Ratius wrote:
I too vape after quitting. Is this a genuine health reason they are outlawing (fair enough if so) or political bollox?

E-cig by themselves haven't really had much actual real-world testing and studies to see if there is any bad effects to vaporizing liquids that are produced with no real control and oversight and which directly enter your lungs and blood stream. So I also won't disagree that there are more studies needed on that front.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
There is no proof that vaping is a healthier alternative. Without any regulation, there's no way to tell what actual effects vaping has on your body. That's what the FDA is there for, to regulate any industry that produces a product we consume.

Of course "Big Tobacco" wants them regulated. I would too if my competition had basically the same product but zero oversight or regulation.

 gorgon wrote:
Yeah, I think there are good and obvious reasons why the medical community is very wary of the health effects of inhaling a bunch of vaporized chemicals on a regular basis. Especially when the companies manufacturing these things are the same companies who worked to cover up the health risks of their other products AND manipulated levels of the drug in said products to keep their customers addicted.

I'm also not in favor of giving points for "quitting" when people switch from cigs to e-cigs. If you want to quit and truly improve your health, you quit nicotine altogether.

 Peregrine wrote:
So, why exactly is it that a product containing the same drug as tobacco shouldn't be regulated the same way?

Also, IMO the only problem with this situation is that tobacco isn't banned entirely. Ban vaping, ban smoking, and the world will not miss either.

 Manchu wrote:
"Big Tobacco" has invested a lot of money in vaping over the last few years, both in terms of buying up companies and developing products. If I was working for Philip Morris or another tobacco company, I would want some regulation for vape products but certainly not for the sake of stymieing the market for them. That would be idiotic, given the existing investments. Rather, I'd want regulation so that (1) the health risks around vaping at least looked more clear than they currently do (cancer warnings on cig packs didn't sink the business) and (2) there would be less risk in trying to bring these products to market without knowing what kind of regulatory schema will be in place - because there will certainly be regulations at one point.

 Manchu wrote:
"Big Tobacco" has invested a lot of money in vaping over the last few years, both in terms of buying up companies and developing products. If I was working for Philip Morris or another tobacco company, I would want some regulation for vape products but certainly not for the sake of stymieing the market for them. That would be idiotic, given the existing investments. Rather, I'd want regulation so that (1) the health risks around vaping at least looked more clear than they currently do (cancer warnings on cig packs didn't sink the business) and (2) there would be less risk in trying to bring these products to market without knowing what kind of regulatory schema will be in place - because there will certainly be regulations at one point.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Vaping definitely is a form of a drug and falls under FDA jurisdiction. Why is it even a question if they should be regulating it?

sirlynchmob wrote:
man look at all the democrats in here for bigger governments and more regulations.

I agree, they need more research especially before selling them to minors.

sirlynchmob wrote:
man look at all the democrats in here for bigger governments and more regulations.

I agree, they need more research especially before selling them to minors.

 Ratius wrote:
I too vape after quitting. Is this a genuine health reason they are outlawing (fair enough if so) or political bollox?

 Chief Tugboat wrote:
I'd venture to say that most legit E-liquid manufacturing companies WANT some sort of regulation. The "wild west" aspect of any new industry is usually a very turbulent and unpredictable time making it hard to get real testing and regulations passed.

But the way the FDA goes about these new regulations is to put out this 500 pg document of legal jargon (standard) that the average consumer will struggle to get through. They make reference to several "studies" (which they provide no sources or further information for) that link vaping to higher teen smoking etc. etc. AKA THINK OF THE CHILDREN emotional rhetoric BS. This subject hits home for me personally as my family had a B&M vape shop, and my Girlfriend works for Molecule Labs, which is one of the biggest legitimate E-liquid producers in CA and the country for that matter.

They are all for regulations that make sense. But of course nothing is that simple with the FDA. Its definitely weird times and it will be interesting to see how things end up..


Here is a cool inside look at Molecule Labs if anyone is interested in how proper manufacturing should be done ( my GF Christina is at the 27 min haha ) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3SoujCcJa0

 Desubot wrote:

 Chief Tugboat wrote:
I'd venture to say that most legit E-liquid manufacturing companies WANT some sort of regulation. The "wild west" aspect of any new industry is usually a very turbulent and unpredictable time making it hard to get real testing and regulations passed.

But the way the FDA goes about these new regulations is to put out this 500 pg document of legal jargon (standard) that the average consumer will struggle to get through. They make reference to several "studies" (which they provide no sources or further information for) that link vaping to higher teen smoking etc. etc. AKA THINK OF THE CHILDREN emotional rhetoric BS. This subject hits home for me personally as my family had a B&M vape shop, and my Girlfriend works for Molecule Labs, which is one of the biggest legitimate E-liquid producers in CA and the country for that matter.

They are all for regulations that make sense. But of course nothing is that simple with the FDA. Its definitely weird times and it will be interesting to see how things end up..


Here is a cool inside look at Molecule Labs if anyone is interested in how proper manufacturing should be done ( my GF Christina is at the 27 min haha ) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3SoujCcJa0

Neet.
you guys make cuttwood eh?

thast honestly the only brand i recognize :/

 Ahtman wrote:
Anecdotal of course, but the people I have heard say they were going to use vaping to quit smoking did not. At this point it just feels disingenuous.

 Desubot wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Anecdotal of course, but the people I have heard say they were going to use vaping to quit smoking did not. At this point it just feels disingenuous.

It certainly can be the case.

i have friends that have quit smoking through vaping. as well as some that have not.

 Manchu wrote:
I feel like those who responded missed my point - given that regulation is a certainty at some point, it is better for the market that it comes sooner rather than later. Yes, this could be disastrous for smaller companies in the short term because they are positioned to take advantage of a regulation-free market. But that's a bad business plan, unless part of it involves a profitable exit strategy (like selling operations to "Big Tobacco," which is what the smart business people out there planned for). As for larger companies "weaponizing" regulation: This is really just the other side of the coin. It is really difficult to imagine anyone getting into this business sincerely counted on an indefinitely regulation-free market; quite the reverse, it was a case of making money while there was money to be made.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
I feel like those who responded missed my point - given that regulation is a certainty at some point, it is better for the market that it comes sooner rather than later. Yes, this could be disastrous for smaller companies in the short term because they are positioned to take advantage of a regulation-free market. But that's a bad business plan, unless part of it involves a profitable exit strategy (like selling operations to "Big Tobacco," which is what the smart business people out there planned for). As for larger companies "weaponizing" regulation: This is really just the other side of the coin. It is really difficult to imagine anyone getting into this business sincerely counted on an indefinitely regulation-free market; quite the reverse, it was a case of making money while there was money to be made.

This. It's the same thing that happened in Colorado and Washington with marijuana. People made as much as they could before the regulations came in, then bailed and shut down their businesses.

 Frazzled wrote:
Yet "bath crystals" and "synthetic weed" are sold in many of your finer convenience stores. You now the stuff where people take it and end up trying to eat somebody's face...

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:I don't know much about e-cigs and vaping (is there a difference between them?), but I've had FDA regulation pounded into my head for the last 5 years at work. The FDA started moving to regulate "pipe tobacco and little cigars" 4 years ago, they officially started regulating them in the beginning of the year, and they still have not printed their guidelines for manufacturing, and it will most likely be years before they start putting people in manufacturing plants. It's not going to affect the business for a long time, so the little guys have time to lobby and adjust before anything could happen to them.

KingCracker wrote:Regulations are fine with me. I'm sick of people walking around in stores and in public vaping and then puffing it in my Fracking face. Should be looked at like cigarettes IMO

 Nydhog wrote:

Except the FDA basically said they have 90 days to get things off the shelf already. Eh it's a matter of opinion. Such as I vape at SubOhm and have a mod, not an e-cig. Vaping is more just a verb and sort of an enthusiast term.

Before today, there was no federal law prohibiting retailers from selling e-cigarettes, hookah tobacco or cigars to people under age 18. Today’s rule changes that with provisions aimed at restricting youth access, which go into effect in 90 days, including:

Not allowing products to be sold to persons under the age of 18 years (both in person and online);
Requiring age verification by photo ID;
Not allowing the selling of covered tobacco products in vending machines (unless in an adult-only facility); and
Not allowing the distribution of free samples.
The actions being taken today will help the FDA pre

Today’s rule also requires manufacturers of all newly-regulated products, to show that the products meet the applicable public health standard set forth in the law and receive marketing authorization from the FDA, unless the product was on the market as of Feb. 15, 2007. The tobacco product review process gives the agency the ability to evaluate important factors such as ingredients, product design and health risks, as well as their appeal to youth and non-users.

Under staggered timelines, the FDA expects that manufacturers will continue selling their products for up to two years while they submit – and an additional year while the FDA reviews – a new tobacco product application. The FDA will issue an order granting marketing authorization where appropriate; otherwise, the product will face FDA enforcement.

 Nydhog wrote:

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:I don't know much about e-cigs and vaping (is there a difference between them?), but I've had FDA regulation pounded into my head for the last 5 years at work. The FDA started moving to regulate "pipe tobacco and little cigars" 4 years ago, they officially started regulating them in the beginning of the year, and they still have not printed their guidelines for manufacturing, and it will most likely be years before they start putting people in manufacturing plants. It's not going to affect the business for a long time, so the little guys have time to lobby and adjust before anything could happen to them.

Except the FDA basically said they have 90 days to get things off the shelf already. Eh it's a matter of opinion. Such as I vape at SubOhm and have a mod, not an e-cig. Vaping is more just a verb and sort of an enthusiast term.

 Chongara wrote:

 Nydhog wrote:

Except the FDA basically said they have 90 days to get things off the shelf already. Eh it's a matter of opinion. Such as I vape at SubOhm and have a mod, not an e-cig. Vaping is more just a verb and sort of an enthusiast term.

Can you please at least make some cursory attempt at verifying facts before going on the rage train to salty town? A simple google search for "FDA Regulation Annoucement" brings us to this:

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm499234.htm

Spoiler:

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration finalized a rule extending its authority to all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, cigars, hookah tobacco and pipe tobacco, among others. This historic rule helps implement the bipartisan Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 and allows the FDA to improve public health and protect future generations from the dangers of tobacco use through a variety of steps, including restricting the sale of these tobacco products to minors nationwide.

“We have more to do to help protect Americans from the dangers of tobacco and nicotine, especially our youth. As cigarette smoking among those under 18 has fallen, the use of other nicotine products, including e-cigarettes, has taken a drastic leap. All of this is creating a new generation of Americans who are at risk of addiction,” said HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell. “Today’s announcement is an important step in the fight for a tobacco-free generation – it will help us catch up with changes in the marketplace, put into place rules that protect our kids and give adults information they need to make informed decisions.”

Tobacco use is a significant public health threat. In fact, smoking is the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the United States and responsible for 480,000 deaths per year. While there has been a significant decline in the use of traditional cigarettes among youth over the past decade, their use of other tobacco products continues to climb. A recent survey supported by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows current e-cigarette use among high school students has skyrocketed from 1.5 percent in 2011 to 16 percent in 2015 (an over 900 percent increase) and hookah use has risen significantly. In 2015, 3 million middle and high school students were current e-cigarette users, and data showed high school boys smoked cigars at about the same rate as cigarettes. Additionally, a joint study by the FDA and the National Institutes of Health shows that in 2013-2014, nearly 80 percent of current youth tobacco users reported using a flavored tobacco product in the past 30 days – with the availability of appealing flavors consistently cited as a reason for use.

Before today, there was no federal law prohibiting retailers from selling e-cigarettes, hookah tobacco or cigars to people under age 18. Today’s rule changes that with provisions aimed at restricting youth access, which go into effect in 90 days, including:

Not allowing products to be sold to persons under the age of 18 years (both in person and online);
Requiring age verification by photo ID;
Not allowing the selling of covered tobacco products in vending machines (unless in an adult-only facility); and
Not allowing the distribution of free samples.
The actions being taken today will help the FDA prevent misleading claims by tobacco product manufacturers, evaluate the ingredients of tobacco products and how they are made, as well as communicate their potential risks.
Today’s rule also requires manufacturers of all newly-regulated products, to show that the products meet the applicable public health standard set forth in the law and receive marketing authorization from the FDA, unless the product was on the market as of Feb. 15, 2007. The tobacco product review process gives the agency the ability to evaluate important factors such as ingredients, product design and health risks, as well as their appeal to youth and non-users.

Under staggered timelines, the FDA expects that manufacturers will continue selling their products for up to two years while they submit – and an additional year while the FDA reviews – a new tobacco product application. The FDA will issue an order granting marketing authorization where appropriate; otherwise, the product will face FDA enforcement.

For decades, the federal government and the public health community have fought to protect people from the dangers of tobacco use. Since the first Surgeon General’s report on Smoking and Health in 1964, which warned Americans about the risks associated with smoking, significant progress has been made to reduce smoking rates among Americans. In fact, tobacco prevention and control efforts have saved at least 8 million lives in the last 50 years, according to the 2014 Surgeon General’s Report on the Health Consequences of Smoking. In 2009, Congress took a historic step in the fight for public health by passing the bipartisan Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA) giving the FDA authority to regulate the manufacturing, distribution and marketing of tobacco products to protect the public health.

Today’s action marks a new chapter in the FDA’s efforts to end preventable tobacco-related disease and death and is a milestone in consumer protection.

“As a physician, I’ve seen first-hand the devastating health effects of tobacco use,” said FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, M.D. “At the FDA, we must do our job under the Tobacco Control Act to reduce the harms caused by tobacco. That includes ensuring consumers have the information they need to make informed decisions about tobacco use and making sure that new tobacco products for purchase come under comprehensive FDA review.”

Today’s actions will subject all manufacturers, importers and/or retailers of newly- regulated tobacco products to any applicable provisions, bringing them in line with other tobacco products the FDA has regulated under the TCA since 2009.

These requirements include:

Registering manufacturing establishments and providing product listings to the FDA;
Reporting ingredients, and harmful and potentially harmful constituents;
Requiring premarket review and authorization of new tobacco products by the FDA;
Placing health warnings on product packages and advertisements; and
Not selling modified risk tobacco products (including those described as “light,” “low,” or “mild”) unless authorized by the FDA.
“This final rule is a foundational step that enables the FDA to regulate products young people were using at alarming rates, like e-cigarettes, cigars and hookah tobacco, that had gone largely unregulated,” said Mitch Zeller, J.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products. “The agency considered a number of factors in developing the rule and believes our approach is reasonable and balanced. Ultimately our job is to assess what’s happening at the population level before figuring out how to use all of the regulatory tools Congress gave the FDA.”
To assist the newly-regulated tobacco industry in complying with the requirements being announced today, the FDA is also publishing several other regulatory documents that provide additional clarity, instructions and/or the FDA’s current thinking on issues specific to the newly-regulated products.

The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.

The 90 Day limit is on sales to minors, not on pulling uncertified products:

Before today, there was no federal law prohibiting retailers from selling e-cigarettes, hookah tobacco or cigars to people under age 18. Today’s rule changes that with provisions aimed at restricting youth access, which go into effect in 90 days, including:

Not allowing products to be sold to persons under the age of 18 years (both in person and online);
Requiring age verification by photo ID;
Not allowing the selling of covered tobacco products in vending machines (unless in an adult-only facility); and
Not allowing the distribution of free samples.
The actions being taken today will help the FDA pre

The certification process has a 2-Year grace period for submission, and 3-Year grace period for approval. Existing products can continue to be sold, simply not to minors.

Today’s rule also requires manufacturers of all newly-regulated products, to show that the products meet the applicable public health standard set forth in the law and receive marketing authorization from the FDA, unless the product was on the market as of Feb. 15, 2007. The tobacco product review process gives the agency the ability to evaluate important factors such as ingredients, product design and health risks, as well as their appeal to youth and non-users.

Under staggered timelines, the FDA expects that manufacturers will continue selling their products for up to two years while they submit – and an additional year while the FDA reviews – a new tobacco product application. The FDA will issue an order granting marketing authorization where appropriate; otherwise, the product will face FDA enforcement.

Vapes, E-Cigs whatever you want to tell them are a drug delivery system. It's not only well within the powers of the FDA to regulate such things, but they have a responsibility to the public to do so. If anything these regulations are far too late coming.

 TheMeanDM wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Nydhog wrote:

Except the FDA basically said they have 90 days to get things off the shelf already. Eh it's a matter of opinion. Such as I vape at SubOhm and have a mod, not an e-cig. Vaping is more just a verb and sort of an enthusiast term.

Can you please at least make some cursory attempt at verifying facts before going on the rage train to salty town? A simple google search for "FDA Regulation Annoucement" brings us to this:

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm499234.htm

Spoiler:

Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration finalized a rule extending its authority to all tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, cigars, hookah tobacco and pipe tobacco, among others. This historic rule helps implement the bipartisan Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 and allows the FDA to improve public health and protect future generations from the dangers of tobacco use through a variety of steps, including restricting the sale of these tobacco products to minors nationwide.

“We have more to do to help protect Americans from the dangers of tobacco and nicotine, especially our youth. As cigarette smoking among those under 18 has fallen, the use of other nicotine products, including e-cigarettes, has taken a drastic leap. All of this is creating a new generation of Americans who are at risk of addiction,” said HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell. “Today’s announcement is an important step in the fight for a tobacco-free generation – it will help us catch up with changes in the marketplace, put into place rules that protect our kids and give adults information they need to make informed decisions.”

Tobacco use is a significant public health threat. In fact, smoking is the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the United States and responsible for 480,000 deaths per year. While there has been a significant decline in the use of traditional cigarettes among youth over the past decade, their use of other tobacco products continues to climb. A recent survey supported by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows current e-cigarette use among high school students has skyrocketed from 1.5 percent in 2011 to 16 percent in 2015 (an over 900 percent increase) and hookah use has risen significantly. In 2015, 3 million middle and high school students were current e-cigarette users, and data showed high school boys smoked cigars at about the same rate as cigarettes. Additionally, a joint study by the FDA and the National Institutes of Health shows that in 2013-2014, nearly 80 percent of current youth tobacco users reported using a flavored tobacco product in the past 30 days – with the availability of appealing flavors consistently cited as a reason for use.

Before today, there was no federal law prohibiting retailers from selling e-cigarettes, hookah tobacco or cigars to people under age 18. Today’s rule changes that with provisions aimed at restricting youth access, which go into effect in 90 days, including:

Not allowing products to be sold to persons under the age of 18 years (both in person and online);
Requiring age verification by photo ID;
Not allowing the selling of covered tobacco products in vending machines (unless in an adult-only facility); and
Not allowing the distribution of free samples.
The actions being taken today will help the FDA prevent misleading claims by tobacco product manufacturers, evaluate the ingredients of tobacco products and how they are made, as well as communicate their potential risks.
Today’s rule also requires manufacturers of all newly-regulated products, to show that the products meet the applicable public health standard set forth in the law and receive marketing authorization from the FDA, unless the product was on the market as of Feb. 15, 2007. The tobacco product review process gives the agency the ability to evaluate important factors such as ingredients, product design and health risks, as well as their appeal to youth and non-users.

Under staggered timelines, the FDA expects that manufacturers will continue selling their products for up to two years while they submit – and an additional year while the FDA reviews – a new tobacco product application. The FDA will issue an order granting marketing authorization where appropriate; otherwise, the product will face FDA enforcement.

For decades, the federal government and the public health community have fought to protect people from the dangers of tobacco use. Since the first Surgeon General’s report on Smoking and Health in 1964, which warned Americans about the risks associated with smoking, significant progress has been made to reduce smoking rates among Americans. In fact, tobacco prevention and control efforts have saved at least 8 million lives in the last 50 years, according to the 2014 Surgeon General’s Report on the Health Consequences of Smoking. In 2009, Congress took a historic step in the fight for public health by passing the bipartisan Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA) giving the FDA authority to regulate the manufacturing, distribution and marketing of tobacco products to protect the public health.

Today’s action marks a new chapter in the FDA’s efforts to end preventable tobacco-related disease and death and is a milestone in consumer protection.

“As a physician, I’ve seen first-hand the devastating health effects of tobacco use,” said FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, M.D. “At the FDA, we must do our job under the Tobacco Control Act to reduce the harms caused by tobacco. That includes ensuring consumers have the information they need to make informed decisions about tobacco use and making sure that new tobacco products for purchase come under comprehensive FDA review.”

Today’s actions will subject all manufacturers, importers and/or retailers of newly- regulated tobacco products to any applicable provisions, bringing them in line with other tobacco products the FDA has regulated under the TCA since 2009.

These requirements include:

Registering manufacturing establishments and providing product listings to the FDA;
Reporting ingredients, and harmful and potentially harmful constituents;
Requiring premarket review and authorization of new tobacco products by the FDA;
Placing health warnings on product packages and advertisements; and
Not selling modified risk tobacco products (including those described as “light,” “low,” or “mild”) unless authorized by the FDA.
“This final rule is a foundational step that enables the FDA to regulate products young people were using at alarming rates, like e-cigarettes, cigars and hookah tobacco, that had gone largely unregulated,” said Mitch Zeller, J.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products. “The agency considered a number of factors in developing the rule and believes our approach is reasonable and balanced. Ultimately our job is to assess what’s happening at the population level before figuring out how to use all of the regulatory tools Congress gave the FDA.”
To assist the newly-regulated tobacco industry in complying with the requirements being announced today, the FDA is also publishing several other regulatory documents that provide additional clarity, instructions and/or the FDA’s current thinking on issues specific to the newly-regulated products.

The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.

The 90 Day limit is on sales to minors, not on pulling uncertified products:

Before today, there was no federal law prohibiting retailers from selling e-cigarettes, hookah tobacco or cigars to people under age 18. Today’s rule changes that with provisions aimed at restricting youth access, which go into effect in 90 days, including:

Not allowing products to be sold to persons under the age of 18 years (both in person and online);
Requiring age verification by photo ID;
Not allowing the selling of covered tobacco products in vending machines (unless in an adult-only facility); and
Not allowing the distribution of free samples.
The actions being taken today will help the FDA pre

The certification process has a 2-Year grace period for submission, and 3-Year grace period for approval. Existing products can continue to be sold, simply not to minors.

Today’s rule also requires manufacturers of all newly-regulated products, to show that the products meet the applicable public health standard set forth in the law and receive marketing authorization from the FDA, unless the product was on the market as of Feb. 15, 2007. The tobacco product review process gives the agency the ability to evaluate important factors such as ingredients, product design and health risks, as well as their appeal to youth and non-users.

Under staggered timelines, the FDA expects that manufacturers will continue selling their products for up to two years while they submit – and an additional year while the FDA reviews – a new tobacco product application. The FDA will issue an order granting marketing authorization where appropriate; otherwise, the product will face FDA enforcement.

Vapes, E-Cigs whatever you want to tell them are a drug delivery system. It's not only well within the powers of the FDA to regulate such things, but they have a responsibility to the public to do so. If anything these regulations are far too late coming.

This x1000

The OP also throws out the emotional plea to support their cause "Big government is opressing us! Help help we're being repressed!!

But casually (and purposefully) leaves out the rest of the story....actually...they twisted the entire story into something it wasn't.

And they thought the Dakka peeps wouldn't find out and call them on their deception?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I get that you are on the vape train...I get that it means something *to you*...but please don't try and start your conversation in such a shady manner.

Give both sides and let people make their own decisions.

 Nydhog wrote:
It is easier to start a brewery or a distillery (and cheaper in most states) than it will be to manufacture juice or vaporizers if this stays.

 Nydhog wrote:


To salty town?

Okay want to research for yourself? https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2016-10685.pdf There you go. All 500 pages. Have fun.

There's no deception here. I misunderstood the 90 days part. Oh no! I'll admit when I am wrong.

However; the rest of this (once again) makes it almost entirely impossible for anyone who currently manufactures juices to stay in the business unless they are already multi millionaires. That's not an exaggeration. 1 flavor with 4 strengths = 4 million in fees to submit to the FDA with no guarantee of approval. If you don't see why that is a problem effectively killing all existing businesses and making it so the market is controlled by a very select few then that's on you.

Michael Siegel, in his analysis, roughly estimates to $300,000 the cost for the manufacturer to file a single PTMA, a procedure that the FDA recognizes as a 1,500-hour labour. A back-of-the-envelop calculation gives a $20-million capital cost for a manufacturer aiming at authorizing 20 flavors in 3 nicotine strengths.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
And by the way, it should be hard to manufacture untested chemicals that people inhale.

Spoiler:

sirlynchmob wrote:
man look at all the democrats in here for bigger governments and more regulations.

I agree, they need more research especially before selling them to minors.

 Nydhog wrote:


To salty town?

There's no deception here. I misunderstood the 90 days part. Oh no! I'll admit when I am wrong.

However; the rest of this (once again) makes it almost entirely impossible for anyone who currently manufactures juices to stay in the business unless they are already multi millionaires. That's not an exaggeration. 1 flavor with 4 strengths = 4 million in fees to submit to the FDA with no guarantee of approval. If you don't see why that is a problem effectively killing all existing businesses and making it so the market is controlled by a very select few then that's on you.

Once again as well: I am ALL for regulations but not fees that make it nearly impossible for anyone but massive corporations to stay in it. It is easier to start a brewery or a distillery (and cheaper in most states) than it will be to manufacture juice or vaporizers if this stays.

 Jihadin wrote:
I'm really tempted to try Native American brand of cig's. Straight dried tobacco.

 Frazzled wrote:
Yet "bath crystals" and "synthetic weed" are sold in many of your finer convenience stores. You now the stuff where people take it and end up trying to eat somebody's face...

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Nydhog wrote:
It is easier to start a brewery or a distillery (and cheaper in most states) than it will be to manufacture juice or vaporizers if this stays.

Are you speaking from experience? Because I don't think it's as easy to start a brewery as you seem to think it is.

And by the way, it should be hard to manufacture untested chemicals that people inhale.

 nurgle86 wrote:
In the UK it is being promoted as a healthier alternative. The National Health service is currently reviewing prescribing it to smokers.

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2015/08August/Pages/E-cigarettes-95-per-cent-less-harmful-than-smoking-says-report.aspx

Regulation is important if only to ensure that the devices are safe and that the liquids are produced to a minimum quality standard.

 kronk wrote:
Are they coming for my cigars and bourbon? No? Fingers crossed.

 Frazzled wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Yeah, I think there are good and obvious reasons why the medical community is very wary of the health effects of inhaling a bunch of vaporized chemicals on a regular basis. Especially when the companies manufacturing these things are the same companies who worked to cover up the health risks of their other products AND manipulated levels of the drug in said products to keep their customers addicted.

I'm also not in favor of giving points for "quitting" when people switch from cigs to e-cigs. If you want to quit and truly improve your health, you quit nicotine altogether.

Nicotine is not the main driver for lung cancer. Its tobacco and the processing of tobacco that goes with cigarettes.


Interesting that the UK is supporting it as a method to get of smoking.

Bran Dawri wrote:
Well I just read somewhere on the Internet that vaping causes cancer, so it should be banned! Rabble rabble rabble.

Now I just read somewhere else on the internet that it helps people to stop smoking and someone wants to ban it costing lots of people their jobs. That has to be stopped! Dey tuk ur jerbs!

...

I'm almost sure that's a fairly concise summary of the non-pornography side of internet today.

 thesearmsarerob wrote:
Don't forget though that cigs also contain diacetyl ( the chemical implicated in pop corn lung ) at higher concentrations then found in e juice....I have not heard of any cases of popcorn lung in smokers....

I vape a bit, not a heavy user, and am for some regulation, however it does feel that these regulations are overly stringent and put the vape market in the hands of big business as they are the only ones that can afford the fees.
The royal college of physicians states that

" the hazard to health arising from long-term vapour inhalation from the e-cigarettes available today is unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from smoking tobacco."

also :

"There is a need for regulation to reduce direct and indirect adverse effects of e-cigarette use, but this regulation should not be allowed significantly to inhibit the development and use of harm-reduction products by smokers."

It seems then that the advice given with the information we currently have is that e cigs should be supported along with quit programmes, whilst regulations to ensure minimum standards are enforced. It seems that these overly harsh regulations are a backwards step and will effectively stifle the market (and hand it to big tobacco in the process) and as such promote more usage of traditional analogues .

The cynical view is that many countries are trying to protect revenues from smoking ( such as tobacco bonds and tax duties) over the health and well being of the populous.

especially when the tag line to the report i quoted is:

"In the interests of public health it is important to promote the use of e-cigarettes, NRT and other non-tobacco nicotine products as widely as possible as a substitute for smoking in the UK"

 jreilly89 wrote:

 thesearmsarerob wrote:
Don't forget though that cigs also contain diacetyl ( the chemical implicated in pop corn lung ) at higher concentrations then found in e juice....I have not heard of any cases of popcorn lung in smokers....

I vape a bit, not a heavy user, and am for some regulation, however it does feel that these regulations are overly stringent and put the vape market in the hands of big business as they are the only ones that can afford the fees.
The royal college of physicians states that

" the hazard to health arising from long-term vapour inhalation from the e-cigarettes available today is unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from smoking tobacco."

also :

"There is a need for regulation to reduce direct and indirect adverse effects of e-cigarette use, but this regulation should not be allowed significantly to inhibit the development and use of harm-reduction products by smokers."

It seems then that the advice given with the information we currently have is that e cigs should be supported along with quit programmes, whilst regulations to ensure minimum standards are enforced. It seems that these overly harsh regulations are a backwards step and will effectively stifle the market (and hand it to big tobacco in the process) and as such promote more usage of traditional analogues .

The cynical view is that many countries are trying to protect revenues from smoking ( such as tobacco bonds and tax duties) over the health and well being of the populous.

especially when the tag line to the report i quoted is:

"In the interests of public health it is important to promote the use of e-cigarettes, NRT and other non-tobacco nicotine products as widely as possible as a substitute for smoking in the UK"

But doesn't it seem a bit backwards to promote something as a healthy alternative when sufficient studies have yet to be done as to the long term effects of it? Sure, it's better than cigarettes, but cigarettes are healthier than drinking bleach. Healthier alternative =/= safe product for long term use.

 thesearmsarerob wrote:
Why would one not want to promote that rather than analogue cigs that we know are really harmful?

 Ahtman wrote:

 thesearmsarerob wrote:
Why would one not want to promote that rather than analogue cigs that we know are really harmful?

How about promoting neither?

 thesearmsarerob wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 thesearmsarerob wrote:
Don't forget though that cigs also contain diacetyl ( the chemical implicated in pop corn lung ) at higher concentrations then found in e juice....I have not heard of any cases of popcorn lung in smokers....

I vape a bit, not a heavy user, and am for some regulation, however it does feel that these regulations are overly stringent and put the vape market in the hands of big business as they are the only ones that can afford the fees.
The royal college of physicians states that

" the hazard to health arising from long-term vapour inhalation from the e-cigarettes available today is unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from smoking tobacco."

also :

"There is a need for regulation to reduce direct and indirect adverse effects of e-cigarette use, but this regulation should not be allowed significantly to inhibit the development and use of harm-reduction products by smokers."

It seems then that the advice given with the information we currently have is that e cigs should be supported along with quit programmes, whilst regulations to ensure minimum standards are enforced. It seems that these overly harsh regulations are a backwards step and will effectively stifle the market (and hand it to big tobacco in the process) and as such promote more usage of traditional analogues .

The cynical view is that many countries are trying to protect revenues from smoking ( such as tobacco bonds and tax duties) over the health and well being of the populous.

especially when the tag line to the report i quoted is:

"In the interests of public health it is important to promote the use of e-cigarettes, NRT and other non-tobacco nicotine products as widely as possible as a substitute for smoking in the UK"

But doesn't it seem a bit backwards to promote something as a healthy alternative when sufficient studies have yet to be done as to the long term effects of it? Sure, it's better than cigarettes, but cigarettes are healthier than drinking bleach. Healthier alternative =/= safe product for long term use.

I agree that more long term studies have to be carried out, however the studies that have been done and the initial data suggests that e cigs are at least 95% safer. Why would one not want to promote that rather than analogue cigs that we know are really harmful? The quotes I included are not from an industry body but from a body that has carried out an independent study.
I worry that we will throw the baby out with the bath water, no one is going to argue that these are risk free ( if they do then they haven't looked into it) but the evidence suggests that these devices can be used to reduce harm. I would not want to see these advertised as some kind of health fags. However I think that they should be looked at as harm reduction.

People smoke, it kills, we know that for definite. These have the capacity to reduce the harm, even if they aren't good for you they appear to be magnitudes better for you than traditional tobacco products. Why stifle that in direct contradiction to the evidence found in the reports that have been conducted? That's what seems backwards to me. We do have some information and the alternative is worse, so why crack down on these in a way that will make them less accessible? It just seems that rather than pursuing a viable alternative people just say " but they might be bad!!" and are then happy for others to carry on smoking as a result.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 thesearmsarerob wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 thesearmsarerob wrote:
Don't forget though that cigs also contain diacetyl ( the chemical implicated in pop corn lung ) at higher concentrations then found in e juice....I have not heard of any cases of popcorn lung in smokers....

I vape a bit, not a heavy user, and am for some regulation, however it does feel that these regulations are overly stringent and put the vape market in the hands of big business as they are the only ones that can afford the fees.
The royal college of physicians states that

" the hazard to health arising from long-term vapour inhalation from the e-cigarettes available today is unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from smoking tobacco."

also :

"There is a need for regulation to reduce direct and indirect adverse effects of e-cigarette use, but this regulation should not be allowed significantly to inhibit the development and use of harm-reduction products by smokers."

It seems then that the advice given with the information we currently have is that e cigs should be supported along with quit programmes, whilst regulations to ensure minimum standards are enforced. It seems that these overly harsh regulations are a backwards step and will effectively stifle the market (and hand it to big tobacco in the process) and as such promote more usage of traditional analogues .

The cynical view is that many countries are trying to protect revenues from smoking ( such as tobacco bonds and tax duties) over the health and well being of the populous.

especially when the tag line to the report i quoted is:

"In the interests of public health it is important to promote the use of e-cigarettes, NRT and other non-tobacco nicotine products as widely as possible as a substitute for smoking in the UK"

But doesn't it seem a bit backwards to promote something as a healthy alternative when sufficient studies have yet to be done as to the long term effects of it? Sure, it's better than cigarettes, but cigarettes are healthier than drinking bleach. Healthier alternative =/= safe product for long term use.

I agree that more long term studies have to be carried out, however the studies that have been done and the initial data suggests that e cigs are at least 95% safer. Why would one not want to promote that rather than analogue cigs that we know are really harmful? The quotes I included are not from an industry body but from a body that has carried out an independent study.
I worry that we will throw the baby out with the bath water, no one is going to argue that these are risk free ( if they do then they haven't looked into it) but the evidence suggests that these devices can be used to reduce harm. I would not want to see these advertised as some kind of health fags. However I think that they should be looked at as harm reduction.

People smoke, it kills, we know that for definite. These have the capacity to reduce the harm, even if they aren't good for you they appear to be magnitudes better for you than traditional tobacco products. Why stifle that in direct contradiction to the evidence found in the reports that have been conducted? That's what seems backwards to me. We do have some information and the alternative is worse, so why crack down on these in a way that will make them less accessible? It just seems that rather than pursuing a viable alternative people just say " but they might be bad!!" and are then happy for others to carry on smoking as a result.

I'd definitely be interested to see more studies. Not sure what you've looked at, but the WHO released one about the harm of e-cigs (again, still better than cigarettes, but not good).

I'm not trying to stifle them, but I think regulating them so that companies can't just put whatever chemicals they want into e-cigs is not a crazy idea. I think all products released to the general public should be regulated to a degree.

I agree it's good that these are helping people switch off cigarettes, but my problem is that the new trend is "E-cigarettes are completely risk free, they're so much healthier than cigarettes." (I've literally had a friend who vapes tell me e-cigarettes have no health risks)

My dad currently smokes cigarettes and will probably die from it. I wish he would stop but I also recognize that it's his decision. Do I want to ban all e-cigs and let people keep on smoking regular cigarettes? No, but I think it's silly people claim that e-cigs are such a healthy alternative when they haven't existed long enough for long term studies to be done (Especially considering cigarettes weren't known to be dangerous until around World War 2)

 thesearmsarerob wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 thesearmsarerob wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 thesearmsarerob wrote:
Don't forget though that cigs also contain diacetyl ( the chemical implicated in pop corn lung ) at higher concentrations then found in e juice....I have not heard of any cases of popcorn lung in smokers....

I vape a bit, not a heavy user, and am for some regulation, however it does feel that these regulations are overly stringent and put the vape market in the hands of big business as they are the only ones that can afford the fees.
The royal college of physicians states that

" the hazard to health arising from long-term vapour inhalation from the e-cigarettes available today is unlikely to exceed 5% of the harm from smoking tobacco."

also :

"There is a need for regulation to reduce direct and indirect adverse effects of e-cigarette use, but this regulation should not be allowed significantly to inhibit the development and use of harm-reduction products by smokers."

It seems then that the advice given with the information we currently have is that e cigs should be supported along with quit programmes, whilst regulations to ensure minimum standards are enforced. It seems that these overly harsh regulations are a backwards step and will effectively stifle the market (and hand it to big tobacco in the process) and as such promote more usage of traditional analogues .

The cynical view is that many countries are trying to protect revenues from smoking ( such as tobacco bonds and tax duties) over the health and well being of the populous.

especially when the tag line to the report i quoted is:

"In the interests of public health it is important to promote the use of e-cigarettes, NRT and other non-tobacco nicotine products as widely as possible as a substitute for smoking in the UK"

But doesn't it seem a bit backwards to promote something as a healthy alternative when sufficient studies have yet to be done as to the long term effects of it? Sure, it's better than cigarettes, but cigarettes are healthier than drinking bleach. Healthier alternative =/= safe product for long term use.

I agree that more long term studies have to be carried out, however the studies that have been done and the initial data suggests that e cigs are at least 95% safer. Why would one not want to promote that rather than analogue cigs that we know are really harmful? The quotes I included are not from an industry body but from a body that has carried out an independent study.
I worry that we will throw the baby out with the bath water, no one is going to argue that these are risk free ( if they do then they haven't looked into it) but the evidence suggests that these devices can be used to reduce harm. I would not want to see these advertised as some kind of health fags. However I think that they should be looked at as harm reduction.

People smoke, it kills, we know that for definite. These have the capacity to reduce the harm, even if they aren't good for you they appear to be magnitudes better for you than traditional tobacco products. Why stifle that in direct contradiction to the evidence found in the reports that have been conducted? That's what seems backwards to me. We do have some information and the alternative is worse, so why crack down on these in a way that will make them less accessible? It just seems that rather than pursuing a viable alternative people just say " but they might be bad!!" and are then happy for others to carry on smoking as a result.

I'd definitely be interested to see more studies. Not sure what you've looked at, but the WHO released one about the harm of e-cigs (again, still better than cigarettes, but not good).

I'm not trying to stifle them, but I think regulating them so that companies can't just put whatever chemicals they want into e-cigs is not a crazy idea. I think all products released to the general public should be regulated to a degree.

I agree it's good that these are helping people switch off cigarettes, but my problem is that the new trend is "E-cigarettes are completely risk free, they're so much healthier than cigarettes." (I've literally had a friend who vapes tell me e-cigarettes have no health risks)

My dad currently smokes cigarettes and will probably die from it. I wish he would stop but I also recognize that it's his decision. Do I want to ban all e-cigs and let people keep on smoking regular cigarettes? No, but I think it's silly people claim that e-cigs are such a healthy alternative when they haven't existed long enough for long term studies to be done (Especially considering cigarettes weren't known to be dangerous until around World War 2)

I've looked at the public health England findings and the Royal college of physician's findings amongst others.

I agree that there should be some regulation, but the regulations such as the tpd ban things like cross border sales, a restriction not put upon tobacco products. It seems unfair and if e cigs are better for you counter productive.

I think it's important to differentiate between harm reduction and harmless though. E cigs seem to represent an opportunity for harm reduction and at present the regs being imposed, I think, disproportionately penalise them when compared to tobacco. I'm definitely not trying to advocate e cigs as harmless and healthy. The anecdotal evidence I've seen though suggests that people do find that they help them come off tobacco in a way other nicotine replacement devices or quit programmes have not.
I've also seen reports that more up to date devices that produce a more satisfying vape experience are more likely to help people stay away from tobacco. These have just been directly regulated against in the USA. That's what I mean when I say that these regs seem to represent a backwards step. It will make people more likely to stick with tobacco.

 KingCracker wrote:
Regulations are fine with me. I'm sick of people walking around in stores and in public vaping and then puffing it in my Fracking face. Should be looked at like cigarettes IMO

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:
Regulations are fine with me. I'm sick of people walking around in stores and in public vaping and then puffing it in my Fracking face. Should be looked at like cigarettes IMO

Out here in Washington (State) I've noticed a lot of the "State law requires any and all smoking be done 20ft. or more from any doors/windows of a building" signs have been amended to include vaping with more "traditional" means of getting nicotine/tobacco.


I think I stand with others and say that regulating this new market will be a net good thing for everyone. The regulations I've been keeping an eye on, in regards to the FDA, is how they've been going after "premium cigars"

On occasion, I will smoke a nice churchill or torpedo, but what many of the proposed FDA regulations would do, is eliminate the ability of actual tobacconists and smoke shops (guys who sell ONLY cigars, pipe blends and the like, not cigarettes) to sell their product... I'm sorry, but a cigar, and by extension pipe tobacco are items which require knowledge and care to sell for full value. You literally cannot sell them in a gas station like you can with cigarettes and vaping gak.

 NobodyXY wrote:
Legislating vaporizers in the same way as smokes doesn't really make sense. Nicotine probably doesn't cause cancer in the same way as a smoke would.

 Ahtman wrote:
I quit smoking by not smoking anymore.

 NobodyXY wrote:
Legislating vaporizers in the same way as smokes doesn't really make sense. Nicotine probably doesn't cause cancer in the same way as a smoke would.

Regulation isn't just about carcinogens but also that nicotine is incredibly addictive, physically and mentally, and creating addictive pseudo-cigarettes with no regulation is not a good idea. Just because it isn't as cancer causing doesn't mean it isn't still incredibly problematic.

 Desubot wrote:
effectively killing off the entire industries.

not saying im against it. but its not gonna be pretty.

 Desubot wrote:
There certainly is a lot of issues with various flavor mixes and stuff.

as the previous example of the butter flavor. while still food safe for consumption will feth you up if inhaled.

.

 jasper76 wrote:
Every person who vapes should do so with the knowledge that what they're using might be very harmful. A couple years back, the FDA published some test results, and they found all kinds of nasty chemicals. Do you really know where that Strawberry flavor vape fluid came from, and what's in it?

Here's the link: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm173146.htm

Spoiler:

Summary of Results: Laboratory Analysis of Electronic Cigarettes Conducted By FDA

FDA conducted a preliminary analysis on some samples of electronic cigarettes and components from two leading brands. Due to the variability among products, this analysis should not be used to draw conclusions about what substances are or are not present in particular electronic cigarettes or brands of electronic cigarettes.
FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation, Office of Compliance purchased two samples of electronic cigarettes and components from two leading brands. These samples included 18 of the various flavored, nicotine, and no-nicotine cartridges offered for use with these products. These cartridges were obtained in order to test some of the ingredients contained in them and inhaled by users of electronic cigarettes.
FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation, Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis (DPA) analyzed the cartridges from these electronic cigarettes for nicotine content and for the presence of other tobacco constituents, some of which are known to be harmful to humans, including those that are potentially carcinogenic or mutagenic.
DPA's analysis of the electronic cigarette samples showed that the product contained detectable levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals to which users could potentially be exposed.
DPA's testing also suggested that quality control processes used to manufacture these products are inconsistent or non-existent.
Specifically, DPA's analysis of the electronic cigarette cartridges from the two leading brands revealed the following:
Diethylene glycol was detected in one cartridge at approximately 1%. Diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze, is toxic to humans.
Certain tobacco-specific nitrosamines which are human carcinogens were detected in half of the samples tested.
Tobacco-specific impurities suspected of being harmful to humans—anabasine, myosmine, and β-nicotyrine—were detected in a majority of the samples tested.
The electronic cigarette cartridges that were labeled as containing no nicotine had low levels of nicotine present in all cartridges tested, except one.
Three different electronic cigarette cartridges with the same label were tested and each cartridge emitted a markedly different amount of nicotine with each puff. The nicotine levels per puff ranged from 26.8 to 43.2 mcg nicotine/100 mL puff.
One high-nicotine cartridge delivered twice as much nicotine to users when the vapor from that electronic cigarette brand was inhaled than was delivered by a sample of the nicotine inhalation product (used as a control) approved by FDA for use as a smoking cessation aid.

 jasper76 wrote:
The study summary said "2 leading brands", so I'd guess whatever was among the most 'mainstream' e-cigarettes at the time were sampled for the test.

 jasper76 wrote:
Yeah, I really don't know much about the brands and details around vaping.

In any case, I wouldn't trust anything coming from the 'vape industry' on the subject.

 thesearmsarerob wrote:

We do need some regulation to ensure minimum standards but not at the cost of the whole industry which is what we are faced with here (FDA estimates approx 98% of current products will not be available)

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 thesearmsarerob wrote:

We do need some regulation to ensure minimum standards but not at the cost of the whole industry which is what we are faced with here (FDA estimates approx 98% of current products will not be available)

Not that I'm defending the FDA or anything, but do you have a source for that? I support some level of regulation, but I don't see them wiping out an entire industry. It would be much more profitable to fine them mercilessly !!FOR THE CHILDREN!!, which seems to be their shtick with the other branches of the tobacco industry.

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 thesearmsarerob wrote:

We do need some regulation to ensure minimum standards but not at the cost of the whole industry which is what we are faced with here (FDA estimates approx 98% of current products will not be available)

Not that I'm defending the FDA or anything, but do you have a source for that? I support some level of regulation, but I don't see them wiping out an entire industry. It would be much more profitable to fine them mercilessly !!FOR THE CHILDREN!!, which seems to be their shtick with the other branches of the tobacco industry.

 jasper76 wrote:
Seriously, this is a dummy's argument.

Quit smoking. Don't replace tobacco with vape product. Just quit. Forever. Get a divorce from nicotine.

If you replace tobacco with some other nicotine delivery system like vaping or nicorette or whatever, you will still be enthralled to nicontine. Just fething balls up, quit the curse that indigenous North Americans farmed into existence, and don't take any nicotine in your body, forevermore. Sure it will suck ass for 1 day to 2 weeks, but anyone can do it, its all in your head. Just give it up.

 jasper76 wrote:
Seriously, this is a dummy's argument.

Quit smoking. Don't replace tobacco with vape product. Just quit. Forever. Get a divorce from nicotine.

If you replace tobacco with some other nicotine delivery system like vaping or nicorette or whatever, you will still be enthralled to nicontine. Just fething balls up, quit the curse that indigenous North Americans farmed into existence, and don't take any nicotine in your body, forevermore. Sure it will suck ass for 1 day to 2 weeks, but anyone can do it, its all in your head. Just give it up.

 Chief Tugboat wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Seriously, this is a dummy's argument.

Quit smoking. Don't replace tobacco with vape product. Just quit. Forever. Get a divorce from nicotine.

If you replace tobacco with some other nicotine delivery system like vaping or nicorette or whatever, you will still be enthralled to nicontine. Just fething balls up, quit the curse that indigenous North Americans farmed into existence, and don't take any nicotine in your body, forevermore. Sure it will suck ass for 1 day to 2 weeks, but anyone can do it, its all in your head. Just give it up.

A dummies argument is telling people who are addicted to anything, to "just quit".

Also just an FYI, nicotine isn't the only addictive property to smoking, one of those being the oral fixation ( I call it the ritual) . There is a reason that other nicotine delivery systems aren't effective, they simply don't provide that feeling you get when buy a new pack, slap it a few times to pack them, rip open that box, put one of those cancer sticks in your mouth and that lighter up to your face.

 Chief Tugboat wrote:

A dummies argument is telling people who are addicted to anything, to "just quit". Much like telling a morbidly obese person to not eat so much, things can be a little more complicated than that. Also just an FYI, nicotine isn't the only addictive property to smoking, one of those being the oral fixation ( I call it the ritual) . There is a reason that other nicotine delivery systems aren't effective, they simply don't provide that feeling you get when buy a new pack, slap it a few times to pack them, rip open that box, put one of those cancer sticks in your mouth and that lighter up to your face.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Chief Tugboat wrote:

A dummies argument is telling people who are addicted to anything, to "just quit". Much like telling a morbidly obese person to not eat so much, things can be a little more complicated than that. Also just an FYI, nicotine isn't the only addictive property to smoking, one of those being the oral fixation ( I call it the ritual) . There is a reason that other nicotine delivery systems aren't effective, they simply don't provide that feeling you get when buy a new pack, slap it a few times to pack them, rip open that box, put one of those cancer sticks in your mouth and that lighter up to your face.

I recall reading an article from Australia (so maybe our death worlders can help here) about a study done down there that found that long term smoking reduces the likelihood of a person developing Alzheimer's... So just because its addicting doesn't mean it's ALL bad, right??

 Spinner wrote:


I'm a little blown away by all the pushback against having the FDA look at what people are putting in their bodies. Isn't that what the FDA is for?

 Spinner wrote:
Depends on whether or not it's because long term smokers aren't lasting long enough to develop it.

 Spinner wrote:


I'm a little blown away by all the pushback against having the FDA look at what people are putting in their bodies. Isn't that what the FDA is for? I mean, imagine it was...chicken processing plants or something, and a lot of smaller chicken processing plants were upset because of the fees for having the FDA inspect them. I mean, yes, it sucks if the cost is prohibitive, but there's a reason it exists.

Maybe they could take up cricket farming?

 Desubot wrote:


I can see the heavy push back when they set it up to kill the industry.

 kronk wrote:

 Desubot wrote:


I can see the heavy push back when they set it up to kill the industry.

Where is this coming from? I went to the FDA website, and all I can find is that this year, they are stating that the ENDS (Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems) must follow the same regulations as cigarettes and other tobacco products. It is defining the legal responsibilities of Vape shops and manufacturers. It's still tobacco.

http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/ProductsIngredientsComponents/ucm456610.htm

FDA Regulation of ENDS

In 2016, FDA finalized a rule extending our regulatory authority to cover all tobacco products, including vaporizers, vape pens, hookah pens, electronic cigarettes (E-Cigarettes), e-pipes, and all other ENDS. FDA now regulates the manufacture, import, packaging, labeling, advertising, promotion, sale, and distribution of ENDS. This includes components and parts of ENDS* but excludes accessories.
However, products marketed for therapeutic purposes (for example, marketed as a product to help people quit smoking) are regulated by the FDA through the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). FDA recently proposed a rule clarifying the jurisdiction over tobacco products, drugs, and devices.

Statistics about ENDS Use

More than 3 million middle and high school students were current users of e-cigarettes in 2015, up from an estimated 2.46 million in 2014.1, 2
Sixteen percent of high school and 5.3 percent of middle school students were current users of e-cigarettes in 2015, making e-cigarettes the most commonly used tobacco product among youth for the second consecutive year.1
During 2011-2015, e-cigarette use rose from 1.5 percent to 16.0 percent among high school students and from 0.6 percent to 5.3 percent among middle school students.1
In 2013-2014, 81% of current youth e-cigarette users cited the availability of appealing flavors as the primary reason for use.3
In 2014, 12.6% of U.S. adults had ever tried an e-cigarette, and about 3.7% of adults used e-cigarettes daily or some days.4

Electronic Nicotine Delivery System components
*“Components” or “parts” include, among other things, software or an assembly of materials intended or reasonably expected alter or affect the tobacco product’s performance, composition, constituents, or characteristics; or to be used with or for the human consumption of a tobacco product. For a full definition of ENDS components, parts, and accessories, please read the Deeming Tobacco Products To Be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Examples of components and parts of ENDS include, but are not limited to:
E-liquids
A glass or plastic vial container of e-liquid
Cartridges
Atomizers
Certain batteries
Cartomizers and clearomizers
Digital display or lights to adjust settings
Tank systems
Drip tips
Flavorings for ENDS
Programmable software

Vape Shops That Mix E-Liquids or Modify Products

If you operate a vape shop that mixes or prepares liquid nicotine or nicotine-containing e-liquids, or creates or modifies any type of ENDS, you are considered a manufacturer and must comply with all of the legal requirements for tobacco product manufacturers. As a result, some vape shops may have legal responsibilities as both manufacturers and retailers of tobacco products.



Retail Sales of ENDS, E-Liquids, or their Components or Parts Made or Derived from Tobacco

If you sell ENDS, e-liquids, or their components or parts made or derived from tobacco, please read this summary of federal rules that retailers must follow.
You may also share the fact sheet below with your staff and post it in your store.

You can find a list of retailer responsibilities for ENDS in Deeming Tobacco Products To Be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In addition, our website offers more information on regulations, guidance and webinars for retailers.

IIRC as it is a tobacco product all juices need to be certified. aka they need to be sent for testing which is very cost prohibitive for manufacturers.

 kronk wrote:

IIRC as it is a tobacco product all juices need to be certified. aka they need to be sent for testing which is very cost prohibitive for manufacturers.

I've worked in manufacturing since 1998. Everything I have ever made has had to go through extensive testing before going to market. That's particularly true when it comes to UL rated products (Fire ratings, etc).

The FDA is even more strict, I know. But shouldn't they be? You're selling a product that people consume. You have to know what is in the fumes it gives off, toxicity of any ingredients, etc. Were I a Vape manufacturer, I would start with ingredients that have already been approved, perhaps for another food/drink industry.

Dunno.

 thesearmsarerob wrote:
It's not just the juice that comes under this but anything that is intended to be used to vape, so mods, batteries, wicking material and resistance wire are all within the scope if these deeming g regulations as it stands each separate item needing to be okayed with the fda. This is where the costs mount up, no one but huge companies could afford this.

It's like making all match companies and lighter manufacturers have to seek fda approval in case their products are used to smoke with. Paying separately for each product that they produce.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 thesearmsarerob wrote:
It's not just the juice that comes under this but anything that is intended to be used to vape, so mods, batteries, wicking material and resistance wire are all within the scope if these deeming g regulations as it stands each separate item needing to be okayed with the fda. This is where the costs mount up, no one but huge companies could afford this.

It's like making all match companies and lighter manufacturers have to seek fda approval in case their products are used to smoke with. Paying separately for each product that they produce.

To be fair:

http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/05/10/e-cigarette-explodes-in-classmates-face-pkg.waff

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Orange-County-Man-Loses-Eye-in-E-Cig-Explosion-378894001.html

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2015/10/28/florida-man-placed-in-coma-after-e-cigarette-explosion.html

Cigarettes may kill you, but they don't explode.

 Chief Tugboat wrote:


@Spinner - What blowback? Myself and others ITT, have repeatedly stated that we are all for research and regulations. All of the big E-juice manufacturers really aren't worried about the FDA's new regulations, because they have tons of $$. I think some people are more skeptical because it really will kill small E-Juice companies, which I'm personally torn on because I do believe there should be a "buy in" price, but I also hate to see little entrepreneurs get the shaft.

 Spinner wrote:
Again, it sucks that it would hurt small businesses, but if you can't afford to make sure your product is safe, you shouldn't be selling it.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
Again, it sucks that it would hurt small businesses, but if you can't afford to make sure your product is safe, you shouldn't be selling it.

I find it kind of ridiculous that we have a number of laws that protect consumers from unsafe/defective products, and yet there are people here who don't want that same standard applied to them.

 thesearmsarerob wrote:

I think the general mood is that manufacturers would love to comply but under this scheme cannot afford to, these regs effectively gift the industry to big tobacco and pharma. Neither of which are particularly trusted.
So it's not that they don't want regulation but rather a fair playing field to be able to comply.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 thesearmsarerob wrote:

I think the general mood is that manufacturers would love to comply but under this scheme cannot afford to, these regs effectively gift the industry to big tobacco and pharma. Neither of which are particularly trusted.
So it's not that they don't want regulation but rather a fair playing field to be able to comply.

IMO, the "easy" fix to that is to have a grandfather clause, and a timetable for compliance to allow the better set up small guys to do things incrementally.

The image that I'm getting from some posters here, is that many of these vape shops are running like that ill-fated new hobby shop.... You know, the one where the owner is a "hobbyist" as well, and doesn't treat it as much as a business as they should... Only the vape guys haven't reached the point of closing up shop because they are still doing enough business to stay open.

I'd suggest that the smart business person in this industry would have seen that the situation was not going to remain this way forever, and set something aside to deal with the eventual tightening of the industry. Those who didn't have any kind of plan kind of deserve what they get. I mean, we know how quickly a poorly run gaming shop, restaurant, bar or any other store can go under, and I see shops who cannot keep up with impending regulations in the same way.

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
There's nothing sudden about this. They knew it was coming, and if they pretended it wasn't then it's their fault. The only surprise is that the FDA didn't drag it's feet for years before reaching a final ruling, but it was obvious to anyone in the industry that regulation was coming.

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
I agree that the cost of the PTMAs are excessive for how young the industry is, and Congress is working on addressing that. My issue is all the people crying that the FDA shouldn't be regulating it, or how they were shocked it happened. My company is dumping tens of millions down the hole just for preliminary approval for current products. Any new products (which is a must in the tobacco industry) will cost astounding amounts of money. The G-men aren't out to eliminate the industry, so they will most likely comprimise on the cost of the PTMAs. They can't make money on a bankrupt industry

 jreilly89 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Every person who vapes should do so with the knowledge that what they're using might be very harmful. A couple years back, the FDA published some test results, and they found all kinds of nasty chemicals. Do you really know where that Strawberry flavor vape fluid came from, and what's in it?

Here's the link: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm173146.htm

Spoiler:

Summary of Results: Laboratory Analysis of Electronic Cigarettes Conducted By FDA

FDA conducted a preliminary analysis on some samples of electronic cigarettes and components from two leading brands. Due to the variability among products, this analysis should not be used to draw conclusions about what substances are or are not present in particular electronic cigarettes or brands of electronic cigarettes.
FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation, Office of Compliance purchased two samples of electronic cigarettes and components from two leading brands. These samples included 18 of the various flavored, nicotine, and no-nicotine cartridges offered for use with these products. These cartridges were obtained in order to test some of the ingredients contained in them and inhaled by users of electronic cigarettes.
FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation, Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis (DPA) analyzed the cartridges from these electronic cigarettes for nicotine content and for the presence of other tobacco constituents, some of which are known to be harmful to humans, including those that are potentially carcinogenic or mutagenic.
DPA's analysis of the electronic cigarette samples showed that the product contained detectable levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals to which users could potentially be exposed.
DPA's testing also suggested that quality control processes used to manufacture these products are inconsistent or non-existent.
Specifically, DPA's analysis of the electronic cigarette cartridges from the two leading brands revealed the following:
Diethylene glycol was detected in one cartridge at approximately 1%. Diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze, is toxic to humans.
Certain tobacco-specific nitrosamines which are human carcinogens were detected in half of the samples tested.
Tobacco-specific impurities suspected of being harmful to humans—anabasine, myosmine, and β-nicotyrine—were detected in a majority of the samples tested.
The electronic cigarette cartridges that were labeled as containing no nicotine had low levels of nicotine present in all cartridges tested, except one.
Three different electronic cigarette cartridges with the same label were tested and each cartridge emitted a markedly different amount of nicotine with each puff. The nicotine levels per puff ranged from 26.8 to 43.2 mcg nicotine/100 mL puff.
One high-nicotine cartridge delivered twice as much nicotine to users when the vapor from that electronic cigarette brand was inhaled than was delivered by a sample of the nicotine inhalation product (used as a control) approved by FDA for use as a smoking cessation aid.

This. This is the kind of testing I'd like to see. I know everyone thinks it's all big tobacco, but maybe vaping isn't that healthy.