FDA Investigating E-cigs

[Bertrand]

I think it will be nicotine you will need to take care of. According to wikipedia, its vapours combust at 35 degrees Celsius, which is much of the summer in Australia.

 

[Bertrand]

By the way, nicotine's boiling is much higher - over 200 degrees Celsius, so this is not as bad as it sounds - not very much of it will be vapour in the bottle. I would still try to keep it cool though.

 

[UncleMidriff]

Here is my hope, as unrealistic as it may be:

I hope that the FDA (or some other government agency) will get seriously involved with e-smoking, in as sensible a way as they can muster. I absolutely do NOT want to see this form of nicotine habit die an early death, but damn it, the current state of affairs in e-smoking is ridiculous as it stands now. No oversight of *anything*...escalating concentrations of nicotine in bottles with nothing but a flimsy screw cap and a hastily printed paper label indicating nothing but the flavor and concentration of nicotine in mg per who-the-hell-knows-what...nicotine liquid from who-the-hell-knows-where containing who-the-hell-knows-what... ugh.

I don't want to see Cash or Janty or anybody put out of business, and I certainly don't want to see e-smoking taken away from anyone, but geez. I'd rather see this habit of ours regulated and taxed, and thus reach some level of acceptance early on, *before* a bus full of orphans and puppies collides with a truck containing Mr. Joe E-smoker's most recent 25 gallon bulk order of BRAND-NEW-100mg-Super-Awesome-Chinese-Nicotine-FUN-Liquid (APPLE FLAVORED!), causing the nicotine-soaked death of everyone involved and the demonization of e-smoking forever.

I'm using hyperbole to make a point, of course, but I do honestly think that e-smoking is headed toward disaster unless (and perhaps even if) it can gain some level of public acceptance. I don't see a way for that to happen without some form of government agency stepping in and sorting things out.

I just hope they don't ban it outright, as I see e-smoking as an incrediblly good thing that could really help millions of smokers.

 

[jpc815]

No, no. Obama introduced the Senate bill before he became President-elect. It's not about payback. And the FDA is anything BUT a friend of Big tobacco. The FDA would like tobacco relegated to history. They are not trying to drive anyone to tobacco. The idea is to QUIT. If smoking can be made unsatisfying and difficult, then quitting becomes the most intelligent option. The FDA's first task will be to cut off all end runs around cigarettes, such as little cigars, smokeless options and loose tobacco for roll-your-own and pipes. Since FDA now knows about e-cigs, chances are good our liquids will be included in nicotine regulation.

This is not a plot, not a conspiracy, not some evil folks trying to keep us from having fun. The FDA's reports have damned tobacco as no others have. It does not want smoking, but hasn't the authority to make it illegal. So it will make it as unsatisfying as possible -- and the goal is nothing less than a healthier citizenry. Whether we agree that will result or not is largely irrelevant to anyone who counts.

I really don't know why or how they could BAN just the nicotine when they sell it over the counter as patches, lozenges and gum. I can see them trying to regulate it, make the people who make it account for the amount of nicotine and make it be consistent, but if they BAN it would they not have to ban all these other types of nicotine they are selling freely at every store in the United States?

 

[jpc815]

One of the notions the FDA has is to make cigarettes non-addictive, in the name of public health. How can they do that? By ordering the nicotine content reduced dramatically. The idea tossed about would be to drop the nicotine to a level no greater than is allowed in NRT products.

If applied to our liquids, you can kiss anything above about 4mg goodbye.

The hope behind these thoughts, as I've read, is that if cigarettes hold no addiction power, a smoker will quit, thus saving lives, etc., from the damage done by smoke. If you can't ban or prohibit the product, ruin it!

Remember where the two Surgeon General's reports came from -- the FDA -- and how vehemently anti-tobacco that agency is. It tried to grab power over tobacco products about eight years ago, and the Supreme Court said 'no can do' without Congressional approval. That's what the bill that is coming to a Senate vote will provide.

But from a medical viewpoint, it is not the nicotine that is cancer causing or emphysema causing, it is the tobacco, what good would it do them to cut the nicotine and let people continue smoking the bad parts of cigarettes? I have read numerous medical article stating that the nicotine is not what the problem is with cigarettes, that it IS addictive, but does not cause near the medical problems that the tobacco does.

 

[TropicalBob]

Nicotine causes numerous problems, all by itself. It's the chemical that elevates your blood pressure and heart rate after smoking tobacco. Do that often enough, long enough, and you get hardening of the arteries and a proclivity to produce clots for heart attacks and stroke.

Nicotine doesn't cause cancer, as far as science knows, but can promote growth of existing pre-cancerous lesions in lungs, new research indicates. Those pre-cancerous conditions might be present in smokers quitting a tobacco habit.

And keep in mind that researchers used to study just "smoking," so it was difficult/impossible to determine what component in tobacco smoke did what specific damage. The focus is increasingly turning to nicotine -- and the results will directly impact e-smoking, since nicotine is all most e-smokers care about.

 

[taz3cat]

Tbob, when I took a course in how to do research in collage, it was a real eye opener. Lots of medical research because of moral problems are poorly done. Very few will meet the true criteria for good/reliable research. The first so called research paper on cig smoking was so flawed it should have been put in the bathroom for toilet paper. I also want to know who, will publish a positive report on anything to do with smoking, nicotine etc. I only know of two illnes/conditions that is not caused by smoking if you smoke, I don't know how those other people get sick.

My blood pressure has went way down since I started vaping 140/80 and up to 124/70and down

 

[TropicalBob]

I don't disagree with you. And the pressure is on researchers to find BAD stuff about nicotine and smoking. What researcher wants to put out a report that says nicotine has benefits to those facing Parkinson's or Alzheimer's? What researcher will say those with ADHD might benefit from wearing a nicotine patch 24/7? We are left to read the research (or be ignorant) and decide for ourselves (we can go into denial if we want!).

I've said before: Listen to your body. Mine told me, as did Trog's, from a constant cough that I needed to stop sucking smoke into my lungs 300 or more times a day. So I stopped. I'm not happy, but I stopped. Listening to your body might well be more important than reading the latest research paper, since we all look for ones that support our pre-existing position.

 

[taz3cat]

I agree with you Tbob. the biggest problem I have incountered was the Doctors assumed that stopping smoking would cure me, and I knew somthing else was wrong , so I quit smoking and now they are trying to find out what my problem is really is. Smoking may not kill you but the doctors mite kill you because you smoke. Really sad.

 

[dc2k08]

that's awful taz. hope it turns out ok.

 

[taz3cat]

Thanks dc2

 

[chewy7097]

I think there will eventually be regulation and taxes of e-cigs... But it will be a long time in coming...