Should Electronic Cigarettes be Regulated as a Medicine? Like the Nicotrol Inhaler or the Nicotine Patches and Gums?

[Jman8]

Nobody WANTS fda regulations.

80% of the vapers that voted on the diacetyl thread wanted SOME form of control, ( that word again), on vendors to prevent, amongst other thing, situations like SB did to its customers concerning the diacetyl in their e-liquids.

The easiest solution to implement was labelling .... even this simple solution is being vehemently refused by many here...

Self regulation starts with vapers. Only the vapers can force vendors to self regulate. But we can't agree on the basics. When kids don't get along, parents have to regulate their behavior....

I have to admit this is feather in your cap for the position you bring up. I participated in the poll thread that last I checked shows 80% of the people that voted want some form of MANDATORY correction to the diketone issue. I also know that some of the 80% are participating in this thread and seemingly arguing against mandatory regulation. If you are reading this and are against mandatory regulations, I suggest you go to that thread and vote if you still can. I'd love to have that 80% number go down so that when Tangaroav cites it again, it'll read more like 40% want mandatory regulations.

I felt like a lone wolf on that thread arguing the position I had. Stating that if you want mandatory control there would be no reasonable way to implement that except for government intervention. We already live in a vaping world where vendors implement labeling. I've bought juice from a vendor that lists all their chemical compounds. I am not one that opposes this, so not the anarchist that Tangaroav keeps alluding to. I just do not see it as being good for the industry to make it mandatory (via government intervention) that all vendors implement the same protocols.

I don't want to live in a vaping world or participate in actions that "force vendors to self regulate." Yet, that is precisely what Tangaroav is arguing for and feels that 80% of the vaping community supports him with at least some evidence to back him up. If I were ANTZ or FDA looking on threads at ECF and came across that poll thread, I would think "our" work will be pretty easy going forward.

 

[BlkWolfMidnight]

First, I don't believe that government is the root of our problems. I wouldn't run screaming if someone told me that they were "from the government, and were here to help." I value living in a civilized, developed country, and I do not idolize Ayn Rand.

HOWEVER, "regulation of liquid," will open a can of worms. How long will it take them to decide which chemicals, and which combination of chemicals, are safe? Given the (justified) fear of smoking, the unjustified fear of anything that resembles smoking, and corporate involvement, how reliable will that research be? How onerous will the demands be, on mom and pop stores? I can imagine a situation where mom&pops stop selling liquid, and vaping gets reduced to BT and their cigalikes. I believe BT is already trying a scare tactic on juice, and they're very smart to do this. The best way of ending vaping as we know it, is to go after the juice.

Both the right, and the left are against vaping, for different reasons. Vapers are a tiny proportion of the population, with extremely limited political power. If they go after the juice, we are scre**d.

I found this interesting,
Yes if they go after e-liquid then we a hosed but on the reverse of it all is they can not regulate the individual products.
PG- Used in a multitude of items to include inhalers, some hospitals atomize it in their air due to its anti-microbial properties.
VG- Used in icing and baked goods as well as cosmetics, this is a commonly sourced chemical.
Nicotine- This is used as a pesticide for farms, worse case is it would require a permit to own it however home extraction is possible (not cheap though).
Flavorings- Used in food, perfumes and various other things to include bath, body and oils, candles (the list goes on).

Combine them and you have E-Liquid, sold separately there is no issue.
Now time to play devils advocate for a moment.
Lets say they do regulate it, one good thing is the refinement of flavorings for use with E-Cigs, companies would have to comply with the standards making it essentially safer for the end user. It wouldn't happen over night and I'm more then sure in the mean time measures would be taken to continue vaping.
Look at it this way, how many people do you know (or don't know to ask) make their own E-Liquid or dabble in it, I would say a few.
Vapeasys would spring up, nothing says that I can't give someone a bottle of aspirin just inside may not be in pill form, you would see a lot of transfers under the table.

Vaping would find a way to survive, it would be a rough road but it would continue on. I don't like regulation of E-Liquid or devices but in some senses it may be necessary and overall end up making vaping safer.

I suspect that some local shops would fall, I would almost bet on this but the businesses need to get together and find solutions now. Start sourcing out how much batch testing is, start changing the labels to comply with FDA now with full disclosure of what's in the liquid. Clean Lab quality control requirements is not too over the top either and in reality can be sourced rather inexpensively (How much room do you really need for liquid mixing). This on a lot of parts shows the FDA that we aren't just about fighting the decisions but we are also willing to work with them as well. You catch more flies with honey per say. Myself I would like to sometimes know what the mixture of my liquid is or what flavorings are in it on the off chance someone is allergic to one or more of them ( I know someone highly allergic to apple for example).

As for the decision to smoke or not, I regret having started in the first place. It is thus far known that E-Liquids are safer, that vaping is far less dangerous and that you will likely add years to your life. These are not mythical statements made out of thin air, these are fact and simple to justify and have been thus far done so by several independents in the health community. I'm blessed that vaping has come along and I have a chance to quit, I have quit thus far and feel great compared to previously.

 

[Jman8]

E liquid soon will become regulated. Standards of acceptable ingredients will be made, safety precautions will be implemented, juice makers will have to verify their ingredients and conform to acceptable levels of chemicals, testing and results will have to provided,

All agreed on up to this point. I may dislike it, but I recognize that eventually eLiquid will become regulated.

and the consumer will know exactly what their buying.

Highly disagree with this. I'm glad others have brought this up before this post, but I've made this point before. Vapers (or potential vapers) will not know what they are buying anymore than they do now. I would concede that arguably they could have better idea. But unless one is trained chemist and is doing own lab testing, then no one (read as less than 1 percent) will exactly know what they are buying. They will instead rely on faith that the product they are buying is safe. In reality, vast majority (I would say around 99.5%) will rely on faith rather than knowledge of the physical sciences kind.

E liquid will be safer, purity will be certain, and nicotine levels will be actual.

I've also noted that I am willing to wager with anyone that the incidents of harm will go up post regulations. I stand by this. I look forward to someone taking me up on this wager and me collecting on that one day.

Yep I'm in and if I have to pay a bit for this guarantee of quality I'm fine with it but if don't like it I always have the choice to just not buy it, simple.

Fortunately a black market will arise where taxation and false promises of safety are a non-issue. Thank God for that market.

 

[zoiDman]

We still have not seen any valid reason to not regulate liquids. There is no benefit to the consumer to have unregulated liquids.

Regulation will only help the consumer and give the consumer confidence in the products their buying. Wanting no regulations for a product that is ingested is like wanting no regulations for food or medicine, it just doesn't make sense.

I think if the ONLY issue involved was the Regulations of what could or couldn't be in an e-Liquid with regards to Safety, Purity and Quality Control, that you would get a Much Different Response.

But Unfortunately, this Isn't going to be the Case.

And where Safety, Purity and Quality Control will be a Small part of the coming FDA Regulations, much of what will be Imposed will Dramatically Effect the e-Cigarette Market.

 

[VapinWolf]

So what about RYO? I know many people who have sold these products at $3 to $5 a pack for quite some time now.

That is a perfect example of the black market so many feel does not exist. The same will occur in vape related merchandise. Mostly nic juice I imagine.

I could make a lame joke about meeting your dealer in a sleazy back alley to score a nautilus head...but some of the current vape stores are in pretty shady areas already....


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[bullet08]

i'm fine with rabbis checking on the juice and certifying it kosher. that's about as regulated as far as i want to go. i trust rabbis more than g-man and i'm not even a jewish.

 

[stevegmu]

How do you know whats in your food, water?

Food and water are regulated...

 

[sub4me]

A black market already exists its called ordering from China lol, which is the same place many will continue to buy from once regulation is passed.

Many quite obviously don't care about liquid safety or battery safety, doesn't matter to them as long as they can get the stuff they want cheap. I'm sure China doesn't care about any regulations because as long as customers want their products they will make them. Some of the most harmful black market products come from countries who will supply anything someone desires.

 

[PapaSloth]

Or you (general you) can be hater of BT, and what BT has done to you, and refer to smokes as stinkies and call it an utter failure that you would ever smoke again, and claim that the only reason vaping exists is to stop everyone from smoking, and tell everyone who will listen that if vaping is banned, you will be forced to go back to smoking and one day die, without your choice involved, and that those people favoring a ban are murderers.

I'm going to infer that this is how you feel you've been treated on ECF as a dual user, and that has affected your responses. The truth of the matter is that most of the people on here are addicts, and addicts often have complicated psychological defense mechanisms, both to defend their addiction as well as to defend against getting re-addicted. Here is a list I found on the web that was pretty interesting (to me, anyway):

Common stereotyped addictive defenses include but are by no means limited to the following:

• Problem? WHAT problem?
  Primitive and unconscious denial is classified as a psychotic defense mechanism because it denies or distorts reality itself. Those in the grip of psychotic denial are literally out of touch with reality. Thus an alcoholic with multiple and perfectly obvious negative consequences from his pathological drinking(legal, health, marital and job problems) may, difficult as this is to believe, indignantly and -from his perspective- honestly deny that he has a serious problem with alcohol. He doesn't know what people who criticize his drinking are talking about - and he is genuinely hurt and offended at what he perceives to be their unfair and unreasonable attacks upon him. He often reacts to expressions of concern about his drinking with self-pity, resentment, and -of course- more drinking.
  
• I'm not THAT bad!
  Minimization and downplaying of the problems connected with addiction fill in the gaps and take up the slack left by the failure of psychotic denial to adjust reality completely to the requirements of the addiction. The addict admits that difficulties exist - but he stoutly maintains, frequently in the face of an astonishing and rapidly accumulating mountain of evidence to the contrary, that they are not really as bad as others make them out to be.
  
• It wasn't my fault or It's not the way it looks!
  Rationalization and projection of blame attempt to distance the addict from the consequences of his(actually, of his addiction's) actions. Alternative explanations are constructed and stoutly defended, e.g. the employer who fired him or the officer who arrested him or the wife who divorced him were actuated by dishonest or frankly corrupt motives.
  
• All I want is a little relief!
  Justification of addictive behavior is often self-pitying and subtly manipulative. The addict feels victimized, perhaps even martyred by what he believes to be the unfair circumstances of his existence and seeks consolation from his addiction. He believes himself thereby an exception and entitled to special treatment, including remission or at least mitigation of the sins caused by his addictive behavior. The prospect of giving up his addiction or, even worse, having it taken away from him by the unsympathetic demands and requirements of others fills him with horror and indignation. Blind to the fact that it is his addiction and its consequences that are making him miserable, he falsely believes that the addiction is the only source of comfort and security available to him in a cruel, cruel world.
  
• I'm not hurting anybody but myself!
  Frequently phrased as "Leave me alone! I'm not hurting anybody but myself!" this defense invokes a legalistic right to self-harm at the same time as it denies the interpersonal and social realities of the addict's harmful behaviors. The addict, unable or unwilling to recognize how his behavior does in fact impact and thus harm other people, indignantly and self-righteously proclaims "It's MY life and I can do anything I please with it!" Curiously -and revealingly- the addict seldom finds anything incongruous in the notion that he might knowingly and willingly be harming himself, regardless of whether he is harming anyone else.
  
• Nobody knows the trouble I've seen!
  A blatant claim for special status based upon self-pity. Because it is seldom as persuasive to others as it is to the addict himself - other people usually have difficulty seeing how one's problems, no matter how severe or unfair, justify adding further misery resulting from theoretically avoidable addictive behaviors- the frustrated addict usually becomes resentful and sullen, convinced that "nobody really understands me." This licenses, at least in the addict's mind, still more flagrant and egregious addictive acting up and out.
  
• I've got to be me! or You knew this when you married me!
  Unable to distinguish himself from his addiction, the addict cannot imagine himself or existence without the addiction. The prospect of "losing" the addiction is unthinkable to him since it would, he believes, mean the loss of himself and of everything that makes life worth living. The addict paints a Romantic portrait for himself and others which, while it may acknowledge at least some of the destructive effects of his addiction, attempts to rationalize the insanity of addictive behavior as glorious, if tragic self-actualization and fulfillment, and to represent anything less than this, e.g. abstinence and sobriety, as a kind of forfeiture of the self and living death, to which a premature addictive exitus is much to be preferred. The fact that many addicts actually believe such transparent foolishness is a somber testimony to the power of addictive insanity.
  
• I HAVE to drink (or drug) for my work!
  The addict insists that he will not be able to make a living or that he will no longer be successful if forced to "give up" the increasingly harmful and destructive behaviors caused by his addiction. He may regard the latter as "the cost of doing business." In the vast majority of cases, of course, his addiction has already begun to impair his work performance, his judgment, and his interpersonal relations.
  
• You're not so pure yourself!
  Following the adage that "the best defense is a good offense" the addict seeks to turn the tables and distract attention from himself by "attacking the attacker," i.e. the individual who attempts to point out to him the reality of his addictive behavior. Under the spur of necessity to defend their addiction as they are, most addicts possess a keen eye and a sharp tongue for the shortcomings and faults of others - even as they deny or are indifferent to those of themselves. Thus the addict is often almost demonically astute at exploiting the vulnerabilities and Achilles Heels of those who, wittingly or unwittingly, threaten the continuance of his addiction.
  
• Trust me - I know what I am doing!
  The addict, blinded to reality by his own denial, attempts to reassure those who have begun to wonder about his judgment, perhaps even about his sanity, that he is in control and that all will be well. He informs them that he is perfectly aware there is or may shortly be a problem, that he does not intend to let it get out of hand, and that he is or will be taking steps to control it.
  
• I can stop any time I want to!
  Unaware that his addiction and not he himself is calling the shots, the addict genuinely believes that he is choosing to behave the way he does and therefore he can stop doing so any time he makes up his mind. Unfortunately for him and for those who must deal with him, he seldom makes up his mind to stop(even though he most certainly could if he wanted to, &etc. &etc. &etc.)
  
• I'm not nearly as bad as OTHER people!
  An almost universal addictive rationalization. The addict compares himself to people who are in his opinion in far worse shape than he believes himself to be and concludes from this that there is no reason to be concerned about his own addictive behavior. Since there is always someone worse off than himself the addict feels entitled in continuing his addiction.
  
• I HAVE to drink (or drug) to drown my sorrows!
  The victim of a dysfunctional childhood or the survivor of a difficult life, the addict attempts to persuade others, as he has largely persuaded himself, that continuing to engage in destructive addictive behavior is a rational and healthy response to his problems - or that if he does not drink or drug, he will fall apart or behave even worse.
  
• Now is not a good time to stop!
  Another nearly universal addictive rationalization. "I'll quit tomorrow" is a familiar addictive refrain. The time never seems quite right to stop - even though the addict may be or seem to be perfectly sincere in his determination to cease his addiction "just as soon as I get through this difficult period." He may even convince himself and attempt to convince others that stopping his addictive behavior immediately would be a bad and counter-productive idea, and that the chances of success will be enormously increased if he delays his attempt to stop until a more favorable time.
  
• It will never, ever happen again!
  Following an unusually painful or embarrassing episode caused by his addiction the remorseful, frequently tearful addict promises those he has harmed that nothing, absolutely nothing could ever cause him to repeat such behavior. He may take the lead in excoriating and flagellating himself for his unpardonable sin as a demonstration of penance and a reassurance to those he has harmed or offended. Almost always effective in allaying anxiety and soothing hurt feelings on the first occasion of use, this defense rapidly loses effectiveness with repeated use as those whom it is intended to reassure become, usually with good reason, increasingly skeptical.
  
• Nobody is going to tell ME what to do!
  The problems caused by addiction are avoided or obscured by a heroic pose worthy of Patrick Henry("Give me liberty or give me death!"). By focusing on his supposed freedom to do as he wishes -actually the freedom of his addiction to do as it wishes- the addict sidesteps the more difficult question of the rationality and sanity of his behavior. Defiance and oppositional behavior are common defenses of addicts against looking at themselves.
  
• I'd be OK if it weren't for you!
  The addict blames his addictive behavior on his significant other, usually his spouse. He feels resentful and self-pitying about the way he considers himself to be treated and uses this to justify his addiction. Since one of the commonest causes of resentment and self-pity in addicts is criticism by others of their addictive behavior, and since the characteristic response of the addict to such criticism is to escalate addictive behavior, this process tends to be self-perpetuating. The addict is often quite cruel in highlighting, exaggerating and exploiting any and every defect or flaw the significant other may have, or even in fabricating them out of his own mind in order to justify and rationalize his own behavior.
  
• Look at all I have done for you! or This is the thanks I get!
  Another "guilt trip" designed to disarm or deflect criticism of addictive behavior. References to the hard work, long hours, job stress and material status of the family are common attempts to win sympathy and understanding for behavior that has become harmful to the addict and others.
  
• I don't have time (or money) to get help!
  Almost universally deployed whenever the question of seeking professional assistance or attending AA or other mutual-support group meetings comes up. If the addict does actually take a step to get help -usually as a result of external prodding of some kind- there is a 98% probability that he will not agree with the frequency, intensity or duration of the help recommended. Underestimation of his problem and the belief that it can be controlled by what others more informed about such matters know are half measures is the rule rather than the exception in addiction.
  
• I'll handle it myself!
  Another nearly universal defense. The addict finally acknowledges and even believes that he has a significant problem but is adamant that he can and will deal with it by himself rather than seeking any kind of professional or support group help. Because he does not yet understand the nature of addiction he supposes that recovery is merely a matter of will power, hence that it is superfluous or even a disgrace to ask for help from others for what he ought to be able to do by himself.

I'm pretty sure I've seen examples of at least half of the above behaviors at one point or another in this thread. In particular, the conversation we're having now can be summarized as "Problem? What problem?," "You're not so pure yourself," "Trust me, I know what I'm doing," and "I can stop any time I want to," on one side, vs. various flavors of "I have to vape," "It will never, ever happen again," and "Nobody is going to tell me what to do," on the other. At this point, it really has nothing to do with facts, it's more about self justification and defensive belief systems. So, I repeat what I said earlier: I don't think anything useful can come out of this discussion for either of us.

 

[Jman8]

We still have not seen any valid reason to not regulate liquids. There is no benefit to the consumer to have unregulated liquids.

Benefits of the current under regulated market:

(Note: The current market is self regulated, so therefore to suggest it is unregulated is false. Arguably all vendors use some form of standards, quality measures when manufacturing their products. In an under regulated, free market, there will of course be varying degrees of standards. Some may emphasize safety. Some may emphasize taste quality. Some may emphasize hardware quality. Some may emphasize marketing and distribution standards. Perhaps a few have succeeded on all fronts. Anyway, the benefits of the current market, when compared to a heavily regulated FDA market, are)

1. Consumers will have a choice to get products that others may deem risky, but they strongly prefer in their product. It is quite plausible that a vaper is aware of the diketone issue and still prefers their eLiquids to have diketones in them.

2. The standards that a vendor has in place in the under regulated market are likely easily managed. In a heavily regulated market, where emphasis may be placed on an area that a vendor addresses but sees as no big deal would most definitely be cost prohibitive. This will undoubtedly lead many vendors to jump ship and any current potential vendor that is waiting to see how FDA will regulate may forego getting into business based on onerous regulations. Consumer choice will obviously be impacted.

3. Consumers will very likely pay far less for virtually same quality (I would argue better quality in under regulated market) than they do in a heavily regulated market. Value will be arguably far better in the under regulated market.

4. Consumers in an under regulated market have either no reason or little reason to seek out a black market. I would argue that a black market could contain inherently "safe" products that are arguably more safe than what may be available on the legal, but heavily restricted market. In a heavily regulated market, a black market will surely arise. It is clearly beneficial to avoid heavy regulations. The heavier the regulations, the more likely black market operatives participate, and some will surely distribute hazardous vapes.

5. Consumers have great access in an under regulated market. Ordering online, or at a local mom and pop vape shop is all observable in the current under regulated market. In a heavily regulated market, it is plausible that no internet sales will be legally allowed and that mom and pop will jump ship. Consumers would lose the benefit of easy accessibility in a heavily restricted market and/or be likely to go to the black market.

Perhaps there are more benefits than these 5 I have mentioned. But one can no longer say "There is no benefit to the consumer to have under regulated liquids" and/or that we have not seen those benefits. Fact is, we are currently experiencing those benefits.

 

[stevegmu]

That is a perfect example of the black market so many feel does not exist. The same will occur in vape related merchandise. Mostly nic juice I imagine.

I could make a lame joke about meeting your dealer in a sleazy back alley to score a nautilus head...but some of the current vape stores are in pretty shady areas already....


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Pipe tobacco, tubes and rolling machines aren't illegal; neither is SYO cigarettes. Now, if someone sells SYO packs, yes it is a black market activity, but their business exists simply because others are too lazy to stuff their own, not because pipe tobacco, tubes and rolling machines are illegal...

 

[Oberon75]

We still have not seen any valid reason to not regulate liquids. There is no benefit to the consumer to have unregulated liquids.

Regulation will only help the consumer and give the consumer confidence in the products their buying. Wanting no regulations for a product that is ingested is like wanting no regulations for food or medicine, it just doesn't make sense.

That's absolutely false because the industry will crumble for everybody except for Lorillard, RJ Reynolds and Altria (Philip Morris).

We we'll not have safer products. We will have more dangerous ones sold only by Big Tobacco. I really hope you like Vuse.

Regulation does not equal safety. Regulation equals the sale and promotion of dangerous products from giant corporations with a sin tax tacked on.

 

[beckdg]

There was a significant drop in smoking levels wherever taxes were increased on cigarettes, and the size of the drop directly correlated to the level of tax increase. I can't quote a source since this is just my recollection of stuff I read or heard on the TV.

As someone pointed out elsewhere on this forum a while ago there is a floor to the effectiveness of any attempt to reduce smoking, I seem to recall a figure of around 20%. So taxes and anti smoking campaigns and so forth do work, but only with the segment of smokers who are not as heavily dependent. The core group of 20% are unaffected by it. Teen use also went down with increased taxes.

I suspect that 20% are the ones who need vaping the most.

Just so you notice what your whole post is based off of and maybe realize what implications that may have.

Sent from my device.

 

[Oberon75]

Food and water are regulated...

Really? Every one of these products contains ingredients or went through processes linked to cancer.

Chips, bread, biscuits, crackers, breakfast cereals, pork, beef and lamb, processed meat, such as sausages, bacon and hamburgers, peanuts, grains, salts, nuts, spices found in tropical countries, microwave popcorn, non-organic fruit, canned tomatoes, farmed salmon, vegetable oil, foods that are pickled, foods that are smoked, processed white flour, GMO's, refined sugars, artificial sweeteners, soda, and anything that's labeled diet or low fat.

 

[Jman8]

So, I repeat what I said earlier: I don't think anything useful can come out of this discussion for either of us.

Useful to me would be that fellow vapers some hating on BT and vocalize that if vaping is banned they will be forced to go back to smoking and subject to imminent death from the regulators / murderers. If just a few have thought twice about such rhetoric, especially those that write up CTA's, then I think this has been a useful discussion.

But in the event that a vaper does feel need to vocalize such things, I may again feel need to enter into such a discussion to note how utterly useless it is to make such immature statements and the political ramifications they carry with them.

 

[CMD-Ky]

I am unconcerned about benefits to the consumer. My concern is the loss of liberty by way of notice and comment rule making. As for the consumer, if I had a concern then it would be that the FDA is corrupt, ineffective and generally out of control. I am concerned about the revolving door from the objects of regulation and the regulatory body. I am concerned about its reliance upon the American Academy of Pediatrics for its input on vaccines and medications, the group receives nearly one million dollars from Wyeth and other pharmaceutical companies - nothing corrupt there, right? The American Cancer Society is another source of information to the FDA. The Society , around the time that anti-antiperspirants were being linked (in peer reviewed literature) to an increased risk of breast cancer, received a "grant" (bribe?) from cosmetic manufacturers; the Society decided the risk was minimal. But the FDA considers these groups reliable. And the finest plum for a regulator is to enter "private sector" employment with the formerly regulated industry or dependent non-profit. The new job is to lobby former colleagues. Have ever considered that the final clinical trial for medication may be its release upon the public? Trial lawyers love it but is it to the public benefit?
I would oppose FDA regulation on philosophical grounds alone. Beyond philosophy, the organization is incompetent at best, corrupt at worst and generally populated with the mediocre.

We still have not seen any valid reason to not regulate liquids. There is no benefit to the consumer to have unregulated liquids.

Regulation will only help the consumer and give the consumer confidence in the products their buying. Wanting no regulations for a product that is ingested is like wanting no regulations for food or medicine, it just doesn't make sense.

 

[sub4me]

That's absolutely false because the industry will crumble for everybody except for Lorillard, RJ Reynolds and Altria (Philip Morris).

We we'll not have safer products. We will have more dangerous ones sold only by Big Tobacco. I really hope you like Vuse.

Regulation does not equal safety. Regulation equals the sale and promotion of dangerous products from giant corporations with a sin tax tacked on.

Those are opinions and speculations I don't agree with.

 

[beckdg]

My name is .... I am addicted to nicotine. I use vaping as a way to get my doses of nicotine. Using my preferred flavors to do it is actually also very enjoyable.

Many have no intentions to ever resolve this nicotine dependency as it has become a real pleasure with few caveats and with a lot less stigma that smoking. This potential loss of pleasures is, imo, the reason why such aggressiveness is common whenever regulations are suggested. Some here even suggest anarchy to assure their permanent access to this drug. They are willing to accept almost any un-necessary risks to keep away any regulations. Some of the vitriol loaded conversations are really ridiculous.

Addiction is not something to be recommended as it can be the cause of so many human failures.

I for one can understand regulation activists. The thought of 10's of millions of people addicted to vaping that could be controlled like zombies as long as the supply of their beloved custard pie flavor is guaranteed is frightening to the non addicted public.

Let us look back and realize anarchy as it was defined in this very thread lacks neither in the yay nor the nay sayers posting herein by any stretch.

Sent from my device.

 

[Jman8]

That's absolutely false because the industry will crumble for everybody except for Lorillard, RJ Reynolds and Altria (Philip Morris).

As I've noted before, all a company (or 20) has to do is advertise as "non-BT vapes" and they'd be making billions their first year and possibly trillions by year 10. Because of how utterly lucrative this could forever be, there would be no incentive to sell out to BT. Arguably they could make more money than BT combined.

 

[Oberon75]

Those are opinions and speculations I don't agree with.

Not speculation. Its the rules of the Tobacco Control Act which eCigarettes will be part of. You are going off of opinion. I'm stating fact. Have you even bothered reading any of the proposed law? Or just the edited ANTZ version?