Great article from MD "Does the Risk of E-Cigarettes Exceed Potential Benefits? No"

[DEA7H INC]

Counterpoint: Does the Risk of E-Cigarettes Exceed Potential Benefits? No | Medpage Today

"The appeal of e-cigarettes to tobacco cigarette smokers should be enhanced, through the development of nicotine delivery kinetics that replicate those of the addictive but lethal tobacco cigarettes. Finally, e-cigarettes should be placed at an economic advantage by heavily taxing tobacco cigarettes but not e-cigarettes.

Most importantly, the deceptive combusted-cigarette industry must not be entrusted with any aspect of e-cigarette development or marketing, without unceasing, highly critical, and comprehensive oversight."

Holly R. Middlekauff, MD is Professor of Medicine (cardiology) and Physiology at the University of California Los Angeles. She received her BS in molecular chemistry and biophysics from Yale University, her MD from the USC School of Medicine and did her internal medicine internship and residency, as well as her cardiology fellowship at UCLA.

She has some great credentials!

 

[Robino1]

Awesome find! Thank you for this

 

[DEA7H INC]

Awesome find! Thank you for this

No problem at all. It's always great to see a Doc with such prestigious credentials back us up. Glad I was able to share it.

 

[WorksForMe]

No problem at all. It's always great to see a Doc with such prestigious credentials back us up. Glad I was able to share it.

I’m not sure I’d say she backs us up. She wants FDA regulation and premarket approval for ecigs, which would ban 99% of vapor products. Although she wants low taxes, government regulation would cause prices to skyrocket and innovation to be stifled.


“Rather than banning this potentially beneficial clean nicotine delivery device that has the potential to save ~500,000 lives/year in the U.S. alone, e-cigarettes should be required to meet product standards and safety requirements, with full disclosure of all ingredients, and subject to pre- and post-marketing FDA testing.

The appeal of e-cigarettes to tobacco cigarette smokers should be enhanced, through the development of nicotine delivery kinetics that replicate those of the addictive but lethal tobacco cigarettes. Finally, e-cigarettes should be placed at an economic advantage by heavily taxing tobacco cigarettes but not e-cigarettes.”

 

[nicnik]

I’m not sure I’d say she backs us up. She wants FDA regulation and premarket approval for ecigs, which would ban 99% of vapor products. Although she wants low taxes, government regulation would cause prices to skyrocket and innovation to be stifled.

Addressing this part:
"e-cigarettes should be required to meet product standards and safety requirements, with full disclosure of all ingredients, and subject to pre- and post-marketing FDA testing."

I might not understand that correctly, but I think she's talking about safety of electronics issues that are already regulated, and FDA testing of liquids to ensure disclosure of ingrediants is accurate.

 

[WorksForMe]

Addressing this part:
"e-cigarettes should be required to meet product standards and safety requirements, with full disclosure of all ingredients, and subject to pre- and post-marketing FDA testing."

I might not understand that correctly, but I think she's talking about safety of electronics issues that are already regulated, and FDA testing of liquids to ensure disclosure of ingrediants is accurate.

AFAIK, the only way for FDA to regulate ecigs is to “deem” them to be tobacco products. That would bring on far more regulation than she’s asking for.

 

[DEA7H INC]

Addressing this part:
"e-cigarettes should be required to meet product standards and safety requirements, with full disclosure of all ingredients, and subject to pre- and post-marketing FDA testing."

I might not understand that correctly, but I think she's talking about safety of electronics issues that are already regulated, and FDA testing of liquids to ensure disclosure of ingrediants is accurate.

That is what it sounds like to me. Then again I am not apposed to quality standards for e-liquid ingredients. If I'm inhaling something I want it to be as "safe" as possible. Flavors are a big question mark right now as far as inhalation safety. Just because they are safe for ingestion does not necessarily mean they are safe for inhalation. Some could be more detrimental than others but little information is available. We all know diacetyl is dangerous and I'd rather know that nothing I vape contains it rather than just assume since it's bad that it is not in there. Certain vendors have already been caught lying about their liquid containing no diacetyl/acetyl. A vendors word is not good enough in a lot of cases.

The only regulations I am for are those that include a sales ban to minors, labeling and bottling standards and quality control for e-liquid ingredients. The rest are not necessary.

 

[caramel]

There are a few ideas/facts there that classic ANTZ avoid to mention:

- the fact that smoking is pleasurable
- the fact that prohibiting something pleasurable does not /can not totally eradicate it
- the fact that the results of classic ANTZ methods have peaked 10 years ago
- the idea that for any further advance we have to find a safer alternative to the methods of producing a particular pleasure (aka Harm Reduction)

In conclusion I would suggest that the "classic" ANTZ (the Glanz generation) should be retired as they are past their useful lifespan and replaced with younger people with a fresh approach.

 

[DEA7H INC]

AFAIK, the only way for FDA to regulate ecigs is to “deem” them to be tobacco products. That would bring on far more regulation than she’s asking for.

AFAIK, the only way for FDA to regulate ecigs is to “deem” them to be tobacco products. That would bring on far more regulation than she’s asking for.

I agree with this. Unfortunately regulations are happening in a little over a month whether we want them to or not. I think E-cigs need to be regulated as their own category and not a tobacco product, but we know where the FDA stands already and that is not happening. Question is now how bad are these regulations going to be? By all accounts so far pretty damn bad.

 

[caramel]

Just for fun, did anyone else go through the mental exercise of evaluating whether vaping should actually be regulated under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and not the Tobacco Control Act?

 

[nicnik]

AFAIK, the only way for FDA to regulate ecigs is to “deem” them to be tobacco products. That would bring on far more regulation than she’s asking for.

And that would aparently mean that the 2007 substantial equivelence date would be huge obstacle, right? She probably is unaware of that. Any other pitfalls in her suggestion regarding regulation?

BTW, thanks for pointing this out. It might be a good idea for someone to contact her about it. It sounds to me like she really is honestly trying to help.

 

[AndriaD]

Just for fun, did anyone else go through the mental exercise of evaluating whether vaping should actually be regulated under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and not the Tobacco Control Act?

The stuff we're vaping is certainly a lot higher in alcohols than tobaccos!

Andria

 

[Mossy]

I'm just glad she operates out of California................I was beginning to think that everybody in the scientific world in CA was a child of Glantz, born with an ANTZ chip embedded at birth