Congress to grant FDA approval to regulate tobacco

[retroboy1975]

okay . first off it takes only 30 mg of pure nicotine to kill an adult wieghing in at 160 lbs or less. yes, weight is a factor, as with any drug. but you have to keep things in perspective. although there is an average of 10-15mg of pure nicotine in a regular cigarette, the body only takes in around 0.9 to 1.2 mgs. most gets burned off during the smoking. also mgs are not the same as mls. yes, a milliliter of water is the same as a millogram of water. but thats comparing the same substances. millograms are measurements of mass. where as milliliters are measurements of volume. nicotine has much more mass than water and propylene glycol. therefore 36 millograms takes up a very small amount of space in a 12.5 milliliter bottle. im not saying go have a drink of it by any means. but i am saying that the math in here is wrong. now comes the question of how much nicotine is in the bottle? is it 36 mgs in the bottle or is that what they average per cigarette. i would venture to say its whats in the whole bottle, but i dont know. **** looks like i need some more info too. anyway, not tryin to be a ....., just wanted to put some of my research out there.
by the way, a lot of people are saying that nicotine is much more deadly and poisonous than caffeine. but they're wrong. 30 mgs of nicotine will kill a 160 lb person. and it takes 10,000 mgs of caffeine to kill someone. it sounds like nicotine is way worse. but when you figure one cigarette gives you about 1mg of nicotine, and a 16oz. coffee gives you 200 mgs of caffeine, its more than apparent that they are very near the same toxicity level. just thought some of you would like to know so you can throw that into the face of the nay-sayers! HA! post some more info if you can about the eliquid amounts, etc.
keep rockin!

 

[Dude]

Thanks for the comments TropicalBob, you seem to have a knowledge of most things regarding these wonderful devices.

 

[Dude]

OK...I'm way out of my element on this, so if my thoughts are full of holes please correct me. I don't know much about the FDA drug approval process, but:


1. My understanding of new drug approval and patents is that the original drug developer (i.e. PM for the Aria) has 17 or 20 years of exclusive marketing for a drug (from time of filing or time of patent grant whichever is later). (What I DON'T know is how/if this timeline is affected if the item is never actively marketed).


2. Once this time has passed, generic drugs can essentially be "fast-tracked" to approval since they can reference the clinical trials of the original drug (providiing they are essentially the same as the original drug including the active ingredient, delivery method, etc).
I'm being brief in the 2 points above, but essentially here's what I'm wondering.


IF the Aria inhaler was developed (and patent applied for in the early 90's), then based on #1 above, it could be close to the end of its patent life. The drug and delivery system (nicotine inhaler) would then be available for a generic version. Possibly not in the exact form we now use, but something hopefully very similar.


Again, I'm out of my element here, so I very well may be making assumptions that aren't valid, but I find it odd that PM had this device essentially ready isince the mid 90's, but I find no announcements of it until 2005 - just after Runyan announced their first e-cigarette (and well AFTER they settled the 90's lawsuit).


AND, to add a little haze to the air, I also found a reference to a generic drug that was approved for MOST (but not all) of the remedies of the original drug. The generic could not market for one particular remedy that was still under patent, but was allowed to market itself for all the other symptoms the drug addressed. (The original drug was: Requip, ropinirole hydrochloride. The generics can market that they treat "Restless Leg Syndrome", but they can't market treatment for "Parkinson's Disease" because the original drug still had a patent on that)


SO, assuming the Aria inhaler patent is near expiration, AND/OR that the patent covers the inhaler as an NRT device, THEN possibly a generic version THAT DOESN'T claim itself as an NRT device COULD be marketed.
Sorry if this rambles, but it just seems to me that with the relative EXPLOSION of drug ads and "new" diseases nowadays, that there would be some method for the e-cig makers to jump on the coat-tails of this inhaler patent (if, in fact, the points above are valid).

 

[HK45]

Sorry. Go to right to vape for some constructive dialogue.

Meanwhile, read the PDF and know thy enemy.

Tbob,

You are obviously well-respected on this forum, and maybe for good reason. But, after reading a lot of your post, especially the disparaging remark about Right to Vape, my impression is of a pompous ..., albeit a knowledgeable ..., doing a lot of pontificating and criticising while doing nothing.
I know that I will get flamed for this post and Kate is too polite to ever say this, but your apparent philosophy of accepting without protest makes your intellect impotent.
I guarantee that I will never comment on one of your post again. It would be a waste of time. You quoted "know thy enemy", well, in response, "if you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem". Actually, some of your posts sound like a "Trojan Horse".
Everyone feel free to attack my grammer, misquotes, or whatever. I just feel that it is a shame for someone as articulate as Tbob, who is obviously very active in these forums, just waste space.

 

[Lithium1330]

FWIW: Right To Vape is NOT an advocacy group encouraging people to use e-cigarettes, we are a group of people trying to find solutions to use nicotine by vaporization based in the concept that vaporization may be less harmful than smoking, at this stage the logical way is to focus on e-cigarettes and all the problems around them, we are trying to find solutions on a constructive and participative way, so TBob with all my respect I need to say maybe you misunderstood what we are doing on RTV.

At this time we are not doing any kind of protests, simply because we don't have the complete facts about e-liquids or e-cigarettes, we are not stupids and we will not encourage anybody to use something that we don't know how safe it is, but we are trying to find out what are the risks, the pros and cons and serve it to the people to allow them to make THEIR OWN decision.

Also, we will not only focus on e-cigarettes, we will keep searching into the world of Personal Vaporizers in general, no matter the shape, power source or previous uses of the devices, so if one kind of device fails or gets banned, we will try other kinds of devices, everything aimed to vaporizing instead of smoking tobacco.

 

[TropicalBob]

HK45, sorry you have that opinion of my posts. Frequently, the purpose of them is to bring a thread back to reality. That's it. Threads wander off into bashing governments, media, non-smokers, health groups, etc, when what needs focus is getting the electronic cigarette approved or accepted. I try to slam dreamers wtih facts -- then the discussion can be helpful, rather than just rants.

I don't feel our cause is "hopeless", BTW. In fact, I think vaporizing nicotine is the way of the future for nic addicts like myself. I enjoy e-smoking daily. I do think the number of diversions posted around the forum don't help anything -- except the person venting might feel better.

I was part of Right to Vape for awhile, then bowed out when I came to the conclusion that I cannot advocate e-smoking for others until the facts are known. And right now, they are not. I shouldn't belittle others efforts on our behalf, however, and I'm sorry for that. Won't do it again. There are good, good people at Right to Vape.

More than a year ago, I researched and wrote a long article about e-smoking, published in the October issue of SmokeShop magazine (goes to the tobacco community). It can be read from E-smoking article - *E-Cigtest, the ultimate electronic cigarettes review site* - Le site de la cigarette électronique. Much has evolved since then, but it's still a good overview.

My work has largely been very much behind the scenes. As you may have read, I blame manufacturers for this present turmoil. They failed us. We didn't fail. We bought devices, found joy in them, and now find they are threatened by lack of proper effort from manufacturers. So those are the ones I press to do something on our behalf.

Hope this at least helps clarify where this pompous a*s is coming from.

 

[LaceyUnderall]

by the way, a lot of people are saying that nicotine is much more deadly and poisonous than caffeine. but they're wrong. 30 mgs of nicotine will kill a 160 lb person. and it takes 10,000 mgs of caffeine to kill someone. it sounds like nicotine is way worse. but when you figure one cigarette gives you about 1mg of nicotine, and a 16oz. coffee gives you 200 mgs of caffeine, its more than apparent that they are very near the same toxicity level.

Good post. Welcome! I agree with your argument. Caffeine and Nicotine should be viewed the same, it is only the delivery system that has made Nicotine look so bad. Either way, I still defend that caffeine should be illegal for children to purchase. What 10 year old needs an iced coffee anyways? It's called get a milkshake. They are full of protein and fat. Just what a growing body needs

 

[LaceyUnderall]

Also, we will not only focus on e-cigarettes, we will keep searching into the world of Personal Vaporizers in general, no matter the shape, power source or previous uses of the devices, so if one kind of device fails or gets banned, we will try other kinds of devices, everything aimed to vaporizing instead of smoking tobacco.

To further back up Lithium: e-cigarettes are only one STYLE of personal vaporizer.

 

[Kate]

... I cannot advocate e-smoking for others until the facts are known. ...

As Lithium said, Right to Vape is not an advocacy group. Advocacy was suggested by someone (it might even have been you TBob) but no promotion or evangelism has been discussed or implied in any discussions I've seen. It's much more of a consumer interests group, interested in protecting current users rather than drumming up trade (that's what the Order of the Wholey Technofoggers is for ).

Come back to RtV if you ever find any discussions you're interested in TBob, your input is appreciated, it's not like we're all perfect all the time over there, there's room to be human.

 

[HK45]

Tbob,

I just spent 10-15 minutes typing a reply to your pleasantly civilized response to my emotionally charged post but upon submission I got the dreaded frozen blank screen and a lost post. It was probably too wordy and windy!
The crux of the post was that in retrospect I don't know you well enough to make some of the judgments I posted and regret resorting to name calling. We at least share common ground in blaming the manufacturers, and the unsupportable claims made by some suppliers, for our present predicament.
Unfortunately, I have the propensity to spontaneously speak my mind and my remarks were made on just two posts to Disman and the comment about Right to Vape. Not a good sampling (I have read many more of your posts that didn't invoke the same response in me).
If I have misjudged you I apologize and hope that we can continue with no animosity. I didn't start participating in this forum to make enemies.

 

[TropicalBob]

Nor did I. Thanks for your response -- and keep calling me out when you think I'm wrong. That's the purpose of discussion forums. The more shared views, the better informed we're likely to be.

 

[Taelon]

Another view:
Where's the FDA regulation for mobile cellphones?

The WHO says they've got no real evidence or scientfic data about them either, but it's proven by rat studies that their ~2Watts microwave radiation is carcinogenic (brain cancer) and there's no lower limit for carcinogenic microwaves either... why not ban mobile cellphones, mobile relays and microwave ovens?

 

[jburns]

Another view:
Where's the FDA regulation for mobile cellphones?

Since cell phones are neither a food nor drug I don't know why they would have juristriction. There have been warnings issued by several cancer centers.

 

[TropicalBob]

Correct. That thrust was off target. But then let's just blame everything on the FDA at this point ... Sincerely, cell phones are not an FDA matter. E-cigs are.

 

[badkat]

One of the things readers might do is look at the history of drug regulation and come to realize that regulators are not your friends. Regulatory agencies have always been an agency of control and oversight, keeping you in line at the behest of big money, and all "for your own good". What's the answer? I dunno, not until "the people" summon the courage to take control. One day Philip Morris will sell an e-cig with no nicotine just as Coca Cola sells it's juice without ........ Same story, different era.