FDA I think we need to push the zero-nic angle in our comments

[Gato del Jugo]

I've been a full-time zero-nicotine vaper for more than 2 months now..


I use a personal vaporizer from ProVape, called the ProVari V2.5..
And I use various toppers..
All to vape my zero-nicotine e-liquid...

All purchased separately..


Looking at the material composition of these objects, I see steel & brass & other metals..
I see plastics & glass..
I see vegetable glycerin, distilled water & possibly some flavorings naturally-extracted from food plants...

However, nowhere do I see tobacco..

Where is the tobacco in this set-up? Do you see any? Show me the tobacco..

You can't, because there is none..


No tobacco? Completely out of the FDA's jurisdiction...

I am not a tobacco-user & should not be treated as such.. Nor should my vape gear..

If I were given a blood or urine test determining tobacco-use as requested by a health insurance company, I would qualify as a non-tobacco user...


In other words, my personal vaporizer, my toppers and my zero-nicotine e-liquid are not e-cigarettes to be regulated as tobacco products...


It is not the manufacturer's fault that somebody might decide to use these products for other purposes..

Just as a company that makes kitchen knives, baseball bats and tire irons is not & should not be regulated as a weapons manufacturer, for example...



For those who vape zero-nic now, or whose eventual goal it is to reach zero-nic, you might want to submit something along these lines.. Not just focusing on the e-liquid, but also the parts & components of your future non-tobacco vape gear..

The logic is strong, clear & undeniable..

And it's pretty important, IMO..


Heck, even if you have no intention to ever quit vaping nicotine, your gear is still at stake.. Your PVs, your toppers... So, you, too, might still want to comment re: zero-nic (especially since the FDA can't prove or disprove your current or future nicotine intake.. )

 

[dragonpuff]

Many others have theorized that because e-liquid doesn't have to contain nicotine, all of the other components of an e-cig cannot be considered a tobacco device. An example is here: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ations-effects-apv-vaping-hardware-sales.html

As such, I do think you have a valid point. This could be angled to keep from regulating most of the e-cig.

However, the liquid with nicotine is a very important piece that cannot be overlooked. Yes there are many here on ECF who vape no nic, but is that what helped you quit smoking in the first place? I don't know anyone who would be able to quit smoking very easily with a no nic device. And there are also many here who will not or cannot drop their nicotine dose very easily, and if faced with nothing but no nic liquid they would go back to smoking. And of course, nicotine liquid is the one component facing the strictest forms of regulation.

Your argument is valid, but we cannot overlook nicotine. It is too important.

 

[DrMA]

ANTZ will make the argument that it still looks like smoking, therefore it "re-normalizes" and can be "gateway".

 

[williebb123]

i agree with the zero nic i started at 48mg 4yrs ago and now im at 6mg i feel i could go to 0mg but as long as i can stockplie i will continue with 6mg but i think the FDA angle with devices is to kill it , stomp it in the ground and bury it like a cat burying a turd , we give them zero $ no kick backs no payoffs no nothing and some may say what about taxing it ,,,,,,,can you go months with out your money fix this is an outfit that can waste a million dollars b4 you can fill your kayfun they dont want to wait for their money they get paid to kill competition

 

[freefour]

Here in Finland you can't buy the nic liquids at stores , only online . Many who start , start with no nic liquids . It's only when they go online can they find the nic liquids so it's more like "oh I can get this ? Well these no nic are easyer to get , I'll just stick with this . " The esmoke shops are pretty much non existent unlike in other states in the EU . Sweden , Estonia , and Russia ....all our neighbors ...have eshops everywhere were you can get nic so you either go there or order online .

 

[Kent C]

No thanks. I like nicotine.

 

[KODIAK (TM)]

Lot's of luck finding gear. I seriously doubt Kanger, Innokin or ProVape is going to find the zero nic market worthwhile.

But yes, if there's no nicotine in the product then it falls outside the deeming regulations. Zeller even said as much. But he also knows that whoever controls the "nicotine", will also control the entire vaping industry. (i.e., outlaw ammo and you effectively ban fire ams).

 

[Gato del Jugo]

Yes there are many here on ECF who vape no nic, but is that what helped you quit smoking in the first place?

Does it matter? We're not looking for approval as a smoking cessation device..


The fact is, I'm not using nicotine or tobacco..

And yet, the FDA still wants to come after my gear (for those who disagree, I suggest you carefully re-read the regs..)


Could my ProVari be used for e-liquid that contains nicotine? Yup..

Just as my ProVari could be used to vape other things (legal or illegal).. Or be used as a weapon.. Or as a sex-toy.. Or as a flashlight...


I believe this is one of the reasons why Zeller has mentioned a number of times that it's "complicated"..

Clearly they want to go after components/parts which are sold separately, including PVs & toppers.. Yet they also know that these same products are used in non-nicotine applications..

The FDA is not as dumb as some people like to think.. They know full well of what's out there in terms of vape stuff (get real, Tyler of SFATA!).. I also believe they intentionally did not specifically mention in the deeming regs things like APVs, as well as toppers other than pre-filled cartomizers typically associated with BT/BV e-cigs...


It's the reason why in most cases, water-pipes & other products which are used for "other stuff" can be & are still legally sold without a problem, since they're "for tobacco use only" & not sold as paraphernalia (and for the busts, there are always other reasons why those happen)..

I think we need to take a page out of that play-book as a real-world example that actually works, and apply it to our scenario..

At that point, all they really have is nic e-liquid & products that are sold packaged with it (e.g., nic-containing disposables).. Of course, that's another battle, and might be a little more difficult to win, and requires a whole different argument..

But, perhaps everything else would be safe, anyway -- at least partly due to zero-nic...

 

[Gato del Jugo]

ANTZ will make the argument that it still looks like smoking, therefore it "re-normalizes" and can be "gateway".

Well, then I'm going to need to see some valid studies which show that..


"Science-based" FDA, after all...

 

[Gato del Jugo]

Lot's of luck finding gear. I seriously doubt Kanger, Innokin or ProVape is going to find the zero nic market worthwhile.

Sell it as "for non-nicotine use only," and I'm sure the sales at Kanger, Innokin & ProVape would continue along just fine..

 

[dragonpuff]

Does it matter? We're not looking for approval as a smoking cessation device..

please do not put words in my mouth, that is not what I meant at all...

My point is, what is our larger cause here? Is this just a hobby for you, or is this what got you away from analogs? When you quit smoking, did you do so by vaping zero nic?

Sure, you don't want them taking your gear away, but what about all the millions of people who haven't quit smoking yet? Whether you personally vape zero nic or not, we as a community still need nicotine liquid, for those who still use it and for those who will someday quit smoking by using it.

The fact of the matter is, if the nicotine liquid were completely removed (assuming there is no black market, this is a hypothetical) and everything else was left behind, e-cigarettes will lose their appeal for the majority of people. Many vapers would start smoking again (or get their nicotine elsewhere if they can), the rate of new vapers being created would slow to a snail's crawl, and market sales would plummet, drastically reducing the incentive to invent new devices or even sell them at all.

So yes, you can say that because you vape zero nic, these restrictions do not apply to e-cigarette components. But you can't remove protection of nic liquid from the plan completely just because you don't use it; that has far greater consequences than you're acknowledging, and they will affect you.

 

[Rickajho]

The logic is strong, clear & undeniable..

Nice try but...

The opposition is already saying flavored liquids are attractive to children. So scratch 0 mg liquids if they are flavored.

Once you get 'em vaping even 0 mg liquids, vaping "renormalizes" smoking. So even unflavored at 0 mg has it's objections as an alleged gateway to smoking.

Logic is going to have very little to do with winning - or losing - this battle. The persons who yell loudest, and have the most money in the game, win. Please make your comments to the FDA but don't over think the logic behind why vaping works for you. My doctor says me vaping my wacky crazy 24 mg liquids pose no health risk, and my MD backing my vaping as a way out of smoking is the point I'm personally aiming for.

 

[bigdancehawk]

ANTZ will make the argument that it still looks like smoking, therefore it "re-normalizes" and can be "gateway".

Likewise, drinking water in public normalizes vodka consumption.

 

[DrMA]

Likewise, drinking water in public normalizes vodka consumption.

I didn't say that it made any sense....

 

[bigdancehawk]

I didn't say that it made any sense....

I know. I was just ridiculing them.

 

[KODIAK (TM)]

I dunno my friends... You're all making sense here but are neglecting the anti-cultural aspect of smoking and anything that looks like it. It's just a biased hatred towards us and that's tough to beat even with logic and science.

I recall those little candy cigarette stix they made years ago. (We'd get bag-fulls on Halloween ) Don't see those around anymore and for all I know, that kind of product fell under the "secret" Tobacco Control Act even though they don't contain nicotine, you won't find 'em anymore.

 

[Kent C]

I know. I was just ridiculing them.

With all of their handwringing about e-cigs, they may eventually make the argument that smoking 'renormalizes' vaping.

 

[Jman8]

My point is, what is our larger cause here? Is this just a hobby for you, or is this what got you away from analogs? When you quit smoking, did you do so by vaping zero nic?

Our larger cause must absolutely be to have vaping be a legal product for adult consumers. A recreational device and consumer choice.

If our personal choice is to quit/reduce smoking, that needs to stay as a persona decision, and not a larger cause. A court ruling has already been rendered on this matter and it did not favor making claims around smoking cessation.

Sure, you don't want them taking your gear away, but what about all the millions of people who haven't quit smoking yet? Whether you personally vape zero nic or not, we as a community still need nicotine liquid, for those who still use it and for those who will someday quit smoking by using it.

We as a community do not need nicotine liquid to quit smoking. Some of us may think this, and while that may be true for some of us, it is not an accurate statement for the community as a whole. If I were on the other side (or playing devil's advocate), I'd have a field day with any community spokesperson that dared to venture into this territory.

This is not in line with larger cause as I see it, and will continue to wreak havoc for us if we insist on going down this path.

Reality, as Gato pointed out is that no vendor needs to reference nicotine if that is not intrinsic in their product. No device needs to market itself in this way. All future vapers, now smokers, will be able to find this information out very easily, as is the case right now. They need not have a device manufacturer or vendor spell that out for the product to work, with how the cessation crowd would like it to work.

Yet, if a vendor wants to make the claim that their device is intended for use with liquid nicotine, then they deserve to have whatever current regulations are in place, apply to their product. If that leads to their product being removed from the market, because they cannot afford to comply with the regulations, then that is something they deserve, and thus should've thought long and hard about making that sort of marketing claim rather than thinking it wouldn't have legal ramifications.

I concur with Gato (OP) that this is most certainly an angle for us to push in our comments. A device that is not sold with nicotine, is not a tobacco product. And it is unreasonable to suggest it is intended as such if there is no explicit marketing from vendors (or manufacturers) stating that it is for vaping nicotine.

 

[Tangaroav]

Regulations are becoming the norm almost everywhere we look. We must all resist. It will help minimize the effects and the the reach of regulations. Hoarding will also help on a personnal basis, for a while anyway.....

 

[Kent C]

We as a community do not need nicotine liquid to quit smoking. Some of us may think this, and while that may be true for some of us, it is not an accurate statement for the community as a whole. If I were on the other side (or playing devil's advocate), I'd have a field day with any community spokesperson that dared to venture into this territory.

This makes little sense. But it may be just a difference in definitions. Here's mine:

Community - (as stated 'we as a community') - the vaping community
The Vaping community - made up of vapers, the overwhelming majority of whom are either smokers or ex-smokers.
Smokers - those who smoked as a result of enjoyment at first (or some other reason) and who continued to smoke because of addiction to nicotine and/or a continued enjoyment of smoking.
Ex-smokers - people who found that the nicotine in vaping was equal too or sufficient to continue vaping instead of smoking, but vaped because the nicotine was present. Some reduced to no nic and liked the idea of vapor present. Others needed the nicotine.

Community 'as a whole' - all in the community, including those who dual use, vape no-nic, and vape because of nic.

I'd argue that the overwhelming majority in this community are in the latter category - vape because of the nic (and perhaps other factors - flavor and of course a consideration that it is healthier than smoking).

Hence, "We as a community do need nicotine liquid to quit smoking." Esp. those - many of the 'community' tried to quit smoking by other NRT's and were unsuccessful.

And while not everyone in the community needs nicotine to quit smoking, there is more than a majority that do and did, therefore it is an accurate statement about the 'community as a whole'.

Unless you have some secret psycho-epistemological method of knowing exactly what each person in the community 'needs' - your comments regarding that have no validity. And also that you would have a 'field day' with someone opposing, is a bit of posturing more suited to a sports event. lol.