- Status
That changes nothing and does nothing to validate your original point. Fail troll is fail.
Well. Evidently someone doesn't like being wrong.
The word "ship" is the key element in the OPs argument. Ignoring it reflects poorly on you, not him.
I thought "without nicotine" carried mroe weight than "shipping". His suggestion is to only ship 0mg carts, which would mean that we would be responsible for adding nicotine ourselves. So his point is rediculous and your attempt to back it up doesn't even back up what he was saying. But whatever.
Actually, FDA recently told my senator "FDA has not taken steps to ban the importation of such products." Then, they pass the buck of responsibility with "Congress has directed the Agency, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act)..."
Look here to read the letter from FDA.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/campaigning/18431-alabama-senator-richard-shelby.html
Last edited:
Shipping just the device, and then we buy our nic juice from home brew or however.. Makes perfect sense to me. Don't see how they can ban an empty device that does nothing by itself.
Unless they're getting their nicotine from China.
The FDA is full of propaganda to support their power grab for legislation over these devices. If they "officially" use this as an argument, there will be much litigation over it. It is an non-defensible argument against the devices. They say that only to sway public opinion which will be the "real" battle that must be fought - control of public opinion.
the raw tobacco or other products needed to produce your own juice would/will skyrocket as the fda would regulate the products....growing your own tobacco in your yard is not even safe.
Yes it does. "Ship" basically means "sell" in this context. In other words, you buy the PV without any nicotine products attached. That does NOT mean that you can't buy nicotine liquid separately. There are plenty of outlets that only sell the liquid. Johnson Creek for example. The idea here is to decouple the device from the drug. I'm not sure why some people are having a hard time grasping the concept.
Exactly. As I said, FDA policy towards PVs is not written in stone at this point. They're taking shipments on a case by case basis and they have no formalized regulatory framework around them.
It's important to understand that this fight is far from over. Don't succumb to the pessimists here who would suggest otherwise.
Johnson Creek sells swamp water that turns green and kills atomizers, and is way overpriced. I wouldn't use their juice if it was free and delivered to my front door. Their problems were supposedly dealt with, but I've heard recent reports that their juice is still terrible. And I see you changed your point now that you reread his OP and saw that he suggested selling 0mg carts.
Which in no way addresses my central point, since I was just using Johnson Creek as an example.
insert_namehere
Unregistered Supplier
Folks!
Don't get so snippy with each other! Face it, you all are your only allies in the world of e-cigs - this divisive stuff is bad news.
I think, unfortunately, as other people have already stated that the batt, atomizer and cart, regardless of nicotine have already been perceived in a certain context by the folks, agencies and organizations that have issues with non-Big-Pharmacy nicotine. As a result, it's moot to try and figure out too late how to separate the issue of nicotine from the issue of the device.
It's sort of like calling 'em PV's rather than e-cigs - too little, too late.
I'm thinking we need to approach the argument as one of "whatever you want to call them - they don't seem to pose a health or comfort risk to anyone NOT using them".
Don't get so snippy with each other! Face it, you all are your only allies in the world of e-cigs - this divisive stuff is bad news.
I think, unfortunately, as other people have already stated that the batt, atomizer and cart, regardless of nicotine have already been perceived in a certain context by the folks, agencies and organizations that have issues with non-Big-Pharmacy nicotine. As a result, it's moot to try and figure out too late how to separate the issue of nicotine from the issue of the device.
It's sort of like calling 'em PV's rather than e-cigs - too little, too late.
I'm thinking we need to approach the argument as one of "whatever you want to call them - they don't seem to pose a health or comfort risk to anyone NOT using them".
- Status
