3-5 days, maybe more, depending on metabolism and intake. YMMV.Does anyone know right off hand how long testable amounts of nicotine stay in blood/urine? The hospital up the road uses mouth swabs for testing their employees.
3-5 days, maybe more, depending on metabolism and intake. YMMV.Does anyone know right off hand how long testable amounts of nicotine stay in blood/urine? The hospital up the road uses mouth swabs for testing their employees.
I'm an employer. I buy group insurance for my employees from Independence Blue Cross. Each adult covered must declare whether they are a tobacco user or not, and the rate for that person reflects their age and whether or not they are a tobacco user. I could easily charge the tobacco users the difference in premium that results from their status, but I don't.Health insurance companies give employers of non-tobacco product users a better rate.
Someone else posted on this forum... Sorry, can't remember who or where, but the gist was that their insurer didn't classify an occasional cigar smoker, less than 2 a month, to be a smoker for their purpose.I'm an employer. I buy group insurance for my employees from Independence Blue Cross. Each adult covered must declare whether they are a tobacco user or not, and the rate for that person reflects their age and whether or not they are a tobacco user. I could easily charge the tobacco users the difference in premium that results from their status, but I don't.
What's interesting is that IBX does not consider vapers to be tobacco users. A couple of years after I switched to vaping, my insurance broker / benefits consultant asked me why I'm still paying that rate for myself since I wasn't smoking anymore. I told him: Because I'm still using this (held up my vape) and the FDA is about to classify it as a tobacco product. He replied: Nope, IBX doesn't consider it tobacco use. I told him: Get that in writing for me, and he did.
I don't have the exact details in front of me, but I would say that's correct. I have one employee who does smoke an occasional stogie, and who will take a dip when he's out in the woods hunting in the fall, but it's infrequent enough that it did not qualify him as a "tobacco user".Someone else posted on this forum... Sorry, can't remember who or where, but the gist was that their insurer didn't clarify an occasional cigar smoker, less than 2 a month, to be a smoker for their purpose.
I'm an employer. I buy group insurance for my employees from Independence Blue Cross. Each adult covered must declare whether they are a tobacco user or not, and the rate for that person reflects their age and whether or not they are a tobacco user. I could easily charge the tobacco users the difference in premium that results from their status, but I don't.
What's interesting is that IBX does not consider vapers to be tobacco users. A couple of years after I switched to vaping, my insurance broker / benefits consultant asked me why I'm still paying that rate for myself since I wasn't smoking anymore. I told him: Because I'm still using this (held up my vape) and the FDA is about to classify it as a tobacco product. He replied: Nope, IBX doesn't consider it tobacco use. I told him: Get that in writing for me, and he did.
Yep, that's why I insisted on having it in writing from them before I switched myself to the lower premium classification on their paperwork. The last thing I'd want is to end up in the hospital with some ailment that could be blamed on smoking and then have them deny coverage because I mis-stated my status as non tobacco user.The devil is in the definitions.
I would once have agreed completely, but with stupid reaching epidemic proportion, and pretty much EVERY thing being MUCH stronger than in the 70s and 80s, I have to say I don't think everything should be legal. I mean, as an example, I don't believe the average citizen should be able to legally posses refined, weapons grade uranium. That is the devestating lethal equivalency that today's compounds are approaching.Well, as long as you are good with the drugs we have.
I actually do sort of understand the rationale for patenting drugs, although I do think that (even given very conservative estimates of what it costs to "make" a drug) the cost of new drugs are pretty obscene.
I take older drugs over younger ones whenever I can because actually that is the ONLY way their long term side effects are known.
I will also say that since every body/brain meeting each new drug is different-- good luck. You are in your own personal drug study so pay attention.
IDK I guess the vast funds the FDA sucks up could be applied to new drug development or whatever, but something would have to like, give.
I don't really know how to call it whether the FDA does more harm than good.
BUT I can with ABSOLUTE confidence say: Legalize everything. There is not a single country that has done this that has not seen increased tax revenue, decreased crime, and etc.
I mean I'm sure the US would find a way to ruin it somehow, but I'd be interested in FINDING OUT how, I guess I'd like to say. The attempt should be made.
Teens should at least be able to get diverted "regulated' illegal drugs, and be as safe as anyone else.
Anna
Anthrax, no, carfentynil, bromo-dragonfly, scopolomine... No thanks.Someone mentioned removing the FDA and what it might do.
I chimed in about that. Including what the FDA's current budget could be used for and why.
It included legalizing illicit DRUGS yes, sorry to not be more specific. It never occurred to me that we should all be allowed to store pure anthrax in our basement freezers, or that someone would take the statement that way.
Now I know better.
Bedtime SO SOON! Argh!
Anna
Hate for smokers (and dippers).
On June 11, the FDA finalized its guidance for manufacturers submitting new tobacco product applications through the premarket tobacco application (PMTA) process for electronic nicotine systems (ENDS), including e-cigarettes, vaping devices and nicotine-containing e-liquids. By way of background, when the FDA issued the Deeming Regulations asserting jurisdiction over ENDS in May 2016, it also issued a draft guidance for ENDS PMTAs. The Agency had been promising to finalize that guidance as it proposes to move forward the deadline for these submissions.
There are very few changes between the 2016 draft guidance and the final guidance. Importantly, the final guidance continues to note that nonclinical studies alone generally would not support marketing authorization but it does acknowledge that long-term clinical studies generally would not be required.
The final guidance provides additional recommendations regarding battery safety, including testing certificates for any voluntary electrical standards. The final guidance also provides new recommendations for testing of harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHCs) – some HPHCs were removed from the original draft guidance and some were added – and the Agency also decreased the recommended number of replicates for testing.
Although the ENDS guidance certainly provides valuable information for ENDS companies preparing PMTAs for marketing authorization, it is important to note that the guidance only provides non-binding recommendations. Applicants are encouraged to develop scientific testing programs appropriate for their products in order to meet the statutory standard of whether marketing the products is “appropriate for the protection of public health.”