How Long Will It Take?

[FreakyStylie]

Low Tar
Better Filtration
Safer Cigarettes
tobacco substitutes and synthetic tobaccos
>>enter the FDA
Favor Smokeless Cigarettes
Premier Cigarettes
Eclipse Smokeless Cigarette
Accord Smokeless Cigarette
Electronic Cigarettes

The history is clear. So what seems to be the major malfunction? What does the FDA want?

I'm trying to get a good, clear, all-inclusive history of the quest for an alternative to smoking burning tobacco. Even big tobacco has built smokeless cigarettes, only to be shot down by the FDA. I really want to see what I am missing. There are smokeless cigarettes dating back to the 80's and the FDA repeats to call them a drug. (Burn tobacco=OK. Heat and vaporize tobacco or its constituents=NOT OK.)

Can anybody point me to a detailed list?

 

[rothenbj]

"The history is clear. So what seems to be the major malfunction? What does the FDA want?"

What the FDA wants is for their client, the Pharma industry, to control all nicotine that is not a traditional tobacco product. In fact, if the had their way, there would be no herbal remedies that didn't get their approval, again moving that industry toward their client. JMHO

 

[Vocalek]

What he said. I used to think that the conspiracy theorists were a little crazy, but after loads of research and lots of thought, I really can't come up with any other logical explanation. Follow the money.

 

[FreakyStylie]

I think it's sad that insight is often tagged with the "conspiracy theorist" label. All I can see is the money too. Where else are the "health organizations" getting their inspiration from? If they were real health organizations, they would see that, while there is no "healthy" tobacco product, there is the potential to lessen the amount of harm done to people.

The other end that the money trail finds itself in a mire of school funding, state health benefits for children, and other necessities that need money, but is being spent foolishly on less important things. I think it really comes down to the fact that the government can't afford to have people quit smoking; they have too much funding tied to the taxation of it.

I wouldn't even mind paying a little tax on the nicotine solutions if it meant that I could get quality inspected product made in the USA. As long as taxes are properly appropriated, I don't mind them. I enjoy having streets that are free of potholes and the like.

So I am trying to compile a comparative of what is being done to rid carcinogenics from tobacco products, to what is being done to prevent it from happening. I just don't want to waste a lot of time if somebody else has compiled all of it. I mean, there are a hundred or so patents for "safer cigarettes". As I am researching this, it becomes more clear and could benefit the defense of pvs.

 

[Redbone]

Actually, an electronic cigarette isn't anything near what a regular (analog) cig is.

An actual cigarette is a burning tobacco product, but an e-cig is a vaporizer. There is NO tobacco in a PV.

If its because they want to regulate nicotine, well, what's the difference in say... caffeine? Does the FDA regulate caffeine? Why nicotine then?

Nicotine can be found in other products that are consumed, such as tomatoes, potatoes, etc.

The whole thing is ridiculous.

 

[FreakyStylie]

Actually, an electronic cigarette isn't anything near what a regular (analog) cig is.

An actual cigarette is a burning tobacco product, but an e-cig is a vaporizer. There is NO tobacco in a PV.

If its because they want to regulate nicotine, well, what's the difference in say... caffeine? Does the FDA regulate caffeine? Why nicotine then?

Nicotine can be found in other products that are consumed, such as tomatoes, potatoes, etc.

The whole thing is ridiculous.

Tobacco product, as far as that the nicotine is derived from a tobacco plant. We also want to avoid stepping into the FDA "drug" snare.

The cigarettes under the ">>enter the FDA" list are all electronic cigarettes that heat tobacco to vaporizing temperatures (except the Premier that used a carbon rod to create the heat). The Favor cigarette was actually tobacco particles suspended in glycerin inside what was basically a cartomizer and was heated by a battery to produce water vapor that contained nicotine. I think it came out in 1987. If you look it up, all this FDA action today will seem as mere deja vu.

I do understand that the FDA has to tiptoe around this because of the "liquid" nicotine, but I will refrain from putting those thoughts in writing to avoid its potential to be used against the cause. The main difference between caffeine and nicotine is that one is a dangerous poison if not handled responsibly.

 

[rothenbj]

FreakyStylie, with where products have been going with caffeine, especially compounded with alcohol, I'm not sure how "safe" it is. I saw a twenty something walk into a bar with a friend. They ordered drinks but before she ever started drinking it she started getting dizzy and sick. He helped her out to the car and came back in to gather their thing and pour down his beer.

The bar tender said she didn't appear to be drunk when they sat down and the guy replied that they hadn't been drinking they'd just had a few red bulls. Whether there was something else going on, who knows, but I do know that red bull and alcohol can do some mean things to you from personal experience and I wasn't even drinking aggressively.

 

[FreakyStylie]

FreakyStylie, with where products have been going with caffeine, especially compounded with alcohol, I'm not sure how "safe" it is. I saw a twenty something walk into a bar with a friend. They ordered drinks but before she ever started drinking it she started getting dizzy and sick. He helped her out to the car and came back in to gather their thing and pour down his beer.

The bar tender said she didn't appear to be drunk when they sat down and the guy replied that they hadn't been drinking they'd just had a few red bulls. Whether there was something else going on, who knows, but I do know that red bull and alcohol can do some mean things to you from personal experience and I wasn't even drinking aggressively.

Looks like you see the same potential evil I'm worried about. I've even seen some people write about it on this forum. That's really the only thing I worry about with the banning scare.

I'm glad to see that Smoking Everywhere has implemented quality control and independent auditing. (As long as it truly is independent.) It shows a bit more cooperative professionalism as far as I'm concerned.

 

[berube27]

if the fda ever does ban the nicotine version of our juices, i would be very interested in trying caffeine juices as a replacement. i have read a few doctors views on nic vs caf and they say caf is very similar in effect.

find an alternative/mirror to nicotine and this whole problem "vapes". heh.

then if big tobacco and big pharma wanna bring on the fight, they will have to not only take on the new energy drink giants, they'll have to take on Coke and Pepsi. heh. go ahead trying to tax caffeine... BRING IT MOFOS!

okay juice makers. im officially requesting that you put out a caffeine juice for the public to try, aight?

 

[Brego]

"What does the FDA want?"

The pharmaceutical industry makes big money selling nicotine replacement products. They perceive ecigs as undercutting their market. They want to protect their profit. The FDA has been in bed with "big pharma" since forever for the obvious reasons. The FDA is just responding to the lobbying efforts of big pharma because most FDA officials go to "work" for pharmaceutical companies for hefty salaries when they leave government service.

Big pharma wants to protect its profits and FDA officials want to protect their "retirement packages". That's what it is all about.

 

[Luisa]

Looks like you see the same potential evil I'm worried about. I've even seen some people write about it on this forum. That's really the only thing I worry about with the banning scare.

I'm glad to see that Smoking Everywhere has implemented quality control and independent auditing. (As long as it truly is independent.) It shows a bit more cooperative professionalism as far as I'm concerned.

Have you not read what Smoking Everywhere has done to Legal One?--Legal One is the wonderful legal firm that fought for our cause and won--they have not paid Legal One and the owner misapproriated corporate funds in order to avoid paying Legal One. You might give some consideration to whether you want to do business with SE. SE is being sued by Legal One and I surely hope Legal One wins their case!

 

[Nixsdaddy]

"What does the FDA want?"

The pharmaceutical industry makes big money selling nicotine replacement products. They perceive ecigs as undercutting their market. They want to protect their profit. The FDA has been in bed with "big pharma" since forever for the obvious reasons. The FDA is just responding to the lobbying efforts of big pharma because most FDA officials go to "work" for pharmaceutical companies for hefty salaries when they leave government service.

Big pharma wants to protect its profits and FDA officials want to protect their "retirement packages". That's what it is all about.

Not just Big Pharma here. Every single time a person switches to a PV, Big Tobacco loses another customer and government (federal & state) loses taxes imposed on said product. Then you'll have less smoking-related problems, which means less profits for doctors/hospitals/etc. , and we could drag this list on and on until my face turns blue.

When does it all end? Let us vape and leave us alone!

 

[Tampa2]

"What does the FDA want?"

The pharmaceutical industry makes big money selling nicotine replacement products. They perceive ecigs as undercutting their market. They want to protect their profit. The FDA has been in bed with "big pharma" since forever for the obvious reasons. The FDA is just responding to the lobbying efforts of big pharma because most FDA officials go to "work" for pharmaceutical companies for hefty salaries when they leave government service.

Big pharma wants to protect its profits and FDA officials want to protect their "retirement packages". That's what it is all about.

You hit the nail on the Head, Brego. I think it's a little deeper than "retirement" but you still nailed it!

 

[wv2win]

What he said. I used to think that the conspiracy theorists were a little crazy, but after loads of research and lots of thought, I really can't come up with any other logical explanation. Follow the money.

Agreed, follow the money. Where do you think a large number of ex-FDA executives end up working?? Big Pharm companies. Who has the most to lose in this battle? Big Pharm companies. Who provides the major funding for the ACA, ALA and ASH - Big Pharm companies. None of them care about the health of smokers, just the money from their NRT products with their 95% failure rate.

 

[FreakyStylie]

Have you not read what Smoking Everywhere has done to Legal One?--Legal One is the wonderful legal firm that fought for our cause and won--they have not paid Legal One and the owner misapproriated corporate funds in order to avoid paying Legal One. You might give some consideration to whether you want to do business with SE. SE is being sued by Legal One and I surely hope Legal One wins their case!

I forgot all about this post, and haven't been in this section for a long time.

Just for the record, I would never do business with them. I never liked them from the moment I saw them. I just like the fact that I had seen cooperation on their part. You know how, sometimes, the friendliest dog will growl at somebody that they have never seen before, even if they've never growled at anybody in their life? Yeah, that's the feeling I got about whatever his name is.

I know that they "have to", but there are some suppliers that may not be too cooperative. Even with juice suppliers. When this all becomes legal, there will be certain requirements that they will have to fulfill, such as the labeling laws, child-proofing, etc. Big brother could slap a lot of rules on, and proactive suppliers would benefit the cause while anti-government ones will just harm it.