Open enrollment Tobacco affidavits, now no E-cigs too?
- Thread starter dragonladee
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
All of the nicotine that all of us use comes from tobacco.
It is not financially feasible to get nicotine from any other source.
Does that make it a tobacco product?
Not yet.
But when the FDA proposes their regulations under Chapter IX of the FSPTCA then it probably will be.
And when I say probably will be, I mean a tobacco product under the law and potentially subject to all of the provisions of Chapter IX.
If you are a vaper, and not aware of what I am talking about, then you should study up...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...251228-most-important-current-thread-ecf.html
Chapter IX of the FSPTCA is not a good thing for us.
Not at all.
It is not financially feasible to get nicotine from any other source.
Does that make it a tobacco product?
Not yet.
But when the FDA proposes their regulations under Chapter IX of the FSPTCA then it probably will be.
And when I say probably will be, I mean a tobacco product under the law and potentially subject to all of the provisions of Chapter IX.
If you are a vaper, and not aware of what I am talking about, then you should study up...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...251228-most-important-current-thread-ecf.html
Chapter IX of the FSPTCA is not a good thing for us.
Not at all.
IMO E-cigs are tobacco products as they contain extracts from the tobacco leaf. It it not a cancer causing cigarette with 400 chemicals + tar + CO. I am thinking the FDA will be able to add E-cigs to tobacco products - I really cant see how it wont happen. Unless the E-cig industry extracts nicotine from another source. Tax in coming. Regs are coming. I just dont want it banned here. That will be a sad and stupid move.
Last edited:
Drawbacks of e-cig popularity I guess? It sucks but I will have to take the trade off for cancer sticks
Well I dont claim to know what US medical costs are like. In my little country (and alot of other western countries) non-elective surgery is free.
A million dollars? wow. Thats incredible. Well you best get insurance then!
(If it can cost the insurance company a million dollars, and its generally very expensive, I do then wonder how the medical insurance people make money. The insurance itself must cost an arm and a leg, or they must regularly deny people treatment)
Also...seems very weird to me: that you guys spend like a billion on military every year, you sent the rover to mars, helped build the CERN particle accelerator, invaded iraq
And probably many more huge expenses besides...
AND YET, yet youve got to pay for your own kidney transplant even though youd die without it, and if you lose your job, your basically homeless on the street (no income if your jobless, at least from what ive heard, unless your a solo mum, or pay for income insurance? Is that right?)
I guess thats just differences in cultural outlook and policy but it seems pretty darn harsh!
There are actually other plants with significant amounts of nicotine, and related alkaloids. Theres a couple of austalian plants used by the aborigine for sure. Pituri is one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duboisia
Nicotine could be entirely produced without tobacco, if it was commercially required.
Nah, thats wrong. Its just cheaper/easier ATM to get it from tobacco. Theres a couple of other plants that could be farmed for nicotine extraction purposes, if they needed to be.
Its possible nicotine could even be synthesized synthetically from some non nicotine substance (its molecular structure is actually fairly simple).
Ive heard of this, but when I think about its very weird.
How can they classify something that actually doesnt need to be made from tobacco as a default tobacco product?
I guess lawmakers frequently dont think things through, and are amongst the least wise and educated people on the planet, but to me this is pretty darn nonsensical. Be interesting to see the mess of wording that they use, for sure...
Last edited:
"doesn't need to be made from tobacco" - key words - currently the nicotine does come from tobacco and so do some flavors....I think that is what the FDA is hanging their hat on..........
Well I dont claim to know what US medical costs are like. In my little country (and alot of other western countries) non-elective surgery is free.
A million dollars? wow. Thats incredible. Well you best get insurance then!
(If it can cost the insurance company a million dollars, and its generally very expensive, I do then wonder how the medical insurance people make money. The insurance itself must cost an arm and a leg, or they must regularly deny people treatment)
Also...seems very weird to me: that you guys spend like a billion on military every year, you sent the rover to mars, helped build the CERN particle accelerator, invaded iraq
And probably many more huge expenses besides...
AND YET, yet youve got to pay for your own kidney transplant even though youd die without it, and if you lose your job, your basically homeless on the street (no income if your jobless, at least from what ive heard, unless your a solo mum, or pay for income insurance? Is that right?)
I guess thats just differences in cultural outlook and policy but it seems pretty darn harsh!
from my little ol' American standpoint,,,,,,,,it seems very harsh. My sister is very lucky,,,,,she works for the state of Massachusetts and has the best possible insurance,,,,,blanket coverage. They even paid for her television in the hospital. And they'll pay for another kidney transplant when (and if) she's in good enough medical condition to have another,,,,
I shudder to think what someone would do without insurance,,,,,,,
I swear I'll go nic free,,,,,,,I don't need it. VG,PG, flavors,,,,,,,,whatever I have to do,,,,,I already DIY. I'll continue.
So when the new law comes in, people could start making e-liquids from other sources and just bypass the law?
Or do you just mean that its a simplification that the FDA are using for their legislation without considering other possible sources of nicotine...
If its the latter, thats kinda what I was getting at.
It doesnt make sense, in the broader veiw of plant pharmacology and general chemistry, to classify something by what it happens to, at the moment for mere expediancy, be extracted from.
Otherwise we should classify some heart medications as a herbal poison (from digitalis), and codeine (from opium), not as an OTC medicine, but an illegal recreation drug etc etc...
A concentrated pure extract of a food could be a deadly poision (solanine from potatoes for example), and an extract from a deadly poison, or addictive drug could be a powerful medicine, or completely inactive.
In nicotines case, the differences are fairly obvious, with even a tiny amount of googling.
Not saying the law makers will twig on to the inconsistancy and inherent contradiction of their ideas, but its always interesting to see how these things are worded and enacted when so little real thought goes into them.
Often such lack of thought either creates a loophole that can be avoided entirely, or the law is so broad that it makes a bunch of other over the counter products technically included (and in some extreme cases of too many existing products being included, this can be a cause for lawsuits)
If its in between these two extremes, often the poorly written law is merely selectively applied, with active bias, by the court systems.
All these scenarios are possible in this case.
Last edited:
My bigger concern is the lies that are reported about E-cigs being unsafe and a ban being imposed on them in the US. Several countries have either banned then completely or have banned nicotine e juice. Dont get me wrong - I think I have chosen a safer alternative to somkes - but that is not going to stop the big folks on making laws that fit "other" folks. Not only are the big pharma and tobacco corporations losing millions - but states and the feds are losing millions in tax revenue as well.......this world sadly is all about money....
Does anyone know where I can find this section 201 (rr) definition of a tobacco product? Kinda sounds like, just from this quote, that they can just make the nic from another source and avoid the law. But id need to read the existing defination of a "tobacco product".
I only found this in another place "made or derived from tobacco and intended for human consumption". If thats so, this law could simply be dodged by either using another plant source, or synthesizing the nicotine....
This is bizzare. If heard vague rumours about places that have banned e-cigs on here, but it doesnt make any sense to me. Do those places still have nicotine gum? Do they still have _cigarettes_? How weird would that be, yes you can kill yourself with certainty, but you cant use the safer alternative. lol..
And what about nic free? I am not sure how it would even be possible to ban that, using some form of tight legal defination, without banning other forms of inhalation devices, or vapour production...
What places are we talking about BTW?
Last edited:
If I am not mistaken - Canada has banned the sale of e-cigs with nicotine. Singapore has banned it. I am sure you can google it - but this what I found:
Choose Country electronic cigarette ban - ecigs cigarette
Choose Country electronic cigarette ban - ecigs cigarette
Very weird. I wonder are there folks in those countries doing bathtub nic extractions, or selling nic under the table.
I am sure I wouldnt care what the laws are of the country I was in were, if following them would kill me (ie give me cancer from smoking). I aint dying for a stupid law.
In most cases, I would assume these "bans" are actually existing laws, such as the classification as a medicine or poison, of nicotine, or the requirement of an approval process for new consumable products
(Ie its more to do with either initial resistance or law out of dateness, rather than specific newly sought bans ....)
For example, in australia nicotine is classified as a poison. But you can still import it.
In new zealand, it may or may not be classified as a medicine requiring approval (which ruyan is going through), but you can still import it.
Neither of these countries have bans, and you can still use an e-cig, its just not as well known or available, due to out of date laws - which presumably wont be adapted until more people use them, or complain about the laws.
In canada, the nic e-lquid requires approval before it can even been imported, sadly (but not the devices). But theres nothing to stop someone applying for approval, so it hasnt been "banned" as such, as draconian as their ruling is (they could apply just like ruyan has here in nz).
It seems completely ridiculous to deny a product with less harm (ie harm minimisation), simply because its _exact_ level of harm is somewhat unknown (although ruyans studies so far are pretty darn revealing IMO).
But I guess thats whats happening in some of these cases.
Actually reading wikipedias electronic ciggerette page was quite eye opening.
I had no idea so many countries had some many weird laws on the things. Singapores case sounds bizzare. And a few other places seem to have actually outright banned it also, based on some mere association with tobacco. Very strange.
They are mostly kinda "different"
places, like mexico, arab emirates, singapore etc (I may have just listed all of them , not sure, lol)Very educational googling, but still, in 95% of cases, its either a yet to be passed approval process, or an existing outdated law.
But there are some, perhaps shall we say, less progressive countries, where its actually some weird guilt by association with tobacco though.
Id say when it comes to the USA, id expect that it will not be banned, but I would expect some kinda regulation though. And maybe one thats overly heavy handed. Maybe even taxing.
From a personal POV:
Here in new zealand, we are in the middle of passing a harm minimisation law that will allow low risk "legal highs" to be sold legitimately, taxed, over the counter, r18 etc, if they pass an extensive safety testing process.
So we are kinda losing the puritan illogical mentality, and going slowly into the harm min mentality (and weve had a "conservative" government during all this process too)
I doubt anyone here would argue that the safety is an issue, given we know cigarrettes kill and with good predictability.
But smoking is still _hated_. Theres a big anti-smoking lobby. So only thing that may get in the way of e-cigs here is this "vaping normalises smoking, and may be attractive to teens" nonsense that anti-smoking folks will want to push (even though theres no evidence for this _assumed_ and fairly illogical argument).
I totally doubt that will ever stop e-cigs in general here, given they for sure save lives, but its a pain nonetheless that this sort of thinking will slow our process towards a decently written legal framework for e-cigs here.
And thats what you need- a good law that _legitimises_ the product, allows its sale, use and importation, because once something like that is written it tends to stay that way.
With this in mind, I wouldnt be _too_ unhappy that the US is seriously considering regulation. Its an inevitable step, and a nessasary one. No product stays in legal no mans land, and every new product gets the legal look over at some point.
Id be more concerned about the precise nature of that regulation, and if I were a US citizen, id be kicking up a fuss about it, making submissions, keeping up to date, writing to politicians with good arguments etc.
Last edited:
My ins company tests for nicotine, so I will get a higher price whether it's an e-cig or not.
Doesn't really bother me, not smoking cigarettes is going to help me from using that insurance in the long run.
Doesn't really bother me, not smoking cigarettes is going to help me from using that insurance in the long run.
From everything I've heard neither approach is economically feasible.
Both extracting nicotine from other sources, and synthesizing it in a laboratory have been discussed here many times.
And every time, people who seem to know quite a bit about these subjects say it would cost way too much.
^Theres simply no economic motive to do this over using tobacco at present. Using tobacco is cheaper and easier (its a pre-existing agriculture to start with)
The fda stuff, may mean some producers would be better moving off-shore to sell internationally. It may mean that non-tobacco nicotine is suddenly an attractive prospect as an alternative. Or it may mean that business can carry somewhat on as usual. Who knows?
...
I think that getting nicotine from other plants, should, in theory, be commercially viable, even if its not remotely attractive ATM because of the cheapness of tobacco, and the ease of supply.
All you need is a quick growing plant from the genus, thats rich in nicotine. If one doesnt exist that grows fast enough, you could breed it.
There would have to be a huge motive to do so of course
This is all just speculation based around what the fda has said. They say they are expanding whats included in their food and drug law, to anything captured by the definition of a "tobacco product" (including e-cigs). Which means that if an e-cig is not produced in any way, from tobacco, its not included in their changes
(ie its not a tobacco product, ifs its not made from tobacco, which somewhat harkens back to the OP, lol)
Whether the law change makes radical departures from old ways of doing things worth thinking about IDK. Depends on the changes. Depends on the potential profits, the market, and the potential lost profits, if there are any.
....
....
My main original point, was more or less that nicotine doesnt only exist in tobacco. Its in significant quantities in other plants. In principle, this should mean that nicotine as a chemical, is not regarded as a default tobacco product, unless it is in fact tobacco derived (as all current commercial nic is). Might seem like a total technicality, but its the kind of thing that irks me ...
I mean, take this insurance thing. Could you say to the insurance people "no I dont use tobacco products", and when your test says you have nicotine in your system say "oh, yeah, I chew pituri berries every morning when I wake up". Or even more lol "I smoke datura twice a week, it give me interesting dreams.". Which box would they tick then!
Or "oh yeah, my partner smokes" (most vapers would have a lower level of nic than smokers or people on NRTs). "I use tobacco as an incense to banish spirits". It goes on an on...
Would probably confuse the heck out of them, it would most likely deeply worsen your insurance premium, but the _principle_ is what irks me...(I really dont like authorities and these kinda rules in general)
Okay, prolly off-topic enough!
The fda stuff, may mean some producers would be better moving off-shore to sell internationally. It may mean that non-tobacco nicotine is suddenly an attractive prospect as an alternative. Or it may mean that business can carry somewhat on as usual. Who knows?
...
I think that getting nicotine from other plants, should, in theory, be commercially viable, even if its not remotely attractive ATM because of the cheapness of tobacco, and the ease of supply.
All you need is a quick growing plant from the genus, thats rich in nicotine. If one doesnt exist that grows fast enough, you could breed it.
There would have to be a huge motive to do so of course
This is all just speculation based around what the fda has said. They say they are expanding whats included in their food and drug law, to anything captured by the definition of a "tobacco product" (including e-cigs). Which means that if an e-cig is not produced in any way, from tobacco, its not included in their changes
(ie its not a tobacco product, ifs its not made from tobacco, which somewhat harkens back to the OP, lol)
Whether the law change makes radical departures from old ways of doing things worth thinking about IDK. Depends on the changes. Depends on the potential profits, the market, and the potential lost profits, if there are any.
....
....
My main original point, was more or less that nicotine doesnt only exist in tobacco. Its in significant quantities in other plants. In principle, this should mean that nicotine as a chemical, is not regarded as a default tobacco product, unless it is in fact tobacco derived (as all current commercial nic is). Might seem like a total technicality, but its the kind of thing that irks me ...
I mean, take this insurance thing. Could you say to the insurance people "no I dont use tobacco products", and when your test says you have nicotine in your system say "oh, yeah, I chew pituri berries every morning when I wake up". Or even more lol "I smoke datura twice a week, it give me interesting dreams.". Which box would they tick then!
Or "oh yeah, my partner smokes" (most vapers would have a lower level of nic than smokers or people on NRTs). "I use tobacco as an incense to banish spirits". It goes on an on...
Would probably confuse the heck out of them, it would most likely deeply worsen your insurance premium, but the _principle_ is what irks me...(I really dont like authorities and these kinda rules in general
)Okay, prolly off-topic enough!
Last edited:
We are as crazy over here too. U can be a ...... user, prescribed drug user, alcoholic but God help u if u are a smoker. I have not been for a while - love the vapes but need a bit of a nic intake. B.t.w. as an ex nurse I follow the research and recent has shown Diabetes 2 now linked with obesity is a bigger health risk than smoking and another one stated was a homosexual life-style led to lower life expectancy than smoking. Not that I am advocating a return to cigs but for goodness sake why don't they get real!! I would go with the nic gum which is not listed. Cheers from Tassie, Jude
The problem with going to 0 nic for a while before being tested is if you are the employee and then have an accident or something else happen at work most employers then HAVE to do a drug screen, and yes they can test for nic in that drug screen. So you then walk a very fine line.
We need to get some really wealthy dude that vapes...maybe someone as wealthy as Bill Gates or Warren Buffett to throw several billion dollars into fighting this issue all the way up to the supreme court. Get all of the studies that show that vaping is no where near as harmful as regular tobacco use and put this thing to bed once and for all!
- Status
Similar threads
