Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
I knew it was just a matter of time before they went after Nicotine. I was waiting but i think very soon i will be ordering another large shipment of it.
Uh... yes.
Although, I have to admit, I'm not entirely certain that the mental health field does more harm than good, and like anything, it has its good and bad points.
As one who has worked in that field for a long time (but no longer, I have definitely decided that when I go back to work it will be as a daycare or afterschool member) and someone also with a "real" diagnosis, I find myself quite conflicted. I know there are people I've helped, but then, I don't hand out meds either.
As a medicated bipolar person, I am THOROUGHLY convinced that Mohammad was an unmedicated bipolar person, (my mom HATES it when I say that she is a Sufi, LOL) and I've read the "Big book of weird psychosis and oddly self-serving group of tenants," and I hate to say it, but I guess we are going to need to include religion in the set of people who "benefit" from addiction.
As far as I'm concerned, there isn't really a need for therapy for addiction, but I'm a dedicated anonymous member (although, today is my anniversary, oddly enough) although there certainly is big money to be made.
I would say I think Mohammad's "religion" did a lot more of worse for many many people than if he'd been given a hefty dose of Lithium and told to shut up, that he wasn't the "Last Prophet" or even the "First" prophet, or even a prophet. He was a pretty bloodthirsty dude as well, so there is that.
Every coin has another side, if you flip it. My parents paid for me to go to rehab, and it "benefitted" me in the sense that once I decided to get sober, I knew where to go. Once *I* decided....
But, you gotta know your stuff. Almost everything I take is off patent, and I do best on some of the more elderly, out of favor "treatments" so I'm afraid I have to lump mental health under the "pharmaceutical" banner, really....
Also, there is a place for counseling. It is sometimes overused. Some counselors really SUCK, and some are fantastic. I tend to think it's more "natural aptitude" than anything else, though. Honestly, some of those counseling folk (I am no longer among them but based on my survey responses I was great-- decent, but I worked long hours for little pay, because I wasn't going to do a "bad" job in public mental health which means 70 hour work weeks, as a matter of fact) but yeah, those folks might do equally well as "life coaches" which can be appealing due to the lack of paperwork and billing involved, or even psychics... You gotta know how to read people). But, I think most of my skills there were due to ASSIMILATING into various and sundry new cultures often with a new language, about 12 of them before I reached the age of 18.....
I also learned more through my first hospitalization than I EVER did in SW school, by paying attention to staff, their reactions, and mine, and other patients while I was in the hospital. Oh sure, I learned to bill diagnose and some useful models, but really, some people are nuts, and some people need help, and certain professionals in the mental health field are MUCH better at that than others. Some are total quacks.
It sucks the worst when they are your coworkers and you have to listen to them in a team meeting while mentally duct taping your mouth shut. Actually, that's where I had my "breakdown" leaving me where I am today. Some idiot with no training decided to be rude because our supervisor was not there that day.... I left that team meeting, got in my car, cried a little, and decided to go home because anything I would DO that day would have been totally inappropriate.
I never went back, and I'm not sorry.
But, anyone can "benefit" from anything ultimately. I just don't like the way this government happens to go about it.
Anna
Although, I have to admit, I'm not entirely certain that the mental health field does more harm than good, and like anything, it has its good and bad points.
As one who has worked in that field for a long time (but no longer, I have definitely decided that when I go back to work it will be as a daycare or afterschool member) and someone also with a "real" diagnosis, I find myself quite conflicted. I know there are people I've helped, but then, I don't hand out meds either.
As a medicated bipolar person, I am THOROUGHLY convinced that Mohammad was an unmedicated bipolar person, (my mom HATES it when I say that she is a Sufi, LOL) and I've read the "Big book of weird psychosis and oddly self-serving group of tenants," and I hate to say it, but I guess we are going to need to include religion in the set of people who "benefit" from addiction.
As far as I'm concerned, there isn't really a need for therapy for addiction, but I'm a dedicated anonymous member (although, today is my anniversary, oddly enough) although there certainly is big money to be made.
I would say I think Mohammad's "religion" did a lot more of worse for many many people than if he'd been given a hefty dose of Lithium and told to shut up, that he wasn't the "Last Prophet" or even the "First" prophet, or even a prophet. He was a pretty bloodthirsty dude as well, so there is that.
Every coin has another side, if you flip it. My parents paid for me to go to rehab, and it "benefitted" me in the sense that once I decided to get sober, I knew where to go. Once *I* decided....
But, you gotta know your stuff. Almost everything I take is off patent, and I do best on some of the more elderly, out of favor "treatments" so I'm afraid I have to lump mental health under the "pharmaceutical" banner, really....
Also, there is a place for counseling. It is sometimes overused. Some counselors really SUCK, and some are fantastic. I tend to think it's more "natural aptitude" than anything else, though. Honestly, some of those counseling folk (I am no longer among them but based on my survey responses I was great-- decent, but I worked long hours for little pay, because I wasn't going to do a "bad" job in public mental health which means 70 hour work weeks, as a matter of fact) but yeah, those folks might do equally well as "life coaches" which can be appealing due to the lack of paperwork and billing involved, or even psychics... You gotta know how to read people). But, I think most of my skills there were due to ASSIMILATING into various and sundry new cultures often with a new language, about 12 of them before I reached the age of 18.....
I also learned more through my first hospitalization than I EVER did in SW school, by paying attention to staff, their reactions, and mine, and other patients while I was in the hospital. Oh sure, I learned to bill diagnose and some useful models, but really, some people are nuts, and some people need help, and certain professionals in the mental health field are MUCH better at that than others. Some are total quacks.
It sucks the worst when they are your coworkers and you have to listen to them in a team meeting while mentally duct taping your mouth shut. Actually, that's where I had my "breakdown" leaving me where I am today. Some idiot with no training decided to be rude because our supervisor was not there that day.... I left that team meeting, got in my car, cried a little, and decided to go home because anything I would DO that day would have been totally inappropriate.
I never went back, and I'm not sorry.
But, anyone can "benefit" from anything ultimately. I just don't like the way this government happens to go about it.
Anna
I think this FDA Statement is actually positive for the e-cigarette industry - time will tell if I'm right. Here are a few reasons why:
**The title - "Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on pivotal public health step to dramatically reduce smoking rates by lowering nicotine in combustible cigarettes to minimally or non-addictive levels"
They specifically reference "combustible cigarettes", not only here but throughout the statement.
**"Cigarettes" is referenced 17 times while e-cigarettes is mentioned only once, and that was in this statement, which I completely agree with - "At the same time, we plan to take vigorous enforcement steps to make sure that tobacco products aren’t being marketed to kids, including e-cigarettes. No youth should use a tobacco product."
**This statement is probably the most positive IMO for the e-cig industry and acknowledges the benefits of having "alternate" nicotine sources (i.e. e-cigs.) and they also want to encourage innovation which will likely occur in non-combustible products like e-cigs - "For example, our plan demonstrates a greater awareness that nicotine, while highly addictive, is delivered through products on a continuum of risk, and that in order to successfully address cigarette addiction, we must make it possible for current adult smokers who still seek nicotine to get it from alternative and less harmful sources."
**There will be a 3-month period where the public can provide input and I'm sure that the vaping lobby along with all of us vapers, will help the FDA understand that most of the vaping products today are on the opposite end of the "continuum of risk" as cigarettes - but I think the FDA may know that already, although hard data is still scant but growing and moving in our favor.
I hope they stay away from regulating the e-cig industry further - all that's needed now is a focus on preventing kids from getting access to ANY nicotine products.
**The title - "Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on pivotal public health step to dramatically reduce smoking rates by lowering nicotine in combustible cigarettes to minimally or non-addictive levels"
They specifically reference "combustible cigarettes", not only here but throughout the statement.
**"Cigarettes" is referenced 17 times while e-cigarettes is mentioned only once, and that was in this statement, which I completely agree with - "At the same time, we plan to take vigorous enforcement steps to make sure that tobacco products aren’t being marketed to kids, including e-cigarettes. No youth should use a tobacco product."
**This statement is probably the most positive IMO for the e-cig industry and acknowledges the benefits of having "alternate" nicotine sources (i.e. e-cigs.) and they also want to encourage innovation which will likely occur in non-combustible products like e-cigs - "For example, our plan demonstrates a greater awareness that nicotine, while highly addictive, is delivered through products on a continuum of risk, and that in order to successfully address cigarette addiction, we must make it possible for current adult smokers who still seek nicotine to get it from alternative and less harmful sources."
**There will be a 3-month period where the public can provide input and I'm sure that the vaping lobby along with all of us vapers, will help the FDA understand that most of the vaping products today are on the opposite end of the "continuum of risk" as cigarettes - but I think the FDA may know that already, although hard data is still scant but growing and moving in our favor.
I hope they stay away from regulating the e-cig industry further - all that's needed now is a focus on preventing kids from getting access to ANY nicotine products.
I tend to see it the same as you.I think this FDA Statement is actually positive for the e-cigarette industry - time will tell if I'm right. Here are a few reasons why:
**The title - "Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on pivotal public health step to dramatically reduce smoking rates by lowering nicotine in combustible cigarettes to minimally or non-addictive levels"
They specifically reference "combustible cigarettes", not only here but throughout the statement.
**"Cigarettes" is referenced 17 times while e-cigarettes is mentioned only once, and that was in this statement, which I completely agree with - "At the same time, we plan to take vigorous enforcement steps to make sure that tobacco products aren’t being marketed to kids, including e-cigarettes. No youth should use a tobacco product."
**This statement is probably the most positive IMO for the e-cig industry and acknowledges the benefits of having "alternate" nicotine sources (i.e. e-cigs.) and they also want to encourage innovation which will likely occur in non-combustible products like e-cigs - "For example, our plan demonstrates a greater awareness that nicotine, while highly addictive, is delivered through products on a continuum of risk, and that in order to successfully address cigarette addiction, we must make it possible for current adult smokers who still seek nicotine to get it from alternative and less harmful sources."
**There will be a 3-month period where the public can provide input and I'm sure that the vaping lobby along with all of us vapers, will help the FDA understand that most of the vaping products today are on the opposite end of the "continuum of risk" as cigarettes - but I think the FDA may know that already, although hard data is still scant but growing and moving in our favor.
I hope they stay away from regulating the e-cig industry further - all that's needed now is a focus on preventing kids from getting access to ANY nicotine products.
My 1st thought when I read the article was that smokers will just smoke more cigarettes to get their nicotine fix. And unfortunately they’ll be inhaling all the other chemicals that actually cause cancer more as well.
Yes, I'm sure that would work very well. I mean nobody ever uses or gets addicted to anything that can't be purchased legally, right?
I would Never tell someone to Not have Back-Ups. Or a Stash of Nicotine.
But you do understand that the FDA Rule Making Process is a Looooong Process.
Yes, I'm sure that would work very well. I mean nobody ever uses or gets addicted to anything that can't be purchased legally, right?
You are correct, but how many banned things have a legal alternative that can satiate the craving for the banned substance? That is the ONLY reason this could even possibly work. If you want nicotine and have to choose buying from the black market at black market prices or get your nicotine legally from vaping, I am sure by and large the majority would choose vaping.
Yes i do understand that. I just get itchy feet knowing to stop this cold by any means nicotine is the way it will happen. Maybe i will just order a litre for now to feel better.
If it puts your mind at Ease, then yeah, picking up an Extra liter sure Isn't going to hurt anything.
Last edited:
Sleeping well every night due to having made myself FDA-proof is priceless.
The really scary addiction is control. As long as there are those that think they know better than the next and want to control everyone else there will be a war on something that uses our tax dollars and coincidentally keeps their own coffers overflowing. Perhaps nicotine is one of the FDA / DEA / (name a "not for profit" letter abbreviated organization here) future perpetuators.
I am in the same boat. My thing is a have maybe 12 years of nicotine now. I plan to add another 20 years worth soon but i want to leave it as long as possible. Mainly to keep my supply fresh. Everything else i am set for life. I just know nicotine will be target number one soon. A case of when not if.Sleeping well every night due to having made myself FDA-proof is priceless.
Last edited:
I can't help but read this a time or two more....
Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on pivotal public health step to dramatically reduce smoking rates by lowering nicotine in combustible cigarettes to minimally or non-addictive levels
"At the same time we’re also jump-starting new work to re-evaluate and modernize our approach to the development and regulation of safe and effective medicinal nicotine replacement products such as nicotine gums, patches and lozenges that help smokers quit. This is a pivotal part of our overall public health approach."
Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on pivotal public health step to dramatically reduce smoking rates by lowering nicotine in combustible cigarettes to minimally or non-addictive levels
"At the same time we’re also jump-starting new work to re-evaluate and modernize our approach to the development and regulation of safe and effective medicinal nicotine replacement products such as nicotine gums, patches and lozenges that help smokers quit. This is a pivotal part of our overall public health approach."
Let's see, the plan is to reduce the nicotine in tobacco, promote Big Pharma products, and cripple the vape industry. Sounds like a well hatched plan to hand total monopoly control of nicotine over to big Pharma...am I missing something here?
IDK. I wanted to be encouraged by the statement, even slightly, but I did not find myself feeling optimistic as I read it. The above summary would be as good as anything else.... Unfortunately. Having not spent much time around politics (thank god) I find it hard to "interpret" these statements, and almost meaningless in their generalities. I still think we have no idea what the FDA will ultimately do but it did give me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. I tend to pay attention to those feelings, and bought some flavorings yesterday.
Closed, mentholated tobacco vaping is kind of my version of vaping "hell." I really don't like all these government agencies providing me with "hellish" experiences, and most of the new scheduling of meds that are ANCIENT got their prices raised, SIMPLY for that. That was also my version of "hell" for a while, and it wasn't remotely similar to statements made by Trump about releasing "better, cheaper" medications from overseas and how they would flood the market. Nu huh, it didn't match that statement at all. Even inhalers you used to get for like $7 have now "reformulated" their "spray" action, causing the prices to raise tenfold and etc.
It did increase my resentment at tobacco and get me vaping (medical costs, LOL) which I guess would be an "unintended iatrogenic effect" since apparently the FDA wants to make sure that no nicotine user-- anywhere-- at any time-- should be allowed vaping "satisfaction."
Anna
Closed, mentholated tobacco vaping is kind of my version of vaping "hell." I really don't like all these government agencies providing me with "hellish" experiences, and most of the new scheduling of meds that are ANCIENT got their prices raised, SIMPLY for that. That was also my version of "hell" for a while, and it wasn't remotely similar to statements made by Trump about releasing "better, cheaper" medications from overseas and how they would flood the market. Nu huh, it didn't match that statement at all. Even inhalers you used to get for like $7 have now "reformulated" their "spray" action, causing the prices to raise tenfold and etc.
It did increase my resentment at tobacco and get me vaping (medical costs, LOL) which I guess would be an "unintended iatrogenic effect" since apparently the FDA wants to make sure that no nicotine user-- anywhere-- at any time-- should be allowed vaping "satisfaction."
Anna
Similar threads
- Locked
