ByteMe

Here's my two cents worth... Keep in mind that most (if not all) of these so-called "Anti (fill in movement and or group name)" / non-profits would be out of business if, what they profess to fighting for / against, didn't exist.. For example (here's the dirty little secret): It's in the best interest (viz. funding = $$$) of the American Lung Association, etc.. to keep people smoking simply because, if people didn't smoke, the ALA would be out of business..

Brandon

That's a bit too tinfoil hat for my tastes. The citizens' petitions against e-cigarettes and various other OTC nicotine replacement therapies/cigarette alternatives have been explicitly from GlaxoSmithKline and other manufacturers of existing FDA approved NRTs. Essentially, they don't have a profit motive for FDA approval of e-cigarettes, and they want to maintain market share. (The FDA doesn't generally seek out products to regulate, but waits until something is brought to its attention via similar petitions, so this is normal operating procedure for everyone involved)

LaceyUnderall

Holy revival right?

Brandon, your investigation is very similar to mine. I have come up with the exact same thing. For your homeopathic investigation, which this is a route that some ecig manufacturers are seriously considering... lobelia inflata allows for a 3X dilution rate in order to be OTC. So this could be an option. I am still not sure how they plan on dealing with the non-nicotine solution. Push comes to shove... hopefully they will look at it like Canada has... no nicotine, not a drug nor a drug delivery device.

A note on these groups that sell themselves as "Public Health Groups": One thing we have gathered from speaking with the American Legacy Foundation (truth.org) and Tobacco Free Kids, is that they are reading from the exact same sheet. When someone accuses them of being "quit or die smoking", that is exactly what they believe. There should be no middle ground and tobacco harm reduction is a thorn in their paw.

They claim they do not support any products, however, any conversations with them go to FDA approved NRT's. With the control said groups have over the FDA, and we have seen it before with NicoWater, the Nicotine Lollipop (which these Health Organizations coined the term "lollipop", not the manufacturer), once nicotine is placed in the hands of the FDA it is simply a matter of time before we begin to see no new products being allowed on the market that contain nicotine. We will see a decrease in nicotine content in cigarettes (even though they cannot allow zero)... but when we get to that point, there will be a push for a new bill that will eliminate this clause in the current bills and voila... no more nicotine of any kind. A sneaky prohibition if you will.

Brandon

Well, I finished my investigation, so I'd like to summarize my findings:

The FDA could, at any time, make a determination for e-cigarettes like they made for tobacco before FDA v. Brown & Williamson. That is, a determination relying on outside evidence (rather than the manufacturer's statements only) that the product was being marketed with intent to be used as a drug (and therefore regulable). The FDA's statements to date have seemed to leave this prospect open, but that is not the FDA's policy currently and I don't know of any indications that it will start treating all e-cigaretes as intended for use as drugs. So long as distributors don't make impermissible health/treatment claims (or buy from a manufacturer who does) the FDA won't mind.

Regarding the homeopathic option, it's really not possible for e-cigarettes. The concentrations of nicotine used in the cartriges are several orders of magnitude greater than even the 3X dilution you found for Lobelia Inflata (not to mention that a homeopathic dilution of a plant must be of some physically separable part of the plant - the 6X dilution of nicotine may arguably be more concentrated). The only concentration considered by the HPCUS is that of the solution (that is, "per dose" or "per day" are not measures that can be used).

Really, distributed as they are (without health/treatment claims), and without the FDA having made a determination of intent for use as a drug, e-cigarettes aren't within the FDA's jurisdiction. Not for issues of the nicotine, and also not for issues with the propylene glycol.

Regarding the nicotine lollipop, pharmacists who compound drugs for patients have FDA limitations on their manufacturing and marketing. As I recall, the lollipop was a product marketed by a pharmacist - pharmacists are limited to marketing the compounding service but not products themselves. A very similar product (the nicotine lozenge Commit) is on the market as an NRT, sold OTC.

flavorcountry

That's what I've been irked about. Also consider that nicorette has had a pv for at least nine years, the FDA hasn't said poo about that. It does the EXACT same thing with the same ingredients. However, there's stock invested in nicorette. I can't say I know rj reynolds' s.o.p. , but there are some things to considder.
1. The RJ Reynolds was rich and influential before the FDA ever began to form(as was phizer), so in some other countries that aren't as nice as ours, this company could have already had a great ammount of control over a federation before that federation instituded a drug agency.
2. If I was part of a tobacco company, I'd have invested in nicorette before it ever hit the shelves. . . so as to make money off the sheep one way or the other. Plus, if you own a huge percentage of nicorette, you have some say over their opperation also. It's a vicious circle we go through, buying nicorette, then cigs... rinse and repeat.