Maybe the issue is geopolitical... (USA v China)

[dubd1c3]

So...

Perhaps the current governmental stance on e-cigs is literally due to the fact that they came from China. If you think about it, the cigarette is 100% American invented industry. Soon enough China is like, "behold, our superior approach" and then USA is like, "whatever USA #1"

If I were China I would be like "look, US invented death sticks, but behold China, we have invented life sticks, China #1" and meanwhile, USA is like "China loves to stash DEG and lead in all their products, see? China not #1."

Maybe it's just US Govt trying to prevent us from thinking China is cool or something?

Maybe I'm into Tom Clancy too much?

 

[ejoker]

"the hunt for red 510 starter kits"
"clear and high nic danger"

 

[JerryRM]

This sounds like a job for Joe McCarthy, we need to flush out those reds !!!

 

[lonercom]

Well, aside from the joking, I recall that the FDA did state that they were made in China so there is some truth to it. Their point in making that statement was related to the safety of the product. The juice in particular. Their concern is the poor Quality Assurance and what contaminants might be in the product.

When you look at FDA Alerts about Chinese made products, Diethylene Glycol is always the culprit. Particularly in products containing PG; Soap, Cosmetics and Shampoos. The most recent DEG scare was from Chinese made toothpaste.

Rest assured that this is not the politics. China has been designated "Most Favored Trading Partner" by the US and Chimese made products affect every aspect of our daily lives.

 

[dubd1c3]

I suppose what I was hinting at was that the FDA was determined to find something wrong with them. No other studies found DEG.

I have read up on DEG greatly. Ironically, the "main" DEG disaster took place in 1936 here in America- a drinkable pharmaceutical was released with DEG as a base, killing a lot of people. The original guy ended up committing suicide over this, and in 1938 the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act passed, giving FDA most of the power it has today to say things like "prove your claims" and "make sure this won't kill people" etc etc.

 

[Janetda]

I don't think the FDA really wants to ban e-cigarettes. I believe that they think that nicotine is used to "cure" nicotine addiction and therefore is a medicine and should only come from a pharma company. Pointing out that they come from China is just another one of their alarmist tricks. Many American people don't trust products that come from China.

BTW, next week, I'm marketing vodka as a cure for alcoholism.

 

[Max0819]

So...

Perhaps the current governmental stance on e-cigs is literally due to the fact that they came from China. If you think about it, the cigarette is 100% American invented industry. Soon enough China is like, "behold, our superior approach" and then USA is like, "whatever USA #1"

If I were China I would be like "look, US invented death sticks, but behold China, we have invented life sticks, China #1" and meanwhile, USA is like "China loves to stash DEG and lead in all their products, see? China not #1."

Maybe it's just US Govt trying to prevent us from thinking China is cool or something?

Maybe I'm into Tom Clancy too much?

I don't think the problem is strictly China, it is worldwide in DEG slipping into PG or VG's place, by accident and of course for profit. Truely their concern on that one aspect is not so bad, but that shouldn't result in a ban, it should result in testing and or testing standards. Though in this case, it moves around 'tobacco' and well, theres a lot of eggs in that basket.

Heres a link, go down to mid-page Section 6 and have a ball.

Wapedia - Wiki: Diethylene glycol

Max

 

[Max0819]

I suppose what I was hinting at was that the FDA was determined to find something wrong with them. No other studies found DEG.

I have read up on DEG greatly. Ironically, the "main" DEG disaster took place in 1936 here in America- a drinkable pharmaceutical was released with DEG as a base, killing a lot of people. The original guy ended up committing suicide over this, and in 1938 the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act passed, giving FDA most of the power it has today to say things like "prove your claims" and "make sure this won't kill people" etc etc.

See above...

Max

 

[Mop]

It is indeed political, but it doesn't involve China, and it's naive to think our government or the FDA would actually try to protect us from anything. The real reason? Philip Morris bought some politicians- Henry Waxman and Edward Kennedy -to pass the Family Smoking Prevention and Control Act (which Big tobacco wrote and spent millions lobbying for, don't let the name fool you). It says the FDA are specifically disallowed from banning Philip Morris' products, but compels them to ban any product that could compete with them, which of course means electronic cigarettes.

This egregious act was meant to lock in Philip Morris' dominance, and it worked. I'm just sickened that these monstrous politicians are actively and deliberately working to help in the mass murder of innocent folks, just so they can line their pockets with a few of Big Tobacco's dollars (Waxman and Kennedy's biggest campaign contributors are Big Tobacco's law firms).

No, this is far more insidious than a little competition with China.

 

[dubd1c3]

See now isn't that kind of... illegal? Microsoft can't sponsor a law that makes Macs illegal, can it?

I mean, honestly. Are antitrust and monopoly even real words anymore?

 

[D103]

I agree Mop and several of Dr. Siegel's blogs explain this somewhat 'hidden monopoly policy' in great detail. It is utterly outrageous that this Family Smoking Prevention and Control Act passed and it should be absolutely illegal.

 

[dubd1c3]

I have a theory that e-cig criminalization actually succeeded in New York and NJ because of Pfizer and JnJ (Big NRT) are headquartered there... combined with existing anti-smoking efforts there... ban success.

 

[GtrSoloist]

I have to agree with dubd1c3, I think the legality of e-cig's will remain up in the air until big business and the government figure out how make the most money from it.

 

[Thulium]

I have a theory that e-cig criminalization actually succeeded in New York and NJ because of Pfizer and JnJ (Big NRT) are headquartered there... combined with existing anti-smoking efforts there... ban success.

Except that "e-cig criminalization actually" did NOT succeed in NY & NJ because of the efforts of members of our community rallying against the paid shills from BP prohibitionists and explaining the truth.

Unfortunately, New Jersey did manage to include e-cigs in their smoking ban, but I am confident that it won't stand up to judicial review because it bans "anything that can be inhaled and exhaled"

 

[dubd1c3]

When you say did not succeed, do you mean for import or use?

New York might have a law against importing pvs but not using them. Likewise with NJ.

Can you be more specific about what succeeded and what failed regarding NJ and NY? Please use sources.

 

[Vocalek]

Currently, neither New York nor New Jersy has a law of any kind against sales of pvs -- not for lack of trying. Members of the CASAA and NVC made in-person trips to meet with legislators and even the New York Health Department to rally against those laws. Many member of ECF jumped in to make phone calls, send emails, or snail mail to legislators. The laws that were proposed would have levied heavy fines against anyone who sold the products in the respective states.

Here is one of the threads on the New York legislation. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-take-action-now-prevent-e-cigarette-ban.html

New Jersey did manage to include e-cigarettes in its indoor smoking ban. I'll leave it up to you to use the wonderful search feature on ECF to track down the blow-by-blow on what happened in New Jersey.

 

[dubd1c3]

So New York narrowly escaped legislation the way of Illinois.. good. I will look into New Jersey. Stop e-cig ban now might have different info on these two States though, I will have to look into this.

 

[sailorman]

See now isn't that kind of... illegal? Microsoft can't sponsor a law that makes Macs illegal, can it?

I mean, honestly. Are antitrust and monopoly even real words anymore?

Microsoft has the legal right to contribute as much money as they want to any politician running for any office, including challengers to Mac's politicians. They can sponsor any law they choose, and they can hire as many lobbyists as they like to push for any laws they, or their lobbyists have written. The SCOTUS says so. IF they thought they could get them past the courts, they could write laws to outlaw Macs and fund politicians to sponsor them. Look at what's happening with net neutrality.

Anti-trust and monopoly are real words. They just don't mean what people think they do. The anti-trust division of the DOJ was downsized starting during the Reagan admin. (remember the M&A orgy) and practically put in mothballs under GWB. Enforcement is virtually non-existent. Our economic system is not so much capitalism anymore, rather it is based on monopoly-capitalism.

That is how we ended up with 5 media companies owning 80% of the media and a 90% reduction in the number of oil companies and banks. That's how we ended up with trans-national corporations that have no responsibility to the U.S., it's workers or it's economy, but are nonetheless "too big to fail".