Can I get a little help please ?

[dc2k08]

I need to rally the troops !

Basically what happened is, some folks over at wikipedia decided to delete the page lising for "electronic cigarette"...you can see their debate here

They decided to port the definition of electronic cigarrette to the page for NRT. This as you all know is contravene to the heavy-handed advice meted out by WHO. I have added some info to their description of the electronic cigarette on the NRT page to correct this misinformation.

Since the page for "electronic cigarette was deleted, a new page was put up under "e-cigarette". this is serving as the page that people are directed to when they search for "electronic cigarette".

As some of you know, "electronic cigarette" and "e-cig" according to Cixi E-Cig are trademarks belonging to them, though it may now be the case that they have become "genericized". I have also added some info on the page for "e-cigarette" to correct this misunderstanding.

Nerver the less, it is wrong that "e-cigarette" is the page for which the definition of an electronic cigarette should be under. it is like putting the definition of "search engine" under "google" or the definition of "tissue" under "kleenex".

Consequently i have opened up a debate with the people who deleted the page for "electronic cigarette" to request that the page be undeleted.

I would appreciate if any of you could drop by and put in your 2 cents as i think the majority consensus will rule the judgement.

 

[robw]

I dont quite get wikipedia. It is a user generated site that is often wrong in its facts. The purpose of it has been distorted and fiddled with by industry for years, and has clearly become a un reliable source.

I often see people quote wikipedia only to be challenged just because it is an unreliable source.

Do you think the content wikipedia offers will in anyway sway possible opinion of the e-cig?

 

[TropicalBob]

Good points, DC, but I too dislike Wikipedia and dismiss anyone who uses it as an information source. Just personal, I guess. The concept grates ... information is NOT what we agree it is!

 

[dc2k08]

as gammy as wikipedia is, it is going to be the one of the top results in any search query. the information over there might as well be correct. seeing as we're all such aficionados on here, i figured it would be easy for us to put the record straight. + the guy is bugging me. here's what how responded:

Hello there, according to EU legislation[7] these cigarettes have been declared as "drugs" (mainly because of their repository of nicotine, or nicotine-like substances). Like the other "nikotine-replacement theapies" their effectiveness is not great (between 5 and 15% of smokers can quit smoking using a NRT)[8] I therefore think our current classification is adequate, Smokeless Cigarettes/Electronic Cigarettes are nothing else than a re-packaged nikotine patch. As an alternative: expand the section on them in NRT, and we could again move it to its own article

He's clearly got his .... on backwards and i've got T-3 days to budge him.

 

[TropicalBob]

Hmm. This is very much in line with how America's FDA has handled importing e-smoking stuff lately. Mine was held up for a month until I signed a form saying it was for quitting smoking. I'm serious. I posted about it. I wrote them explaining e-cigs as "alternatives" and they refused to accept any classification except "quit smoking." And, yes, they were involved in finally allowing my products to clear Customs. I don't know why they got involved, but they did.

If these are for "quitting smoking," then FDA approval will be necessary for devices and liquid to be sold. Because while the FDA doesn't regulate tobacco products, it does have control over all NRT products. Wikipedia's classification is dangerous to our practice.

 

[dc2k08]

i agree, as we found out from one poster who called the FDA, they are not interested in them until someone complains. i'm surprised yours got held up by them, i vaguely remember that thread. i don't think that it is a good thing either that they are listed on the NRT page. kinda of like stoking the fire..

the guy who put it there reckons if something contains nicotine than it is automatically assumed it is an NRT. he doesn't realise that products need to be tested and studied in order to be classed that way. From looking at their debate page, they initially thought it was all a hoax.

 

[Kate]

Do they classify snus and snuff as NRT?

I'd be interested in what prompted this claim: "...according to EU legislation[7] these cigarettes have been declared as "drugs"..." That means that the EU have legally classified esmoking and liquid nicotine. It's the first I've heard of it and it doesn't seem to be the way the UK is classifying so far.

 

[dc2k08]

they haven't kate. he knows nothing about them. he is quoting a PDF that lists nicotine as drug. consequently he assumes it is therefore an NRT and just a glorified nicotine patch. i'm trying to get through to him that it cannot and should not be classed as an NRT. Lord knows we discuss this issue time and time again on this forum and chide any seller who markets them that way. no point in having wikipedia being backwards about it.

 

[dc2k08]

i just read leaford's input. that was great, Nice one leaford, you the man !!!

 

[leaford]

he is quoting a PDF that lists nicotine as drug.

Actually, it doesn't.

 

[dc2k08]

really? well very well done to you for reading it ! so I see he didn't either. good to have some brains on board. i'll be interested to see his next response.


also wish to correct an error i made in the first post

As some of you know, "electronic cigarette" and "e-cig" according to Cixi E-Cig are trademarks belonging to them..

apart from the bad grammar I meant to say: as some of you know, "e-cigarette" and "e-cig" are...
i guess we all make mistakes

 

[TropicalBob]

No tobacco-based product is an NRT in the States, Kate. Snus and snuff are not NRT and the FDA cannot currently regulate them. That could change next month if our Senate joins the House and passes authority to the FDA to regulate all tobacco products.

 

[Bertrand]

I was a participant in a trial of smokeless tobacco products in Australia, run by researchers employed by the "Quit" lobby group here. (It's a government funded body, but acts mainly as a lobby group.)

The trial involved the Ariva / Stonewall products, the Oliver Twist chewing tobacco bits and some nicotine lozenges (presumably for baseline comparison.) I think they would have given us snuff too if it were legal here. All the products were presented as being "alternatives to smoking" rather than quitting products.

Clearly not all lobby groups hate smokers or are closed to harm minimization strategies.

 

[TropicalBob]

One of the problems for e-smoking is how to classify it. NRT is Nicotine Replacement Therapy and, as Trog pointed out, we are not therapy. Nope. We expect to spend the rest of our lives with our lips clamped over an e-cig, sucking in flavored vapor. Quit, hell! We've only just begun ...

NRT we definitely are not, no matter what Wikipedia seems to think.

 

[madog]

One of the problems for e-smoking is how to classify it. NRT is Nicotine Replacement Therapy and, as Trog pointed out, we are not therapy. Nope. We expect to spend the rest of our lives with our lips clamped over an e-cig, sucking in flavored vapor. Quit, hell! We've only just begun ...

NRT we definitely are not, no matter what Wikipedia seems to think.

Hey lets start tossing around NRA -
"Nicotine Replacement ALTERNATIVE"

If we can get the "other" NRA guys on board we would have some HUGE legislative power!

 

[dc2k08]

yeah madog, that really be ideal. there is no way we could ever lose. ha ha.

kate, thank's for putting in over at the debate page. that guy still has not responded yet so perhaps he's realised the error of his misunderstanding.

can i ask you two, leaf and kate to put in Restore befor your comments. i just realised that they request you to do that. thanks !

 

[Grumpysanta]

I've been saying in otherthreads that we should call it something,I agree totally with NRA

 

[dc2k08]

how about NRTT
Nicotine replacement therapy therapy.
(should really try to work in a buffalo or two somewhere there for extra effect)

 

[drtongue96]

quote:"We expect to spend the rest of our lives with our lips clamped over an e-cig, sucking in flavored vapor. Quit, hell! We've only just begun ..."

speak for yourself, please! I, for one, have QUIT smoking or putting tobacco anywhere near my mouth, and have been using e-cigarettes as a replacement until I no longer need them. I may need them for months, or even years, but you have to realize that A LOT of people right here in the forum, DO want to quit, and DO want to eventually ween themselves off of a very addictive drug.

 

[dc2k08]

speak for yourself, please! I, for one, have QUIT smoking or putting tobacco anywhere near my mouth, and have been using e-cigarettes as a replacement until I no longer need them. I may need them for months, or even years, but you have to realize that A LOT of people right here in the forum, DO want to quit, and DO want to eventually ween themselves off of a very addictive drug.

if you get off nicotine using electronic cigarettes that's great but all we are saying here is that electronic cigarettes cannot be described as NRT as there have been no studies to back up this claim and for anyone to class a product as an NRT they would need to do this. they were originally invented as a smoking alternative as a means to "smoke" where one ordinarily could not. some sellers started marketing them as cessation devices and WHO put out a a strongly worded press release saying that this is false information. if they were NRT then the FDA would be all about them too.


also thanks to SH for chiming on the debate in if he is a member of the forum ! i would say we have a strong case to get back the entry. looks like the original deleters have run for the hills.