Nicotine water was dead on arrival in the USA. The Food and Drug Administration prohibited its sale (2002) even before it came to market. The reason? It was a drug-delivery system, not a dietary supplement as the maker claimed. Extend that logic to the e products and tell me we're not in future trouble with their availability in the USA.
Also banned were two other nicotine alternatives that could have proved useful in weaning a smoker off the carcinogens of tobacco smoke. One was a lip balm that would provide nicotine in a transdermal fashion, much as patches do. The nicotine would be absorbed through the lips. Reapplication would be easy, as needed. No, the FDA said. Rejection might be partly to protect Big Pharmaceuticals who invested heavily in approvals needed for gum, lozenges, patches, etc.
Rejected too were nicotine-laced lollipops. Just suck on one and get your fix while you look like Kojac. This would be attractive to children, critics said, who then would ??? jump to cigarettes. Not likely, but we don't have nicotine lollipops for the same reason we have very few alternatives that are not marketed by Big Drug companies. Political contributions always come with an IOU somewhere. This is one of those "where's." Kill the competition is the Golden Rule.
It seems to me that an industrious individual could use e-liquid to brew up some interesting alternatives to smoking, however. Lip balm, after all, is as easy to make at home as candles. Hard candies are easy to create on the home stove. Add a little e-liquid ... And I still wonder if I could safely soak toothpicks in e-liquid and then chew them all day. I'm at the point where I'll try almost anything. Risky? Here's a fact: I'm not sure exactly what I'm doing to myself when I suck these vapors into my lungs! Do I trust Chinese products? Are you kidding? I've read too many news items about how those "factories" substitute ingredients dangerously to save a few pennies.
Course, e-smoking is probably ... probably ... safer than the 50-50 Russian rhoulette played in a lifetime of real cigarette smoking.
Also banned were two other nicotine alternatives that could have proved useful in weaning a smoker off the carcinogens of tobacco smoke. One was a lip balm that would provide nicotine in a transdermal fashion, much as patches do. The nicotine would be absorbed through the lips. Reapplication would be easy, as needed. No, the FDA said. Rejection might be partly to protect Big Pharmaceuticals who invested heavily in approvals needed for gum, lozenges, patches, etc.
Rejected too were nicotine-laced lollipops. Just suck on one and get your fix while you look like Kojac. This would be attractive to children, critics said, who then would ??? jump to cigarettes. Not likely, but we don't have nicotine lollipops for the same reason we have very few alternatives that are not marketed by Big Drug companies. Political contributions always come with an IOU somewhere. This is one of those "where's." Kill the competition is the Golden Rule.
It seems to me that an industrious individual could use e-liquid to brew up some interesting alternatives to smoking, however. Lip balm, after all, is as easy to make at home as candles. Hard candies are easy to create on the home stove. Add a little e-liquid ... And I still wonder if I could safely soak toothpicks in e-liquid and then chew them all day. I'm at the point where I'll try almost anything. Risky? Here's a fact: I'm not sure exactly what I'm doing to myself when I suck these vapors into my lungs! Do I trust Chinese products? Are you kidding? I've read too many news items about how those "factories" substitute ingredients dangerously to save a few pennies.
Course, e-smoking is probably ... probably ... safer than the 50-50 Russian rhoulette played in a lifetime of real cigarette smoking.