This is one of the longer articles I have seen on our new device. I think I will be writing or emailing the doctor in Atlanta.
E-Cigarettes Under Fire
E-Cigarettes Under Fire
WebMD Article on PV's, quite interesting...
- Thread starter wv2win
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I'm not sure how I feel about this article...
Why is it that whenever someone REALLY wants to drive a point home, they all go to the same place? "Think of the children! Oh, no -- the children!" Did Nancy Grace start this?
This is disgusting bleeding-heart pandering. I, for one, rarely think of "the children." Does this make me a bad person? According to the folks who write this kind of crap, it does.
Or how about the Good Housekeeping commercial I've seen elsewhere on this site that shows a small child getting a container of tobacco mints from a rack directly next to to Tic-Tacs and the chewing gum? Excuse me...are we on Planet Earth here?
If "the children" want to get their hands on something, they will. I know this because I was one not too long ago. As an aside, I could get anything I wanted AT ALL while I was in high school. Should we outlaw high schools, then? Only by imposing a full police state are we going to keep "the children" safe...and then we'll have a world of other concerns.
People need to just get over it. There's a reason "the children" were the last thing that was mentioned in that article. A very good reason: marketing. *sigh*
Why is it that whenever someone REALLY wants to drive a point home, they all go to the same place? "Think of the children! Oh, no -- the children!" Did Nancy Grace start this?
This is disgusting bleeding-heart pandering. I, for one, rarely think of "the children." Does this make me a bad person? According to the folks who write this kind of crap, it does.
Or how about the Good Housekeeping commercial I've seen elsewhere on this site that shows a small child getting a container of tobacco mints from a rack directly next to to Tic-Tacs and the chewing gum? Excuse me...are we on Planet Earth here?
If "the children" want to get their hands on something, they will. I know this because I was one not too long ago. As an aside, I could get anything I wanted AT ALL while I was in high school. Should we outlaw high schools, then? Only by imposing a full police state are we going to keep "the children" safe...and then we'll have a world of other concerns.
People need to just get over it. There's a reason "the children" were the last thing that was mentioned in that article. A very good reason: marketing. *sigh*
"It will be easy for kids to get the product," Light tells WebMD. "It could be a way to get kids into the nicotine habit to get them to smoke. It is a ploy."
Cigarettes won't do the same? Maybe there is a gadget factor involved that may attract some kids. The fruity flavors are a factor kids didn't have to deal with when taking up tobacco.
Cigarettes won't do the same? Maybe there is a gadget factor involved that may attract some kids. The fruity flavors are a factor kids didn't have to deal with when taking up tobacco.
Here's a quote that I find unintentionally hilarious:
"They are nicotine delivery devices intended to be used like a cigarette. What happens to someone who stops inhaling the tars of cigarettes and inhales only nicotine? We don't know. There is at least the potential for harm."
-- Norman Edelman, MD, chief medical officer, American Lung Association
Uh let's see. People are already inhaling nicotine. Let's remove the Tar, which is a health hazard. OMG... they aren't inhaling TAR! It's got to be BAD! WTF? How did someone with the deductive reasoning of a caterpillar get a medical degree, much less become Chief Medical Officer? Political agenda maybe?
"They are nicotine delivery devices intended to be used like a cigarette. What happens to someone who stops inhaling the tars of cigarettes and inhales only nicotine? We don't know. There is at least the potential for harm."
-- Norman Edelman, MD, chief medical officer, American Lung Association
Uh let's see. People are already inhaling nicotine. Let's remove the Tar, which is a health hazard. OMG... they aren't inhaling TAR! It's got to be BAD! WTF? How did someone with the deductive reasoning of a caterpillar get a medical degree, much less become Chief Medical Officer? Political agenda maybe?
Not to mention if kids have enough money to get started in e-cigs, it sounds like a parental issue to me. It's not like back in the old days when you put a dollar in the cigarette machine in the bowling alley when no one was looking.
As I've said before, a kid who has the cash for ecigs is going to spend it on more interesting drugs then nicotine.
Kids who want nicotine are just going to steal packs of analogs from the local convenience store, or get the homeless guy outside to buy some for them.
I find it interesting that in all of these articles, never has the FDA claimed to have found harmful additives in these products. If this is truly something they want to get rid of, surely they've tested the juice. If they had found anything serious, they'd have been holding that up as a reason for a ban.
You really find yourself wondering (if you're me, anyway) how exactly Mr. Edelman lives his life on a day-to-day basis. "No, kids. You can't put that in the microwave. We're not exactly sure what the health risks associated with using it are."
We're not even 100% on what smoking 20 or more cigarettes a day for years does to someone...we do know that it isn't good, though. I find this a little surprising, as we've got oodles of case studies.
All the plastic and crap that everything comes in nowadays seems pretty convenient. Believe it or not (and I'll find an article to back this up if needed), they're finding all of the chemicals from it inside our bodies! What does this cause, you might ask. We don't know. Sound familiar?
All good points, especially about the chief medical officer for the American Lung Association. I wonder if he asked the Big Pharm Lobby, who provides all their funding, what he should say? I guess a prerequiste for a political position like Chief Medical Officer, is a complete lack of any common sense.
Did anyone else catch this little phrase in the article from Norman Edelman, MD, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association:
"Once you have the nicotine habit, you are not likely to quit."
Why would all these folks point us toward "approved" NRT products and discount electronic cigarettes out of hand if this is their opinion? (HINT: it's green and rythmes with honey)
"Once you have the nicotine habit, you are not likely to quit."
Why would all these folks point us toward "approved" NRT products and discount electronic cigarettes out of hand if this is their opinion? (HINT: it's green and rythmes with honey)
Here's one of the articles associated. I'd actually read a different one in a science mag, but this illustrates what I was saying:
Plastic chemical may stay in body longer: study | Science | Reuters
Plastic chemical may stay in body longer: study | Science | Reuters
Do I detect a glimmer of common sense?
"The Nicotrol inhaler is an approved smoking cessation device," says the FDA's Chapelle. "Because these e-cigarette products haven't been reviewed by the agency, their labeling has to be reviewed, their intended use has to be reviewed, and all of their ingredients and components have to be reviewed."
"The Nicotrol inhaler is an approved smoking cessation device," says the FDA's Chapelle. "Because these e-cigarette products haven't been reviewed by the agency, their labeling has to be reviewed, their intended use has to be reviewed, and all of their ingredients and components have to be reviewed."
That's what I was thinking! If they had found something harmful, they'd be waving that at as many press outlets as they could - and the ban would be more then just a "psudo - Ummmmmm, we might be thinking about the possibility of probably starting to have customs think about looking....." It would be a short and sweet statement - "these are dangerous because blah blah blah... and we have stopped all....."
Like I wrote in the other thread regarding this article:
It's funny how no one really has a truly rational reason in their arguments why these should be banned outright. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Isn't nicotine pretty much on par with caffeine in terms of harmful effects? How come people aren't picking on the Nabob man?
It's funny how no one really has a truly rational reason in their arguments why these should be banned outright. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Isn't nicotine pretty much on par with caffeine in terms of harmful effects? How come people aren't picking on the Nabob man?
Somehow, this doesn't have the same shock value...
OMG!!!!!!!!! Think of the children! They're drinking CAFFINE!!!!!!!!
Anyone wonder why the rates of ADD are so high?
Firstly, Edelman sounds under-informed to me
Secondly, Chapelle's comments about Nicotrol are somewhat valid however she's missing the obvious. Ten ml of Nicotrol contains 100mg of nicotine and is approved - ten ml of e-liquid holds a max of only 36mg at this time. To me, that makes her concern about the "potential for addiction and abuse of these products" unfounded. Clearly it's more likely that someone would become addicted to and/or abuse Nicotrol.
Lastly, this is the 2nd article I've read that states "synthetic nicotine". If it is Lobeline, then it has already been tested/approved/and classified as a smoking cessation drug. Is that a test step that could be potentially skipped?? Reference post:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/general-e-smoking-discussion/11673-take-look-please.html
Secondly, Chapelle's comments about Nicotrol are somewhat valid however she's missing the obvious. Ten ml of Nicotrol contains 100mg of nicotine and is approved - ten ml of e-liquid holds a max of only 36mg at this time. To me, that makes her concern about the "potential for addiction and abuse of these products" unfounded. Clearly it's more likely that someone would become addicted to and/or abuse Nicotrol.
Lastly, this is the 2nd article I've read that states "synthetic nicotine". If it is Lobeline, then it has already been tested/approved/and classified as a smoking cessation drug. Is that a test step that could be potentially skipped?? Reference post:
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/general-e-smoking-discussion/11673-take-look-please.html
I wouldn't mind it if they would just pass laws that treated e-cigs the same as normal cigs. That is, you can't use them inside public establishments. I'd be ok with that.
BTW, once they know the effects of inhaling something can cause widespread cancer, surely they'll go ahead and approve it, right? I mean, that's what they already did.
BTW, once they know the effects of inhaling something can cause widespread cancer, surely they'll go ahead and approve it, right? I mean, that's what they already did.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
