I agree totally. We need to make sure focus is always upon why we (some anyway) allowed and promote tobacco regulation in the first place, which is health harm that (allegedly) impacts society. And even then nicotine itself needs the focus until it is determined that it and it alone, when delivered as a vapor, rises to the same public 'threat' level to warrant action.I believe it's 2007, but the more important point is whether they can control the hardware. My opinion, for what it's worth, is they can not unless it's sold with a tobacco product, nicquid.
Everything else is fruitless semantics. The human hands are 'delivery devices'. If I were to put tin foil on the lamp end of one of the ultra-bright flashlights and drip juice into it and inhaled the vapor, did I just create a 'new' 'delivery' device requiring flashlight and tin foil regulation? What about the zero nic juice users? Because a garden hose might be used in the administration of 'colonics' do they become a medical delivery device subject to regulation? Why not? Frequency of use as such? Shape?
Zero nic users do so because they enjoy inhaling warm vapor with a taste to it. Period. No justification required, imo.
We also should remember that the FDA even warned a walnut mfr that they couldn't claim walnuts were good for you.
Last edited: