I say this a lot Also. Like when I use my Cell Phone. Or when I can see a Drone Flying Overhead.
I think we need the FDA, I really do.
- Thread starter Sekasi
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I say this a lot Also. Like when I use my Cell Phone. Or when I can see a Drone Flying Overhead.
I Agree.
But I also feel the Ultimate Responsibility Lies on the Seller of the Flavored e-liquid if they State that a Product they sell is Diacityl Free.
And this is the Down Falling of Self-Regulation. Not All Retailers are going to Independently Verify that the ingredients that they use Conform to an OEM Claim or Specifications.
Sorry if I came off too aggressive in my earlier replies. I didn't intend to sound like I was attacking anyone.
I am very glad the poster created this thread. It has provoked some very interesting viewpoints on both sides of the spectrum.
While I would prefer to keep the FDA out of E-cigs entirely, juice would be the only thing they could actually do something positive with. If they offered very affordable testing to E-juice vendors, in return for some kind of "FDA Authorized E-Liquid Vendor" badge, people would be able to tell if the juice was chemical-free or not. However, the FDA testing shouldn't be a requirement, simply an option if vendors wanted to be certified by the FDA. Considering they think its ok for people to consume the chemicals in cigarettes, it wouldn't mean much to me, but a lot of others would appreciate knowing which vendors were certified or not. The FDA could even provide a detailed statistical analysis of the chemical composition so the vendors could display it. This kind of scenario would also work with other reputable chemical-testing companies.
The above isn't something I want, simply a way to include the FDA in e-cig regulation. While I'm aware some juices may be contaminated with small amounts of toxic chemicals... what isn't? E-juice is literally one of my least health concerns. If the juice I was using was causing physical harm of some sort, I would like to believe that I would be able to recognize it before I became legitimately ill.
The bottom line: Be weary of where you buy your e-juice. If you think it tastes funny or makes you sick, don't use it.
I am very glad the poster created this thread. It has provoked some very interesting viewpoints on both sides of the spectrum.
While I would prefer to keep the FDA out of E-cigs entirely, juice would be the only thing they could actually do something positive with. If they offered very affordable testing to E-juice vendors, in return for some kind of "FDA Authorized E-Liquid Vendor" badge, people would be able to tell if the juice was chemical-free or not. However, the FDA testing shouldn't be a requirement, simply an option if vendors wanted to be certified by the FDA. Considering they think its ok for people to consume the chemicals in cigarettes, it wouldn't mean much to me, but a lot of others would appreciate knowing which vendors were certified or not. The FDA could even provide a detailed statistical analysis of the chemical composition so the vendors could display it. This kind of scenario would also work with other reputable chemical-testing companies.
The above isn't something I want, simply a way to include the FDA in e-cig regulation. While I'm aware some juices may be contaminated with small amounts of toxic chemicals... what isn't? E-juice is literally one of my least health concerns. If the juice I was using was causing physical harm of some sort, I would like to believe that I would be able to recognize it before I became legitimately ill.
The bottom line: Be weary of where you buy your e-juice. If you think it tastes funny or makes you sick, don't use it.
Yeah, only gonna answer this point. I find it distressingly naive.... I do not trust the FDA. I do not trust the CDC. I do not trust the FCC. I'm on the fence as regards to the FTC, but let's take the two who have consistently attacked vaping over the past two years.
Neither the FDA or the CDC have demonstrated a desire to help the American people. They have shown a desire to squash ANY new industry that in any way could supplant established industries.
Using innuendo, junk science and rumor to over regulate is simply another method of maintaining cash flow from existing sources. The only way I know to curb this tendency toward excessive greed and control is to oppose the policies that are proposed which are a proven detriment to society.
We all know that ample research exists to show that vaping is comparativly safe.
Compared to what?
Taking a shower
Drinking tap water
Walking down the street
Riding a motorcycle
All of which have taken more lives last year than vaping has caused illness and death since it's original invention.
No activity is 100% safe.
The issues are
Weather or not vaping is safe enough.
Weather or not vaping is safer than smoking.
Weather or not science, or innuendo and rumor should set policy in the United States.
The FDA has amply demonstrated the thought that existing industries should set policy.
I disagree.
If you think I was proposing FDA regulation then my point has been misconstrued. I agree 100% with everything you said. I don't see any way the government could get involved with e-cigs without a long list of negative impacts. Almost every bit of legislation passed is fueled by corporate greed, at the expense of the American people.
The FDA wants money. It sees this ever expanding e-cig industry and now they're figuring out how they can tax it, charge people for licensing mods, make money off ejuice testing, etc. The scenario I proposed above was simply hypothetical.
Last edited:
I usually (used to) buy Dekang from Madvapes. It's kind of hard to navigate their site now using the search functions, so it's hard to find what you are actually looking for sometimes. I tend to like juices with subtle flavor these days. Complex juices tend to turn me off.
I recently bought 120ml of MAD 4 after trying one bottle. It's a Madvapes RY4 version. I like it, some won't, but isn't that the way with juices? Most of the juices that others' rave about turn out to be juices that I throw out or they sit in a box a for months just in case I run out and the postman is late.
Most of my juices come from Madvapes or Hoosierecig. It depends on who's got what at the time I need it.
This is my fear, big tobacco is chomping at the bit to control that revenue stream.
And this is probably the reality. Perhaps big tobacco is pushing for that regulation in order to turn eliquid into the new cigarette.
Probably best to allow the eliquid industry to be regulated on the local level as food service is. However that regulation system is underfunded, subject to graft and is generally as uneducated as the general public.
if i can still get unflavored nic and flavorings im fine, i dont usually buy pre mixed juice anymore. i dont like the idea of big tobacco controlling things or anyone else.
And why do you think you will still be able to get unflavored nic? Have you looked at the deeming regs?
right now i have a stock pile of nic enough for a year ...seems i might have to order more. and soon
"weary" = tired
"leery" = to be very cautious. Syn. = "wary"
The FDA is DYING to regulate e-cigs and all of its components. The only reason they want to do this is for $$$$$. They could give a rat's behind about safety.
Case in point: Chantix and all the other drugs that cause "suicidal thoughts." It as almost as if (?) they believe it is better to commit suicide than to smoke cigarettes.
Vioxx, Rezlin, Seldane, Fen-Phen combo...do we REALLY want to be regulated by an entity who is ruled by cash and greed?
"leery" = to be very cautious. Syn. = "wary"
The FDA is DYING to regulate e-cigs and all of its components. The only reason they want to do this is for $$$$$. They could give a rat's behind about safety.
Case in point: Chantix and all the other drugs that cause "suicidal thoughts." It as almost as if (?) they believe it is better to commit suicide than to smoke cigarettes.
Vioxx, Rezlin, Seldane, Fen-Phen combo...do we REALLY want to be regulated by an entity who is ruled by cash and greed?
^^^This..and this:
..and more studies if you care to look. No need imo for FDA to get involved. Unless of course you want them regulating your flavored coffees?
Big Tobacco is out to capture market share. It's what big corporations (and small businesses) do. There's something like $4B in annual sales to capture. That number grows as smokers switch. So, if you are going to effectively do that you work toward creating restrictions for your competitors while tailoring the market to something you can live with. Big Tobacco is used to dealing with the government and the resulting taxation and they engineered the tobacco settlement agreements with government to give government a reason to be on their side. It's about revenue for Uncle Sam.
The sad part is that they can create a comfortable environment for themselves while forcing mom and pop small businesses to pay huge fees in compliance and taxation that they can't absorb. The market share will shrink by some amount for the small business ecig companies and BT will absorb small business revenues as that happens. They want smokers who switch to remain with their product and have the resources to ensure that it happens.
The sad part is that they can create a comfortable environment for themselves while forcing mom and pop small businesses to pay huge fees in compliance and taxation that they can't absorb. The market share will shrink by some amount for the small business ecig companies and BT will absorb small business revenues as that happens. They want smokers who switch to remain with their product and have the resources to ensure that it happens.
Last edited:
Simple question for Op before becoming involved.
Does AU stand for:
Australia or Auburn University?
Being a World wide forum, I sometimes wonder about the comments and thoughts of others.
Does AU stand for:
Australia or Auburn University?
Being a World wide forum, I sometimes wonder about the comments and thoughts of others.
I Can't Agree or Disagree with this Statement.
Because you have Not Said what Regulations should be in place for the process of making an [Nicotine containing e-Liquid].
As in, should it be covered in the regulations for lab preparation, or food preparation. Or should nic be lab and no-nic be food?
Exactly.
I Welcome Hygiene Standards such as what is seen in the Food Preparation and Food Service Industries. And I think some Chemicals like Diacetyl have no place in e-Liquids.
I would Concede also to Child-Resistant Cap for Containers because it would Weaken that entire "We have to Save the Children" litany.
But does the Approval Process have to be So Costly that it Drives ALL but BT and BB out of the Market? Or that the Grandfather Date needs to be set in the Caveman Days of the e-Cigarette Market?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
