the rights of non-smokers, and children. I used to think that banning smoking in bars and casinos was over-the-top for public smoking bans. But I do enjoy those places more without the second hand smoke, I can only imagine how much better non-smokers (those that have never smoked) feel about public places now, especially people with asthma or children.
I still think that smoker's should have some rights. Banning flavored (clove) cigarettes, and/or banning smoking in tobacco shops and smoking/cigar clubs (as some public smoking bans do) is just plain outrageous. If you can't stand to be around smoke, don't go into a smoke shop or cigar club, and don't work there.
The reality is that most places of employment and many public businesses banned indoor smoking long before statewide public smoking bans, which really only added restaurants, bars, and casinos to the list (maybe a few designated smoking rooms in otherwise non-smoking buildings got nixed as well).
I remember the days when smoking was allowed at the mall, and in bowling alleys. Those places banned smoking long before the state required them to. Remember the layer of smoke that persisted above the layer of breathable air in bowling alleys and bars before public bans, usually it began about neck or chest level. Totally disgusting, but it was an acceptable norm. Glad those days are over.
If the gov. and the other big, powerful groups mentioned here were so convinced that a reduction in smoking would lead to an increase in revenue, then they'd gladly invest in scientific research for e cigs, and actually be promoting them. At nearly $6 a pack and well over half (in some states - NY gets $4.35 per pack) of it going into gov. coffers, cigarette taxes are a huge source of revenue for most states. In the long run might smoking cost them more? Sure, but politicians can't think past the next election, if even they can think that far ahead.
@jlarsen: I'm with you 100%, 200%!!
They want us to continue to smoke just for the tax revenue on a local level -- they just want us to do it in private. They'd be the most happy if we would just stay at home smoking and dying and loading the coffers.
They want us to continue to smoke just for the tax revenue on a local level -- they just want us to do it in private. They'd be the most happy if we would just stay at home smoking and dying and loading the coffers.
And you can't always smoke at home:
When Secondhand Smoke Invades Your Home - Free Legal Information - Nolo
QUOTE:
"Sue Your Neighbor
Even if the smoker doesn't live under a no-smoking restriction, you may find a court to be sympathetic if you sue the smoker for creating a private nuisance (interfering with your ability to use and enjoy your property).
Example 1: A Florida court awarded $1,000 to a nonsmoker after she successfully argued that her condominium neighbor's smoking was trespass, a nuisance, and violated her right to quiet enjoyment. The nonsmoker and her family suffered health problems as a result of the smoking and sometimes had to sleep elsewhere when the smoke from the neighboring condominium was particularly dense. ( Merrill v. Bosser, No. 05-4239 COCE 53 (Broward County Ct., June 29, 2005).)
Example 2: A jury in Boston decided that a heavy-smoking couple could be evicted from their rented loft, even though smoking was allowed in their lease. The landlord gave them seven days' notice to move out after several neighbors complained about smoke smells wafting into their apartments. The couple fought the eviction by arguing that the smoke from their apartment spread due to faulty air-conditioning systems, but the landlord prevailed. ("Jury Finds Smoking Grounds for Eviction," Boston Globe, June 16, 2005, p. B1.)
Check Your State's Laws
At least one state -- Utah -- now includes tobacco smoke in its statute defining a private nuisance. Specifically, second-hand smoke is a nuisance in Utah if it drifts into any residential unit from a home or business more than once a week for at least two consecutive weeks, and if it interferes with the neighbor's "comfortable enjoyment of life or property." The protection doesn't apply if the neighbor signed a lease, restrictive covenant, or purchase agreement waiving his right to sue a neighbor for causing a nuisance by smoking. Under Utah's law, an annoyed neighbor may sue the smoker directly and may sue the landlord in some cases if the smoker is a renter. (Utah Code Ann. § 78-38-1.)"
When Secondhand Smoke Invades Your Home - Free Legal Information - Nolo
QUOTE:
"Sue Your Neighbor
Even if the smoker doesn't live under a no-smoking restriction, you may find a court to be sympathetic if you sue the smoker for creating a private nuisance (interfering with your ability to use and enjoy your property).
Example 1: A Florida court awarded $1,000 to a nonsmoker after she successfully argued that her condominium neighbor's smoking was trespass, a nuisance, and violated her right to quiet enjoyment. The nonsmoker and her family suffered health problems as a result of the smoking and sometimes had to sleep elsewhere when the smoke from the neighboring condominium was particularly dense. ( Merrill v. Bosser, No. 05-4239 COCE 53 (Broward County Ct., June 29, 2005).)
Example 2: A jury in Boston decided that a heavy-smoking couple could be evicted from their rented loft, even though smoking was allowed in their lease. The landlord gave them seven days' notice to move out after several neighbors complained about smoke smells wafting into their apartments. The couple fought the eviction by arguing that the smoke from their apartment spread due to faulty air-conditioning systems, but the landlord prevailed. ("Jury Finds Smoking Grounds for Eviction," Boston Globe, June 16, 2005, p. B1.)
Check Your State's Laws
At least one state -- Utah -- now includes tobacco smoke in its statute defining a private nuisance. Specifically, second-hand smoke is a nuisance in Utah if it drifts into any residential unit from a home or business more than once a week for at least two consecutive weeks, and if it interferes with the neighbor's "comfortable enjoyment of life or property." The protection doesn't apply if the neighbor signed a lease, restrictive covenant, or purchase agreement waiving his right to sue a neighbor for causing a nuisance by smoking. Under Utah's law, an annoyed neighbor may sue the smoker directly and may sue the landlord in some cases if the smoker is a renter. (Utah Code Ann. § 78-38-1.)"
Here's a good question -- these numbers are largely out of thin air and memory, but let's say there's .04 ml of nicotine in a cartridge that holds .5 ml of e-liquid. 100 liters of pure nicotine is enough to make 2.5 million cartridges.
How much tobacco needs to be grown to produce that 100 liters of nicotine? If the cartridge is worth ~5 cigarettes, how much tobacco needs to be grown to produce 12.5 million cigarettes?
How much tobacco needs to be grown to produce that 100 liters of nicotine? If the cartridge is worth ~5 cigarettes, how much tobacco needs to be grown to produce 12.5 million cigarettes?
- Status
Similar threads
