Exactly. Sadly, it is all about the almighty dollar. Too much money in treating to actually cure anything.
FDA FDA deeming regulation proposals
- Thread starter rolygate
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Exactly. Sadly, it is all about the almighty dollar. Too much money in treating to actually cure anything.
No need to guess about conflicts of interest. I found the smoking gun with proof!!!! Fasten your seat belts and grip your mouse/rodent very tightly:
Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants
in vapour from electronic cigarettes
Maciej Lukasz Goniewicz,1,2,3 Jakub Knysak,3 Michal Gawron,3
Leon Kosmider,3,4 Andrzej Sobczak,3,4 Jolanta Kurek,4 Adam Prokopowicz,4
Magdalena Jablonska-Czapla,5 Czeslawa Rosik-Dulewska,5 Christopher Havel,6
Peyton III Jacob,6 Neal Benowitz 6
Extract:
Competing interests
MLG received research funding from Pfizer, manufacturer of
stop smoking medication and is currently funded by the UK Centre for tobacco
Control Studies (UKCTCS), UK Public Health Centre of Excellence. UKCTCS receives it
funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), British Heart
Foundation (BHF), Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research
(NIHR), and Medical Research Council (MRC). Dr Benowitz is a consultant for several
companies that market smoking cessation medications and has been a paid expert
in litigation against tobacco companies. The other authors declare they have no
actual or potential competing financial interests.
The entire study which has never been peer reviewed and is VERY VERY hard to find without paying:
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~dshuster/e-Cigarettes/Goniewicz_2014.pdf
!!!!
Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants
in vapour from electronic cigarettes
Maciej Lukasz Goniewicz,1,2,3 Jakub Knysak,3 Michal Gawron,3
Leon Kosmider,3,4 Andrzej Sobczak,3,4 Jolanta Kurek,4 Adam Prokopowicz,4
Magdalena Jablonska-Czapla,5 Czeslawa Rosik-Dulewska,5 Christopher Havel,6
Peyton III Jacob,6 Neal Benowitz 6
Extract:
Competing interests
MLG received research funding from Pfizer, manufacturer of
stop smoking medication and is currently funded by the UK Centre for tobacco
Control Studies (UKCTCS), UK Public Health Centre of Excellence. UKCTCS receives it
funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), British Heart
Foundation (BHF), Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research
(NIHR), and Medical Research Council (MRC). Dr Benowitz is a consultant for several
companies that market smoking cessation medications and has been a paid expert
in litigation against tobacco companies. The other authors declare they have no
actual or potential competing financial interests.
The entire study which has never been peer reviewed and is VERY VERY hard to find without paying:
https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~dshuster/e-Cigarettes/Goniewicz_2014.pdf
!!!!
Last edited:
"Materials and methods
Vapours were generatedfrom 12 brands of e-cigarettes and the reference
product, the medicinal nicotine inhaler, in controlled conditions using a modified smoking machine. The
selected toxic compounds were extracted from vapours into a solid or liquid phase and analysed withchromatographic and spectroscopy methods.
Results
We found that the e-cigarette vapours contained some toxic substances. The levels of the toxicants were 9–450 times lower than in cigarette smoke and were, in many cases, comparable with trace amounts found in the reference product.
Conclusions
Our findings are consistent with the idea that substituting tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes may
substantially reduce exposure to selected tobacco-specific toxicants. E-cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy among smokers unwilling to quit, warrants further study."
Their "modified smoking machine" mimicked puff duration and interval between puffs. However, vapers have great control over airflow by how hard they draw, at what point during the draw. These researchers' and other researchers' lack of accounting for that, along with ignoring, or ignorance of the fact that vapers increase air flow, by drawing harder if it starts to cook too much (in order to cool), or even stop the draw at that point, detract greatly from the usefullness of machine smoking. It's an intuitive thing devoloped quickly during the first stages of learning to vape and guided by taste and feel.
Well they might be proud of their smoking machine modifications, but they sure haven't contributed to making machines, or themselves any smarter.
Maybe Goniewicz was quoted out of context in that article. Maybe he was there to point out his conclusions, as quoted in bold above, as a counter argument (I doubt it, though). At any rate, he seems very underinformed about vaping mechanics, including what he says about temperatures. He needs to begin to familiarize himself with issues of airflow.
Edit: I experimented a bit after posting, and realize I don't make adjustments during an inhale, but from inhale to next inhale, both how long to inhale and how intensely. I confused it with when I was vaping dry tobacco for a while, when I was too scared of by the dishonest antifreeze warnings.
I also shouldn't be talking like I assume that others vape the way I do. The fact that it's an individual thing, complicates research, especially using smoking machines.
But I certainly stand by my comments that airflow issues need to be considered. I've seen researches try to match typical intake amounts per puff, but that is very inadequate.
Last edited:
It is interesting to observe that most of the cartomizers and cartridges measured nicotine content fell short of what they were labeled as.
Nicotine is not a particularly stable substance. In a tank system, the liquid stays in a bottle until you use it. With a cigalike it always stays in contact with many materials including metals.
They are not a tobacco product yet, until the FDA deems them one they are a consumer product. Georgia law even states they are not a tobacco product, they are a vapor product.
From this bill that became law 7-1-2014
HB 251 2013-2014 Regular Session
"(8) 'Tobacco product' means any cigars, little cigars, granulated, plug cut, crimp cut,
38 ready rubbed, and other smoking tobacco; snuff or snuff powder; cavendish; plug and
39 twist tobacco; fine-cut and other chewing tobaccos; shorts; refuse scraps, clippings,
40 cuttings, and sweepings of tobacco; and other kinds and forms of tobacco, prepared in
41 such a manner as to be suitable for chewing or smoking in a pipe or otherwise, or both
42 for chewing and smoking. The term 'tobacco product' shall not include any alternative
43 nicotine product, vapor product, or product regulated as a drug or device by the United
44 States Food and Drug Administration under Chapter V of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
45 Act.
(10) 'Vapor product' means any noncombustible product containing nicotine that
50 employs a heating element, power source, electronic circuit, or other electronic, chemical,
51 or mechanical means, regardless of shape or size, that can be used to produce vapor from
52 nicotine in a solution or other form. The term 'vapor product' shall include any electronic
53 cigarette, electronic cigar, electronic cigarillo, electronic pipe, or similar product or
54 device and any vapor cartridge or other container of nicotine in a solution or other form
55 that is intended to be used with or in an electronic cigarette, electronic cigar, electronic
56 cigarillo, electronic pipe, or similar product or device. The term 'vapor product' shall not
57 include any product regulated as a drug or device by the United States Food and Drug
58 Administration under Chapter V of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act."
Bold is mine, apparently we have some thinking legislators in our state.
From this bill that became law 7-1-2014
HB 251 2013-2014 Regular Session
"(8) 'Tobacco product' means any cigars, little cigars, granulated, plug cut, crimp cut,
38 ready rubbed, and other smoking tobacco; snuff or snuff powder; cavendish; plug and
39 twist tobacco; fine-cut and other chewing tobaccos; shorts; refuse scraps, clippings,
40 cuttings, and sweepings of tobacco; and other kinds and forms of tobacco, prepared in
41 such a manner as to be suitable for chewing or smoking in a pipe or otherwise, or both
42 for chewing and smoking. The term 'tobacco product' shall not include any alternative
43 nicotine product, vapor product, or product regulated as a drug or device by the United
44 States Food and Drug Administration under Chapter V of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
45 Act.
(10) 'Vapor product' means any noncombustible product containing nicotine that
50 employs a heating element, power source, electronic circuit, or other electronic, chemical,
51 or mechanical means, regardless of shape or size, that can be used to produce vapor from
52 nicotine in a solution or other form. The term 'vapor product' shall include any electronic
53 cigarette, electronic cigar, electronic cigarillo, electronic pipe, or similar product or
54 device and any vapor cartridge or other container of nicotine in a solution or other form
55 that is intended to be used with or in an electronic cigarette, electronic cigar, electronic
56 cigarillo, electronic pipe, or similar product or device. The term 'vapor product' shall not
57 include any product regulated as a drug or device by the United States Food and Drug
58 Administration under Chapter V of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act."
Bold is mine, apparently we have some thinking legislators in our state.
They are not a tobacco product yet, until the FDA deems them one they are a consumer product. Georgia law even states they are not a tobacco product, they are a vapor product.
From this bill that became law 7-1-2014
HB 251 2013-2014 Regular Session
"(8) 'Tobacco product' means any cigars, little cigars, granulated, plug cut, crimp cut,
38 ready rubbed, and other smoking tobacco; snuff or snuff powder; cavendish; plug and
39 twist tobacco; fine-cut and other chewing tobaccos; shorts; refuse scraps, clippings,
40 cuttings, and sweepings of tobacco; and other kinds and forms of tobacco, prepared in
41 such a manner as to be suitable for chewing or smoking in a pipe or otherwise, or both
42 for chewing and smoking. The term 'tobacco product' shall not include any alternative
43 nicotine product, vapor product, or product regulated as a drug or device by the United
44 States Food and Drug Administration under Chapter V of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
45 Act.
(10) 'Vapor product' means any noncombustible product containing nicotine that
50 employs a heating element, power source, electronic circuit, or other electronic, chemical,
51 or mechanical means, regardless of shape or size, that can be used to produce vapor from
52 nicotine in a solution or other form. The term 'vapor product' shall include any electronic
53 cigarette, electronic cigar, electronic cigarillo, electronic pipe, or similar product or
54 device and any vapor cartridge or other container of nicotine in a solution or other form
55 that is intended to be used with or in an electronic cigarette, electronic cigar, electronic
56 cigarillo, electronic pipe, or similar product or device. The term 'vapor product' shall not
57 include any product regulated as a drug or device by the United States Food and Drug
58 Administration under Chapter V of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act."
Bold is mine, apparently we have some thinking legislators in our state.
I agree! I emailed Rep. Woodall about that bill moving the SE date, but haven't heard anything back from him about that.
Andria
So about the taxing of e juice that's already being done here in North Carolina
the tax is 75 cents on 15ml
My phone won't take a picture small enough or I just don't know how to make it smaller if I figure it out I'll post my receipt
the tax is 75 cents on 15ml
My phone won't take a picture small enough or I just don't know how to make it smaller if I figure it out I'll post my receipt
Last edited:
It's still a sin tax on something that shouldn't be considered a sin (and I'm morally opposed to all sin taxes anyway)...
But I guess 5 cents per ml is better than what other states are doing or considering.
yeah, me too. Because it involves personal value systems, which are not universally agreed upon.
Sin Tax? Almost an offensive term used like that. Dragging religion into politics just to say " I want more money".
The other problem with a sin tax, which we are seeing with the tobacco taxes, is that as you tax the sin out of existence, the state begins to rely on that sin tax money, and has to go looking for more sins to tax. hence the need to classify anything that might take the place of tobacco products in the marketplace as a tobacco product, to protect that now important sin tax dollar.
A "sin" to me is even if you have plenty of $$, you are watering your lawn all day when your entire region is in a drought. On my sin list is people who "take way more than their fair share." Fair share is something you learn when you grow up in a large family w/multiple siblings. You learn that if you want 2nds at the dinner table, you ask around first before taking the last roll, etc.
But again, that is my value system, so as I said, sin is based on value systems and I don't believe in sin taxes.
But I also don't believe in bannings either. I hated howard stern, but he did more to push the envelope for Free Speech than anybody. So did some of the comedians who used bad language and tasteless jokes. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean it should be banned.
Like I said previously, I've lived in states where there are book bannings. (shiver!) I have read all the banned books, many of them are great works of literature, across the entire globe. DH Lawrence, Henry Miller, Anais Nin, Ernest Hemingway, J.D. Salinger, Walt Whitman, etc. I doubt any women in my generation do not remember "Our Bodies, Ourselves, Boston Women’s Health Book Collective, 1971" which was banned all over the place due to the V word.
But again, that is my value system, so as I said, sin is based on value systems and I don't believe in sin taxes.
But I also don't believe in bannings either. I hated howard stern, but he did more to push the envelope for Free Speech than anybody. So did some of the comedians who used bad language and tasteless jokes. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean it should be banned.
Like I said previously, I've lived in states where there are book bannings. (shiver!) I have read all the banned books, many of them are great works of literature, across the entire globe. DH Lawrence, Henry Miller, Anais Nin, Ernest Hemingway, J.D. Salinger, Walt Whitman, etc. I doubt any women in my generation do not remember "Our Bodies, Ourselves, Boston Women’s Health Book Collective, 1971" which was banned all over the place due to the V word.
A "sin" to me is even if you have plenty of $$, you are watering your lawn all day when your entire region is in a drought. On my sin list is people who "take way more than their fair share." Fair share is something you learn when you grow up in a large family w/multiple siblings. You learn that if you want 2nds at the dinner table, you ask around first before taking the last roll, etc.
But again, that is my value system, so as I said, sin is based on value systems and I don't believe in sin taxes.
But I also don't believe in bannings either. I hated howard stern, but he did more to push the envelope for Free Speech than anybody. So did some of the comedians who used bad language and tasteless jokes. Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean it should be banned.
Like I said previously, I've lived in states where there are book bannings. (shiver!) I have read all the banned books, many of them are great works of literature, across the entire globe. DH Lawrence, Henry Miller, Anais Nin, Ernest Hemingway, J.D. Salinger, Walt Whitman, etc. I doubt any women in my generation do not remember "Our Bodies, Ourselves, Boston Women’s Health Book Collective, 1971" which was banned all over the place due to the V word.
Heck, I'm an only child, but the only prohibition I ever encountered on consuming sweets/snacks was "don't be a hog, save some for someone else." Which I strongly believe is why I grew up a) knowing how to share, and b) very moderate about most sweets -- whereas a good friend who was "forbidden" from eating sweets, now weighs over 300 lbs.
"Just because I don't like it, doesn't mean it should be banned." Possibly the truest words ever spoken, and I sure wish the ANTZ would get over themselves and realize this. I personally think grain alcohol is about the stupidest thing a human can put in their mouth, and I really dislike being around drunks, too... but ban it? They tried that. Horrible failure, with some severe unintended consequences, but apparently a lot of these people know nothing about history, and thus are doomed to repeat it.
Andria
My understanding of "sin tax" is that it's a derrogatory term, used to criticize excise taxes. It points out truer motive for the tax. Have I misunderstood all these years?
Right. And "I want to punish you." But I don't think it's offensive to use the term to criticize the tax.
Well, if I've been paying this sin tax for 35yrs as a sort of pre-pay for my assumed medical needs as I age, do I get a rebate now for stopping smoking? Have they been keeping an account for me
From investopedia.com :
or in other words, a handy excuse to levy a heavy-handed tax.
yep, sounds about right.
or in other words, a handy excuse to levy a heavy-handed tax.
But what's the official term? The legal term? I think "Sin Tax" was coined to criticize the tax, not the victims of the tax.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
