I just wonder if there is a formula that the FDA will approve, or if the powers against harm reduction are just too powerful to ever allow such a thing.
All of us are addicted to nicotine, and are seeking a safer more acceptable way to deal with our addiction. We're the last braves out on the plains, as they try to round us up and end our culture for good, in much the same way the Native Americans were herded onto reservations.
IMHO, it's really a cultural thing. We need to accept that the real battle is whether smoking culture will be allowed to live on in the form of the electronic cigarette, or if they will succeed in burying it with us.
I ask this,,, can't we share the land? If there is a safer way to carry on smoking culture, there's really no need to eliminate it. If we can put a man on the moon, we can solve the problem of lowering the dangers of nicotine consumption, and make it safe.
Speaking of that, I was taken back to my youth while watching the historic footage of the moon landing, and man taking his first steps on a different rock in the solar system. It struck me watching these nicotine addicts guiding man into history, what's at stake. Did anyone notice that mission control was filled with second hand smoke?? There are those who want to eliminate cigarettes from view, imagine them editing the films of mission control, to not show how these brilliant people turned to nicotine as a stress relief?? I get it,,,,, do they???
I think we need to draw a line in the sand right here. If they are intent on destroying smoking culture taking nicotine down with it, we have to take a stand. You can't tell me that it's not possible to formulate juice and the devices in a way that will make it safe. Is the FDA going to stand in the way of that process, and not allow it??
If cigarette smoking adds so much to the cost of health care,,, why is such a promising technology as the electronic cigarette, being pushed down by the FDA?? This is an incredible opportunity, and the FDA's response is to discredit the technology and threaten to ban it, rather than to insure a safer product that consumers will embrace.
When catalytic converters were found to be helpful in reducing the dangerous effects of auto emissions, the EPA required them to be installed on all new cars at a cost of $400 per unit, and cars were adapted to burn a "safer" lead free formula. We didn't hear the FDA say at that time, that because it didn't eliminate ALL potentially dangerous emmissions, catalytic converters should be banned. What the FDA is doing in this case, would be the equivalent to saying that since Catalytic converters allowed some dangerous components, that they should be banned. It would be like saying people should either quit driving, or pay a tax and continue to drive thier highly polluting cars.
If electronic cigarettes are found to be even 50% safer than conventional cigarettes, they should be encouraged,,,, and we have the New Zealand study that shows that they are 99.9% to 99.999% safer. Nevermind implies the FDA, they aren't 100% safe.
The FDA can serve a useful function if they regulate the ingredients, labeling, marketing, and packaging to ensure that ecigs are indeed safer for everyone. Instead, they are saying that harm reduction is not on the table. Quit or smoke cigarettes is the FDA's stance, even while they say smoking is the largest preventable cause of death.
Nothing in this report shows ecigs aren't safer,,, it just proves it's not 100% safe, a threshold virtually nothing could pass. The perfect is the enemy of the good.
With so many former smokers willing to use a safer alternative, it only makes sence to encourage them to do so.
Separate names with a comma.