Why shouldn't the FDA interfere?
- Thread starter Bellinghamster
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
lol. I never banned people for disagreeing with me, anyway. I remember a few bans at the other site for a few people doing personal insults left and right. Oh, and spammers...I banned the **** of those damned things.
I received a couple "Hey! I'm a real person" PM's and emails, which lead me to remove a couple bans and advise of the policies.
I'm not sure if your post was just humorous or a shot at my fascist style...but hey, to each their own.
Ahhh! You were a mod! I was trying to figure out what the hell Candy Girls comment meant and figured it was probably something so cool and trendy it was going over my head.
Whew.
Whew.
Kate..
my braincells are few and far between.. but.. i believe the PEG400 studies were actually part of the PG studies.. ie.. at same time.. can't swear to this but i thought that was what i read in a thread here somewhere about using PEG instead of PG.. i DO recall for sure that the TW lab results suggested using Glyerol instead of PG as PG was considered a POSSIBLE risk... without personal researching that screams to me of better tested..
Lacey..
have you read some of the side effects of lobela inflata?? some of the things i read on the wiki when i first saw you mention it make me OVERLY hesitent.. especially the "emetic (induces vomiting)"
now.. as far as the "personal attacks" in the thread... seriously people.. it's suppossed to be a debate.. not a pissing contest.. please drop the ego at the door and accept that there's a distinct possibility that others here may actually have a valid point to make and they don't need someone randomly sh*tting on it...
PS: there's nothing wrong with analogies as long as it's thrown and left lying where it landed... it shouldn't NEED repeating as if it did.. the meaning was lost
Yeah..I don't have a problem with analogies on a forum discussion. Just because something is a logical fallacy doesn't mean it's false. It just means it has to potential to be misused.
I've seen 2 lab studies now and both have recommended Glycol be used instead of PG.
I've seen 2 lab studies now and both have recommended Glycol be used instead of PG.
just did my hunting for the thread on PEG... obviously Kate would know the thread better than i.. seeing as she has posted to it with info and i only skimmed through it...
i did find an interesting post in that very thread though dealing with an extended testing of PG in monkeys which showed NO ill effect after 18 months of constant breathing exposure (poor monkeys... they were autopsied afterwards)
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/health-safety-e-smoking/8404-polyethylene-glycol-400-a.html
i did find an interesting post in that very thread though dealing with an extended testing of PG in monkeys which showed NO ill effect after 18 months of constant breathing exposure (poor monkeys... they were autopsied afterwards
)http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/health-safety-e-smoking/8404-polyethylene-glycol-400-a.html
I'm still looking. There was one about 5 weeks ago that was a PDF file that I had to download to view. I can't remember the supplier that had it but I'll keep looking.
If you want the PEG threads Tauki do a tag search for PEG, I think there are two of them. I'm not really following the issue very well because I mostly don't care anymore. I haven't bothered to look into it in any way and only Sedansa are using it so far.
I think the Wicked report has been referred to a few times Nuck, maybe you've seen the same on twice. The only toxicology reports I can remember seeing are for SuperSmokers, Wicked and Ruyan. Wicked is the only one that mentions changing the formula to glycerine.
I think the Wicked report has been referred to a few times Nuck, maybe you've seen the same on twice. The only toxicology reports I can remember seeing are for SuperSmokers, Wicked and Ruyan. Wicked is the only one that mentions changing the formula to glycerine.
Yeah, you're probably right. Knowing the members of this forum it is HIGHLY unlikely that a lab report could sit and not be noticed.
Now, I'm going to say one more thing...probably what you would all call the "most intelligent" thing I ever said.
Can we add a poll to this thread with the few options that have been presented? Options I propose...
"What requirements should the FDA put on e-cig devices and e-liquid?"
1. Labeling of contents ONLY.
2. Labeling of contents along with heavy regulation of marketing materials until lab studies are completed on the e-liquid and e-device effects.
3. Insert other items....
Now, those are really the two things I've seen so far. The questions are:
"What's going in our bodies?" and
"Can the marketing claims be proven?"
If there's any others, please feel free...I would just like to see a poll so we can start seeing a measurable opinion. (Plus, when you hit 20 pages...a lot gets lost.)
Can we add a poll to this thread with the few options that have been presented? Options I propose...
"What requirements should the FDA put on e-cig devices and e-liquid?"
1. Labeling of contents ONLY.
2. Labeling of contents along with heavy regulation of marketing materials until lab studies are completed on the e-liquid and e-device effects.
3. Insert other items....
Now, those are really the two things I've seen so far. The questions are:
"What's going in our bodies?" and
"Can the marketing claims be proven?"
If there's any others, please feel free...I would just like to see a poll so we can start seeing a measurable opinion. (Plus, when you hit 20 pages...a lot gets lost.)
i think the only requirements should be:
no quit smoking claims
no "it's healthy" claims (but allow implied healthy by telling the truth - "does not contain the 40+ carcinogens found in cigarettes")
poison warning
child-resistant packaging
no quit smoking claims
no "it's healthy" claims (but allow implied healthy by telling the truth - "does not contain the 40+ carcinogens found in cigarettes")
poison warning
child-resistant packaging
Good ones. So....you would like the regulation on marketing materials (false/unquantifiable claims).
And better packaging.
It would probably be best to allow members to choose multiple options....the list can get long.
DisMan, we're in agreement!
I'd like to solicit options from the group, as I only get one shot at the poll. I'm tempted to focus it to just e-liquid, as I don't think anyone can rationally argue that the FDA should regulate the devices themselves. Please correct me if I'm wrong
Please let's not argue about what we *think* will happen, just what we believe *should* happen.
"What requirements should the FDA put on e-liquid?"
1. Childproof caps
2. Prominent poison warnings
3. Ingredient listings
4. 3rd party analysis results
5. Batch testing
6. Restriction of sale to minors
7. Expiration date
8. Manufacturer
9. pH
10. Nicotine concentration in standardized format [mg/ml]
11. None at all
Please feel free to suggest adds/removals for the next 24 hours.
Thanks!
I'd like to solicit options from the group, as I only get one shot at the poll. I'm tempted to focus it to just e-liquid, as I don't think anyone can rationally argue that the FDA should regulate the devices themselves. Please correct me if I'm wrong
Please let's not argue about what we *think* will happen, just what we believe *should* happen.
"What requirements should the FDA put on e-liquid?"
1. Childproof caps
2. Prominent poison warnings
3. Ingredient listings
4. 3rd party analysis results
5. Batch testing
6. Restriction of sale to minors
7. Expiration date
8. Manufacturer
9. pH
10. Nicotine concentration in standardized format [mg/ml]
11. None at all
Please feel free to suggest adds/removals for the next 24 hours.
Thanks!
Last edited:
forgot about the "no sale to persons under 18" bit. Add that to my list of what should be required - thanks bellinghamster
and nic strength - thanks kate
and nic strength - thanks kate
DisMan, we're in agreement!
I'd like to solicit options from the group, as I only get one shot at the poll. I'm tempted to focus it to just e-liquid, as I don't think anyone can rationally argue that the FDA should regulate the devices themselves. Please correct me if I'm wrong
Please let's not argue about what we *think* will happen, just what we believe *should* happen.
"What requirements should the FDA put on e-liquid?"
1. Childproof caps
2. Prominent poison warnings
3. Ingredient listings
4. 3rd party anaysis results
5. Batch testing
6. Restriction of sale to minors
7. None at all
Please feel free to suggest adds/removals for the next 24 hours.
Thanks!
That list looks very comprehensive--not much more to add except warnings about the effects studies have shown on the use of nicotine (Effect on Heart). These actions are mandatory if a Suppiler ever is going to get any kind of Products Liablilty protection and someday insurance--as it stands now--no insurance company is going to cover a claim with the defense that what is being sold is considered not legal---Strict Liability and no Corporate sheild is going to bar a claim if someone susbstains damages--so this list is a good start---Sun
Updated:
"What requirements should the FDA put on e-liquid?"
1. Childproof caps
2. Prominent poison warnings on label
3. Ingredient listings on label
4. 3rd party analysis results available
5. Batch testing performed and certified
6. Restriction of sale to minors
7. Expiration date on label
8. Manufacturer listed on label
9. pH level listed on label
10. Nicotine concentration in standardized format [mg/ml] listed on label
11. None at all
Still open for suggestions
"What requirements should the FDA put on e-liquid?"
1. Childproof caps
2. Prominent poison warnings on label
3. Ingredient listings on label
4. 3rd party analysis results available
5. Batch testing performed and certified
6. Restriction of sale to minors
7. Expiration date on label
8. Manufacturer listed on label
9. pH level listed on label
10. Nicotine concentration in standardized format [mg/ml] listed on label
11. None at all
Still open for suggestions
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
