I was in my local Vape shop today and we were talking about the fda. The fda claims vaping is still a tobacco product because our nic is still sourced from tobacco (derived). The answer to this connection is now to source nicotine from plants containing nicotine such as-yep tomatoes. Apparently- unbeknownst to me- many plants contain nicotine. Now I can't confirm this I haven't researched it myself but, has anyone ever heard this as a viable alternative to tobacco extracted nicotine?
nicotine extraction- tomato's?
- Thread starter jamie419
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Not unless the vegetables have been genetically altered to increase nicotine levels. The amount of tomatoes or eggplants needed would make the resulting nicotine prohibitively expensive.
The nicotine in tomatoes is found in the leaves not in the fruit itself making it a waste product wich should make it fairly cheap to produce. Grimmgreen talked about it in one of his vlogs a few weeks ago.
How many thousands of lbs of leaves would if take to extract enough nicotine for 1 30 ml bottle of e-liquid? Doesn't sound cheap to me...
The best alternative plant is the Duboisia Hopwoodii or Australian pituri plant.
Some varieties are said to contain about as much nicotine as some tobacco plant cultivars at the lower end of the nicotine-bearing range. However the extraction of nicotine from Duboisia would cost more because most varieties contain unwanted alkaloids such as scopolamine and hyoscyamine, which would need to be removed from the final product
[see: E-Cigarette Terminology -- Duboisia]
If Duboisia could be produced commercially, and the best cultivars chosen, then perhaps the nicotine could be extracted at a final cost of around ten times the cost of current liquid nicotine. This compares very well with either synthetic nicotine (which requires double the quantity since it only has half the bioactivity of organic nicotine) or vegetable-extracted nicotine, which both come in at around 100 to 1,000 times the cost of current nicotine supplies.
Note that many examples exist of statements that synthetic nicotine could be produced cheaply; and that the bioactive isomer could be easily produced; or that nicotine could be extracted from vegetables easily. None of these have ever produced any concrete result, whatever statements are made about them, and they can be discounted as unrealised and unachievable for any practical purposes.
None of these routes are viable, though, because:
1. It doesn't matter where the nic comes from, or what you call it, because the principal job of the regulators is to shut down vaping as far as they are legally able to. Therefore, whatever changes are made to the product, they will simply change the wording of the laws to suit. Whatever alterations are made, they will change the laws to stop it. They have absolutely no interest whatsoever in public health, they are there to protect tax revenue and pharmaceutical industry income.
There is a fundamental error commonly made about the role of government regulators in the smoking-related area: that they are somehow in place to protect the public, or willing to listen to science-based argument, or similar misconceptions. They are there to ban vaping as far as they are able, because it is a threat to immense revenues of at least a trillion dollars a year. They will do whatever they can to ban or restrict vaping and protect the status quo (by protecting smoking from any serious threats).
2. Liquid nicotine will always be available from China and India, where it all comes from (none comes from the US, it's just re-badged). When laws prohibit the legal purchase of products that people have every right to access, they find an alternative source. Liquid nicotine will always be available on the black market, although the quality is certain to be lower than current standards. That is the usual result of moving products from the legal to the illegal market since it removes all consumer protection.
Some varieties are said to contain about as much nicotine as some tobacco plant cultivars at the lower end of the nicotine-bearing range. However the extraction of nicotine from Duboisia would cost more because most varieties contain unwanted alkaloids such as scopolamine and hyoscyamine, which would need to be removed from the final product
[see: E-Cigarette Terminology -- Duboisia]
If Duboisia could be produced commercially, and the best cultivars chosen, then perhaps the nicotine could be extracted at a final cost of around ten times the cost of current liquid nicotine. This compares very well with either synthetic nicotine (which requires double the quantity since it only has half the bioactivity of organic nicotine) or vegetable-extracted nicotine, which both come in at around 100 to 1,000 times the cost of current nicotine supplies.
Note that many examples exist of statements that synthetic nicotine could be produced cheaply; and that the bioactive isomer could be easily produced; or that nicotine could be extracted from vegetables easily. None of these have ever produced any concrete result, whatever statements are made about them, and they can be discounted as unrealised and unachievable for any practical purposes.
None of these routes are viable, though, because:
1. It doesn't matter where the nic comes from, or what you call it, because the principal job of the regulators is to shut down vaping as far as they are legally able to. Therefore, whatever changes are made to the product, they will simply change the wording of the laws to suit. Whatever alterations are made, they will change the laws to stop it. They have absolutely no interest whatsoever in public health, they are there to protect tax revenue and pharmaceutical industry income.
There is a fundamental error commonly made about the role of government regulators in the smoking-related area: that they are somehow in place to protect the public, or willing to listen to science-based argument, or similar misconceptions. They are there to ban vaping as far as they are able, because it is a threat to immense revenues of at least a trillion dollars a year. They will do whatever they can to ban or restrict vaping and protect the status quo (by protecting smoking from any serious threats).
2. Liquid nicotine will always be available from China and India, where it all comes from (none comes from the US, it's just re-badged). When laws prohibit the legal purchase of products that people have every right to access, they find an alternative source. Liquid nicotine will always be available on the black market, although the quality is certain to be lower than current standards. That is the usual result of moving products from the legal to the illegal market since it removes all consumer protection.
The False assertion of the FDA is that Vaping is a tobacco product is Pure Political/Financial BULL SHIRT!!
There is NO prerequisite for an e-cig or Personal Vaporizer to have Nicotine included in the Product.
Dieters use PV's to help control Cravings - Non-Nic
Many CLOUD CHASERS use PV's to Blow massive Clouds with, get this.................NO NICOTINE
Many ex-smokers have used PV's help them stop smoking and reached the point of Vaping........... OMG!!!! 0mg Nic
There is NO prerequisite for an e-cig or Personal Vaporizer to have Nicotine included in the Product.
Dieters use PV's to help control Cravings - Non-Nic
Many CLOUD CHASERS use PV's to Blow massive Clouds with, get this.................NO NICOTINE
Many ex-smokers have used PV's help them stop smoking and reached the point of Vaping........... OMG!!!! 0mg Nic
I do think the FDA only has the power to regulate e-liquid which has nicotine because it is a tobacco product. There really aren't any other viable means of extracting or making nicotine, however...
Nicotine source is a moot issue. The FDA is going after the equipment used to vaporize it. Controlling/regulating hardware captures all vaping regardless of nic content. They will hold exclusive definition of "intended use."
Disposables, yes. Mods and APVs, they can't touch. They can try, but any efforts to regulate a power delivery system will not hold up in courts. The CPSC can and should require certain standards, however...
glad I brought up this topic very informative-which is my purpose for being a member of this site.my guy at the b&m was telling me about the proposal for a liscensing fee for e-liquids it was ridiculous to the point only huge companies could afford to liscense a flavor blend
One company just calculated the fees they will have to pay, it was something like $1.3 billion for their e-liquids, if all the proposals come into force.
that's exactly what my b&m said it would cost 150,000.00 per(that's right) "PER" flavor. my shop has 50 regular flavors and 12 cloud comp flavors. your average store couldn't afford to sell one flavor. most shops would just cease to exist, and all you hear is how they wanna help small business and create jobs in this country. why is everybody under the impression that they just wanna go after devices they want to go after it all! I make my own and I plan on stocking up on nic solution. Wholesale Nicotine, Bulk e-Liquid, PG, VG and Supplies Heartlandvapes Wholesale this site has 55 gallon drums of nic if you wanna stock up for the zombie apocalypse! just sayin!
For now, at least in the US, our Nicotine NEEDS to come from tobacco.
FDA blocked import of e-cigs and tried to regulate them as a combination drug/delivery product.
This would require :
1. Its intended to have some theraputic benefit - treat, cure some disease.
or
2. articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body (Drug or medical device)
The courts decided that condition 1 doesn't apply if they aren't claiming theraputic benefit.
Condition 2 doesn't apply because congress intended to give tobacco an exception - it acts as a drug but shan't be regulated the same way.
So If you have non-tobacco nicotine - then its now a drug under 2 and needs all the pre-market drug/medical device paperwork and studies.
If its nicotine - tobacco or not - and claims to treat smoking or nicotine dependance - then it falls under 1.
So long as its a tobacco-derivative and not marketed as theraputic - then its a tobacco product and gets preferential treatment.
FDA blocked import of e-cigs and tried to regulate them as a combination drug/delivery product.
This would require :
1. Its intended to have some theraputic benefit - treat, cure some disease.
or
2. articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body (Drug or medical device)
The courts decided that condition 1 doesn't apply if they aren't claiming theraputic benefit.
Condition 2 doesn't apply because congress intended to give tobacco an exception - it acts as a drug but shan't be regulated the same way.
So If you have non-tobacco nicotine - then its now a drug under 2 and needs all the pre-market drug/medical device paperwork and studies.
If its nicotine - tobacco or not - and claims to treat smoking or nicotine dependance - then it falls under 1.
So long as its a tobacco-derivative and not marketed as theraputic - then its a tobacco product and gets preferential treatment.
And thus we have defacto fascism in America, though most don't recognize it as such, because it's a kind of soft fascism that features, instead of labor camps, hotels, and also because they still think The Government is running the country when it's really just a front for the corporations and banks who, under color of government, can get any law they want passed.
Well, from my all be it limited knowledge of law, the problem the FDA is having with e-liquid, and why they keep postponing decisions on it's classification as a tobacco product is not that they don't want to, but that they can't. The scope of this legally is much larger than tobacco or e-cigs. Once they make a direct link between nicotine and tobacco, making them one in the same, this rule can then be used against them.... or more specifically Monsanto, a huge financial contributor. But saying that whatever one does to an organic product; be it extract something from it, add something too it, or alter it in any way, to make a new product, it is still that from whence it came, they directly remove the basis on which GMO product are patented on. Example: Monsanto takes organic corn, alters this to resist disease or drought. They then file a patent on this as this corn as well as all corn grown from this is their property. Now if the FDA says that nicotine is still tobacco because it came from tobacco, and is legally still tobacco, that corn seed which has been altered can now be said to still be corn seed if harvested from the plant the farmer grew after purchasing the parent seed. From my understanding this kind of "property rights" also reaches into the medical/bio/pharmaceutical industry as it pertains to human genes. IDK how true this is, but it sounded right when I heard, got into the conversation, and had it explained to me.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
