A Pharmacists Point of View

[framitz]

I used Chantix and had great results. Side effects were mild nausea and vivid dreams, but certainly no thoughts of suicide! I just couldn't break the urge when drinking. Enter e-cig. Voila! Cured.

My wife used Chantix to quit, insurance didn't cover it, so I did.
I used vaping to quit after trying 3 smoking cessation classes using patches, gum, then patches again. Wife and I always ended up cheating, feeling guilty and going back to smoking. I'm 99% sure she's not cheating this time because I'm not smoking and I don't smell it on her.

 

[Junebug]

I find it funny as for years I used Seldane and had no issues with it. Again for some it worked and others it didn't. Remember when Merck pulled Vioxx? We got the news after the stockmarket announced it. FDA dropped the ball on that one, we got word after the news reports.

 

[robbiehatfield]

Well here's a thought in the tax collection strategy..

Vapors should live years longer than smokers, so the tax for eliquid should be adjusted downward accordingly to compensate for the longer lifespan and therefore longer time the government will collect taxes from the vapor.

Robbie

 

[tikva]

Wow, that's a good question. I saw in another thread a suggestion of $1tax/1 mg nicotine. I thinks that's way high. The tax won't be prohibitive, but it will certainly be enough of a nuisance as to turn some off to vaping. I think the current tax on a pack of cigs in PA (Fed and state combined) is $2.36. Reference below:

Biggest U.S. tax hike on tobacco takes effect - USATODAY.com

The tax(both federal and state) will be somewhat in line with how cigarettes are taxed, it's just inevitable. Figure out how much usable Nic is in a pack of Cigs and that MAY give one an idea.

As to the Nicotine level limit in the juice. Anyone's guess. However, since the European standard high seems to be 16mg/gram liquid. Take that as a possibility. Again, this is ALL just my opinion.

I appreciate your opinion. Thanks!

One suggestion that was right on with Buyer/Hagan's bill I believe was a taxing system based on the "dirtiness" of the product. For instance, cigarettes, being the dirtiest would carry the highest taxation and down from there would be different levels. The ecig is definitely a "cleaner" approach to nicotine/tobacco use and should therefor carry much less of a tax for it's users than tobacco cigarettes. It also leans to the tobacco harm reduction philosophy, encouraging smokers to make choices for themselves.

IMHO I thought this was a very good suggestion.... leaving my business bias aside and looking at it from a public health perspective/freedom to choose perspective.

Minimike makes an excellent point here in that it will be up to BT to fight for equal standard taxation across the board... and that will be interesting to see what happens. (Hence the importance of an industry body to sit at the round table when those "decisions" are being discussed.)

Yes, that's my concern. The Buyer/Hagan's bill of taxing according to "dirtiness" would make more sense, but as we all know tobacco tax is about greed and "punishing" nic users, so fairness doesn't enter the equation. Add BT's deep pockets, and screaming about their loss of $$$$ due to smokers quitting and taking up vaping, and....

Well, I'm still very nervous about this. They're not going to make it easy for us, as health is certainly NOT an issue with them.

And I'm still vaping 36mg! Now cutting it to 27mg (minimum!) just to stretch my stash, but still need the 36mg in the a.m.......

 

[webtaxman]

Well here's a thought in the tax collection strategy..

Vapors should live years longer than smokers, so the tax for eliquid should be adjusted downward accordingly to compensate for the longer lifespan and therefore longer time the government will collect taxes from the vapor.

Robbie

If we quit smoking, the general belief is that we will live longer. The government will pay out far more in social security than we will ever pay in as tax revenue. It really is in the governments best interest to just let us die. Many argue what abut the health costs of smokers--what about Medi-care? Not an argument. We are still better off dead, the sooner the better. Ideally, as soon as we are old enough to collect SS and Medicare

 

[ramblingrose]

I guess to answer your question overall, a NEW category will be defined for PV/nicliquid, which will be regulated and taxed(similarly to tobacco).

Given a choice of a ban, suspension of sales during investigation, or taxes, I would part with my yankee dollars for the tax till. As of now the FDA is calling them a drug delivery device that requires approval, so what happens in the end remains to be seen.

 

[marg]

I'm a registered pharmacist in the commonwealth of PA and a grateful e-cig user. I think it is absolutely ludicrous to even assume that e-cigs are in any way "harmful" as compared to analog cigarettes. I myself recommend them to patients who are looking for an alternative to analog smoking(which is technically "unlawful" on my part). But you have to understand, FDA is a Federal agency mandated by the Food, drug and cosmetic Act(among other acts) to oversee all "drugs" and "medical devices" marketed in the USA. Since Nicotine has recently fallen under their auspices, they have to make it appear as they are concerned about this issue. Believe me, I've lived thru at least 30 prescription drug recalls to know that when FDA gets serious about something they ACT IMMEDIATELY and DECISIVELY. Which is why I'm not at all worried about e-cigs being banned, confiscated, etc... at the moment. Now if you start seeing new articles about websites being shut down and wharehouses being raided, you know the writing is on the wall. But I don't think it will ever come to that. What most likely is going to happen, in my opinion, is that FDA will slowly require e-cig hardware producers(now mostly in China) to register with them(which if you read Ruyan's Chinese website-is already in the works) which will cause an increase in price as these companies will now have to follow US FDA current good manufacturing guidelines. The same will apply to companies making nicotine eliquid(in the US and abroad) and , of course, this liquid will be taxed(raising the price). Johnson Creek is already registered by the FDA, so they have to already follow cGMP procedures, so a precedent has already been set. So e-cigs will never go away, they'll just be regulated federally, like everything else, and the price will go up, as well as a tax thrown in for good measure.

Very refreshing!

 

[killdozerd11]

Good calculations, but extracted nicotine, again in my opinion would not be taxed that agressively. Than would mean a 10 ml bottle of 16mg/g liquid(assuming density of liquid is 1g/ml) would contain 160 mg nicotine total. at $0.50/mg nicotine tax, that would be an $80 tax on $5.95 bottle of 16mg nicquid. There is No Way the Goverment would be able to square a tax like that. When I made my suggestion of comparison I said "usuable" nicotine in a cig. There is much more nicotine in a cigarette before being burned. So I guess comparing cigs to extracted nicotine for tax purposes, may be like comparing apples and oranges. Perhaps my initial cig to liquid comparison for tax purposes was not well thought out. The tax will be high but FAIR. As Lacey noted with Buyer/Hagans, consideration would definitely be given to "clean" extracted nicotine vs. "dirty" tobacco smoke derived nicotine.

They ALWAYS tax your gross amounts never your net amounts

 

[DonDaBoomVape]

markarich159, what a wise, well-articulated commentary ... from such a knowledgable an *relevant* perspective!

Thank you!

 

[markarich159]

I find it funny as for years I used Seldane and had no issues with it. Again for some it worked and others it didn't. Remember when Merck pulled Vioxx? We got the news after the stockmarket announced it. FDA dropped the ball on that one, we got word after the news reports.

Oh yeah that's right. It was Bextra that got the Stevens Johnson syndrome Black Box before it was recalled not Vioxx. I do remeber FDA did issue a Cardiovascular warning on Vioxx, but Merck did voluntarily withdraw. I think Avandia will be the next to go with the CHF/MI blackbox. I'm assuming you're also a pharamacist/healthcare professional of some kind June.

 

[lowder5643]

Im with all others and i am grateful for insight on this. I am new to the forum having just learned of this wonderful new invention and from reading all the buzz on the U.S. banning the ecig i was extremely disheartened having tried variouse products with little results. Having learned of the of the new ecig i swiftly ordered with extreme exitment and then to learn of the proposed ban i was worried,disheartened and furiouse about the ridiculouse accusations that they have been saying about the ecig.How can they possibly ban something that distributes nicotine for the cessation of smoking much like all the other FDA approved stop smoking aides. If they do go thru with the ban then in my opinion its a blatenly obviouse sign that the lobbyists of tabacco have way to much money involved in tabacco use and have no interest in helping people to stop smoking. Im going to have to agree fully that they will not let it go without taxation on it because of the obscene amount of money that they will be loosing from all the people that switch to the ecig. I am awaiting my new ecig with lots of exitement from all the good reviews ive read i cant wait to try it out and i pray to god that they do not go thru with the ban,but if they do to all those whom had the pleasure of trying it out FEEL BLESSED

 

[Lazarus]

Here's an interesting tidbit: Did you know that Aveda products would be 100% organic except for the fact that the FDA makes them put something in their formulations to keep it only 99% pure? Crazy isn't it? They have to add a chemical to it in order to publicly dispense it.

That sounds totally unreal. What is it they make them add to ruin their product?.

 

[j4mmin42]

With more support like this, from pharmacists, doctors, and others within the healthcare field, hopefully we will see or favorite habit becoming more acceptable. FDA regulation is in the works, for sure; but I totally agree with the stance that e-cigs are just not going to disappear from the marketplace, not by force nor otherwise..they've already had too great of an impact on too many peoples' lives- and this is before they've even gotten absorbed into mainstream society! -j4mmin

 

[robbiehatfield]

If we quit smoking, the general belief is that we will live longer. The government will pay out far more in social security than we will ever pay in as tax revenue. It really is in the governments best interest to just let us die. Many argue what abut the health costs of smokers--what about Medi-care? Not an argument. We are still better off dead, the sooner the better. Ideally, as soon as we are old enough to collect SS and Medicare

LOLOLOL, you almost had me with all this until I realized that if this were true, smoking and secondhand smoke would be encouraged and not banned in public places like it is. Perhaps some non-smokers could be gotten rid of from the ETS too!? LOL

Robbie

 

[Rexa]

Thanks to the OP for their input. Considering, i am now HEARING about vaping devices being advertised on my local radio stations now it may seem that a gloomy ending is not in sight for ecigs.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

That sounds totally unreal. What is it they make them add to ruin their product?.

Paraben. It's a preservative.

As of recent, they are being allowed to remove paraben from their upcoming formulations since there has been a rise in demand for paraben free products. Still not 100% organic and my Aveda stylist friend could not remember what the other preservative was... but they are getting closer to organic.

Here is an interesting article noting a few studies: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/508430_4

 

[SharonLM]

First, thanks for this thread. I've wondered for a while now, and haven't heard it asked, but with many companies now only able to get only 24mg as the highest mg's of nicotine instead of the 36mg's, could this have something to do with the FDA stepping in?

 

[HighTech]

I'm a registered pharmacist in the commonwealth of PA and a grateful e-cig user. I think it is absolutely ludicrous to even assume that e-cigs are in any way "harmful" as compared to analog cigarettes. I myself recommend them to patients who are looking for an alternative to analog smoking(which is technically "unlawful" on my part). But you have to understand, FDA is a Federal agency mandated by the Food, drug and cosmetic Act(among other acts) to oversee all "drugs" and "medical devices" marketed in the USA. Since Nicotine has recently fallen under their auspices, they have to make it appear as they are concerned about this issue. Believe me, I've lived thru at least 30 prescription drug recalls to know that when FDA gets serious about something they ACT IMMEDIATELY and DECISIVELY. Which is why I'm not at all worried about e-cigs being banned, confiscated, etc... at the moment. Now if you start seeing new articles about websites being shut down and wharehouses being raided, you know the writing is on the wall. But I don't think it will ever come to that. What most likely is going to happen, in my opinion, is that FDA will slowly require e-cig hardware producers(now mostly in China) to register with them(which if you read Ruyan's Chinese website-is already in the works) which will cause an increase in price as these companies will now have to follow US FDA current good manufacturing guidelines. The same will apply to companies making nicotine eliquid(in the US and abroad) and , of course, this liquid will be taxed(raising the price). Johnson Creek is already registered by the FDA, so they have to already follow cGMP procedures, so a precedent has already been set. So e-cigs will never go away, they'll just be regulated federally, like everything else, and the price will go up, as well as a tax thrown in for good measure.

Johnson Creek is simply registered with the FDA that any company can do for free, or in the case of Johnson Creek, they paid someone a fee to register for them. They simply use the FDA logo on their website as a deceptive marketing practice, to give the appearance that they are somehow "FDA Approved"...

The registration is also that of a food facility, but in the category of "other" which has no mandatory inspections by the FDA and no inspections are scheduled. Johnson Creek has to no more follow cGMP guidelines, than I have to wipe my tail when I'm done in the bathroom...

Just saying... be careful of information you propagate...

 

[markarich159]

Johnson Creek is simply registered with the FDA that any company can do for free, or in the case of Johnson Creek, they paid someone a fee to register for them. They simply use the FDA logo on their website as a deceptive marketing practice, to give the appearance that they are somehow "FDA Approved"...

The registration is also that of a food facility, but in the category of "other" which has no mandatory inspections by the FDA and no inspections are scheduled. Johnson Creek has to no more follow cGMP guidelines, than I have to wipe my tail when I'm done in the bathroom...

Just saying... be careful of information you propagate...

Thank you. I was unaware of their registration status. They do imply on their website that they are following cGMP guidelines, but that may also be marketing. Looking into this further I see this "registration" is actually a requirement of the Bioterrorism Preparedness Act of 2002. My point was that they , at least, are attempting to set a precedent of propriety and transparency.

 

[markarich159]

First, thanks for this thread. I've wondered for a while now, and haven't heard it asked, but with many companies now only able to get only 24mg as the highest mg's of nicotine instead of the 36mg's, could this have something to do with the FDA stepping in?

Hi Sharon, It's possible, but I don't think so. None of the Nicquid sellers are to my knowledge, at this point, appoved to market nicotine as a drug product. So if the FDA would "step in" they would stop them from selling completely. It is possible , however, that sellers are taking it upon themselves to taper down there product to avoid possible overdose liability issues. I still do think a few sellers have 36 mg available.