New report who

[MagusSteele]

Actually dc2k08, they did.
They have regulations saying to make emmissions lower and gas milage higher.
They were on the global warming bandwagon, everyone (not counting the ones who need to) have to cut down .

[ned Zeppelin]

Janty: coz imagine so many people have cancer from going to concerts and singers die because of the fogmachines...

HAHAHAHAHHAHAH!!!!

The fog machines used to make me cough when I was sat on my drums at the back of the stage in the arena and they tend to use more of this fog while doing TV shows but the funny part is you can't see where the hell you are hitting the drums.


But the worst people for smoke is the British country music fanatics that use guns for their shootouts as this gets in your chest and puts a smear of dust over your equipment. Oh yes they are blanks by the way.


But I certainly don't get any of these problems while smoking an electronic cigarette.

[Nazareth]

bunch of bull- people HAVE quit using hte product and quite frankly, it's helped MANY people cut down on their real cigarette consumption- the WHO is going to have a real hard time proving the device is of NO value at all in helping people quit- even if a minority of people quit, it can still be called a help-quit device- period! IF NOONE was able to quit- then the WHO would have a case- however, testimony will prove out that some people ARE able to quit0- end of story

[ned Zeppelin]

bunch of bull- people HAVE quit using hte product and quite frankly, it's helped MANY people cut down on their real cigarette consumption- the WHO is going to have a real hard time proving the device is of NO value at all in helping people quit- even if a minority of people quit, it can still be called a help-quit device- period! IF NOONE was able to quit- then the WHO would have a case- however, testimony will prove out that some people ARE able to quit0- end of story

I gave one on my employees a 901 roughly about six weeks ago as she aimed to give up smoking for ever. But not using it as a substitute. She used this for around three weeks plus staying on high-strength cartridges.


And for the last two weeks she hasn't felt like smoking either a real cigarette or electronic cigarettes. So far this has been a success .

[TropicalBob]

Anecdotes mean nothing to regulators. End of story. You know better, Naz. You've read this forum for a long time. You want to quit smoking? There are patches and gums and lozenges and nasal sprays and inhalers ... I know, they don't work well for everyone. But they all went through rigorous and expensive clinical trials before they were approved and marketed. They are officially approved smoking cessation devices.

Our story? Hey, some folks quit! "My Uncle Fred smoked his last real cig ...."

That means nothing to WHO and government agencies. As for what smokers want, that's irrelevant too. The majority just wants us ... gone. And a cute end run around no smoking regulations makes 'em even more determined to write a ban on e-smoking into law. We look too much like what is banned.

Our only hope is that these are categorized as personal vaporizers. Those are legal. Already sold. Say one word about "smoking" to regulators or a government agency and these are dead meat. And the more these devices look like real cigarettes, the quicker they will disappear from the marketplace.

[karenwest1961]

And I say it again...stock up.

You're right T-Bo. That WAS the bell for round one.

[DeviLFisH]

omg so next time hard to get e cig and eliquid???

[smoking gnu]

I think your right Bob about the more they look like real cigs. I also think the 36 mg liquids will giving them a very big stick to beat us with. I’ve seen some stuff on the net about the 18 mg and the joy police really don’t like that. So when do you think the sh*@t will hit the fan, and how extreme do you think this will get. Total ban? don’t get me wrong I welcome proper medical research into e smoking, after all most of us are doing this for our health, instead of lighting up , and I may add feel much better for it, well I do anyway. But we need to know the scores on the doors. It might get tough but that was inevitable, lets hope this is as safe as we hope, and that common sense prevails.

[Nazareth]

Anecdotes mean nothing to regulators. End of story. You know better, Naz. You've read this forum for a long time. You want to quit smoking? There are patches and gums and lozenges and nasal sprays and inhalers ... I know, they don't work well for everyone. But they all went through rigorous and expensive clinical trials before they were approved and marketed. They are officially approved smoking cessation devices.

Our story? Hey, some folks quit! "My Uncle Fred smoked his last real cig ...."

That means nothing to WHO and government agencies. As for what smokers want, that's irrelevant too. The majority just wants us ... gone. And a cute end run around no smoking regulations makes 'em even more determined to write a ban on e-smoking into law. We look too much like what is banned.

Our only hope is that these are categorized as personal vaporizers. Those are legal. Already sold. Say one word about "smoking" to regulators or a government agency and these are dead meat. And the more these devices look like real cigarettes, the quicker they will disappear from the marketplace.

It doesn't matter- the point will be that they- the WHO, will have to prove that it has no effect before they can make hte claim that it is not a stop-smoking help- the fact is that it has helped poeple stop smoking- I'm not talking about anectdotal testimonies or claims that can't be substantiated, the claims being made are reproducible facts- I understand what you are tryign to say as many many anectdotal evidences that CAN'T be backed up are attached to 'health products' like herbs and mineral/vitimin combos, but these can't be proven and may indeed be chalked up to the power of suggestion- however, the E-Cig is in a much different catagory that unsubstantiated health claims by other health products that cna't bwe proven one way or hte other. In a clinical setting, under controlled scrutiny, it will be found that the Ecigg can indeed help some to quit- Not that hte product even has to be marketted as such a device, but hte WHO is being dishonest in their accusations against hte product, and their claims won't stand up under scrutiny

Our only hope is that these are categorized as personal vaporizers. Those are legal. Already sold. Say one word about "smoking" to regulators or a government agency and these are dead meat.

There is no smoking involved- IF the WHO wants to ban these they will either have to prove that the vapor is detrimental to bystanders, OR, they will have to prove that the Nicotine in the devices should be regulated- I suspect the latter will happen as the first can't be proven. But mind you- IF these becoem regulated, the prices wil lincrease- however, with enough clinical trials, the insurance companies might pay for them

Also remember that Dr Loi's reports will be coming out soon which will help give credence to the fact that therse are not just anectdotal evidences, but true substiantable evidences on our side- All is not lost just yet- We just have to watch whther hte WHO starts to demand that the Nicotine start being regulated by pharmaceuticals or not

[TropicalBob]

I want to share your optimism, Naz. But the burden of proof is reversed from the way you think of it. First off, WHO can't ban them. It will advise nations. But when proof of efficacy is required -- and it will be -- it will be e-smoking, not WHO, from which proof in the form of clinical trials is demanded. And it's Ruyan now funding Dr. Laugesen's trials in New Zealand that we will need as proof. Dr. Loi got clobbered by his government and it is unlikely he will have scientific trial evidence as a result. His results, sadly, will be anecdotal.

Think of it this way: Governments don't need proof to ban, but companies need proof to market a product. You're familiar enough with this to understand that governments will be view these as drug delivery devices that deliver a highly addictive and potentially poisonous substance to addicts and encourage new users (give us a chorus of "young people!") by making it seem pleasurable and desirable. Those allegations alone could cause a ban. And what other possible use does an e-cig have except to deliver a regulated drug?

Factor in the future loss of tobacco tax revenue, the blow to Big Pharma and Big Tobacco that acceptance would bring, the unknowns and unprovables, and you have plenty of reason to say -- STOP until we know it all and have in place measures acceptable to all parties.

I do think any knockout punch is quite a ways down the road, however. Thank goodness, bureaucracy moves slow ... unless the national economy is plunging us into Depression, of course.