Electronic Cigarette Legalities

[Monte_Alto]

Hi there everyone. I've been reading through regulations, bills, acts etc and as a result, have a new press release out that I'd like some feedback on. It would be great if you would take a read through it and offer suggestions if you can add to it.

It may be a different way to go about legalizing the electronic cigarette, but at this point I am just brainstorming and voicing opinions. I'm hoping to do more though. I haven't posted enough to offer the link, so just add the www dot in front of the following address.

prlog.org/10376415-nicotine-is-currently-approved-as-natural-health-product-by-health-canada.html

Thanks in advance everyone ... I appreciate the assistance.

Regards
Monte_Alto

 

[Caesarea]

Nicotine is currently approved as a Natural Health Product by Health Canada

 

[Monte_Alto]

Thanks very much Caesarea

 

[props76]

The title of that article is fiction. "Nicotine is approved as a natural health produce". Oh yeah? Care to show me were? It’s even missing from the article. Nicotine is a deadly poison, and is certain NOT a natural health product. In pure form a few drops on your skin is fatal.

Now back to reality. In the Food and Drug act, Nicotine is listed as a schedule E drug. Meaning that to be in possession of it you must be a lab, doctor or have a prescription for it. There are exceptions when it is used at a certain concentration, in nicotine replacement gum and the patch.

The Act is very clear.

Until it is amended in a way to make it practical for e-cig use (you can't use gum in a e-cig) or amended to remove nicotine (not likely because as I said before its a deadly poison) it will remain illegal to be used and sold for e-cigs. End of story.

 

[props76]

Incase you are going to say their is a link in the article that goes to a health Canada site, as if that is to prove anything...

Yes that site DEFINES nicotine, but that doesn’t mean its an approved "natural health product"

Remove, nicotine, and enter OPIUM.. It will give you a definition of that also. I don't think I need to say OPIUM is not exactly legal..

 

[Monte_Alto]

Hi there props76 ...

if you go down past the title, to the first site link in the article, it takes you to the Health Canada, Drugs and Health Products page - Natural Health Product Ingredients Database.

 

[Monte_Alto]

Natural Health Products Ingredients Database

Chemical Substance
Approved Name: Nicotine

Proper Name(s):

* 1-Methyl-2-(3-pyridyl)pyrrolidine
* 3-(1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinyl)pyridine
* 3-[(2S)-1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinyl]pyridine
* beta-Pyridyl-alpha-N-methyl pyrrolidine

Medicinal
Rationale:
Classified as an NHP under Schedule 1, item 2 (an isolate) of the Natural Health Products Regulations

Rationale:
As per Schedule F of the Food and Drugs Act, Nicotine and its salts are not allowed as NHPs except: (a) in natural substances; (b) in the form of a chewing gum containing 4 mg or less of nicotine per dosage unit; (c) in the form of a transdermal patch with a delivery rate of 22 mg or less of nicotine per day; (d) in a form to be administered orally by means of an inhalation device delivering 4 mg or less of nicotine per dosage unit; or (e) in the form of a lozenge containing 4 mg or less of nicotine per dosage unit

 

[props76]

Hi there props76 ...

if you go down past the title, to the first site link in the article, it takes you to the Health Canada, Drugs and Health Products page - Natural Health Product Ingredients Database.

Correct, and if you read my 2nd response, you will see you can also enter opium into the database, and get a definition.

Nowhere is it stated or implied on that site, that what is define in the database is legal for any use. Proven by the fact that opium can also be found in the database. You must agree that in no way is unrestricted opium legal.

That your article relies on the database as defining what is legal for use/consumption makes the whole premise of your argument false.

 

[Monte_Alto]

Natural Health Products Ingredients Database

Chemical Substance
Approved Name: Nicotine

Proper Name(s):

* 1-Methyl-2-(3-pyridyl)pyrrolidine
* 3-(1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinyl)pyridine
* 3-[(2S)-1-Methyl-2-pyrrolidinyl]pyridine
* beta-Pyridyl-alpha-N-methyl pyrrolidine

Medicinal
Rationale:
Classified as an NHP under Schedule 1, item 2 (an isolate) of the Natural Health Products Regulations

Rationale:
As per Schedule F of the Food and Drugs Act, Nicotine and its salts are not allowed as NHPs except: (a) in natural substances; (b) in the form of a chewing gum containing 4 mg or less of nicotine per dosage unit; (c) in the form of a transdermal patch with a delivery rate of 22 mg or less of nicotine per day; (d) in a form to be administered orally by means of an inhalation device delivering 4 mg or less of nicotine per dosage unit; or (e) in the form of a lozenge containing 4 mg or less of nicotine per dosage unit

My understanding is that it is classified as an NHP in the form of (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), however, if I am mistaken, then I offer my apologies.

 

[props76]

Medicinal
Rationale:
Classified as an NHP under Schedule 1, item 2 (an isolate) of the Natural Health Products Regulations

Rationale:
As per Schedule F of the Food and Drugs Act, Nicotine and its salts are not allowed as NHPs except: (a) in natural substances; (b) in the form of a chewing gum containing 4 mg or less of nicotine per dosage unit; (c) in the form of a transdermal patch with a delivery rate of 22 mg or less of nicotine per day; (d) in a form to be administered orally by means of an inhalation device delivering 4 mg or less of nicotine per dosage unit; or (e) in the form of a lozenge containing 4 mg or less of nicotine per dosage unit

BINGO!!!

a) pure nicotine is not a natural substance (nor is e-juice). This is here to permit tabaco
b) gum is of no use, and 4 mg or less is useless for e-juice
c) patch is usedless, as is 22 mg of less a day
d) e-cigs deleiver WAY more than 4 mg per dosage unit
e) lozenges again are useless as is 4 mg or less

Figure out how e-cigs can fit in here, and write your article on that.

 

[Monte_Alto]

I feel you may have missed the point props76, although perhaps I wasn't clear enough in the article. I delved a bit more in-depth in my website ... but the point of the argument is that it is allowed in certain amounts for specific uses ... hence the argument that it should be allowed for use in the electronic cigarette. They are splitting hairs with regards to numbers allotted to each product, therefore there should also be allowances made for this product as well.

If 4mg is allowed in the gum and the recommended pieces per day are 8, then the daily usage is 32mg. If the electronic cigarette is 24mg and you use one cartridge a day, then the daily dose received is 24mg. If nicotine is legal for one product, it has to be legal for all.

 

[props76]

You are getting warmer...

But the law is black and white on this one..

Your only shot would be d) 4mg administer orally. The problem now is proving that your device is administering only 4 mg, and the burden of proving that is on you.

Health Canada has also taken the position that any "device" that is delivering nicotine, must be a regulated medical device. This makes sense, as it has to deliver 4 mg or less, and that’s up to you to prove to them. E-cigs do not make this claim, nor is enough known about them to deliver a certain regulated amount, nor do you have the ability to prove that unless you have a lab and a degree in chemistry.

Because it’s legal for one product DOES NOT MEAN its legal for all. If that were true they wouldn't have to specify the different products. The list is exclusive for those listed, not inclusive of everything.

 

[Monte_Alto]

Some nicotine items are classified as NHPs, but on January 19 2001 The National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities (NAPRA) decided to move all nicotine resin products which includes gums and the patches from Schedule III (Self Selection or Over The Counter products) to Unscheduled status, formerly known as GP products, meaning that most if not all nicotine products can now be sold in any retail outlet and not restricted to pharmacies only, in addition, all these products can be purchased online. Constitutionally, all nicotine products no matter what the nicotine content, for example the Nicoderm 114mg pad, can not be legal, with the electronic cigarette being the only illegal product and the exception to the rule.

Smoke versus Vapor - Violation of Rights

 

[props76]

Anyhow, I don’t see what you are going to gain arguing with a dummy like me, or making websites on the subject. Both of those are to gain support. You don’t need support, you know the law is on your side.

Since you are so convinced you are right, I’d suggest;

A) Explain it to health Canada; at very least they will explain it better to you than I can

B) Hire a lawyer to fight it, and then sue the government for "discrimination of nicotine". Mind you any lawyer that would have any chance of getting something changed its going to tell you what I have, but for a lot more money.

C) Just sell e-cigs anyhow. After all you are convinced that "constitutionally" or "fairly" or whatever you think is correct, so what’s the worse that can happen. You get charged, then you explain to the court how you have it all figured out, they see the light and drop any charges against you.

 

[props76]

Ok I read your website. You have some good points and you have some out there points.

THE GOOD:

Good points are “why split hairs” we are allowed 4 mg gum, but can chew 10000 pieces if we want. That makes sense. Your suggestion here it to change the law, fair enough.

You could also make a strong argument for that point based on your research on the patch. If your facts are correct, 36 mg patches are sold in stores. That is in violation of Section F of the food and drug act. That they are not splitting hairs here, should serve as precedence on the enforcement, i.e. they are not going to split hair.

THE BAD:

- Forget all the constitutional crap. Only lawyers make money off that $^$%^$.

- Your arguments here are clearly flawed.

we have the right to make personal health decisions without the interference of the State. This right includes, but is not limited to, the right to make decisions concerning
(i) maintaining health and wellness;
(ii) preventing illness;
(iii) treating illness or injury, and
(iv) diagnosing illness or injury;

Fine so I can smoke crack to get rid of my headache.. Next..

- nicotine is listed on Health Canada’s database.. right alone with opium..

 

[Misty]

Monte Alto and Props76..Very impressive and professional discussion of the laws!
I think we have some lawyers in the house!..

 

[Monte_Alto]

I do realize that the electronic cigarette is banned and has been vilified and labeled as a "potentially dangerous" product. What I am saying is that according to the information covered in the safety reports etc, the simple fact is that the electronic cigarette is no more dangerous than any of the other "nicotine" based products on the market.

Lets just say that, like everyone else, I am upset with the decision to ban the product and rather than just rereading all the complaints on every discussion board I have run across and sitting back shaking my head, I am actively looking for a possible solution to the dilemma.

I don't know exactly what, if anything we can do but like I said earlier, I'm brainstorming out loud and would really welcome any suggestions you may have. It's very easy to point out the flaws, since there are so many to deal with, but what I'm looking for are some more valid points to lean on.

One thing to keep in mind is the Governor of California took the time to listen, because so many people ... including myself, stated their opinion on the electronic cigarette. They offered a valid argument and made a difference with regards to the outcome. It was a small victory ... but it was a victory all the same.

 

[props76]

Think of me proof reading your work..

If you go after government with a random bunch of brainstormed ideas, its going to be the bad ones that stand out, not the good one.

I like some of your idea's and point, others just don't make sense.

I'm not sure where you are from. Your site talks about e-cigs in the US and Canada. That gets confusing. Quite frankly what the Terminator thinks about e-cigs is as important as what the King of some African country thinks. Different country, different laws, different system.

I think you need to focus on one place. Are you interested in Canada, or are you interested in the US.

If its Canada, you need to do a bit more research. E-cigs are NOT illegal in Canada. Nicotine e-juice is.. So if you try carrying the cross of the cause without knowing your facts, you are going to shoot yourself in the foot.

I wish you luck, but unless you have medical proof about the nicotine in e-cigs, and I mean your own study, not some study from who knows who in New Zealand, its a lots cause. And remeber, big drug companies, and big tobbacco compaines, with very deep pockets and friends in high places are going to fight you each step of the way.

Maybe write your MP as a start.. See what they have to say, and really press them on it. Who knows they might be a smoker who wants to quit. Might get you a friend in a high place really quick.


I think the best outcome right now is what we have, a grey market. There are laws agaist it, but they are not being enforced other than at the border. Being busted with nicotine gets you a 300 dollar fine on a first offence, its not like cocane here.. We can still get the goods. Much that same as a few years back with the pirate Dirrect TV satelite stores.

 

[Mister]

BINGO!!!

a) pure nicotine is not a natural substance (nor is e-juice). This is here to permit tabaco
b) gum is of no use, and 4 mg or less is useless for e-juice
c) patch is usedless, as is 22 mg of less a day
d) e-cigs deleiver WAY more than 4 mg per dosage unit
e) lozenges again are useless as is 4 mg or less

Figure out how e-cigs can fit in here, and write your article on that.

I'm not so sure about (d) which I've bolded above.

I've just been looking around a bit to get a definition of "dosage unit." I didn't find one from Health Canada but I did find a number of others. They all define it as one dose, and specifically in the case of inhalers as one administration, i.e. one puff.

There is no way one puff of any e-cig in use will approach 4mg, or even 1mg with the strongest of juices.

Perhaps this is a ..... in the armor which can be pursued successfully?

 

[Monte_Alto]

Hi again ... don't get me wrong props76 ... I really do appreciate the feedback. As far as the border jumping, I live in Canada, but I am keeping track of developments in the USA as well, since that is where the SE & Njoy v FDA case is being heard. I imagine that it is most likely going to affect us here in Canada too. I update both since approximately half my visitors to the site are from the US.

It's funny you mention the New Zealand report, since one of the companies that took part in the study was a highly regarded Canadian testing facility ... Labstat. They've been testing tobacco products for Canada since 1976.

Hi Mister, hope you are well today.
I'll do some more checking with regards to your idea on dosage. Thanks for the thought ... if you happen across anything else that you think might help ... feel free to add it to the mix.

One of Health Canadas concerns, is that the test results from the puff tests performed on the e-cigs gave inconsistent results. I noticed they were careful to point out on one of their cigarette puff tests that "No smoking machine can accurately reproduce people's very complex smoking behaviour. Smokers' behaviour varies from cigarette to cigarette and from person to person. It follows that the reported tar, nicotine and carbon monoxide yields do not reflect the actual amount of tar, nicotine or carbon monoxide one gets from smoking a cigarette."

Too bad it doesn't go both ways with that one.