DID WE WIN???????

[TJVapes]

Thus was foreshadowed by the verbiage change on current FDA approved NRTs when they changed the warnings on them. ..whatever it was they did...

I had a feeling vaping wouldn't die, but I couldn't see the this coming with such a lengthy timeframe.

We have to watch the states. One would hope they start to fall in a more positive direction but I'm sure they want to ensure profit.

The biggest win that I take from this is the actual move toward making cigarettes less/not addictive. I hate to be the one who says think of the children, but I will in this case. If they don't rope the kids in to addiction, then we can truly see a big change in harm reduction and lives saved. If vaping van bring big BT to its knees, that's winning.

 

[OlderNDirt]

Admittedly, I have not researched this in depth. From what I have heard, the FDA is considering limiting the amount of nicotine in cigarettes to "non-addictive levels." That does not ease my concerns for at least a couple reasons:

1. At what level will nicotine be determined to be "non-addictive", who is making that determination, and based on what?

2. I can't imagine once the FDA controls nicotine levels in cigarettes that e-cig juice won't be included.

A nicotine level of less then 3mg would a challenge to many vapers! And you can bet your bottom dollar I will be picking up another liter of 100mg nic next sale reserved for "bumping up" any store bought juice! Not sure if nic base can/will escape FDA's "non-addictive" limit.

I'm just not sure or convinced this all is a step in the right direction for us or a different, and possibly more effective way of "taking control?"

 

[TJVapes]

Admittedly, I have not researched this in depth. From what I have heard, the FDA is considering limiting the amount of nicotine in cigarettes to "non-addictive levels." That does not ease my concerns for at least a couple reasons:

1. At what level will nicotine be determined to be "non-addictive", who is making that determination, and based on what?

2. I can't imagine once the FDA controls nicotine levels in cigarettes that e-cig juice won't be included.

A nicotine level of less then 3mg would a challenge to many vapers! And you can bet your bottom dollar I will be picking up another liter of 100mg nic next sale reserved for "bumping up" any store bought juice! Not sure if nic base can/will escape FDA's "non-addictive" limit.

I'm just not sure or convinced this all is a step in the right direction for us or a different, and possibly more effective way of "taking control?"

In the FDA speech, I didn't feel like he was saying nicotine is bad and needs reduced in any other form than combustible. Of course, I will remain prepared and stocked. A lot of things can happen still. Maybe its too hopeful to think they can make cigarettes not addictive but I would rather see them try than just leave it be. You should watch the speech if you haven't, it was positive.

 

[somdcomputerguy]

Admittedly, I have not researched this in depth. From what I have heard, the FDA is considering limiting the amount of nicotine in cigarettes to "non-addictive levels."

In my opinion, this is mainly a way for BT to make more money because people will smoke more to get the same 'nic effect'. On the other hand however, it may also 'push' more people to vaping..

 

[dobroeutro]

Admittedly, I have not researched this in depth. From what I have heard, the FDA is considering limiting the amount of nicotine in cigarettes to "non-addictive levels."

Well, it would seem to me rather than reducing nicotine levels in tobacco cigarettes, eliminating the chemical cocktail BT uses to make tobacco cigarettes "more" dangerous and addictive would be a more appropriate course of action. Surely natural, unmodified tobacco in combustible form would be "less harmful" than the products currently marketed. No science to back up my statement, just an opinion...

 

[OlderNDirt]

In the FDA speech, I didn't feel like he was saying nicotine is bad and needs reduced in any other form than combustible. Of course, I will remain prepared and stocked. A lot of things can happen still. Maybe its too hopeful to think they can make cigarettes not addictive but I would rather see them try than just leave it be. You should watch the speech if you haven't, it was positive.

I learned long ago to not put too much trust and faith in what is said, especially by government "officials." This is being approached as if nicotine is the only addictive component in cigarettes, something of which I am not convinced. And I find it hard to believe BT will accept this without pointing a finger.

In my opinion, this is mainly a way for BT to make more money because people will smoke more to get the same 'nic effect'. On the other hand however, it may also 'push' more people to vaping..

While it stands to reason that lowering nic levels should lead to higher consumption in either form, I'm not too sure BT would support the mandate. But time will shed some light on where this is all going.

 

[TJVapes]

Well, it would seem to me rather than reducing nicotine levels in tobacco cigarettes, eliminating the chemical cocktail BT uses to make tobacco cigarettes "more" dangerous and addictive would be a more appropriate course of action. Surely natural, unmodified tobacco in combustible form would be "less harmful" than the products currently marketed. No science to back up my statement, just an opinion...

Apparently, if you tried to smoke unmodified tobacco, it would rip your throat. They even have a chemical in cigs to help with that. I'm not sure how addictive cigs would be without nicotine. I guess that's what the proposal hinges on.

 

[bobwho77]

I thank everyone that voted for Trump, without him - who knows what would have happened.

After what we've seen so far, I wouldn't trust the Trump administration to govern their way out of a wet paper bag, but even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.

 

[Stubby]

Well, it would seem to me rather than reducing nicotine levels in tobacco cigarettes, eliminating the chemical cocktail BT uses to make tobacco cigarettes "more" dangerous and addictive would be a more appropriate course of action. Surely natural, unmodified tobacco in combustible form would be "less harmful" than the products currently marketed. No science to back up my statement, just an opinion...

Unmodified tobacco has essentially the same risk as modified tobacco. It has always been a myth that BT makes cigarettes more addictive and more harmful (BT manipulates tobacco used in cigarettes to make it consistent so that every one you smoke is the same as the last, despite lots of year to year variances in tobacco. Weather effects tobacco as it does every other plant). What causes the harm in cigarettes is inhaling the products of combustion. It doesn't matter if it is organic unmodified tobacco or heavily manipulated tobacco, the harm is pretty much the same.

There really is only one thing the FDA needs to do to make a sea change to reduced harm products, and that is to stop lying. Simply tell the truth that there are ways of using tobacco/nicotine (smokeless tobacco and vaping) that are several orders of magnitude less harmful then inhaling smoke and people will make the rational choice to the less harmful product.

Sweden now has the lowest daily smoking rate in the world at 5%. It did not take any massive government intervention. People simply switched to snus because they knew it was less harmful then cigarettes. The same thing is happening in the UK with vaping. The government, for the most part, is truthfully informing people on the relative risk, and vaping has already replaced smoking in a good percentage of people.

The real problem in the US is the decades of lying by government and public health groups on the relative risk of different tobacco products. About 90% of the public believes smokeless tobacco has essentially the same risk as cigarettes, while the truth is that ST is about 99% less harmful then inhaling smoke. The same thing has been happening with vaping. When I started in 2009 (if my memory serves me right) somewhere in the 20% range believed vaping was as harmful as cigarettes, now it is in the 60% range.

People are not going to make the switch if they are grossly misinformed as to the relative risk. The FDA and CDC needs to start telling the truth as to the relative risk of different tobacco products. That is pretty much all that needs to be done.

 

[dobroeutro]

Apparently, if you tried to smoke unmodified tobacco, it would rip your throat. They even have a chemical in cigs to help with that. I'm not sure how addictive cigs would be without nicotine. I guess that's what the proposal hinges on.

Hmmm, as a youngster we used to roll & smoke dried, cured & aged tobacco all the time. I know that's just untrue...

Unmodified tobacco has essentially the same risk as modified tobacco. It has always been a myth that BT makes cigarettes more addictive and more harmful (BT manipulates tobacco used in cigarettes to make it consistent so that every one you smoke is the same as the last, despite lots of year to year variances in tobacco. Weather effects tobacco as it does every other plant). What causes the harm in cigarettes is inhaling the products of combustion. It doesn't matter if it is organic unmodified tobacco or heavily manipulated tobacco, the harm is pretty much the same.

Although I agree, "What causes the harm in tobacco cigarettes is inhaling the products of combustion.", I don't think it's as simple a distinction as that. I believe BT manipulates tobacco used in cigarettes for much more than just consistency of product. Again, just my opinion...

 

[Aus11]

I wouldnt say we won completely. This is without any doubt a great thing but 5 years is not a permanent change. The industry still has a lot to prepare for, but we have been given a great amount of breathe room. So we should be happy.

 

[Mowgli]

UIM tobacco smoke contains MAO inhibitors.
It's the MAOi that amplify the nicotine's effect on us and jacks it's addictive properties from mild to "get the .... out of my way I need a ....ing smoke".

Here's an interesting discussion (re: smoke/MAOi) that headed a simple google search.
Drug info - - Tobacco smoke is an MAOI??

 

[TJVapes]

Hmmm, as a youngster we used to roll & smoke dried, cured & aged tobacco all the time. I know that's just untrue...

I wasn't sure. I haven't tried it. I've read they do put in stuff to help soothe your throat, I guess so you can smoke the larger quantity.

 

[coolerat]

I think we won but only for now.

For years the far left has been trying to seize control of everyone's life at the Federal level.

At least for now Federal control of personal lives has been put on hold.

But I'm already hearing noises that the far left is gonna be trying harder on the state level. Suddenly they are pushing for states rights.

I won't take my eye off vaping at the Federal level but I'm gonna keep a far closer eye on Albany moving forward.

 

[Stubby]

I think we won but only for now.

For years the far left has been trying to seize control of everyone's life at the Federal level.

At least for now Federal control of personal lives has been put on hold.

But I'm already hearing noises that the far left is gonna be trying harder on the state level. Suddenly they are pushing for states rights.

I won't take my eye off vaping at the Federal level but I'm gonna keep a far closer eye on Albany moving forward.

A good percentage of the vaping restrictions and taxes that are showing up are happening in Republican controlled states. It is a false assumption that this is a partisan issue. Besides state level issues, the Cole/Bishop amendment is bi-partisan with support from both sides.

It is a big mistake to try and make this a partisan issue (especially since it is not). It is a sure way to lose. In the long run we need support from both sides to make it stick.

 

[mattiem]

We've not won the war but it seems we have gotten a bit of breathing room to continue the fight.

 

[bobwho77]

A good percentage of the vaping restrictions and taxes that are showing up are happening in Republican controlled states. It is a false assumption that this is a partisan issue. Besides state level issues, the Cole/Bishop amendment is bi-partisan with support from both sides.

It is a big mistake to try and make this a partisan issue (especially since it is not). It is a sure way to lose. In the long run we need support from both sides to make it stick.

Thank you. I've been saying pretty much the same thing for quite a while.

 

[jambi]

Admittedly, I have not researched this in depth. From what I have heard, the FDA is considering limiting the amount of nicotine in cigarettes to "non-addictive levels." That does not ease my concerns for at least a couple reasons:

1. At what level will nicotine be determined to be "non-addictive", who is making that determination, and based on what?

2. I can't imagine once the FDA controls nicotine levels in cigarettes that e-cig juice won't be included.

A nicotine level of less then 3mg would a challenge to many vapers! And you can bet your bottom dollar I will be picking up another liter of 100mg nic next sale reserved for "bumping up" any store bought juice! Not sure if nic base can/will escape FDA's "non-addictive" limit.

I'm just not sure or convinced this all is a step in the right direction for us or a different, and possibly more effective way of "taking control?"

Gottlieb repeatedly used the term "combustible tobacco" in his references to nicotine reduction. ENDS, Nicorette, and patches are not combustible tobacco. It seems he's aware that the harm is more related to combustion than mere nicotine...

Though, I don't understand how nicotine can be reduced to "non-addictive" levels in any device. By my calcs, that would = 0 nic. The very idea implies that something like {other stuff} could be made non-addictive.

 

[stols001]

Eskie, thank you for your succinct and brilliant analyses-- we all love them

It's hard to say what's going on in that white house, for sure. I mean... Odd things happen, unexpectedly. I'm not necessarily against this, all the time, but the more I watch Trump I find him to be utterly fascinating, and one of the things he DOES seem to do is give his staff a great deal of leeway, which is great, in many ways. I mean, he's a businessman, he hires who he thinks best for the job, and says go for it. Sometimes with mixed results.

As to Gottleib, I find the theory that he wanted to wait for the Judge's decision and use it in his favor fascinating. That's a smart dude, if that is the case, and he's doing a great job sort of announcing without shoving in BT faces that he considers vaping favorable (so far). I do think that if we could get even half the smokers to convert, that would be a huge public health win. So, I'm keeping my fingers crossed, for now.

See, now if I were a smoker, I would NOT be jubilantly laying in my stash of tobacco in my (imaginary) bunker, hugging it (though, I might be chainsmoking it, LOL) for now, it's nice to know that timelines are extended, and I can eye my stash with pride, thinking, "I already have most of what I need." And knowing going forward that perhaps more smokers will switch, is a good feeling.

I can't speak to the future and political shennanegans coming down the pike, but I was impressed by Gottleib's statements, and that is good enough for me, for now.

That said, I hope smokers FLOOD here and get educated, and to the OP, I was not just surprised, I was utterly SHOCKED at the decision, and I can't imagine others weren't too, given the activity on the deeming thread, right afterward.

Happy Vaping everyone!

Anna

 

[OlderNDirt]

Gottlieb repeatedly used the term "combustible tobacco" in his references to nicotine reduction. ENDS, Nicorette, and patches are not combustible tobacco. It seems he's aware that the harm is more related to combustion than mere nicotine...

While that is/may be the case today, what might it morph into tomorrow? IMHO, this is but another step in government's efforts to eliminate smoking. They took baby steps until justifying an outright usage ban, then along came vaping (that looks just like smoking) that derailed the train. The FDA took a giant step that brought a lot of backlash, so they went back to presumably smaller steps that everyone would say "Yeah, that's a good idea and will save the children!" and get everyone onboard. The train is back on track and fully loaded.....is it going to sit there or pick up steam?

I'm more concerned with the terminology "non-addictive nicotine level." If a significantly low level is enacted as "non-addictive", you better believe BT will start making correlations to other nicotine products thinking the level applied to combustible tobacco will be raised. Will they raise that level for combustible tobacco or apply that level to other nicotine products? No one knows for sure, but I know which my money would go on.