Ok is it just me or do E-Liquid manufacturers need to do their part?

[D103]

I preface my comments by saying I don't necessarily agree with the following, I just firmly believe it. I've thought long and hard about this and I cannot imagine ANY scenario where the FDA is going to continue to allow bottles of liquid nicotine to be sold, retail, to private consumers to "mix and drip their own" at home. This, in my humble opinion, will never happen, not under any circumstances. What I believe will probably happen, if we prevail in keeping e-cigs available on the open market, is that the FDA will take over regulatory control and we will see individually sealed cartomizers or cartridges packaged in sealed boxes with ingredient lists and warning labels...and they will likely set a limit on the nicotine levels available and may limit flavoring as well. That said, I agree that in the meantime anything we can do to show earnest effort towards self-regulation in the interest of public safety # 1 only makes good sense and # 2 will weigh in our favor in the long run. I'm certainly no fan of a lot of the regulatory bodies we currently have in this country and my trust level generally is low, but I do recognize the need for their existence. We can and should work towards more safety now and of our own volition.

 

[BradSmith]

Really? Because most "starter" kits cost A LOT MORE than a pack of smokes. The price of the e-liquid seems auxiliary to the initial cost of beginning to vape. Most vapers have agreed to pay $40-150 to try vaping. If the price of e-liquid goes up I'd only complain because it used to be cheaper, not because of the new price in and of itself. My smoking habit cost me $25-30 a month, between cartomizers and e-liquid, it's about the same cost to me.

v No, we do not want this to happen.

My chief concern is the FDA REBRANDING the technology once they get their hands on it. What if the FDA is like, "oh, we now have regulatory control over e-cigs, oh hey! We have done some studies and it does show that they are an effective smoking cessation product! Slap on equal regulations to the patch and others, jack up the price, set legal usage limits to six months, and MARKET IT SO THAT VAPERS LOOK LIKE SMOKERS "TRYING TO QUIT" INSTEAD OF NON-SMOKERS. Require pharmaceutical licenses for any manufacturers."

^ No, we do not want this to happen.

Yah for me I'm on a tight budget and I would not have started. I can do the math and that's exactly what I did. I was doing the roll your own thing and what got me started was doing the math.

I agree 100% with people who are calling for the companies to list their ingredients, I think that it's not only good business but common sense. I also agree that they most likely will mess this up.

I have worked at a couple of places where the FDA comes in and inspects. In fact one of my best friends works for them and I almost took a job working for them as well.

This is how it usually goes. You get A) the inspector who doesn't give a flying fart, they take two steps around and have you sign off. B) they are corrupt and either shake you down or look the other way depending on what you will do for them. C) they are new and they are all about writing you up for anyting no matter how stupid. D) The really rare bunch that actually does their job.


Let's take something simple like Potatoes, the FDA is supposed to inspect them if they get the FDA stamp. Yah sure right, if your lucky they look at one bag coming off the line. If you work at a butcher shop, tell me what you think. Do you get FDA stamped beef that is safer than the meat coming in from a local farmer?? I will tell you for a fact that I won't eat any of the FDA approved beef that comes in any store. You honestly have no idea how nasty it is. I will buy from a local supply everytime, there is no way I am feeding that FDA approved garbage to my wife or kids.

Honestly, you are kidding yourselves if you think that the FDA is going to make anything safer. They will just get a nice fat budget and send out a bunch of people to act like they have a clue.

 

[cainne]

It's not necessarily about safer or better or preferable.
I'm not arguing that FDA regulation is needful or beneficial.
I'm arguing it's inevitable.

At this stage I don't think we will ever put that genie back in the bottle so lets accept reality and do what we can within our limited influence to make it the most palatable of available likely eventualities.

 

[dubd1c3]

Brad,

Interesting accounts of your FDA experience. Thanks for that.

 

[coralie]

Kristin, Just to clarify, I would and do buy child resistant caps when they are available. I would like all eliquids packaged with child resistant caps at all times. Although my girls might be able to open them any way (they are child-resistant, not child-proof, regardless of how they are called), those extra seconds could be the difference between life and death. I also keep them locked up, as an extra precaution.

 

[keveck]

Let's take something simple like Potatoes, the FDA is supposed to inspect them if they get the FDA stamp. Yah sure right, if your lucky they look at one bag coming off the line. If you work at a butcher shop, tell me what you think. Do you get FDA stamped beef that is safer than the meat coming in from a local farmer?? I will tell you for a fact that I won't eat any of the FDA approved beef that comes in any store. You honestly have no idea how nasty it is. I will buy from a local supply everytime, there is no way I am feeding that FDA approved garbage to my wife or kids.

Honestly, you are kidding yourselves if you think that the FDA is going to make anything safer. They will just get a nice fat budget and send out a bunch of people to act like they have a clue.

This is something I meant to touch base on earlier too. Brad makes an excellent point.

Also, let's throw another example out here.
Say you have a supplier that actually does all this stuff (FULL ingredients list, PG/VG%, MG of nicotine, lot numbers, warnings, all the bells and whistles).

Who verifies this? (amount of nicotine, ingredients)

Off topic: WowBoy from V4L is amazing. Try it.

 

[cainne]

Anyone that wants to run a test then sue the #@% out of the company for false advertising and faulty labeling if it's incorrect?

Labeling is a start. It then gives the companies liability if they knowingly mislabel which encourages most to NOT do so. Baby steps.

I don't test every batch of cereal I eat to make sure the ingredients are correct either, we simply trust that it's unlikely they would intentionally mislabel it since that leaves them open to legal consequences.

And regarding "Brad makes an excellent point", no. He doesn't. In the slightest.

Try to come to grips with inevitable reality. Nicotine is a drug. Nicotine is an extremely lethal drug. Any substance for human consumption with nicotine in it WILL be regulated. Accept that or move to another country. That's the reality of the federal government in the US. There is ZERO chance that nicotine in ecigs isn't going to end up regulated; unless it ends up banned. I'm trying to help prevent the latter. Whether the FDA regulating it helps or hurts is irrelevant because we have no control over how the FDA operates.

We can tell them to screw themselves, not take proactive measures that enhance and spread good PR for ecigs, tell everyone to "screw off we do what we like and if they don't like it they can go #@$@#% themselves" then probably get a ban on them, OR we can try to do everything we can to show excessive responsibility of use, manufacture, and safety precautions and MAYBE get enough people in the general populace on our side to say "Gee, that seems like it's being done right and safely, why are those bullies trying to ban it?"

Let me ask YOU a question Keveck and please, answer honestly:
Do you really think there is ANY reasonable chance that the FDA will not, in some fashion be it ban, regulation, reclassification, etc end up with dominion over ecigs and e-liquid?

If the answer is "no, there really isn't" then complaining about the FDA and what should or shouldn't be is wasted effort. Like complaining about the broken bone you have or how you got a cut. All that matters is "Of all the REALISTICALLY possible outcomes which do we prefer, and what can we reasonably do to boost the chances of that one happening."

.....ing about the FDA gets us nowhere.

 

[vappoem]

If I could just add another thought, isn't one of the biggest problems the public has with e cigs is that people assume they are a product of big tobacco? People believe anyone selling nicotine, besides pharma, are dishonest. Further, cigarette companies, esp. in America, have lied and altered their formula in the past. Now we want people to accept the fact the e-liquid manufactures won't do the same thing? Why? And never mind just the ingredients, what about brands of e-liquid that use cartoons to advertise? What about liquids that sell under names that look like they are marketed to children? Are we really willing to tell Mary Worried that e cigs aren't made to hook kids on tobacco when Clifford the big red dog is schlepping it? The fact of the matter is right now everyone of us takes a risk with our e cigarettes. From not knowing if the latest mod we just bought won't blow up, to if we are really getting as much nicotine as we think we are. Personally, I would like to see at the very least, an organization of sellers who pledge themselves to a certain standard and police themselves by peer evaluation.

 

[D103]

Vappoem - While I agree with your suggestion that vendors and manufacturers participate in peer-reviewed self-regulation - it is extremely problematic given that a good portion of the product comes from China. I'm not saying it cannot be done it is just that it poses distinct problems. On the other hand I would caution anyone putting too much stock in trusting and "feeling safe" just because some governmental regulatory agency has supposedly tested and 'tax-stamped' product as being safe. I'm sure you are aware of the FDA scandals and "mistakes" made over the years. I find it encouraging that the e-cigarettes have been on the world market for at least seven years and yet there is not one documented fatality nor ANY documented cases of serious illness and/or personal injury - and in todays information age and with all the attention on e-cigs if there were any incidents of serious adverse reactions, I'm confident that it would be on record. I can think of many FDA approved products with far less impressive "first seven years on the market" track records that are still on the market despite recorded adverse events associated with use of the "approved" product.

 

[dubd1c3]

Vappoem and D103 both make great points.

However, I think vappoem's focus was mostly on public opinion of e-cigs and not exactly the actual health concerns.

FYI - some law firms are attempting to amass class action lawsuits against e-cigs, but it will be impossible to determine that e-cigs caused illness and not former smoking. So don't worry. Also, we know more every day about the risks and projected risks of e-cigs, and they appear low.

By the way, I REALLY REALLY hope my e-cig won't explode. That would kind of suck.

 

[telsie]

FYI - some law firms are attempting to amass class action lawsuits against e-cigs, but it will be impossible to determine that e-cigs caused illness and not former smoking. So don't worry. Also, we know more every day about the risks and projected risks of e-cigs, and they appear low.

Oh dear God. Now ambo-chasing lawyers are using the FDA's crappy report to cast a class action lawsuit net across the web? I fear the apocalypse is nigh.

 

[CES]

I *think* it's mostly/only Banzhaf, since that's what he does . http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/law-e-cigarette/95220-prof-john-banzhaf-wants-sue-e-cig-sellers.html

oops checked the link. other scum sucking bottom dwellers are doing this too....

 

[vappoem]

This is what I mean...Banzhaf lawsuit will gain public sympathy because people will relate e cigs to big tobacco (the same big tobacco that has now been shown to increase cancer rates in the US). When I gave up tobacco, I didn't just do it for health reasons. I don't want to support a company that runs itself by placing the consumer in harm. What I want when I purchase e cig liquid and hardware is a commitment to me as the consumer. I want a company that cares about my own well being. That's why I like Johnson's smoke juice. I feel like they are taking steps in order to keep me informed about their product. I am sure I am not the only person on this forum whom regrets ever knowing the pleasure of nicotine, but like a lot of you, I have found no other way to quit. PV's have aloud me to decrease my intake of nicotine for the first time. I don't want this product to be banned because some companies aren't thinking things through. One of the concerns of the FDA is that e cigs can be marketed to minors. While I think this is not the case at all, the industry can not be in any situation where this can even be thought of. Right now, the PV industry is in an unfortunate situation. Its customer base has got to be limited to smokers exclusively. I guess I really see the battle as a war for the FDA. Right now the anti crowd has the FDA's ear. Why shouldn't they when the biggest talkers are the anti tobacco crowd and big tobacco (strange bedfellows, but I am sure I am not the only one whom noticed). So, let's take away concerns of the FDA one step at a time. It seems to me that we can't make claims about the long term safety in a way to satisfy them right now, therefore let's take away their concern that e cigs are marketed to hook kids on tobacco. (On a side note, I really wish I could kick the 16 year old version of myself in the .... for taking up cigarettes.) To do this, we need to be over vigilant. We can not even have any hint of youth appeal. The whole concept of harm reduction is based on science, and unfortunately, our public reacts more to culture than science. Because of this, I feel that an ethical battle must be won before the war. Further, think about how much less controversy there would be by repacking alone. If the industry dropped the "quit smoking" and "smoke everywhere" stance, I think there would be less objection to the product. Companies can point out the vaping has no CO2, nor tar, but do so without any health claims.

 

[dubd1c3]

Vappoem, I love you man... but dude... paragraphs....

 

[D103]

Remember the saying..."the devil is in the details..." that is true in this instance as well. All the hoopalah about the 'flavors' appealing to kids, the "antifreeze", the "addiction to nicotine", etc etc - it is ALL B.S.!! Strip away all the crappola and at its very core this is all about money and ideology/morality. For one group of opponents, it is all about the money - they don't admit it, but it's true; for the other group of opponents, its all about ideology/morality (as Sherid and many others have posted before-the very act of smoking, to them, is immoral, reprehensible and should not under ANY circumstances be tolerated). That is why all the debates and "back and forths" with the FDA and the alphabet suits is an exercise in futility in my opinion because everytime we expose the flaws in their argument they will just come up with(invent) something else. It is NOT about health, we have all seen it is NOT about science, it IS ALL about money and ideology/morality and it will take a true miracle to prevail. And then, even if we do 'think' we have prevailed, we will find there is a new 'drug dealer' on our street.

 

[volunteer vapor]

I would love to see some suppliers show some pic's or video's....I've been following this post havent seen anything from the suppliers.

Sorry if i missed it somewhere.

 

[cainne]

Pics or videos of what specifically though?

 

[vappoem]

@ Dub103, when I'm in a drunken ramble, I refuse to use paragraphs...It makes my post more like talking to me in person.

Maybe I was harsh in my last post, but D103 is right, it isn't about health so much as it is about the idea that addiction is evil (which it is) and anyone who is treating the addiction with any other means than complete abstinent of the addiction must also be evil. Never mind if vaping may allow users to cut down their nicotine and still pacify their craving through a psychological placebo effect. However, I don't believe the FDA is the only problem. I believe it is the public mentality that any thing with the word "cigarette" in it wants to, for lack of a better term, rape the health and wallet of the user. We, the unfortunate ones who are now stuck with our addiction are the pawns that must be sacrificed in the war. Remember, not only is big tobacco evil, it is so evil it must support laws that restrict its usage (Philip Morris has support how much anti-smoking campaigns).

One of the things I would like to see happen is for pv's to be feature on some scientific/critical thinking web-pages or television shows. What I have in mind is Brian Dunning's "Skeptoid" or even Penn & Teller's "Bull****." Despite the thoughts of our current media, the public is able to understand and digest a scientific study expressed as common sense. I think I will email Dunning tonight about it. I urge you to do the same. If you haven't heard of him, read some of his articles. Other than I tendency to be a bit of a Randist, he does try to approach things from a non-bias scientific view.

 

[dubd1c3]

Poem, there has been mass support to get e-cigs on penn and teller but to no avail.

 

[cainne]

Well frankly if I were Penn I wouldn't do a show on ecigs either.
There hasn't been NEARLY enough research on inhaling large volumes of these vaporized fluids for long periods.

I mean lets all take a step back and be honest. In all likelihood there is very little chance they are going to be found to be significantly harmful. ESPECIALLY when you consider them in relation to cigarettes. But to say we know that as a fact is just simply untrue. Don't get me wrong. I'd put my money on them being mostly safe in a bet. But "very likely safe" is not "definitely" safe.