There may be an easy answer to the FDA ban
- Thread starter rlorange
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- fda regulation usa
- Status
I'd like to suggest that manufacturers try another tact. I suggest they sell "novelty items." Seriously. Make no claims. Make no association with cigarettes or tobacco. Sell items that do not look like cigarettes and could be used at parties, etc. In fact, the future is already happening.
The first two devices -- fanciful indeed -- are ready to be marketed. Even Janty has announced a Janty E-Hookah is on the way. The device on the right is the Philip Morris Aria. PM is ready when the market is. This one is dead serious, however.
The FDA damns our devices for their "essential purpose." Those are critical words the FDA uses. Yes, the e-cigs can be used without nicotine liquid. No, that is not their essential purpose. A screwdriver is not an icepick, etc. And without nicotine, I have no interest in a toy that lets me pretend I'm smoking a cigarette. I want liquid and a vaporizing device. Legal.
The above devices, marketed solely as novelty device toys, might fly -- for awhile.
TB you are right, as long as it carries the e-cig name and comes from a company that markets it as a e-cig it can be ban. If it's marketed as something else let say any herbal inhaler with no ties to be used with nicotine, with labeling that informs the customer that it is not to be used with any type of unapproved products there would be no problems with the product in the eyes of the FDA.
I personally would like to see regulations and studies to make it safer. I think all of us have blown off some steam, myself included. and as much as I hate to admit it. The FDA is doing there job.
No matter what the bottom line motive is.
The job of the FDA is our health. Granted all of us here say that vaping is safer and all the evidence suggest that. But the fact is, we don't really know.
Can we honestly say what is actually being put into our juice?
Is our juice manufactured in a sterile environment?
Is the nicotine being extracted safely?
What other chemical are being used in the process of extracting nicotine?
Is there any type of lead contamination?
Is the manufacturers doing everything possible to avoid cross-contamination?
Is our juice being manufactured right next to the manufacturing of batteries?
These are just a few of the questions.
I can't say that I approve of how the FDA is handling this, and I still think there is money as the underlying motive here. But I still would like to see regulations and studies.
Last edited:
it is said one US company get the juice FDA approved.
anyone know it,please let me know!
Thanks!
anyone know it,please let me know!
Thanks!
There's only one US company that I know of making juice, and thats Johnson creek. But they aren't FDA approved but are just registered with FDA to do business. I'm still a newbie, but I've read and learned a lot, I could be wrong though, I know Njoy has been in the works for making stuff in Texas, maybe in went through, don't know. It would be on the site if it did. So far site just says patents applied for.
There is no approved liquid (it's not "juice"!). Johnson Creek merely registered with the FDA, as required by law.
I concur with Terraphon that we're in unchartered territory here. What could likely happen would be a preliminary ban on e-cigs, which then would go through the courts for a definition of "smoking." The problem for the FDA will be to ban e-juice, while still allowing patches and gum.
If I understand it right, there already have been several studies done on nicotine itself. Although it is a poison if administered directly, there must be some sort of legal position to allow nicotine distribution in patches and gum. Otherwise, those would have not only been banned, but would continue to be prescription-only. As we know, they moved to over-the-counter a decade ago.
This whole issue will revolve around whether or not nicotine is a drug, a chemical, a substance, a food, or some other definition. The entire anti-smoking issue has been based on smoke, as in anti-"smoking." Since vapor is not smoke, the initial logic would indicate there cannot be any crossover into anti-smoking laws.
That being said, nicotine is an essential part of tobacco. So is nicotine a "tobacco product?" Or is it a standalone chemical...etc. And there's the need for a legal definition of nicotine.
If I understand it right, there already have been several studies done on nicotine itself. Although it is a poison if administered directly, there must be some sort of legal position to allow nicotine distribution in patches and gum. Otherwise, those would have not only been banned, but would continue to be prescription-only. As we know, they moved to over-the-counter a decade ago.
This whole issue will revolve around whether or not nicotine is a drug, a chemical, a substance, a food, or some other definition. The entire anti-smoking issue has been based on smoke, as in anti-"smoking." Since vapor is not smoke, the initial logic would indicate there cannot be any crossover into anti-smoking laws.
That being said, nicotine is an essential part of tobacco. So is nicotine a "tobacco product?" Or is it a standalone chemical...etc. And there's the need for a legal definition of nicotine.
As we know money rules the world and of course politics, who else other than big tobacco to have a vested interest in making e-cigarettes illegal. Who else can flip the bill? Maybe i'm just following the principle of the simplest answer usually being the correct one...
Ever since joining this forum in January 2008, I've said "follow the money". Lots of folks say the same. But, mind you, this is far more than taxes. Try to think of any group -- besides the trade one -- that supports e-smoking. Zero. Zip.
Now, think of groups that oppose e-smoking. Big Government. Big Tobacco. Big Pharma. Big Health. Why? Money. Not taxes, but money at stake. Until money from e-smoking can benefit them, they will fight to maintain the status quo.
The FDA has absolutely nothing to do with your taxes. It doesn't give a rats patootie about taxes, but those who influence the FDA do. Sorry to disagree with some, but it's a minor factor. The FDA has other influences far more important -- political and corporate pressures. And the FDA is the umpire who can toss us out of the game. Our team manager best not get in the FDA's face and shout obscenities .... Let's not do foolish things.
We can understand Big Tobacco and Big Pharma being opposed. Income is threatened. Each would view this practice and want a piece of it. Big Pharma has made it clear it wants to control the future of the drug nicotine. Big Tobacco might have to settle for selling devices to deliver Big Pharma's drug.
Big Health needs opposition to keep contributions flowing in. So it will oppose e-smoking, as it does smoking. Any organization is really NOT about its titled purpose; it's about maintaining itself, growing and prospering. The American Cancer Society would be dead in the water if a cure for cancer were being distributed. It needs cancer. Tobacco-Free Kids needs kids smoking tobacco -- or lots of charitable jobs would be lost.
And Big Government not only needs taxes, but it needs popular causes. Smokers and e-smokers are now such a minority that their votes can't swing a playground toy, much less an election. Their "influence" is all negative. No politician wants association with anything smoking or tobacco related. We look like smokers to them. They will oppose us.
All we have on our side is reason and right. That must fight profit and perception.
Anyone who thought e-smoking would breeze into widespread popular usage surely must be rethinking that logic now .
Now, think of groups that oppose e-smoking. Big Government. Big Tobacco. Big Pharma. Big Health. Why? Money. Not taxes, but money at stake. Until money from e-smoking can benefit them, they will fight to maintain the status quo.
The FDA has absolutely nothing to do with your taxes. It doesn't give a rats patootie about taxes, but those who influence the FDA do. Sorry to disagree with some, but it's a minor factor. The FDA has other influences far more important -- political and corporate pressures. And the FDA is the umpire who can toss us out of the game. Our team manager best not get in the FDA's face and shout obscenities .... Let's not do foolish things.
We can understand Big Tobacco and Big Pharma being opposed. Income is threatened. Each would view this practice and want a piece of it. Big Pharma has made it clear it wants to control the future of the drug nicotine. Big Tobacco might have to settle for selling devices to deliver Big Pharma's drug.
Big Health needs opposition to keep contributions flowing in. So it will oppose e-smoking, as it does smoking. Any organization is really NOT about its titled purpose; it's about maintaining itself, growing and prospering. The American Cancer Society would be dead in the water if a cure for cancer were being distributed. It needs cancer. Tobacco-Free Kids needs kids smoking tobacco -- or lots of charitable jobs would be lost.
And Big Government not only needs taxes, but it needs popular causes. Smokers and e-smokers are now such a minority that their votes can't swing a playground toy, much less an election. Their "influence" is all negative. No politician wants association with anything smoking or tobacco related. We look like smokers to them. They will oppose us.
All we have on our side is reason and right. That must fight profit and perception.
Anyone who thought e-smoking would breeze into widespread popular usage surely must be rethinking that logic now .
Last edited:
Excuse me, but... BS.
The "hysterical shrieking voices" are not those of conservatives, but of the liberal groups and the politicians in their pockets. True conservatives believe in the preservation of our liberties and freedoms in the US (as well as those of other countries), which have been bought and paid for by many, many lives.
The last 6 months of liberal policy has seen the destruction of these liberties and freedoms in the form of a soft tyranny including huge generational debt, the further breaking down of the free market and millions of jobs lost. Homes stand empty due to liberal policies set into motion in the 1970's and to this day are supported and protected by the most radical liberal mindset ever seen in American politics.
If e-cigs are banned in the US, it will be because of liberals who wish to impose yet more control over our lives.
Mine wasn't the hysterical one, but you're right.
History shows us that anytime a regulatory agency is imposed on a population or industry, corruption of some kind is pretty much inevitable. And yep... follow the money.
History shows us that anytime a regulatory agency is imposed on a population or industry, corruption of some kind is pretty much inevitable. And yep... follow the money.
Had a discussion with my Sociology prof (a non smoker) a few semesters ago. She agreed that a lot of the changes could be considered discriminatory and where the "power" is. For example, NJ passed a law a few years ago about a smoking ban indoors. This applied for restaurants, bars, etc (basically non residential housing)...however, this did NOT apply for the casinos in Atlantic City. Why? Because the casino lobby has such a hold due to the amount of tax dollars that are coming from the casinos overwhelms the requirement of no smoking inside and having them lose business over this. So you basically have a double standard. The same applies for the FDA and PM. The menthol cigs (as an example) are regarded the same as the nicotine liquids (GRAS) and there is nothing known when menthol and tobacco is mixed and burned but because (I think) there is so much tax dollars (sin tax) coming in on a regular basis from regular cigs that they will not "rock the boat".
I actually had a point but I can't seem to see where I got off or where I was going originally...sorry.
I actually had a point but I can't seem to see where I got off or where I was going originally...sorry.
What if all PV's carried a warning : Not for use with nicotine, or "for use with legal herbal extracts only"
The reason menthol was exempted from the new FDA bill is that the majority of black smokers smoke menthol cigarettes. As a voting bloc, they would be a political problem, so the congressional black caucus (I think) had that one clause modified.
But the larger picture is frightening. Consider that it takes only 1 congressman or congresswoman to propose a bill that, should it pass through the process, would then fundamentally affect every citizen in the United States. Many of these environmental or child-friendly laws are initiated by politicians in very liberal states. But when they pass, they affect everyone regardless of their ideology.
In theory, my local congressman should stand up and vote for the sense of his district. That's a local area, very small population compared to the US. But in reality, votes for or against bills are bought and paid for with money or favors or power.
Much of that comes from the lobby organizations. So if Philip-Morris wants to exempt something, they usually can do it. But is it constitutional? No. And nobody seems to care.
But the larger picture is frightening. Consider that it takes only 1 congressman or congresswoman to propose a bill that, should it pass through the process, would then fundamentally affect every citizen in the United States. Many of these environmental or child-friendly laws are initiated by politicians in very liberal states. But when they pass, they affect everyone regardless of their ideology.
In theory, my local congressman should stand up and vote for the sense of his district. That's a local area, very small population compared to the US. But in reality, votes for or against bills are bought and paid for with money or favors or power.
Much of that comes from the lobby organizations. So if Philip-Morris wants to exempt something, they usually can do it. But is it constitutional? No. And nobody seems to care.
The only way to get anything to change in the U.S. is to put it on a bandwagon and make it "uncool" to not be on said bandwagon.
If we really want things to go well for our beloved e-smokes, we need to spread the word, convert as many of our analog counterparts as we can, and shoot for the sky with as many ad campaigns and positive news reports as we can.
It worked for making smokers the only legally discriminated group in the country, why not flip that around and use it to make people love our new habit?
Here's another interesting problem starting to arise with congressional over-regulation:
That's going to put the liberal coalition of special interest groups between a rock and a hard place.
What's interesting is that it's another example of how a sovereign nation is affected and the argument of a trade embargo. What's even more interesting is that the Indian nations are playing the race card.
That's going to put the liberal coalition of special interest groups between a rock and a hard place.
These days we'd actually be "lucky" if our local congressmen even read the bills they voted on.
Sorry TB, I got off point there for a moment. So, what about people donating to the ECA to have them fund a US based, independent study. That could defuse the FDA's current "main" argument against vaping, no?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
