May be the Puff Bar Aimed at Reducing the Addiction Potential of Electronic Cigarettes?
Puff Bar is a good alternative to a normal ice cream treat since it has none of the cons connected 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 made with only natural flavors, so it’s a healthy alternative for those who are watching their diet. Moreover, Puff Bar is easy to make, you can make it as often as you want without needing to prepare the ice cream each and every time. It’s ideal for kids and for parties because you can serve.
Puff Bar is really a relatively new product, that was developed to test people a 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 declare that Puff Bar doesn’t really taste like cigarettes since it is Vape Shop made from completely 100 % natural ingredients including fruits, sugar and mint.
One of the primary issues in public areas health today is obesity and diet. Due to this 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 declare that individuals who use their product to lose weight can easily do so if they only need to take with you the tiny product. The makers of Puff Bar are aware that since public health officials have been calling to find out more on the dangers of empty e-cigarette cartridges it’s pretty clear that the public wants to learn about Puff Bar and whether 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). Based on the FDA any e-cigarette which has nicotine must contain an insert which allows you to put it into the mouth area, because of this 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 regulations. The reason being that while there is no ash made by a puff Bar e Cigarette it is not a valid device to use to refill an existing 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 way that is illegal. In addition to 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 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 has done isn’t entirely surprising. The issue 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 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 for introducing another polluting type of tobacco in to the marketplace.
As well as the possibility of case being filed by municipalities the inclusion of flavored e cigarettes available to buy could result in a reduction in the sale of tobacco by non-smokers. Research suggests 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 the 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 seek out “real” cigarettes rather than rely so heavily on an alternative that may not supply them with nicotine.
It seems that the UK government could have a point. There’s 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 in common is that they can not cause cancer or other diseases. It looks a question of economics that’s being overlooked. A solution just like the puff bar would seem such as a much better way to make money for tobacco companies because they’re essentially creating products that are more difficult to consume, which implies that fewer people will purchase them.