Nicotine addiction and gateways do not exist. Is the Food and Drug Administration exempt from providing proof of the decision to classify and change the definition of nicotine as a tobacco product?
Aside from the government putting out fraudulent research, massive propaganda and the plain old “we aren’t listening” – or “we heard you and don’t care” stances, the deeming regulations of e-cigarettes rest, without being questioned, on the government’s word.
Stern and believable soundbites like “we’ve looked at the data” and “redoubling efforts” (what the hell is that?) and “guided by evidence” with other fun catch phrases are tossed around profitably, like cigarette butts.
Well, I don’t trust them or their word.
Meanwhile, as defined, states are getting away with taxing e-liquid and components as tobacco.
Is there a reason the following three things aren’t being focused on by organizations in the United States?
Maybe it doesn’t matter.
I’ll get to my points.
There are three things
In my best estimation, any decisions made by the Food and Drug Administration cannot be determined by fraudulent research or simple and contrived assertions.
These three things are what the FDA needs to validate for the “deeming” regulations to be valid.
- The definition of nicotine as tobacco
- Nicotine addiction without tobacco and MAOI’s
1. The definition of nicotine as tobacco
They had to change the definition of nicotine. Why is that?
Nicotine is not tobacco.
Nicotine is .06% to 3% dry weight of tobacco. (Source)
I’m no chemist, and certainly no mathmatician, so I’ll go with what I’ve got:
Tobacco contains a much higher percentage of:
- “Malic acid” at 2.83 %
- “Calcium as CaO” at 2.22%
- “Potassium as K20” is at 2.47
“Reducing sugars as dextrose” is astronomically higher at 22.09%.
Why are those chemicals not deemed “tobacco” or considered addictive?
— Jonathan Roberson (@Liquid_Strat) August 18, 2017
Have you ever seen milk squirt out from raw hamburger or steak?
- Milk isn’t defined as beef.
Have you ever got a splinter with your pancakes?
- Syrup isn’t defined as wood.
You’ve never found any flowers in your beer?
- Alcohol isn’t defined as hops or barley.
Public health and government are not honest.
Nicotine isn’t tobacco.
2. Nicotine addiction without tobacco and MAOI’s.
Of the “thousands” of chemicals, nicotine is the addictive ingredient?
There is no data or science worth reading showing nicotine addiction without tobacco and MAOI’s.
Let them force them to find it in their secret files and produce it.
I’ve asked for them from various “experts” and government and body parts organizations.
They don’t exist. Among other places, it is
Oh, it’s shown here:
There is NO gateway.
Proof By Assertion
Can the FDA prove these three assertions? You know, like in a court of law?
Is proof by assertion all the government needs to claim nicotine is addictive? That gateways exist? That, without science and real data, allows them to classify nicotine as tobacco?
Nobody’s caught on to that yet? Why?
Doesn’t this scare you?
- Really? Just me? (Pretend my arms are flailing around)
- Has anyone challenged these points? (Pretend my voice went up)
- Did anyone ASK them for proof? (Pretend I’m red faced)
- Does it prove addiction or gateways? (Pretend I’m screaming)
All parties involved are well aware of the deception. This isn’t about health. This isn’t about “the children™”.
Regulations boil down to one thing. Revenue. Fiscal health. Cash.
Listing “disclosures”, the National Cancer Institute, State and Community Tobacco Control Initiative, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health and of course the American Cancer Society and Cancer Action Network were involved with this:
Read it again.
That’s included in this PDF
They all breaking the law, or various laws.
These are fictitious claims, no one is loud enough to challenge them. I’m waiting on someone to have some balls to challenge it with lawsuits, something.
Alan had this to say about industry in the U.K.:
“as a consumer directly influenced by their current and future viability these thoughts are directed towards them.”
I mentioned the organizations at the beginning of this blog. With that, I’m including legitimate vendors and brick & mortar businesses in that realm of “organizations”.
I’m also talking about the fly-by-count-my-money-at-night vendors who are doing less than nothing for anyone but themselves.
Whether it be industry or consumer organizations who are well established, I am asking: Are these three points above a waste of time?
How will doing nothing (or any other inaction) impact consumers?
Why are consumers having to settle for less?
Are my questions “too little, too late”?
These are the things that keep me up at night.
Elaine Keller, well respected by me, had this to say on my post of this blog on Facebook:
“In my personal opinion, the problem lies within the law itself, not some arbitrary decision on the part of the FDA”
Nicotine has been defined as “tobacco” is defined in the “Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Act”. It, among other things:
Defines a tobacco product as any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption.
That’s here in:
That needs to be changed. Immediately.
For you who are fighting at the industry level, and I do know who you are, thank you.
For you who aren’t fighting, I know who you some of you are – I’m a couple times behind on telling both the government, and you, to kiss my ass.
You can find me here trying to be cordial on Facebook
You can find me here being a bit more evil on Twitter
You can also find me on LinkedIn
Have you met my friends at vapers.org.uk?
Medical, Research, Science Professionals:
A Billion Lives
Your comments are NEVER filtered, always encouraged and welcome on this blog.
There is definitely more to come.
Keep ON #Vaping On.
Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2017 Vaping Links And More