I need help with this...

[Lashes]

Can someone please explain to me how exactly a ban of e-cigs is even POSSIBLe?

The ONLY thing in the juice is nicotine aside from the pg or vg (which are legal ingreadiants in other things - and flavoring.

Banning the method of "vaporizing" is unconstitutional so that cannot be banned. The devices, atomizers all that stuff, cannot be banned, just like marijuana bongs a pipes cannot be banned (at least until the scheduled substance residue is found on it, then it becomes illegal at that point.

Logically, the only thing "bannable" here is Nicotine, but then they would have to ban ALL cigs, not just e-cigs.

I do not see a way they can ban "e-cigs" without breaking the constitution in half and stomping it into the ground.

In fact, for some odd reason, I'm under the impresison that the only thing they can do is, "not approve" it which means that they would have to come with a "NO APPROVED BY FDA" warnings.

I'm probably way wrong here, but logically, this is the only way this makes sense so someone set me straight please. Because this all seems like a bunch of non-sense and people freaking out over nothing.

 

[Lashes]

And dont tell me that because of that "report" they released they can deem it unsafe and ban on those grounds. Isnt everything they did "find" in their study found in actual cigs 400 fold?

 

[dragonpuff]

I do not see a way they can ban "e-cigs" without breaking the constitution in half and stomping it into the ground.

That is true. And the government's been doing that for hundreds of years now

The FDA has the authority to require proof for just about everything they say includes a "health claim," and if that proof isn't submitted, they have the legal authority to call for a cease and desist. It's a massive violation of freedom of speech.

This is the way the FDA was built; it's always been unconstitutional

 

[squid509]

the e-cig bands are state or local laws that are desined for public health or to prevent under age smoking. to law makers there is no proof (clinical studies) that vaping is safe to the user or senond hand effects. and the wonderful flavers you can add to a e-cig is WAY TO TEMPING to kids acoding to law makers. so they want to ban them

 

[popsec]

The FDA requires pre-market approval for any "new medical device" or "new drug." Now, there's argument over whether e-Liquid is a "drug" within the FDA's definition and jurisdiction, but they certainly could argue that it is - in other words, that the nicotine is not an "inactive ingredient." So, from that standpoint (whether you agree or no), the pv can be seen as a "drug delivery device" which is a class of "medical device" and, as such, would require pre-market approval. Since no one (to the best of my knowledge) has sought pre-market approval, the FDA could argue that it is "misbranded"/"adulterated" and, therefore, violates FDA regulations. That is how an FDA ban is possible (technically, it wouldn't be a future ban, but a ban that already exists and is not yet enforced). So, while I certainly would challenge these categorizations, they are not so absurd as to leave any doubt as to the purported authority under which the FDA could effectively "ban" e-cigs.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. You shouldn't rely on anything I say. Everything I say could be total bs. Matter of fact, just pretend this post doesn't exist.

 

[Lashes]

IDK, i'm still not worried. I really dont think there are real grounds for ban. And if it does happen, it is 100% because someone is recieving a big fat paycheck from the tobacco companies.

I dont want to go underground. But my middle name is underground so if they do ban, bring it the **** on.

Meh.

 

[piomode]

The fact is that a few people's remuneration from lobbying is more important than your health or freedom. That's the world in which you live. This isn't capitalism as michael moore would have you believe: it's crony capitalism, corporatism, anything but free market capitalism.

People and companies with money and influence bribe lawmakers into creating legislation for the purposes of restricting competition, protection from being sued, and all kinds of other perks.

Trying to use logic like "if nicotine liquid is banned, all nicotine should be banned" doesn't apply here, since we're talking about thieving congress-critters. They'll use whatever excuse necessary to promote something like this, like "those alluring flavors... think of the children!" The vaping may be 1% as bad as smoking cigarettes, but so long as the mainstream media follows suit (it will), most will be convinced about that horrible 1%! You've been sold out. You're not nearly as free as you thought. Don't worry, it's been that way since before you were born.