Australian ban; Egar illegal

[solution42]

Originally Posted by SIN

If what I've read was correct, regardless of the MG of Tar in an analogue, the average nicotine per smoke is 1mg?

It certainly substituted my pack of horizon menthol yellow 50's (around $17-$18 per pack at the time) with a good nic fix and worked out to an average of $6.50 per day.

But I really hated the clinical taste and missed my smoke rings!

That's my understanding, I have found that I'm vaping almost all day long at the moment, but still have no desire to smoke analogs. I tried inhalers previously and didn't enjoy them at all. You did get a throat hit, but it was dry and harsh.

Preaching to the convertor here, I believe these are so superior to any other quit devices on the market. News like the ban would have been a welcome excuse to switch back to analogs (for my feeble willpower) if I was using any other previously trialled method.

I may eventually have to chew gum, use an inhaler (hopefully yours if it eventuates) and slap on a patch or two at the same time. Whilst serving prison time for not paying my fines. I wonder if unicycle training is available there.

Originally Posted by lucisac

I can't believe this ****, how can they ban something like e-cigarettes when cancer causing cigarettes are permitted? It just doesn't make sense.

You're right, it makes no sense at all, that's why I have no intention of accepting it. In a strange way we knew it was coming, I don't want to blow my own horn, well maybe just a little so here's a quote I wrote a week ago:

Originally Posted by solution42

Totally agree, I'm still waiting for the catch.

At the moment the only major worry appears to be the uncertainty of future supplies. Given the combined power of the anti-smoking groups, the tobacco companies and the nanny state mentality we're living under, something is bound to come unhinged.

I didn't expect things to change so fast though.

I still have less guilt sitting here apparently breaking the law than I do smoking analogs. Are they really doing this for our own good or is there a bigger picture and a hidden agenda? The answer is obvious to anyone that has given up smoking, even if it is only for a short while.

[cucurucho]

Originally Posted by dikerry

what about wicked and jc and others,
are any of them regulated,
would our gov accept them as regulated,

Di ......

From what I've read today, sifting through state and federal laws, no. My understanding is that "regulated" would suggest it is supplied by a pharmacist or someone with a license to sell schedule 2 poisons. That is assuming the nicotine "for use as an aid in withdrawal from tobacco smoking in preparations for inhalation."

Otherwise it would be more heavily regulated.

[Trumpybloke]

G'day Aussies and interested others , I've been a bit quiet today lol
probably because I have been chasing stuff up ... I have just received a very interesting mail from Dr Murray Laugesen, the Health NZ doctor commisioned for Ruyan to do detailed studies on their product ... he is very supportive in regard to helping us, I will post his reply , pending his approval to do so...

[Trumpybloke]

Oh and also have contacted Dr Neal Benowitz a professor in San Francisco and a world authority in nicotine... awaiting his response lol

[sherid]

I wonder if this story might have some implications for this very troubling ban.
Watson wins U.S. OK for generic Nicorette mint gum

U.S. health regulators approved Watson Pharmaceuticals Inc's generic version of GlaxoSmithKline Plc's Nicorette mint gum, an over-the-counter product to help smokers quit, Watson said on Wednesday.

[SuperStack]

Originally Posted by jarvis

Sure it's poisonous in certain quantities, but so are a lot of products that are already in our houses.

Water Poisoning: The Dangers of Drinking Excessive Amounts of Water - Associated Content

If someone over there is feeling really mischievous, forward your concerns, in a serious manner, about water being potentially dangerous and demand that they ban it immediately for health reasons.

[TropicalBob]

Excellent, Trumpy. I thought Dr. Laugesen would support the potential of vaporizing to reduce harm and save lives. I have a bunch of doctors I contacted for a story I wrote in the October SmokeShop, but suggest sticking with the New Zealander. He's one of the few people on earth who won't be dismissed outright. I remember corresponding with an Australian researcher on harm reduction, who pointed me to Dr. Laugesen as THE man. I'll see if I can backtrack my emails.

Dr. Laugesen has always been very agreeable to posting his responses (see "germ-killing vapor" thread) so I look forward to reading his response to you.

[trog100]

harm reduction is only true as regards existing addicts.. to none addicts it will simply be another nasty addiction for the unwary and gullible public to be sucked into by the clever add men..

also when these people talk stop smoking they really mean stop the nicotine addiction.. which is why by their very nature normal NRT products are useless.. they are intended to be none addictive..

the lesser harm theory is only valid if the product is kept out of the hands of a whole generation of potential future nicotine addicts.. the bottom line being existing addicts (those that cant or wont give up nicotine) are seen as a lost cause and wont be considered in the grand scheme of things..

it dosnt matter how safe these things are future "drug" addicts are not wanted.. period..

trog

[nakli_dhumrapan]

Are there (pro-active) steps that can be taken as an international community? An International Society for the Protection of Users of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems?

[Lithium1330]

Originally Posted by trog100

harm reduction is only true as regards existing addicts.. to none addicts it will simply be another nasty addiction for the unwary and gullible public to be sucked into by the clever add men..

also when these people talk stop smoking they really mean stop the nicotine addiction.. which is why by their very nature normal NRT products are useless.. they are intended to be none addictive..

the lesser harm theory is only valid if the product is kept out of the hands of a whole generation of potential future nicotine addicts.. the bottom line being existing addicts (those that cant or wont give up nicotine) are seen as a lost cause and wont be considered in the grand scheme of things..

it dosnt matter how safe these things are future "drug" addicts are not wanted.. period..

trog

This is so right, is as simple as that, they don't want a whole new generation of adicts, that's why they'll never allow us to use this cool devices so fancy, atractive and modern, this devices call inmediatly the atention of children with this beatiful ligth on the tip, this looks really like a toy to them and that is why we need stay far away from this kind of children attractive designs, i want a screwdriver now!

The design must be something far from regulars and far from a "cool" device with ligths and stuff like that, we need a design that looks clinical or low key, for the folks with only the need of flavor and nicotine we need some liquid that dosnt produce the visual vapor, this way nobody will can tell that they are vaping.

Originally Posted by nakli_dhumrapan

Are there (pro-active) steps that can be taken as an international community? An International Society for the Protection of Users of Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems?

We need to be more pro-active and organized to pull to the same way all together..