AMA to study e-cig

[TropicalBob]

The AMA doesn't have a firm position on e-cigs (that's good) and whether they help quitting efforts (that's bad), but will study them for a year (assuming the FDA doesn't ban them first).

James Hubbard’s My Family Doctor Blog Blog Archive AMA Resolutions: Doctors’ opinions on insurance companies, electronic cigarettes and more

 

[LuckySevens4U]

That's cool. Well all I know is I quit smoking tobacco from day 1 and it's been like 95 days without tobacco because of e cigs. So it has worked for me. Nicotine, well ya, that's another story.....lol

 

[seminolewind]

This is a good thing...........unless politics gets involved

 

[riddle80]

Will they be studying the safety aspects as well, and not just the effectiveness as a NRT? Why do they have to focus on the quit smoking aspect anyways? To prepare these for FDA control? My guess is that after proper studies have been conducted, these will be right there on the shelves with Nicorette and the patch and sold only by BP.

 

[cyberwolf]

It's encouraging that the AMA is treating them as a legitimate device that will be around for another year. We'll hope for positive results, but either way the "no testing" argument will be off the table.

 

[seminolewind]

Will they be studying the safety aspects as well, and not just the effectiveness as a NRT? [[Why do they have to focus on the quit smoking aspect anyways? ]]To prepare these for FDA control? My guess is that after proper studies have been conducted, these will be right there on the shelves with Nicorette and the patch and sold only by BP.

Focus on the quit smoking aspect anyways? Because people don't understand that smokers/e-smokers like to smoke

 

[TropicalBob]

My own take is that Riddle80 is right. The AMA doesn't do noisy crusades like Tobacco-Free Kids. Doesn't need to beat the bushes for money like the American Cancer Society. No. The AMA quietly lobbies politicians behind the scenes .. and is a very powerful force in promoting its agenda. It might well be laying the groundwork for future FDA actions that put the e-cig under prescription control of doctors.

Don't expect the AMA, or any other respectable group, to endorse continued recreational use of nicotine by former cigarette smokers. It's quit or die. Take your pick. But not quit and live happily ever after with an e-cig.

 

[taz3cat]

Focus on the quit smoking aspect anyways? Because people don't understand that smokers/e-smokers like to smoke

There was a time or two when I smoked and said I like to smoke, I thought that person was going to slap me. They did tell me I was crazy and more you can guess.

 

[JohnR]

...Don't expect the AMA, or any other respectable group, to endorse continued recreational use of nicotine by former cigarette smokers. It's quit or die. Take your pick. But not quit and live happily ever after with an e-cig.

I'd agree. Promoting a non-smoking alternative to smoking is still promoting "smoking" to many people. However as long as cigarettes are sold as-is, with or without the ridiculous "warnings" on the packs, the idea of a scaled down and recognizably safer alternative should be allowed, if not embraced.

Nicotine's addictive qualities are over rated. My own doctor told me several years ago it was clear to the medical community (his take anyway) that tobacco companies benefitted from the "aura of addiction" that smoking carries - that quitting is painful and horrible and extremely difficult to do. Yet, it's known nicotine is cleared out of the body within 48 to 96 hours and within that time frame a person can "kick" it, easier than caffeine, he felt. We mainline caffeine like it was oxygen in a cup but squeal over nicotine. It's nuts.

 

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

Don't expect the AMA, or any other respectable group, to endorse continued recreational use of nicotine by former cigarette smokers. It's quit or die. Take your pick. But not quit and live happily ever after with an e-cig.

There was a time or two when I smoked and said I like to smoke, I thought that person was going to slap me. They did tell me I was crazy and more you can guess.

I'd agree. Promoting a non-smoking alternative to smoking is still promoting "smoking" to many people.
Nicotine's addictive qualities are over rated. My own doctor told me several years ago it was clear to the medical community (his take anyway) that tobacco companies benefitted from the "aura of addiction" that smoking carries - that quitting is painful and horrible and extremely difficult to do. Yet, it's known nicotine is cleared out of the body within 48 to 96 hours and within that time frame a person can "kick" it, easier than caffeine, he felt. We mainline caffeine like it was oxygen in a cup but squeal over nicotine. It's nuts.

I agree - the public's perception has to shift.....nicotine is NOT the demon everyone says it is - it's simply guilty by association with its tradional dirty delivery device....

Perception...that's the battle zone. Not regulation. Regulation will come, that's inevitible....and traditional tobacco will go the way of the dinasaurs...that, I believe, is a given, too. But recreational nicotine usage will survive. Battered, bloody, and bruised from the battle, to be sure, but survive, it will.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Riddle makes an excellent point to which I agree.

This is also along the lines of the vapor test that the American Cancer Society (I believe) is currently doing. They aren't concerned about the effects of inhalation and whether it will cause cancer, but how much nicotine is absorbed.

It is nice these groups are finally stepping up to the plate to do studies, but it is curious as to why they are choosing the types of things to test that they are testing.

 

[openthewell]

I have faith that the AMA will publish results from this study that will make us all happy, and maybe shut the FDA up. I know of a few people on here who were turned on to PV's by there family doctors, and I'm one of them.

We just have to look out for BT, lobbyists, and other groups who have money to lose by the popularity of ecigs.

 

[riddle80]

It is nice these groups are finally stepping up to the plate to do studies, but it is curious as to why they are choosing the types of things to test that they are testing.

Exactly Lacey. I think it's fantastic they are being studied, but from that article it looks like they only plan to study the effectiveness as a NRT. Seems like the AMA would want to focus on the safety aspect first. That's crazy about the Cancer Society too! I'm happy they're doing it, but it just smells fishy.

I'm guessing the AMA is closely associated with BP as well. Guess we'll see what the big picture is a year from now when the studies are released