When is the FDA thing going down?

[zapped]

You live in sunny & warm San Diego and would consider living in the weather armpit known as Cincinnati?

I would live ANYWHERE before living in California. 90 percent of the stupidest laws in this country originated in California.I remember them being the first state in the country to ban smoking in bars......so alcohol and driving under the influence is okay but smoking isnt...got it.

Combine that with the high cost of living, wildfires, earthquakes and toilet-to-tap water and I'll have to pass.

 

[kristin]

You're missing the whole point. A law prohibiting you from doing something safe and legal in the privacy of your own home shouldn't even EXIST! People shouldn't have to hide inside away from the window to vape because it is prohibited even outside on their patio or balconey! Whether it's enforceable or not isnt relevant. The very existence of the law is offensive. A year or two ago a vaper staying in a non-smoking hotel room had to pay a huge fee for "smoking" in the room. No one saw her vaping and obviously no one could have smelled vapor left in the room. Maybe some staff just reported her after seeing her ecig laying on the bed and imagined they smelled smoke. No proof needed. Either way, these laws and rules against vaping in private CAN end up costing people.

 

[LaraC]

A year or two ago a vaper staying in a non-smoking hotel room had to pay a huge fee for "smoking" in the room. No one saw her vaping and obviously no one could have smelled vapor left in the room. Maybe some staff just reported her after seeing her ecig laying on the bed and imagined they smelled smoke. No proof needed. Either way, these laws and rules against vaping in private CAN end up costing people.

I did a search and found this thread about the woman who was fined for vaping in a Marriott hotel room:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/media-general-news/238917-marriott-fines-guest-vaping.html

 

[DC2]

You live in sunny & warm San Diego and would consider living in the weather armpit known as Cincinnati?

No, not really.

 

[Berylanna]

You're missing the whole point. A law prohibiting you from doing something safe and legal in the privacy of your own home shouldn't even EXIST! People shouldn't have to hide inside away from the window to vape because it is prohibited even outside on their patio or balconey! Whether it's enforceable or not isnt relevant. The very existence of the law is offensive. A year or two ago a vaper staying in a non-smoking hotel room had to pay a huge fee for "smoking" in the room. No one saw her vaping and obviously no one could have smelled vapor left in the room. Maybe some staff just reported her after seeing her ecig laying on the bed and imagined they smelled smoke. No proof needed. Either way, these laws and rules against vaping in private CAN end up costing people.

I think one of the main reasons this passed in Contra Costa County is the Dr. ANTZ just plain LIED in his testimony and nobody came after him, he was the last. He said smoking and therefore vaping are not forbidden in your own home.

What he meant was, it's only in new construction -- though I heard it might apply to new rental contracts, I didn't look it up.

That is cowardly and wimpy, another half-lie like the FDA's "not a safe alternative" -- if the laws don't allow anyone to forbid you to smoke in a place where you have a lease pre-dating the law, it avoids court issues but unless the law has a 1-year sunset, it will eventually apply everywhere.

 

[Ferrel1134]

This just blows my mind. If I was still a smoker I went out side. At hotels they never fined me for just having smokes. ... man ....

 

[BuGlen]

You live in sunny & warm San Diego and would consider living in the weather armpit known as Cincinnati?

He said Cincinnati, not Syracuse! Sorry, I spent 14 years of my life in Syracuse and I will defend the weather in just about any other city in the nation over that place. The only place I know of in the US that gets less sun shine is Seattle, but at least they have a great culture center there.

 

[Berylanna]

He said Cincinnati, not Syracuse! Sorry, I spent 14 years of my life in Syracuse and I will defend the weather in just about any other city in the nation over that place. The only place I know of in the US that gets less sun shine is Seattle, but at least they have a great culture center there.

If you're only talking about winter, the folks in Barrow might have the win there.

 

[MMarie]

Middle of April and Minneapolis just got buried in another foot of snow this week. I think Minnesota is definitely a contender for worst weather in the states.

 

[BuGlen]

If you're only talking about winter, the folks in Barrow might have the win there.

I concede. I don't think I could even fathom an Alaskan winter!

 

[Ferrel1134]

St. Paul mn here and this winter just won't end. Go all the ice cleared out only to lose my side walk way again. Oh and the back deck.

 

[VClouds]

I have a silly question for you all.

If a company sold nicotine that could be certified as coming from a plant other than tobacco what would happen to the FDA's control of it as a vaping additive?

While tobacco is the best source per pound for nicotine, it's not the only source. Anybody know what it would take to cultivate one of the other nicotine containing plants into something with a higher concentration?

Just me thinking that almost everybody is trying to control nicotine as a tobacco produce and wondering what would happen if it came from another source all together.

Worth thinking about in the long run I'd say.

 

[DC2]

Just me thinking that almost everybody is trying to control nicotine as a tobacco produce and wondering what would happen if it came from another source all together.

I believe that tobacco is protected from normal drug regulations, which is what keeps nicotine from being declared a drug.
My guess is that if nicotine were derived from another source, the FDA would declare that nicotine to be a drug.

In a perfect world, nicotine would be treated exactly the same as caffeine.
And neither one of them would be treated as drugs.

 

[VClouds]

I believe that tobacco is protected from normal drug regulations, which is what keeps nicotine from being declared a drug.
My guess is that if nicotine were derived from another source, the FDA would declare that nicotine to be a drug.

In a perfect world, nicotine would be treated exactly the same as caffeine.
And neither one of them would be treated as drugs.

Your probably right, they will try and screw with us one way or the other.

Welcome to the USA.
Land of the free??? (in a pig's eye)

Totally agree should be treated same as caffeine.

 

[Drael]

I have a silly question for you all.

If a company sold nicotine that could be certified as coming from a plant other than tobacco what would happen to the FDA's control of it as a vaping additive?

While tobacco is the best source per pound for nicotine, it's not the only source. Anybody know what it would take to cultivate one of the other nicotine containing plants into something with a higher concentration?

Just me thinking that almost everybody is trying to control nicotine as a tobacco produce and wondering what would happen if it came from another source all together.

Worth thinking about in the long run I'd say.

Theres an australian plant thats very high in nicotine (more than tobacco I beleive). And yeah, I doubt you could call it a tobacco product, if its not made from tobacco. If indeed these regulations where a problem finacially for the industry, its conceivable it would create a new form of farming with this australian plant. As an outsider, I think these are going to be more like soft regulations though, but the existance of usable alternative nicotine sources is notable in the context.

 

[kristin]

The FDA regulates nicotine sold for human consumption regardless of the source, but just recently it also got power over tobacco products. As far as the FDA is concerned, nicotine is nicotine just like to the ATF alcohol is alcohol. It doesn't matter where it came from. The only question is whether the product is regulated as a drug or a tobacco product. If nicotine starts to be sourced from another plant, the FDA would still figure out a way to regulate it. The public believes nicotine is as "addictive as hero-n" and the ANTZ are convincing them that people will start with nicotine in e-cigarettes and graduate to smoking. As long as people believe those lies then nicotine will not be considered a safe product and will easily be restricted by the FDA with public support. The only way we can change this belief is to get the truth out that smokeless tobacco is no more deadly than sucking on coffee beans or tea leaves and should be treated like those products, not like inhaled combustible products. Once the public loses it's fear of tobacco "in general," then the door will be open to other smokeless nicotine use in forms like e-cigarettes. But so long as the public thinks all tobacco/nicotine use is equally hazardous and the ultimate goal is abstinence, e-cigarettes will be guilty by association.