Is the Puff Bar Aimed at Reducing the Addiction Potential of ELECTRIC CIGARETTES?
Puff Bar is a wonderful 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, which 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 create, you can make it as often as you want without needing to prepare the ice cream each time. It’s ideal for kids and for parties because you can serve.
Puff Bar is a relatively new product, that was developed to test people reaction to herbal cigarette alternatives. When we smoke we are exposing ourselves to a large number 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 since it is made from completely 100 % natural ingredients including fruits, sugar and mint.
One of the biggest issues in public areas 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 brilliant 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 take with you the tiny product. The makers of Puff Bar know that since public health officials have already been calling to find out more on the dangers of empty e-cigarette cartridges it’s pretty clear that the public wants to know more about Puff Bar and whether or not it poses a risk to public health.
By calling their product a “reusable” cartridge they’re in direct violation of the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA). According to the FDA any e-cigarette that contains nicotine must contain an insert which 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 has an extinguisher it is also in violation of the law. The reason being that since there is no ash made by a puff Bar e Cigarette it isn’t a valid device to utilize to refill a preexisting e cigarette with nicotine or even to smoke another one.
Since the maker of Puff Bar realized this their lawyers have sent letters to the firms that produce puff bars claiming they have marketed their product in a manner that is illegal. Along with 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 they no longer refer to their product as a “smoke machine”. Instead the company’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 is currently no law mandating that electric cigarettes have to include warning labels or advertising. The inclusion of a “smoking alternative” could open up a flood of lawsuits that might be filed by municipalities that wished to charge cigarette companies JUUL Pods for introducing another polluting form of tobacco into the marketplace.
Along with the possibility of a lawsuit being filed by municipalities the inclusion of flavored e cigarettes out there could result in a decrease in the sale of tobacco by non-smokers. Research shows that smokers who are offered non-tobacco flavored e-cigs are more likely to replace those cigarettes with those that contain nicotine. By making tobacco less accessible to young people and to younger generations, this could substantially reduce the number of people who die from tobacco related illnesses. Also it seems that the addition of the puff bar to several tobacco-flavored electric cigarettes could lead smokers to search out “real” cigarettes and not rely so heavily on an alternative solution that may not provide them with nicotine.
It appears that the UK government may have a point. There is currently no requirement of tobacco companies to add warning labels on the 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 looks 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’re essentially creating products which are more difficult to consume, which means that fewer people will purchase them.