I have submitted not as a Canadian but as an Aboriginal person what follows are my comments:
FDA and e-cigarettes: Your action needed now.
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Sent mine in the day I registered here at ECF, but could not reply here because I didn't have enough posts.
It really is a fine letter. I was really surprised at the intensity of my own sudden anger last night - it takes rather a lot to get my back up any more. But mostly I just wanted to say that Cricket Everett Lennon Staggs is about the prettiest name in the whole world.
Projectguy thank you for your post from the perspective of our Native population. I hope you don't mind if I share it with my FB friends, if you do, just pm me and I will remove it.
I added my 2000 words but did not get a confirmation number.
Off to a different computer to resubmit as this is very important input.
Off to a different computer to resubmit as this is very important input.
Submitted my comment:
Your Comment Tracking Number:. 1jx-833w-w0pu
Here's a copy of what I submitted. Not fancy nor original, but it got my point across!
"My husband and I used to smoke cigarettes for 30 plus years. We have been using electronic cigarettes since April of 2009. We have both been cigarette free for over 3 years now. Before the e-cigs, we both tried various cessation methods such as nicotine gum, nicotine patches, etc., but failed miserably with all methods.
Since switching over to the e-cigarette, both my husband and I have experienced a myriad of health and non-health benefits:
E-cigarettes are a nicotine delivery system that eliminates the thousands of harmful and toxic chemicals in traditional cigarettes while still satisfying the hand-to-mouth habit (among other psychological factors) that smokers cant give up. Not only have we experienced the above benefits, but we've also managed to lower our nicotine consumption considerably. We both started out at 36mg and now are down to 12mg. Easily conceivable that we can wean ourselves off completely. We've even converted our friends to vaping. One friend has already weaned himself completely down to 0mg of nicotine.
I urge the FDA to not to propose the "deeming" regulation as it would limit access to e-cigarettes to people who have been able to use them as a proven method of tobacco harm reduction. It would sharply increase the price and reduce accessibility of the products even if FDA exempted e-cigarettes from the most onerous provisions in Chapter IX.
I'm also concerned with the idea of nicotine levels being strictly regulated. Body chemistry, nicotine dependence, et al vary tremendously from one person to another. The amount of nicotine needed by one person to stave off withdrawals may not be the same as the other. Case in point, I was able to lower my nicotine amounts a lot sooner than my husband.
And last but not least, I respectfully request that the FDA remove misleading and inaccurate information from your web site. Many people believe that e-cigarettes are very likely to cause cancer or poison the user because the FDA forgot to mention that the amount of carcinogens detected in liquid are no higher than in pharmaceutical nicotine products such as the patch and gum, and that the only toxin detected was in an amount that has never been shown to endanger health."
Here's hoping that they read some of our comments! But not holding my breath!
Your Comment Tracking Number:. 1jx-833w-w0pu
Here's a copy of what I submitted. Not fancy nor original, but it got my point across!
"My husband and I used to smoke cigarettes for 30 plus years. We have been using electronic cigarettes since April of 2009. We have both been cigarette free for over 3 years now. Before the e-cigs, we both tried various cessation methods such as nicotine gum, nicotine patches, etc., but failed miserably with all methods.
Since switching over to the e-cigarette, both my husband and I have experienced a myriad of health and non-health benefits:
- no more smoker's cough
- no more chest rattle
- a major increase in sense of smell and taste
- an increase in energy
- whiter teeth
- no more "ashtray" smell emanating from us or our clothing
- increased cardio endurance
- reduced sickness/ailments (we haven't had a cold since we've started vaping!)
- all our yearly doctor check-ups pass with flying colors
- Plus many, many more benefits
E-cigarettes are a nicotine delivery system that eliminates the thousands of harmful and toxic chemicals in traditional cigarettes while still satisfying the hand-to-mouth habit (among other psychological factors) that smokers cant give up. Not only have we experienced the above benefits, but we've also managed to lower our nicotine consumption considerably. We both started out at 36mg and now are down to 12mg. Easily conceivable that we can wean ourselves off completely. We've even converted our friends to vaping. One friend has already weaned himself completely down to 0mg of nicotine.
I urge the FDA to not to propose the "deeming" regulation as it would limit access to e-cigarettes to people who have been able to use them as a proven method of tobacco harm reduction. It would sharply increase the price and reduce accessibility of the products even if FDA exempted e-cigarettes from the most onerous provisions in Chapter IX.
I'm also concerned with the idea of nicotine levels being strictly regulated. Body chemistry, nicotine dependence, et al vary tremendously from one person to another. The amount of nicotine needed by one person to stave off withdrawals may not be the same as the other. Case in point, I was able to lower my nicotine amounts a lot sooner than my husband.
And last but not least, I respectfully request that the FDA remove misleading and inaccurate information from your web site. Many people believe that e-cigarettes are very likely to cause cancer or poison the user because the FDA forgot to mention that the amount of carcinogens detected in liquid are no higher than in pharmaceutical nicotine products such as the patch and gum, and that the only toxin detected was in an amount that has never been shown to endanger health."
Here's hoping that they read some of our comments! But not holding my breath!
I did mine. This would be terrible legislation if it goes through.
I am very distressed to learn of the proposed legislation that would ban e-cigs. These have been the only products that have helped me to successfully reduce and then quit my cigarette habit. The e-cigs work on the same theory as the nicotine patch and gum. However, for a number of reasons, they are a much better project.
In all 3 cases, the smoke cessation product provides the user with reduced nicotine over time. You can use the higher patch or gum for 2 weeks; then a medium dose patch or gum for 2 weeks; and, ultimately, an even lower patch or gum for 2 weeks. The same is true with the e-cig. You can use a higher dose of nicotine at first and then reduce it over a period of time.
The difference is, that the e-cig does not cause itchy rashes, nightmares and over-exposure to nicotine over the course of the day. Noone smokes all day long. But, with the patch, the user is exposed to nicotine on a long-term and, possibly, 24 hour basis.
The difference is that the e-cig does not cause mouth sores or hiccups when you are chewing it as is true with the nicotine gum. The gum is better than the patch in the sense that you are not exposed to the nicotine for such long periods, but only when there is an urge to smoke. However, the side effects make it impossible to continue with the product for the amount of time that would be necessary should you truly desire to quit cigarettes.
There are pills. I hate pills. Perhaps I am more sensitive than most to pills. However, I have tried the chantax type of pills. They will cause immediate nausea and a flu-like sensation. Needless to say, they were not very successful.
In addition, I have found that the e-cig community is extremely supportive of those who are trying to quit. I have not found that to be the case with respect to the other quit-smoking products.
The pharmaceutical company has successfully marketed the nico patch and gums on the theory that nicotine by itself is less dangerous than the cigarettes and all of the chemicals and byproducts included. The same argument must also be true with respect to the e-cig. It is no more dangerous to others than a steaming cup of hot chocolate.
I truly hope that there is not an ulterior purpose to this legislation:
i.e.: encouraging people to return to smoking and paying higher taxes which are imposed on the
cigarettes;
i.e.: providing additional funding to the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture and
distribute the nico patches, gums and pills.
In all honesty, I have wracked my brain and can figure out no other reason why such legislation is being passed---or even considered. I am asking that you keep the interests of those who are seriously attempting to quit smoking in mind and discourage any legislation that would impede those attempts. Thank you.
I am very distressed to learn of the proposed legislation that would ban e-cigs. These have been the only products that have helped me to successfully reduce and then quit my cigarette habit. The e-cigs work on the same theory as the nicotine patch and gum. However, for a number of reasons, they are a much better project.
In all 3 cases, the smoke cessation product provides the user with reduced nicotine over time. You can use the higher patch or gum for 2 weeks; then a medium dose patch or gum for 2 weeks; and, ultimately, an even lower patch or gum for 2 weeks. The same is true with the e-cig. You can use a higher dose of nicotine at first and then reduce it over a period of time.
The difference is, that the e-cig does not cause itchy rashes, nightmares and over-exposure to nicotine over the course of the day. Noone smokes all day long. But, with the patch, the user is exposed to nicotine on a long-term and, possibly, 24 hour basis.
The difference is that the e-cig does not cause mouth sores or hiccups when you are chewing it as is true with the nicotine gum. The gum is better than the patch in the sense that you are not exposed to the nicotine for such long periods, but only when there is an urge to smoke. However, the side effects make it impossible to continue with the product for the amount of time that would be necessary should you truly desire to quit cigarettes.
There are pills. I hate pills. Perhaps I am more sensitive than most to pills. However, I have tried the chantax type of pills. They will cause immediate nausea and a flu-like sensation. Needless to say, they were not very successful.
In addition, I have found that the e-cig community is extremely supportive of those who are trying to quit. I have not found that to be the case with respect to the other quit-smoking products.
The pharmaceutical company has successfully marketed the nico patch and gums on the theory that nicotine by itself is less dangerous than the cigarettes and all of the chemicals and byproducts included. The same argument must also be true with respect to the e-cig. It is no more dangerous to others than a steaming cup of hot chocolate.
I truly hope that there is not an ulterior purpose to this legislation:
i.e.: encouraging people to return to smoking and paying higher taxes which are imposed on the
cigarettes;
i.e.: providing additional funding to the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture and
distribute the nico patches, gums and pills.
In all honesty, I have wracked my brain and can figure out no other reason why such legislation is being passed---or even considered. I am asking that you keep the interests of those who are seriously attempting to quit smoking in mind and discourage any legislation that would impede those attempts. Thank you.
I do wonder if it wouldn't be possible to have the notice on ECF's main page made bold, perhaps red, during this last time frame - there are a lot more than a thousand-some people in here who would participate if they actually noticed and understood the situation, I think.
I just saw it by chance on a PV info mission - I tend to sort of drift in and out of the 'legal' threads even though I've previously sent emails, called people and etc.., and I'm certain there are some in here who have no idea. If this is really finally "IT" then this thread should be the heart of the forum and a very busy hive of activity, yes?
"On my way to the grocery store I noticed a rather small sign on the wall over the carts indicating that food was about to be banned, or limited to small packets of hydrogenated corn..."
8-o
I just saw it by chance on a PV info mission - I tend to sort of drift in and out of the 'legal' threads even though I've previously sent emails, called people and etc.., and I'm certain there are some in here who have no idea. If this is really finally "IT" then this thread should be the heart of the forum and a very busy hive of activity, yes?
"On my way to the grocery store I noticed a rather small sign on the wall over the carts indicating that food was about to be banned, or limited to small packets of hydrogenated corn..."
8-o
Last edited:
This isn't actually "IT" yet, but it is a great chance to influence the "IT" that is coming...
The "IT" in the United States will be the proposal of "deeming" regulations by the FDA sometime in April.
And then there will be a public comment period before final regulations are issued.
The "IT" in the European Union will be what happens with the recently issued Tobacco Product Directive...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...directive-who-write-what-say-short-guide.html
But for now, we may as well get ramped up and practice our commenting skills.
And you can save what you said this time so you can just submit it again when the really big "IT" arrives.
If Big Pharma doesn't care about e-cigarettes, then why are they working so hard to get them banned?
There is no denying that reduced revenue from tobacco taxes will be an issue for legislators (most haven't even figured that out yet,) however, all but two of the proposed regulations we have been running into have nothing to do with taxes and everything to do with Big Pharma-funded ANTZ lobbying. It's not just billions in world-wide profits from NRTs that BP stands to lose, it's all of the treatments for the smoking-related cancers and heart disease, too. And the fact that NRT is not long term is a plus for BP, because people keep failing to quit and coming back for more. Not to mention that BP has been lobbying for new NRT regulations that allow long-term use - to be used in the same way e-cigarettes are - as a nicotine alternative rather than a short-term path to complete abstinence. (Which is what these FDA comments are all about.) So, e-cigarettes put a huge damper on that potentially lucrative new market they are lobbying for.
The FDA is not concerned with taxes because it considers BP to be its biggest paying "client" (which it is.)
Regarding your earlier post that being a "tobacco product" was a quick fix shortcut and we should have fought harder for a different designation, that was not possible. This was determined via a lawsuit and a judge's opinion. The FDA was arguing that e-cigarettes were drug treatments and must be banned until they could be proven "safe and effective" as a way to nicotine abstinence, the same as approved NRT products are required. At the time of this case, the FDA regulated nicotine in only 2 ways - as drug treatments or tobacco products. The e-cig companies only had those two choices to choose from and of the two, e-cigarettes which allow for the recreational use of tobacco-sourced nicotine are much more like smoke-free tobacco for "intended use" than NRT. There is no category for "used like tobacco leaf product but contains no tobacco leaves" and at the time of this trial, no company had the time, money or influence to get Congress to create such a category before the judge made his ruling. Now that the FSPTCA has passed, there is the possibility of products being categorized as "modified risk," which most e-cigs would be able to apply if the FDA hadn't made it impossible to qualify.
Hope that clears some things up for people!
Edited to add: Bear in mind that there are smoke-free tobacco products which are just as safe as e-cigarettes are believed to be. In fact, it's the plethora of studies showing the safety of Swedish snus that help support the likely safety of e-cigarettes. Given this fact, it's irrational to be defensive over classification as a "tobacco product." It is the same reason CASAA argues for ALL smoke-free alternatives being "modified risk" and not just e-cigarettes. Low-risk tobacco products like snus should be regulated and taxed differently than "high-risk" products and e-cigarettes would simply fall into the same category as other low-risk tobacco products.
Last edited:
I'm working on my comments, but quite pleased with my closing: "...after 40 years of smoking cigarettes, I am tobacco free due to the use of electronic cigarettes...I do not feel the products that have enabled me to quit smoking tobacco should be regulated to the point they are unattainable and/or ineffective. If that should happen, I imagine I will go buy a pack of Marlboros and a bottle of Jack Daniels and celebrate my government’s decision to protect me."
Your guilty of not reading it all(lol), at the end it states even though there are trace amounts its not enough to cause cancer and if you noticed it all seems to be from the nicotine we put in. (The patch total was 8 and the e cig at 18mg was 8.1 and goes lower as nicotine gets lower and cigs well they are off the chart at 1500 all the way to 11700 and that is insane)That to me kinda makes sence thinking about it logically kinda, but that is also from pre made carts not tested from actually making the fluid. So who knows what they put in there carts, they might have used a dirty needle or mixing something else in we don't know about who really knows (ShrugsPosting in here to hopefully bump this in my watched threads. Nitrosamine Levels? I was under the impression that cigarettes and other things give you cancer because they contain irritants and cancer causing carcinogens. Our e-cigs might contain carcinogens but its not from the juice. Maybe from a burning wick but, the wick shouldn't be burning if your using the e-cig correctly. It doesn't burn on its own. only if you hold down the button for a minute and a half
Finally got this done, glad for the reminder today that we were running out of time. I had to go with an attachment. Since I quit smoking with Swedish Snus, and my SO is finally quitting using E-cigs I've done a ton of research on both products and had a lot to say. So tired of the campaign of misinformation about these products and the obvious catering to Tobacco/Pharmaceutical lobbyists to kill any products that might decrease the profits of death sticks and ineffective "quitting aids"
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
