tocacco plant Native American Tobaccoo flower, leaves, and buds

tocacco Tobacco is an annual or bi-annual growing 1-3 meters tall with large sticky leaves that contain nicotine. Native to the Americas, tobacco has a long history of use as a shamanic inebriant and stimulant. It is extremely popular and well-known for its addictive potential.

tocacco nicotina Nicotiana tabacum

tocacco Nicotiana rustica leaves. Nicotiana rustica leaves have a nicotine content as high as 9%, whereas Nicotiana tabacum (common tobacco) leaves contain about 1 to 3%

tocacco cigar A cigar is a tightly rolled bundle of dried and fermented tobacco which is ignited so that its smoke may be drawn into the mouth. Cigar tobacco is grown in significant quantities in Brazil, Cameroon, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Honduras, Indonesia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Sumatra, Philippines, and the Eastern United States.

tocacco Tobacco is an agricultural product processed from the fresh leaves of plants in the genus Nicotiana. It can be consumed, used as an organic pesticide, and in the form of nicotine tartrate it is used in some medicines. In consumption it may be in the form of cigarettes smoking, snuffing, chewing, dipping tobacco, or snus.

tocacco
Tobacco-Facts ads

PayPal Warned About E-Cigarette Legal Liability


PayPal has been warned about the legal consequences of continuing to facilitate the sale of e-cigarettes — a product the FDA has ruled is “misbrand[ed],” an “unapproved new drug” and “are illegal until they are cleared,” and whose sale has been prohibited by court order in at least one state. The legal warning comes as e-cigarette advertising has reportedly been banned on Facebook, and e-cigarettes which deliver Cialis as well as nicotine are now available.

PayPal was advised that providing payment for e-cigarettes “appears to be aiding and abetting the sale of these illegal products by providing payment vehicles to Internet sites which are selling them, and doing so in interstate commerce and in possible violation of consumer protection laws in the individual states.”

PayPal was also warned that: “As the FDA and others have noted,
e-cigarettes pose a wide variety of potential dangers to users, and perhaps also to those around them, both of whom inhale a mixture of nicotine (a dangerous drug) and propylene glycol (which is used in antifreeze, and may cause respiratory tract irritation).

Thus, in addition to possible legal liability for simply facilitating the sale of an illegal product, PayPal might well be named as a defendant should an e-cigarette user or a family member claim that some medical problem was caused or exacerbated by an e-cigarette illegally sold with PayPal’s assistance.”

It appears that other business entities involved, even indirectly, with the sale of this unapproved new product are taking steps to limit their potential legal liability. Two corporations in Colorado, faced with potential charges of violating consumer protection laws, have agreed to no longer sell the “illegal” products.
www.pr-inside.com/e-cigarette-sales-banned-by-court-order-r14184 .. AND reason.com/blog/show/135190.html

Facebook has reportedly decided that “we do not allow ads for electronic cigarettes and will not allow the creation of any further Facebook Ads for this product.” www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/e-cigarette-news/31154-facebook- ..

Meanwhile, it also appears that at least one distributor is providing e-cigarettes designed to deliver Cialis, with or without an added nicotine kick, and apparently without the need for a prescription. www.e-cig.com/shopping/shopexd.asp?id=608

“This illustrates just one additional potential danger of permitting businesses to decide for themselves to offer drug-delivery devices to the public without any FDA review or approval,” says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, Executive Director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), America’s first antismoking organization. He warns that a sale-first approval-later policy allows drug sellers to use the public as guinea pigs to test the safety of the products.

Banzhaf also notes that other nicotine-delivery products — including nicotine gum, nicotine patches, nicotine sprays, and nicotine inhalers — all had to obtain FDA approval before they were permitted on the market. Other nicotine-delivery products which could not prove that they were safe — including a cigarette look-alike product named “Favor,” as well as nicotine lollipops — are not permitted to be sold.

Banzhaf’s scheduled appearance on NBC-TV Nightly News was a major factor in prompting the FDA to report that e-cigarettes contained detectable levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals to which users could potentially be exposed.
SEE: www.pr-inside.com/fda-ignores-major-dangers-of-e-cigarettes-r140 ..

The FDA said the toxic chemicals included diethylene glycol, “an ingredient used in antifreeze, [which] is toxic to humans”; “certain tobacco-specific nitrosamines which are human carcinogens”; and that “tobacco-specific impurities suspected of being harmful to humans - anabasine, myosmine, and β-nicotyrine - were detected in a majority of the samples tested.” www.pr-inside.com/fda-to-regulate-e-cigarettes-as-toxins-r140360 .. AND www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm173146.htm

In addition to these known dangers, there are many other potential dangers which have not yet been evaluated by the FDA, and which may be even more serious. These include possible contamination, smokers who otherwise would quit instead remaining addicted to nicotine, the deadly danger nicotine inhalation can pose for people with risk factors for heart attacks, the propensity of inhaled nicotine to sustain or even trigger an addiction, the worry that youngsters will use e-cigarettes as “training wheels” on the way towards cigarette smoking, and the potential risks to those around e-cigarette users — including infants and young children, the elderly, those with existing medical problems, etc. — who will be exposed to the exhaled vapors containing nicotine and propylene glycol.

ASH, which served the legal notice on PayPal, had earlier warned credit card companies about their facilitation of the illegal sales of cigarettes over the Internet.
ash.org/creditorltr.html

Then ASH wrote to the attorneys general of the 50 states asking them to take legal action. The result was a legal crackdown on companies facilitating the illegal sale of cigarettes on the Internet. ash.org/agtaxletter.html AND ash.org/no-smoking/nov05/11-10-05-1.html

“Companies which facilitate the sale of a product determined by the FDA to be “illegal,” and which has such a large number of known and potential health dangers, should either discontinue their support or be prepared to face the legal consequences,” warns Prof. Banzhaf.

PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF III
Professor of Public Interest Law and Executive Director
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
America’s First Antismoking Organization
2013 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006, USA
(202) 659-4310 // (703) 527-8418 // ash.org

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • MySpace
  • MyShare
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • Simpy
  • Sphinn
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Blogosphere News
  • Mixx
  • Reddit
  • Propeller
  • MisterWong
  • LinkedIn

Related posts:

  1. Electronic Cigarette Seller Sued - Fines and Penalties Sought A major retailer of electronic cigarettes has been sued in...
  2. Amazon.com Dropping E-Cigarette Sales The Internet retailer Amazon.com is reportedly moving to stop selling...
  3. Facebook issued legal notice for violating Indian tobacco control laws Failure of the social networking website “Facebook” to remove pages...
  4. Cigarettes - the only legal product Cigarettes are the only legal product that, when used as...
  5. Government ban on cigarette displays in shops may fail legal test A flagship government anti-smoking scheme that would ban Britain’s shops...
  6. Tobacco Control Legal Consortium Cigarettes are the only legal product that, when used as...
  7. Smoking — legal and smoky environments Nov. 19 is the American Cancer Society’s 32nd annual Great...
  8. Tobacco Liability Thirty-four states have enacted legislation that caps the appeal bond...
  9. E-Cigarette Law Suits Being Made Easy Any person who had purchased an e-cigarette will be able...
  10. Should Pot Be Legal? David Evans: We cannot legalize marijuana because its use has...

7 comments to PayPal Warned About E-Cigarette Legal Liability

  • Karla Chorny

    Anyone who believes this baloney is out of their minds. I am a nicotine addict. I have two viable options. I can set fire to 3900 chemicals (including formaldahyde, battery acid, nail polish remover, etc) and inhale the fumes OR I can use my e-cig. The choice is such a no-brainer it’s laughable.

    Your article is incorrect. Propylene glycol is not the harmful chemical that the FDA found. The harmful chemical that is found in anti-freeze is diethylene glycol, and 1% was found in ONE sample that was tested. Those of us who use e-cigs are not interested in inhaling that substance either, and are most certainly taking care to know what is in the juice that we are buying.

    I can tell you, for CERTAIN, that if you make it impossible for me (and thousands of others!) to get the e-cig supplies that I need, I will go back to smoking the real thing. Is that what you really want???

  • Aki

    This is, quite frankly, utter crap. The only reason the FDA is trying to get e-cigs off the market is because real cigarettes are an extremely predictable source of income for the government because of the nicotine’s highly addictive nature. The FDA is only concerned with money, and is being pressured into completely biased studies and half truths.

    The study was performed on 18 juices, and only ONE was found to have less than 1% of diethylene gycol. That one juice was made in CHINA, and this isn’t the first time something harmful has been found in something China made.

    The FDA also says it has nitrosamines, which is true. Um, nicotine gums and patches have nitrosamines too, yet they are legal? If you compare e-cigs to cigarettes e-cigs are the smarter choice for you health. Now, I’m not saying they are completely healthy, but they are better for you then the real thing. Just taking out the process of burning the tobacco makes them the better choice because you get tar when you burn them. Not to mention all the chemicals found in cigarettes.

    Cigarettes have nearly 4000 different harmful chemicals, yet they aren’t banned like e-cigs? This is all about profit and money. Learn your FACTS before you write an article, because it is completely incorrect.

  • Ken M.

    I agree with both of them. And i am a former tobacco who finally, by the graces of Electronic Cigarette, haven’t touched a tobacco “death stick” cigarette in 2 months. I feel so much better. I am gaining weight, have more energy to work out, the smoke that lingered in my stomach is no longer there so i can eat alot more, and i my appetite is coming back like it was in high school. I no longer feel winded and short of breath all the time. I breath alot better and started playing basketball again because my lungs don’t feel like they are on fire anymore. After a day of tobacco smoking, my lungs just felt like they were used up, felt like there was a hole burning in them at the end of the day, but not anymore.
    The trace amounts of like 4 or 5 chemicals that the FDA deems harmful is nothing compared to the over 4000 found in cigarettes. And its over 4000 for tobacco products such as American Spirits, which i believe are organically grown and controlled (that’s why they cost so much), but it is over 7000 harmful chemicals in Camel and over 11,000 in Marlboro. So that 4000 is just the low ball number. And i doubt all those harmful chemicals in tobacco are found in trace, amounts, like in E-cigarettes. The FDA probably found like .001 percent of something and said ‘now we got them’. Also i believe that it is Ethylene Glycol (which is toxic), not to be confused with Diethylene Glycol, that is most ‘Commonly’ found in coolant or anti freeze for automobiles. However, Diethylene Glycol is also used in ways as a coolant when mixed with water. However Diethelene Glycol has a very low acute toxicity level. Also i believe there are forms of Anti-freeze or coolant that do use Propylene Glycol (because it is non toxic), however, these anti-freezes are labelled as Non-Toxic anti-freeze. Big Point!! Just because you use the word anti-freeze or coolant does not necessarily mean automobile anti-freeze. Anti-freeze or coolant are used in many products such as Foods, Medicine, Cosmetics, the way they process most of the food you eat, the pipes which carry your water that you drink everyday, and in many more everyday applications. Propylyne glycol is deemed SAFE for foods by the FDA because you are probably incontact, or eating and drinking it all day long, anyway. And!!! the FDA, under their Code of Federal Regulations, allows for 0.2% of Diethylene Glycol in all Propylene Glycol that is used in all Food Additives. Talk about Hypocrisy and trying to find anyway to protect the money they receive form big tobacco companies.
    Nicotine Patched and gum… dont get me started. first of all, they all contain trace amounts of tobacco specigic nitrosamines, or carcinogenic chemicals-cancer causing.

    “carcinogen NNK [4-(methylnirosamino)-1-(3-pyridyl)-1-butanone] was found to be present at a concentration of 0.008 micrograms per patch in NicoDerm CQ and NNN [N'-nitrosonornicotine] was found to be present at a concentration of 0.002 micrograms per piece in Nicorette.” Whatever the results of e-cigarettes were, i cant see it being anyworse in that regard.” this was quoted from http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/07/tobacco-specific-carcinogens-found-in.html
    please read this article.

    That is the information that they are hiding from us and a proper analysis and comparison between the two should have been and given to the public. With all the findings in detail (unless they already did). But what do they do, whatever big tobacco tells them, hide it, scare the public, get this product out of here, or you (the government) and I (big tobacco) will loose billions. The FDA does not want to loose the half a billion dollars in contributions, as well as the senators and congressmen who have their hands open to big tobacco. Not all politicians, some are good and are for democracy and i am sure will help us, but then there are those who do not have that sense of what a free nation should be, anymore.
    I wonder how much money big tobacco paid these people to right this article and that professor Banzha and his ‘Americas First Smoking Organization’. Probably funded by the Tobacco companies. Dont be fooled, i am certain that allmost every anti smoking campaign is endorsed and in some way a part of tobacco companies. They use it very tactfully however as a means to keep everything else out.

  • Brian

    ***The FDA said the toxic chemicals included diethylene glycol, “an ingredient used in antifreeze, [which] is toxic to humans”; “certain tobacco-specific nitrosamines which are human carcinogens”; and that “tobacco-specific impurities suspected of being harmful to humans - anabasine, myosmine, and β-nicotyrine - were detected in a majority of the samples tested.***

    All of those substances were in the samples because the nicotine in the samples was extracted from tobacco which has them. Other e-cigarette e-liquids don’t have them because they use pharmaceutical grade nicotine and prevent those substances from entering your system as you are not smoking tobacco.

    If the FDA makes this illegal, e-cigarette users will begin doing it all themselves from extracting nicotine from tobacco to creating homemade e-cigarettes. Accidents will result and people will die, but fewer than would die from smoking. Why not avoid deaths from smoking and deaths from making this illegal?

    This is about “harm reduction”. E-cigarettes are the best harm reduction for nicotine addiction on the market because they work. If you doubt they work, look how much e-cigarette use, a.k.a. “vaping”, has caught on in since 2004. Not among non-smokers, but smokers who want to be former smokers.

  • Jim

    Congratulations to big tobacco, you godless animals. Looks like you win again. Anyone with a minimal amount of historical data can put two and two together here. You feared this products ability to encroach on your market of walking dead and paid your Washington DC cronies enough to kill it. What’s one more murder victim to a serial killer really?

  • PayPal has got ASH snowed. They only appear to be shutting down payment for sites selling electronic cigarettes.

    The only sites that PayPal is refusing to process orders for are the little guys. The distributors and the Big Boy sites that you read about on the e-cig forums have not had their accounts shut down by PayPal.

    After PayPal was given specific web site addresses for major electronic cigarette retailers and wholesalers and asked why they were not having their accounts shut down, PayPal responded with the following:

    “It is obviously impossible to thoroughly review every website on the internet all at once and simultaneously limit every violator.

    The PayPal Acceptable Use Policy Department employs a variety of methods, techniques, and tools when conducting investigations on suspected violations of the policy. These methodologies are proprietary to the company; the divulgement of which cannot be disclosed as it would result
    in a less effective approach of discovering those violations.”

    What a load of B.S.! When you are given specific web site addresses that are obviously in violation of your new, unwritten policy and all you can come back with is that lame answer, it is clear that, like all entities involved in this ridiculous battle, the only thing that matters is the money!

    ASH, the FDA, Congressmen, the pharmaceutical industry, Big Tobacco and now PayPal can be added to the list of sellouts. If this was about public health, regular cigarettes would have been the first thing to go!

  • Wayne Vignes

    What intellectual, fraudulent dishonesty to portray oneself as having genuine concern for the health of others, while ignoring the facts regarding the e-cig as a decidedly favorable alternative to a known killer product. And tobacco being a product which is and has been only lightly regulated by the US Congress. I suggest that the good professor remove his mask, or seek treatment for his delusion that he is interested in the wholesale welfare of any smoker. This is a clear manifestation of a personal, political campaign that is not only warped, and perhaps greed driven, but also seriously illogical. Were I of a different fabric I may be burninng to know what the good professor would suggest a smoker do as an alternative to tobacco product use. And don’t give me the typical non-smoker, trite, ignorant advice to simply go cold turkey. As a smoker for over 40 years, having quit and restarted tobacco use many times, I defy anyone to show me a product anywhere that would have allowed me to, so far and easily, cease using tobacco and feel better in 3 days, have no desire to buy tobacco, nearly vomit at the smell of a smoker, and so on. Dear professor and other anti-smoking tyrants, should I simply remain chained to the LEGAL tobacco Industry? Sir, et al you are all sinisterly motivated frauds, in my opinion.

    More simply put, this is no more than profit protection, mafia-like bullshit. The Public is smarter than they think, I hope. These are my opinions.

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word