LIQUA... Have we found a loophole ?

[UntamedRose]

Please read the original post.

I read it...I believe you going to feel really silly in a few months.

 

[DoctorRiboh]

Was the OP's avatar originally the product he/she was posting about? Seems like it just changed, but yeah this looks like an advertisement.

The avatar was freshly changed, it's a product I believe in and support (I am willing to bet that every single person on this forum has passionately promoted their fave e juice on here)

I now replaced it for an image of 510's because it's what I vape, that does not mean I am sponsored or work for joyetech.

I would like to go back to putting the ejuice back as my avatar but unfortunately it has distorted people's perception of this post and the motives behind it have been questioned.

I have absolutely zero connection to them and as I keep repeating, the reason I posted it up is because one of the main factors behind legislations is the fact that tobacco is involved and these things are hard to regulate.

Liqua have come up with a solution, something in which the governing bodies will have a hard time trying to defeat.
good for them ... I'm just giving credit where it's due.

 

[DC2]

You need to read Rolygate's posts in this thread.
He is the ECF forum manager and is deeply involved in the world of electronic cigarette regulation.

 

[DoctorRiboh]

You need to read Rolygate's posts in this thread.
He is the ECF forum manager and is deeply involved in the world of electronic cigarette regulation.

Thank you I will, it's a topic that I find highly interesting as I'm trying to enlighten everybody at work with the ecigs, I already converted around 6 people, my only fear is that these will be banned.

 

[tricci]

If you like the liquid then vape away on it. For those of us in the the US we won't be ordering Liqua any time soon. However, if they are indeed using non-tobacco sourced nicotine then that's pretty cool.

 

[Iffy]

Let's look at Liqua's statement:

Let's do!

Purest Nicotine has no tobacco components inside...

BUT... it is a product of tobacco! The exception being a synthetic, which it is VERY, VERY expensive, which was previously mentioned,

So enjoy your joose, which is no different than top quality nicquids sold elsewhere...

 

[Kanlee]

If anyone is interested I found this video review by IGETCHA69 on this e-liquid REVIEW OF THE GORITCHY LIQUA E-LIQUID FOR ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES - YouTube

 

[DoctorRiboh]

Let's do!



BUT... it is a product of tobacco! The exception being a synthetic, which it is VERY, VERY expensive, which was previously mentioned,

So enjoy your joose, which is no different than top quality nicquids sold elsewhere...

We already went over that earlier in the thread, Tobacco is not the only source for nicotine.
others may be slightly more expensive but it doesn't mean that it is not feasible.

 

[Iffy]

...but the point is, we have here a liquid free of tobacco .... what can the man say about it now ???

We already went over that earlier in the thread, Tobacco is not the only source for nicotine.
others may be slightly more expensive but it doesn't mean that it is not feasible.

In your original post you left the impression that your fav joose would bypass the tobacco source restrictions. Have you changed your mind yet?

 

[DoctorRiboh]

In your original post you left the impression that your fav joose would bypass the tobacco source restrictions. Have you changed your mind yet?

Why would I change my mind ??

your silly attempts to find contradictions in my posts only serve to show that you are not actually reading my comments properly.

Tobacco is not the only source of nicotine = there are other sources to extract it from.

 

[Spazmelda]

I just wrote to them to ask if their nicotine is from tobacco or some other source. I'll let y'all know if they respond.

It would be pretty cool if it was from some other source, but I would be very surprised (and skeptical) if they say it is.

 

[DoctorRiboh]

I just wrote to them to ask if their nicotine is from tobacco or some other source. I'll let y'all know if they respond.

It would be pretty cool if it was from some other source, but I would be very surprised (and skeptical) if they say it is.

Perfect ! I would be very interested in reading your answer.

Thank you very much for taking the time out to reply to this thread in a contributing and mature, friendly manner,
I didn't think I would have to face trolls here but I was sadly disappointed.

Spazmelda I look forward to your reply.

As I stated earlier, I'm just a buyer and going by what it says on the shop I get my juice from.

 

[Richie G]

I don't think you were trolled. Doc. I think you read Liqua's claim and *wanted* to believe that their nic is of a different origin than tobacco. We'll soon find out if they answer that email.

But, I agree with others here that it is highly doubtful that they are using nic from other night shade plants. If they were/are they should be screaming it from the rooftops. I tend to doubt that any vendor would go through such an expense and such a groundbreaking ordeal and not specifically point it out to customers.

My gut feeling is that they will end up changing the wording on their website when they reveal that the 'source' they use for nic is indeed from tobacco and that they weren't aware of it before... or something along those lines.

 

[DoctorRiboh]

I don't think you were trolled. Doc. I think you read Liqua's claim and *wanted* to believe that their nic is of a different origin than tobacco. We'll soon find out if they answer that email.

But, I agree with others here that it is highly doubtful that they are using nic from other night shade plants. If they were/are they should be screaming it from the rooftops. I tend to doubt that any vendor would go through such an expense and such a groundbreaking ordeal and not specifically point it out to customers.

My gut feeling is that they will end up changing the wording on their website when they reveal that the 'source' they use for nic is indeed from tobacco and that they weren't aware of it before... or something along those lines.

If I am wrong (which naturally, I hope isn't the case) I will have no shame in admitting it as I am only going by what they are saying on the site because I know that legally they are not allowed to 'lie' as such (especially in something as controversial as nicotine based products)

Also, if I do happen to be wrong, it will be a learning curve... Something which we can all gain from.

 

[rolygate]

It's an interesting subject.

I just edited post #12, with some later thoughts on this.

 

[VapApe]

Well to my under standing. Here in the US E liquids with Nic are regulated as a tobacco product no matter were the Nic comes from.

 

[Spazmelda]

[edit]
It's worth pointing out that if a manufacturer did use synthetic nicotine - and there is nothing to prevent them doing this - they would need to double the quantity in order for it to actually work. So, where you might normally use 36mg liquid for example, you would need to use 72mg liquid, otherwise it would feel like 18mg. It has half the effect of nicotine from tobacco. But it's probably unwise to use it at present, as the implications are untested in humans. In effect you would be supplying an entirely new consumer drug. It seems unlikely to me that a retailer would risk that. BT and BP have almost certainly tested this material but have not published any results. They don't use it in anything, AFAIK.

Is that because it would be a racemic mixture?

 

[rolygate]

I'm not a chemist but a mechanical and electrical engineer. As I understand it, a racemic material is a mix of left-and right-handed compounds.

I believe that D or dextro rotatory is natural, and L or levro rotatory is synthetic. Anyhow I'm not a chemist. All I know is that there are examples in the literature that clearly state synthetic nicotine has 50% of the human effect as natural nicotine. Apparently it's not too hard to test a material to see if it's racemic, D or L (and thus synthetic): it can be checked with the right kind of light source as the materials reflect light differently. It requires a source of polarised light. However the nicotine might have to be isolated from the rest of the liquid first.

 

[JD1]

I think part of the confusion comes from the blanket ruling of 'no tobacco products' --for example, some insurance companies. If the nic is pure enough then it shouldn't be any different than pure nic from any of the other nightshades, but it would still require wording that allows nicotine regardless of source.

My understanding is that part of the reason for the wording is to catch patches, gum, snus and so forth. If a person is on a patch, and buys insurance at a reduced rate, odds are they'll just go back to smoking at a later date.

So, answering the question, 'have we found a loophole', I don't think so, at least not yet.

The thing is, nicotine is not an illegal substance to start with. So we're not trying to find loopholes in the law -- It's the rules for insurance and public and private places. The people making those rules may be ignorant of the facts, but they're still the ones making the rules

 

[rolygate]

To be honest I can't argue with insurance companies that want to exclude smokers because costs are too high and because they pay the same premiums. That's only fair. I also can't argue with them including NRT users in with smokers, as it's proven that almost all NRT users will revert to smoking.

However I believe they should not use a cotinine test as this will include Snus and e-cigarette users. Snus users are proven to have a health risk about the same as a non-smoker, and at least one senior medical figure (the medical director of the ACSH) has stated that e-cigs will be as safe. Instead, they should use a carbon monoxide test, as this identifies smokers, not those who use any form of smokeless or smoke-free tobacco product, as they have very low risk and therefore no additional costs of employment. Indeed they might be better employees.