You know, DC, something just struck me - that didn't occur to me when Phi first presented his percentage of ingredients thesis six or more months ago.
It shows just what absurdity would result from an arbitrary percentage requirement that applied before a nicotine delivery product could be legally considered a "tobacco product", and just how divorced from common sense and real-world functionality Phi's notions are.
For if the fact that the inactive base ingredient comprises a much higher percentage of eliquid than the nicotine would keep the product from being considered a "tobacco product", then to be considered a "tobacco product" the product would necessarily be converted from a usable and relatively safe consumer product to a highly toxic and deadly product, that could not be sold as a consumer product and that no one would ever be able to use!
We all know that nicotine in pure form is deadly in minute quantities, and even in a 50% formulation. The no longer used and highly toxic pesticide known as Black Leaf 40 was 40% nicotine. We also all know that 7.5% nicotine is the level at which a nicotine containing product in the UK is legally considered a ""poison" and may not be sold. We also know that 3.6% nicotine liquid (or 36 mg) is the one considered "fierce" and is the highest concentration many think eliquid should be allowed to be sold for direct use (as opposed to mixing use). Some believe an even lower concentration cap should be imposed, such 2.4% or 1.6% (shudder).
So Phi's notion that the necessary and sensible high percentage of PG as the base for the nicotine in our eliquid should be a critical factor in the legal determination whether it is a "tobacco product" is, in a word, ludicrous.
It shows just what absurdity would result from an arbitrary percentage requirement that applied before a nicotine delivery product could be legally considered a "tobacco product", and just how divorced from common sense and real-world functionality Phi's notions are.
For if the fact that the inactive base ingredient comprises a much higher percentage of eliquid than the nicotine would keep the product from being considered a "tobacco product", then to be considered a "tobacco product" the product would necessarily be converted from a usable and relatively safe consumer product to a highly toxic and deadly product, that could not be sold as a consumer product and that no one would ever be able to use!
We all know that nicotine in pure form is deadly in minute quantities, and even in a 50% formulation. The no longer used and highly toxic pesticide known as Black Leaf 40 was 40% nicotine. We also all know that 7.5% nicotine is the level at which a nicotine containing product in the UK is legally considered a ""poison" and may not be sold. We also know that 3.6% nicotine liquid (or 36 mg) is the one considered "fierce" and is the highest concentration many think eliquid should be allowed to be sold for direct use (as opposed to mixing use). Some believe an even lower concentration cap should be imposed, such 2.4% or 1.6% (shudder).
So Phi's notion that the necessary and sensible high percentage of PG as the base for the nicotine in our eliquid should be a critical factor in the legal determination whether it is a "tobacco product" is, in a word, ludicrous.