Is the Puff Bar Targeted at Reducing the Addiction Potential of Electronic Cigarettes?
Puff Bar is a superb alternative to a normal ice cream treat since it has none of the cons associated with an ice cream treat. Puff Bar is really a simple sweet treat, that makes it a great alternative to traditional ice cream treats. Puff Bar is manufactured with only natural flavors, so it’s a healthy alternative for individuals who are watching their diet. Moreover, Puff Bar is easy to make, you can make it as often as you want and never have to prepare the ice cream each time. It’s great for kids and for parties because it’s easy to serve.
Puff Bar is really a relatively new product, that was developed to test people a reaction to herbal cigarette alternatives. Whenever we smoke we have been exposing ourselves to thousands of chemicals, some are good, some are bad. Puff Bar does not contain any artificial flavors, colors or nicotine and in addition has zero calories. The manufacturers claim that Puff Bar doesn’t really taste like cigarettes because it is made from completely natural ingredients including fruits, sugar and mint.
One of the biggest issues in public health today is obesity and diet. For this reason many companies are developing products that help people stay trim. The Puff Bar is one of these products, they are currently marketing them under names like Puff Nosh, Pop Tart and Popcorn Squeeze. The makers of Puff Bar claim that individuals who use their product to lose weight can easily do so when they only need to carry around the tiny product. The makers of Puff Bar know that since public health officials have already been calling for more information on the dangers of empty e-cigarette cartridges it’s pretty clear that the general public wants to learn about Puff Bar and whether or not it poses a risk to public health.
By calling their product a “reusable” cartridge they are in direct violation of the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In line with the FDA any e-cigarette that contains nicotine must contain an insert that allows one to put it into the mouth area, therefore you can’t put it into your pocket or purse to go on it where ever you might go. If the product also offers an extinguisher additionally it is in violation of regulations. The reason being that since there is no ash made by a puff Bar e Cigarette it isn’t a valid device to use to refill a preexisting e cigarette with nicotine or to smoke a different one.
Since the maker of Puff Bar realized this their lawyers have sent letters to the firms that produce puff bars claiming that they have marketed their product in a way that is illegal. As well as sending cease and desist orders from the lawyers have demanded that the manufacturers cease and desist distribution of Puff Bar of Cigarettes and refund customers money. The letters request that they no longer make reference to their product as a “smoke machine”. Instead the business’s lawyers have suggested they call it a “tobacco alternative”.
What the legal team did isn’t entirely surprising. The problem with Puff Bar is that its e Cigarette product is itself a loophole in regulations. This is because there’s currently no law mandating that electronic cigarettes need to include warning labels or advertising. The inclusion of a “smoking alternative” could start a flood of lawsuits that might be filed by municipalities that wanted to charge cigarette companies for introducing another polluting type of tobacco into the marketplace.
As well as the possibility of case being filed by municipalities the inclusion of flavored e cigarettes that you can buy could result in a decrease in the sale of tobacco by non-smokers. Research shows that smokers who are presented with non-tobacco flavored e-cigs will replace those cigarettes with the ones that contain nicotine. By making tobacco less accessible to young people and to the younger generations, this could substantially decrease the number of people who die from tobacco related illnesses. And yes it seems that the addition of the puff bar to several tobacco-flavored electronic cigarettes could lead smokers to seek out “real” cigarettes rather than rely so heavily on an alternative solution that may not supply them with nicotine.
It seems that the UK government could have a point. There is currently no Puff Bar requirement of tobacco companies to include warning labels on their products nor is there a ban on flavoured tobacco or e-liquid. The only thing that these products all have as a common factor is that they will not cause cancer or other diseases. It appears to be a question of economics that is being overlooked. A solution like the puff bar would seem like a much better way to make money for tobacco companies because they are essentially creating products that are more difficult to consume, which in turn means that fewer people will purchase them.