Not even close in terms of danger. The e-liquid is thousands of times more deadly. That 10ml bottle you quote could kill five ADULTS.
IMPORTANT - email from FDA to a supplier.
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Not even close in terms of danger. The e-liquid is thousands of times more deadly. That 10ml bottle you quote could kill five ADULTS.
Although this hasn't been FDA tested so there is no way to tell for sure...
Seriously tho, nicotine is poison. It should be in a child-safe bottle with a poison label on it.
I have been selling both e-cigs and fluid. What can I do to protect myself and my customers?
At a minimum you should use child-resistant caps and print an orange "Poison" diamond on the label. Also good would be some treatment advice in case of ingestion, getting the stuff in your eyes, etc.
Note that it is very important to use language correctly. Nicotine is a TOXIN and only becomes a POISON in large enough doses.
Btw, Botox is also a toxin and is injected into the human body for the cosmetic purpose of reducing wrinkles so there is nothing wrong, as such, with marketing a product which is a toxin. It is the dose which makes the poison.
The word TOXIN is not always interchangeable with POISON. If low dose nicotine were actually a POISON or even a carcinogen in the doses associated with the intended usage, then even patches would be illegal.
I used the word "poisonous" on my labels because I figured more kids know the word "poison" than know the word "toxic". I know when I was little I probably wouldnt have known that toxic was something to stay away from, but I did know that anything that said poison or poisonous was not to be touched.
First, Hi all -- newbie here -- and first post. Let's get to it:
1) The guy who wrote that letter is a compliance officer (enforcement). He cannot interpret the law for us. A lawyer should have done that. His comments were conclusions based on black letter law. He doesn't have the capacity to make any contentions, and I disagree with each and every one. He also cannot give legal advice. (That is illegal). Am I a lawyer? Doesn't matter. He is not. I find the letter quite arrogant as well.
2) Our now proven incompetent government needs to find a way to tax e-cigs. Too many smokers are quitting. This is a waste of typing, but they want revenue, not healthier ex-smokers. Now that is hard to do, really.
Do we tax nicotine patches or just tobacco as in the biggest tobacco tax increase EVER. 65 cents I believe, and Obama wasn't going to tax the poor. He did. The majority of smokers are in the lower class, and he targeted the poor.
3) I told my doctor about e-cigs, and he said he hadn't heard of them but would research them. He called me back and said "Whatever works to get you off cigarettes, safely, I will support you. And the e-cigs look safe to me." Then he said something strange. He said that perhaps the e-cig along with a patch would do the trick. That made no sense to me medically speaking, but made all the sense in the world legally speaking. Her saw them as two different products, one was a smoking cessation, the other was a hand held device to simulate smoking, and that, to him, was the hardest part for people to overcome when breaking the habit. A small hole to dig a bit deeper at least.
4) (I swear this has nothing to do with my screename! LOL)
I'm in California. Legislation is ongoing regarding legalizing marijuana. It has not died in the House or Senate. The bill states its purpose is to generate revenue. It is stated right in the bill (~ a billion annually).
Let's figure out a way to give them their damn tax money. That's what it is all about, and we are much smarter than those incompetents in DC, no?
Mike
1) The guy who wrote that letter is a compliance officer (enforcement). He cannot interpret the law for us. A lawyer should have done that. His comments were conclusions based on black letter law. He doesn't have the capacity to make any contentions, and I disagree with each and every one. He also cannot give legal advice. (That is illegal). Am I a lawyer? Doesn't matter. He is not. I find the letter quite arrogant as well.
2) Our now proven incompetent government needs to find a way to tax e-cigs. Too many smokers are quitting. This is a waste of typing, but they want revenue, not healthier ex-smokers. Now that is hard to do, really.
Do we tax nicotine patches or just tobacco as in the biggest tobacco tax increase EVER. 65 cents I believe, and Obama wasn't going to tax the poor. He did. The majority of smokers are in the lower class, and he targeted the poor.
3) I told my doctor about e-cigs, and he said he hadn't heard of them but would research them. He called me back and said "Whatever works to get you off cigarettes, safely, I will support you. And the e-cigs look safe to me." Then he said something strange. He said that perhaps the e-cig along with a patch would do the trick. That made no sense to me medically speaking, but made all the sense in the world legally speaking. Her saw them as two different products, one was a smoking cessation, the other was a hand held device to simulate smoking, and that, to him, was the hardest part for people to overcome when breaking the habit. A small hole to dig a bit deeper at least.
4) (I swear this has nothing to do with my screename! LOL)
I'm in California. Legislation is ongoing regarding legalizing marijuana. It has not died in the House or Senate. The bill states its purpose is to generate revenue. It is stated right in the bill (~ a billion annually).
Let's figure out a way to give them their damn tax money. That's what it is all about, and we are much smarter than those incompetents in DC, no?
Mike
Such as, for example, the amount contained in a bottle?
You're right, but I say that the distinction isn't something to get too hung up on.
I don't think it would be productive to get vaping associated with marijuana. We've got enough to worry about already without risking being associated with currently illegal drugs.
Edit: Oh, and welcome to the forum
LOL, Mike, I just wrote an extensive post that I think you might agree with.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/campaigning/13400-retracting-my-support-eca.html
At 5 packs a day at 50 years old, how much longer could I muster my health. It will be 11 months tomorrow since I've had a cigarette. I feel great. If they take my electronic cigarette away, they very well may be taking my life. I need a salmonella sandwich.
This letter seems quite sensible to me. Research showing positive health conclusions in a peer-reviewed science publication is requisite for a positive FDA conclusion. If we're so sure that these devices are healthy, then we should welcome such research.
Clearly as consumers of these products, we're biased towards the opinion that they're healthy (because we so badly want them to be) but there's a chance that objective studies could prove these devices to be harmful to some degree.
Clearly as consumers of these products, we're biased towards the opinion that they're healthy (because we so badly want them to be) but there's a chance that objective studies could prove these devices to be harmful to some degree.
You need a lawyer!
Start getting supporting evidence from your Doctor about how you have given up tobacco smoking and feel much healthier. The FDA might be up for a fight but not for an avalanche of lawsuits!
Alan.
I would be quite interested in seeing the results of a cigarette smoker having their general practitioner / internal medicine Ph.D. conduct a physical with a lung capacity test before and after moving to e-cigarettes. Has anyone done that?
I'm certain a test such as that will be conducted if it has not already. I wouldn't want to be the test rabbit in that though. If blood were taken, I may prove that nicotine content is far greater than that of an analog smoker! I vape like Vicks Vapor Rub!
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
While any and all health/safety research on various e-cigarette products is welcomed, those who advocate an e-cigarette ban first want the product banned and then to be allowed back on the market as a smoking cessation aid (like NRT gum, lozenges and skin patches) only after multimillion dollar double blind prospective clinical studies (that compare e-cigarettes with placebo and/or already approved NRT product) conclusively find that e-cigarettes are effective smoking cessation aids. And of course, it would take several more years for these studies to be conducted.
Those who want to ban e-cigarettes ADAMANTLY OPPOSE allowing e-cigarettes to be marketed to smokers as alternatives to cigarettes, and they EVEN MORE ADAMANTLY OPPOSE allowing e-cigarettes (or any smokefree tobacco products) to be truthfully marketed to smokers as less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.
These abstinence only prohibitionists even oppose allowing NRT products (gums, lozenges and skin patches) to be marketed to smokers as less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.
(and they'll continue to dismiss all other research, as they've done with Laugesen's studies on Ruyan products) research
Those who want to ban e-cigarettes ADAMANTLY OPPOSE allowing e-cigarettes to be marketed to smokers as alternatives to cigarettes, and they EVEN MORE ADAMANTLY OPPOSE allowing e-cigarettes (or any smokefree tobacco products) to be truthfully marketed to smokers as less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.
These abstinence only prohibitionists even oppose allowing NRT products (gums, lozenges and skin patches) to be marketed to smokers as less hazardous alternatives to cigarettes.
(and they'll continue to dismiss all other research, as they've done with Laugesen's studies on Ruyan products) research
Mr Goodshall noted
Not often I agree with Mr Godshall. For some anti-smoking groups the aim is prohibition, a tobacco free world. Anything that a) Looks like smoking or b) is asscoiated with tobacco or c) makes smokers lives easier is instantly rejected.
I think in this instance Mr Godshall underestimates the potential resistence to e-cigs.
Not often I agree with Mr Godshall. For some anti-smoking groups the aim is prohibition, a tobacco free world. Anything that a) Looks like smoking or b) is asscoiated with tobacco or c) makes smokers lives easier is instantly rejected.
I think in this instance Mr Godshall underestimates the potential resistence to e-cigs.
- Status
Similar threads
