Wow, I really don't know what you're talking about with Nicotrol. The link you provided is regarding additives in cigarettes.
This one?
Development by tobacco industry and use of monopotassium phosphate ...
... Dev Pharmacol Ther 1985; 8:384-395. Product Information: Nicotrol(R), nicotine
inhalation system. Pfizer, Inc., New York, NY, 2003. 10 Page 12. ...
www.fda.gov/.../CommitteesMeetingMaterials/TobaccoProductsScientificAdvisoryCommittee/UCM222986.pdf
I read it as the additive in Nicotrol in the generic by Pfizer was developed by BT. I located the link by searching for Nictotrol by Pfizer and finding out they make the generic or at least one of the generics. The link from Harvard isn't commenting on tobacco imo but that BT's use of pesticides was approved in a nic delivering system that would make it a tobacco product vs a medicine. ...."Development.......
and use of monopotassium phosphate...." This is on page 12 of a report that I can't find the entire text of however, the link from Harvard is part of legal proceedings in June '10 and appears from the link at the FDA to define Nicotrol as a tobacco product - again going by the blurb explaining the link to the Harvard legal request to research public safety.
If that is not what the FDA meant, why would it be on the FDA website and linked to Pfizer, unless they share the same additive? It clearly states this is a development by BT and used in Nicotrol.
I think it's important to remember that the FDA has never said that they wouldn't approve e-cigarettes. They have only said that they consider nicotine a drug and e-cigs a drug/delivery device.
Who can forget when that's the only argument they consider blowing out of proportion, while the legal system at the Federal level (and I'd really have to dig to find the link from another thread) A FEDERAL judge ruled that the FDA overstep what their legal capacity allows them to do in the case of e-cigs. It's a recreational drug like moderate drinking is considered recreation, without the effects of alcohol. There's grapes - a food(like it need to be pointed out) - in wine. Can you imagine the public outcry if the FDA had to approve or disapprove wine based on it containing grapes and wine glasses were considered a 'tainted food' delivery device? Technically, you can put an led in a cart and an e-cig batt will charge it. You can also put a small fish in a wine glass. But, this is out of the scope of what the FDA can legally try to legislate so they agree with it but still fight that it's more harmful than Nicotrol using additives found in deadly tobacco?
(Is this starting to make it any clearer to you?)
The law would have to change in WA which isn't going to happen without wiping out BT on the nic, the alcohol industry on food additives and backfire on every nic pharma and every children's medicine made with additives to taste better.
Outside of that, what I'm saying is two fold - 1) Where is this court case in full and 2) Since the presence of MKP was allowed into a generic quit product and developed by BT again, how did the FDA approve the nicotrol as a drug?
I don't know what they're talking about but, it's important to point out the FDA has made deadly mistakes when it comes to nic that could support an appeal on any e-cig ban initiated by or with the FDA's way of classifying Nicotrol and perhaps the ruling of a Federal Judge who decided e-cigs are beyond the legal scope of the FDA, in the first place.
Just because someone has the right to a put a fish in a wine glass doesn't mean the wine or the glass requires FDA approval. Nic doesn't even negatively effect the vapor or anyone around them although it's reasonable to not use e-cigs around kids just to not influence them and regardless, e-cigs or not, anyone working with children should wash their hands frequently. People who want to otherwise tell someone who vapes they can't, don't have science on their side - just the opinion of an uninformed segment of society trying to make us feel we don't have enough science on our side. That fuels the fire from both sides. I just don't get that, sort of - do but, don't.
imo, there's plenty of room for appeals. The nic isn't the problem. People who use generic Nicotrol (which attempts to look like a pv) with MKP might be really putting the public at risk and blaming vaping by scewing (no 'r' in there) the facts.
I agree with Vocalek, it isn't worth the time to argue from our position, from that point but an appeals lawyer probably could so the harassment might stop. I think it's worth compromising on the buttery flavors so everyone wins. And I've been dragged against the coals for suggesting that as a community of vapers, we consider compromising on anything. There's enough concern about those butter flavs that makes me consider it the best option against masses it could takes decades if ever, to see the benefits of vaping let alone just put up with their own opinions against us having any rights. I don't have the legal ability to convey it the way it should be said though, so everyone calms down already. It has to come from lawyers and judges, orgs, once they get it and maybe then the media. Til then educating people when we can is the best we can do, right?
HTH
