What is ban-able?

Status
Not open for further replies.

seminolewind

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Apr 5, 2009
1,709
2,418
Corydon Indiana
E-cigs alone , IMO are the least ban-able. Especially if they can be marketed as nicotine free devices, or legal herb devices (LOL). It appears that the nicotine is the thing that is flashing the red light. Without nicotine, it's just another vaporizor, and the e-juice without nicotine is just flavored vapor.
Nicotine free vaporizers is the truth. The e-cig itself does not contain nicotine. It's up to the user if they want to vaporize water, juice, or soaked legal herbs. Those "herb" pipes are all marketed as just for legal herbs.
IMO, if anything is banned, I can make a device, quite possible an atomizer, and nicotine free e-juice. Then get some snus. I will do alot before I give them up (which I won't).
 

happily

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
May 25, 2009
1,974
20
anchorage, ak
There are definitely many ways that e-cigs are not bannable. Problem being is they are a threat to big tobacco, big pharma, and tobacco taxes in the trillions. You would be hard pressed to find a stronger lobbying group. I do think you'll still be able to get them but just the inconvenience that is associated with customs right now could make it a large pain in the @$$.
 

BigJimW

Moved On
ECF Veteran
May 17, 2009
2,058
7
62
Warwick, RI
www.moonport.org
E-cigs alone , IMO are the least ban-able. Especially if they can be marketed as nicotine free devices, or legal herb devices (LOL). It appears that the nicotine is the thing that is flashing the red light. Without nicotine, it's just another vaporizor, and the e-juice without nicotine is just flavored vapor.
Nicotine free vaporizers is the truth. The e-cig itself does not contain nicotine. It's up to the user if they want to vaporize water, juice, or soaked legal herbs. Those "herb" pipes are all marketed as just for legal herbs.
IMO, if anything is banned, I can make a device, quite possible an atomizer, and nicotine free e-juice. Then get some snus. I will do alot before I give them up (which I won't).

The electronic cigarette part (battery and atomizer) should not be falling under FDA regulations. Reason being it is an electronic device that, technically, should be falling under the FCC regulations. Many people use USB Passthoughs which, technically, is a component of your computer, and not a smoking device. And like your computer, must meet FCC specs like any other electronic device.

Unless the FDA wants to proclaim that your computer is part a "tobacco product", they're going to be hard pressed to convince any judge that the electronic components of the e-cig themselves is also a tobacco product (which is what that bill was really all about).

The ban of e-cigs will come about not because of conserns on public health, it will come about because the main goal of the tobacco bill (to increase the sales of cigarettes by reducing nicotine content causing people to buy more and smoke deeper) will be seriously underminded by people switching over to a product that they can't regulate or tax.

Philip Morris, the mass murders of the American People, will have none of that.
 

hanover fist

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 2, 2009
319
1
Here are some of the facts about tobacco taxes today:
  • Since 1998, governments at all levels have collected more than $284 BILLION in cigarette taxes and payments from smokers.
  • Settlement payments, federal, and state and local taxes on cigarettes for fiscal year 2007 amounted to more than $34.3 BILLION.
    • Federal excise taxes - $7,307,440,000
    • State and local excise taxes - $15,087,691,000
    • State cigarette sales taxes - $4,764,730,000
    • Tobacco settlement payments - $7,200,000,000
  • The government per-pack profit from cigarettes in 2007 was $2.22 (or 50 percent of the cost of a pack of cigarettes), more than seven times the profit of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.
  • In 2007, government pocketed more tobacco revenue per minute ($65,328) than the average smoker brought home in a year ($34,975).
  • Adult smokers make up about 19.7 percent of the population, yet smokers as a group are the only ones singled out for more and more "sin" taxes. Compare state cigarette excise tax revenue to tax revenue on beer and wine.
  • The median household income for an adult smoker is $34,975, compared to $49,429 for a non-smoker.
  • Cigarette tax increase proposals are made frequently - usually to fund new or expanded government programs.
    • Since 2001, 44 states have increased tobacco taxes.
    • Since 2000, federal taxes on a pack of cigarettes have increased 62.5 percent.
    • Since 1998, the average cost of a pack of cigarettes has more than doubled (from $2.09 to $4.43).
 

seminolewind

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Apr 5, 2009
1,709
2,418
Corydon Indiana
I know all the reasons why the big three want to see a ban on e-cigs, and spread the word as much as I can. It's money, money and money.

The point of this thread is that they can substanciate (sp) banning nicotine, but can they supply enough reason to ban e-cig parts or 0 nicotine juice. Nicotine appears to be their biggest or only argument. Where would they be without nicotine in the equation????
 

Two-A-T

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 8, 2009
133
0
St Pauls, NC USA
States any device that simulates smoking and or release vapor or combustion.
If this is how the ban is worded, Wouldnt it also ban the public use of asthma inhalers, nebulizers and such?
I am growing my own Tobacco, so my main issue is soon to be solved
We will be doing the same (live in NC - plenty of tobacco around here!)!!
 

seminolewind

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Apr 5, 2009
1,709
2,418
Corydon Indiana
States any device that simulates smoking and or release vapor or combustion. Thats why we are fighting this early ban, at these rates on a cold day exhaling will be a fine. I am growing my own Tobacco, so my main issue is soon to be solved:evil:

That "any device" business is looking stupid. It's amazing how things can be worded in a way that singles a product out.
Is this how they banned all the paraphanalia (sp) that simulates smoking legal herbs?

Imagine getting a ticket that reads "was illegally simulating smoking and releasing vapor in public" ? And a cop writing that with a straight face?
 

scintar

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 21, 2009
359
6
Pinellas Park FL
That "any device" business is looking stupid. It's amazing how things can be worded in a way that singles a product out.
Is this how they banned all the paraphanalia (sp) that simulates smoking legal herbs?

Imagine getting a ticket that reads "was illegally simulating smoking and releasing vapor in public" ? And a cop writing that with a straight face?
It would not suprise me If the cops (expecially here in Florida) would see you sucking on a device producing what appears to be smoke while driving down the road would be grounds for stoppage and you would have a lot of explaining to do. I can see a ticket happening when vaping in a no smoking zone, court costs after you loose and mabe probation if you don't have a good atitude after loosing you case.
 

STILLSMOK9

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 22, 2009
1,042
22
Esoteric State of America
There are definitely many ways that e-cigs are not bannable. Problem being is they are a threat to big tobacco, big pharma, and tobacco taxes in the trillions. You would be hard pressed to find a stronger lobbying group. I do think you'll still be able to get them but just the inconvenience that is associated with customs right now could make it a large pain in the @$$.
What about Aspartame!! It is banned in many countries, but in the USA it is FDA approved?:(

I know nicotine could not be worse than Aspartame!!

I believe there only two states opposed to the banning of aspartame, which are the ONLY defense to its existence.

Just curious if Coke, Pepsi or Equal are based out of those two states??
 

redjazzy1

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 14, 2009
108
0
Florida
Here are some of the facts about tobacco taxes today:
  • Since 1998, governments at all levels have collected more than $284 BILLION in cigarette taxes and payments from smokers.
  • Settlement payments, federal, and state and local taxes on cigarettes for fiscal year 2007 amounted to more than $34.3 BILLION.
    • Federal excise taxes - $7,307,440,000
    • State and local excise taxes - $15,087,691,000
    • State cigarette sales taxes - $4,764,730,000
    • Tobacco settlement payments - $7,200,000,000
  • The government per-pack profit from cigarettes in 2007 was $2.22 (or 50 percent of the cost of a pack of cigarettes), more than seven times the profit of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.
  • In 2007, government pocketed more tobacco revenue per minute ($65,328) than the average smoker brought home in a year ($34,975).
  • Adult smokers make up about 19.7 percent of the population, yet smokers as a group are the only ones singled out for more and more "sin" taxes. Compare state cigarette excise tax revenue to tax revenue on beer and wine.
  • The median household income for an adult smoker is $34,975, compared to $49,429 for a non-smoker.
  • Cigarette tax increase proposals are made frequently - usually to fund new or expanded government programs.
    • Since 2001, 44 states have increased tobacco taxes.
    • Since 2000, federal taxes on a pack of cigarettes have increased 62.5 percent.
    • Since 1998, the average cost of a pack of cigarettes has more than doubled (from $2.09 to $4.43).
Thanks for the info!! Where did you come by it? Or did you do all that 'searc yourself (if so, go YOU!)Either way, would it be okay for me to use all/part of it for some literature for an organized Vape-In?
 

seminolewind

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Verified Member
Apr 5, 2009
1,709
2,418
Corydon Indiana
I LOVE vaping aspartame!:D

3891_canecheride.gif
 

hanover fist

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 2, 2009
319
1
Thanks for the info!! Where did you come by it? Or did you do all that 'searc yourself (if so, go YOU!)Either way, would it be okay for me to use all/part of it for some literature for an organized Vape-In?

The info came form RJ Reynolds
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company - Legal & Regulatory - Tobacco Taxes and Payments - Facts About Tobacco Taxes
also check this out from the Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 31, 2006; Page A01
Nicotine Up Sharply In Many Cigarettes - washingtonpost.com

The amount of nicotine in most cigarettes rose an average of almost 10 percent from 1998 to 2004, with brands most popular with young people and minorities registering the biggest increases and highest nicotine content, according to a new study.
Nicotine is highly addictive, and while no one has studied the effect of the increases on smokers, the higher levels theoretically could make new smokers more easily addicted and make it harder for established smokers to quit.
The trend was discovered by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, which requires that tobacco companies measure the nicotine content of cigarettes each year and report the results.
As measured using a method that mimics actual smoking, the nicotine delivered per cigarette -- the "yield" -- rose 9.9 percent from 1998 to 2004 -- from 1.72 milligrams to 1.89. The total nicotine content increased an average of 16.6 percent in that period, and the amount of nicotine per gram of tobacco increased 11.3 percent.
The study, reported by the Boston Globe, found that 92 of 116 brands tested had higher nicotine yields in 2004 than in 1998, and 52 had increases of more than 10 percent.
Boxes of Doral lights, a low-tar brand made by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., had the biggest increase in yield, 36 percent. Some of this may have been the result of an increase in the total amount of tobacco put in that brand's cigarettes, one expert said.
The nicotine in Marlboro products, preferred by two-thirds of high school smokers, increased 12 percent. Kool lights increased 30 percent. Two-thirds of African American smokers use menthol brands.
Not only did most brands have more nicotine in 2004, the number of brands with very high nicotine yields also rose.
In 1998, Newport 100s and unfiltered Camels were tied for highest nicotine yield at 2.9 milligrams. In 2004, Newport had risen to 3.2 milligrams, and five brands measured 3 milligrams or higher.
"The reports are stunning," said Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "What's critical is the consistency of the increase, which leads to the conclusion that it has to have been conscious and deliberate."
"People need to be aware of this," said Sally Fogerty, Massachusetts's associate commissioner for community health. "If a person is trying to quit and is having a hard time, it's not just them. There is an increasing percentage of nicotine that they are ingesting, and that may make it more difficult."
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also focused on the potential behavioral consequences of the finding.
"We know nicotine is addictive, so if the amount of nicotine in cigarettes is increasing, it could make it even harder for the 70 percent of smokers who want to quit and the more than 40 percent who try to quit every year," Corinne Husten, acting director of the CDC's Office on Smoking and Health, said in an e-mail message.
No spokesman for a tobacco company would speak on the record about the Massachusetts findings yesterday.
One company official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that while the nicotine content measured by smoking machines can vary by up to 6 percent between individual cigarettes of the same brand, "we don't know" whether an entire brand's production could differ that much from year to year.
But in a 1,653-page opinion released two weeks ago in a landmark suit against the major tobacco companies by the federal government and several anti-smoking organizations, the judge found that cigarette makers adjusted nicotine levels with great care.
"Using the knowledge produced by that research, defendants have designed their cigarettes to precisely control nicotine delivery levels and provide doses of nicotine sufficient to create and sustain addiction," wrote U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler.
The ruling enjoined the companies from misinforming the public about tobacco's hazards. The companies are uncertain what that means and cited the ruling yesterday as the chief reason for their silence. Reynolds and Lorillard Tobacco Co. have also temporarily shut down their Web sites.
Reginald V. Fant, a clinical pharmacologist and nicotine expert at Pinney Associates, a consulting firm in Bethesda, said increasing nicotine content by 10 percent "would not be expected" to change how much a person smokes but could affect his ability to quit.
"We know that physiologically the changes in the nicotine receptors in the brain are related to the amount of nicotine consumed," he said.
Neal Benowitz, a physician and pharmacologist at the University of California at San Francisco, said, "I don't think we know what the consequences are for the population in terms of addictive behavior and how hard it is for people to quit."
Myers said the Massachusetts findings are evidence that tobacco products should be more strictly regulated.
"The only way the companies were able to secretly increase nicotine levels without anyone knowing about it is because no federal agency regulates tobacco products," he said.
 

hanover fist

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 2, 2009
319
1
States any device that simulates smoking and or release vapor or combustion. Thats why we are fighting this early ban, at these rates on a cold day exhaling will be a fine. I am growing my own Tobacco, so my main issue is soon to be solved:evil:


Did you know that growing you own Tobacco is against the law
 

Sar

Super Member
ECF Veteran
Mar 27, 2009
534
7
New York, NY
Okay, so this is FDA's mission (from: What We Do)

"The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation."

There is more, but the above is probably the most relevant part. Some e-cig manufacturers claim that e-cigs are smoking cessation devices, so it is possible that FDA would classify them as "medical devices". That would be much better than if they focused on e-liquid and classified that as a drug because medical devices are much easier to get passed through FDA.

Medical devices are regulated by FDA's Center for Devices and Radiologic Health (CDRH) and they consider long approval process as preventing innovation so to speed things up they group medical devices to 3 groups based on the perceived risk:

Group/class I is low risk and normally there are just special labeling and manufacturing requirements for such devices.

Class II is higher risk level and need pre-market review under something called "510k" process under which the manufacturer needs to show that the new device is somehow based on already existing approved device that is already available. There is usually no or very limited clinical data needed. There already are inhaler devices for nicotine so it is possible that e-cig could fall into this group.

Class III is for devices that are technically new, and the approval is much more elaborate.

The interesting point is that there is "FDA clearance" (as a result of the 510k review) and "FDA approval" that is really only for devices that go through the elaborate class III review. The e-cig doesn't need to get "FDA approval", it only needs to get "FDA clearance" which is relatively easy to get.
 

HighTech

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 25, 2009
175
0
USA
Okay, so this is FDA's mission

"The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation."

There is more, but the above is probably the most relevant part. Some e-cig manufacturers claim that e-cigs are smoking cessation devices, so it is possible that FDA would classify them as "medical devices". That would be much better than if they focused on e-liquid and classified that as a drug because medical devices are much easier to get passed through FDA.

Medical devices are regulated by FDA's Center for Devices and Radiologic Health (CDRH) and they consider long approval process as preventing innovation so to speed things up they group medical devices to 3 groups based on the perceived risk:

Group/class I is low risk and normally there are just special labeling and manufacturing requirements for such devices.

Class II is higher risk level and need pre-market review under something called "510k" process under which the manufacturer needs to show that the new device is somehow based on already existing approved device that is already available. There is usually no or very limited clinical data needed. There already are inhaler devices for nicotine so it is possible that e-cig could fall into this group.

Class III is for devices that are technically new, and the approval is much more elaborate.

The interesting point is that there is "FDA clearance" (as a result of the 510k review) and "FDA approval" that is really only for devices that go through the elaborate class III review. The e-cig doesn't need to get "FDA approval", it only needs to get "FDA clearance" which is relatively easy to get.

AND... they [the FDA] have said [unofficially?] that the e-cig was classified as a "Combination Device". Definition of which is a Drug Delivery Device and a Drug.

Public health? Pooie... it's all bout money... :cry:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread