First analogs, next the e cig?

[oldfatguy]

This article although about analogs gives some insight into the thinking behind the war on smoking, a war which drove a lot of people to the e cig, (I am glad of that) but this will be the same war and tactics used against the e cig as soon as they can get it organized.
War on Tobacco's More Liberal Fraud and Flimflam - HUMAN EVENTS
Some good comments follow the article.

 

[rothenbj]

Post duplicated.

 

[rothenbj]

I was reading the comments and ran across posts from Altosackbuteer which I felt were worth bringing in here.

FDA is an agency built on sound science. I know because I worked there as a bench chemist for 26 years.

SO I am torn about one of the proposed warnings they intend to place on cigarette packs: Second-hand smoke kills, or something to that effect.

Without having seen the studies they must have used to come to this conclusion, it is hard for me to come to a firm belief that this is so much junk science. BUt my inner scientist is SCREAMING that this HAS to be junk science, science with conclusions that are pre-determined for politically correct reasons -- you know, theories like the mythical Global Warming, which advance nobody but global bureaucrats and socialists.

Here is what is wrong with ANY theory of second-hand smoke: The matter of the dilution factor.

FDA scientists are well-accustomed to the idea of diluting. We do it all the time. And we are accustomed to measuring the presence of substances which, if present in trace quantities, are considered safe, but are considered dangerous if they cross particular threshholds.

And so I come to the issue of smoke from cigarettes -- from primary, and second-hand smoke.

We KNOW that PRIMARY smoke from cigarettes -- that is to say, the smoke that a smoker himselgf inhales when he smokes -- in SOME cases, AND AFTER 30 YEARS OR SO of smoking, MIGHT cause health problems -- cancer, emphysema, etc.

And now comes the dilution factor. "Second-hand smoke" is the smoke that circulates through the air inside a given room. I am writing this while seated in a SMALL office. The room measure about 8' high x 10' x 10'. THis office holds about 800 cubic feet. Let's say it's 1000 cubic feet.

1 cubic foot = 16 liters, roughly, of volume. So now we can say my office has a volume of about 16,000 liters.

The volumetric capacity of the human lungs is about 1 liter, though an informed doctor could doubtless give a more precise figure.

That means, if I smoke PRIMARY smoke, I am smoking smoke that is about 16,000 times as concentrated as it would be if allowed to circulate freely through my office.

It is this PRIMARY smoke which in SOME cases, many years away too, will cause health problems.

So, if PRIMARY smoke, which is tens of thousands of times stronger than second-hand smoke, has only THIS level of impact on health, then how likely is it that second-hand smoke can affect health at all?

The answer is, it CAN'T. Second-hand smoke, ON ITS FACT, canNOT have a serious impact on health.

Therefore, as much as I hate to admit it, even the hallowed FDA is on a politically-correct witch-hunt.

Then after a number of other posts-

Dear "Genius"(not), I in fact never smoked a single cigarette in my entire life. At least, not the kind made from tobacco...

I stated, in my posting, that I have not actually seen the FDA's scientific justification for their conclusions, and warning label, that "second-hand smoke kills." And as their career-long employee, I came to have a high regard for the level of FDA's scientific integrity.

So I stated a hesitation to reject their conclusion out-of-hand.

But it sure SMELLS BAD.

How do I "know" that second-hand smoke has nonexistent or very minor health impacts?

Simple. Inductive reasoning.

I already explained this once. But, since you're evidently slow today -- perhaps YOU yourself have OD'd on something, like stupid pills -- and because I'm a nice, charitable person, I will actually help you out here and carefully explain it again.

If PRIMARY smoking, in SOME cases, is linked to cancer and emphysema AFTER 30 YEARS OF SO OF SMOKING, then, HOW ON EARTH does SECOND-HAND smoke, which in a given room is DILUTED by factors of 10,000 - 1 MILLION -- how on earth does THIS cause health problems?

On its face, IT MAKES NO SENSE.

I responded to him-

It must have been a number of years ago that you were there. I see a lot of political science and support for the Pharma industry entering into their decisions. They surely are heavily persuaded by the ?non-profit? "health" associations that have become nothing more than the unofficial marketing and lobbying arm for Big Pharma.

His response-

I retired in 2006, so it wasn't that long ago.

I can tell you that the FDA process for new drug approval is VERY long, cumbersome, and arduous.

It is that way intentionally. It can take pharmaceutical companies YEARS to get their drugs approved, as is also true of whatever devices come under FDA jurisdiction.

It is HIGHLY EXPENSIVE. In recent years, with the push for laboratory certification, the laboratory costs have exploded. In a way, it's a great pain in the backside for the major companies. They run up a lot of costs for things, many of which don't even make it to the market. And all their costs, in some respect or another, must be passed on to the consumers.

In a way, it works to their benefit too, since it's all but impossible for new companies to be able to break into the industry, since their bank accounts will drain long before they get to make any money.

In the end, FDA requires PROOF, as much as is humanly obtainable, that drugs are not only safe BUT ALSO EFFECTIVE -- that is, they actually do what they claim. No more Dr. Sam's cure-it-all elixirs sold from under the table at travelling circuses.

In my opinion, for the added cost of things which FDA regulates, the consumer GETS A GREAT BARGAIN. American consumers take for granted the usefulness of products which simply wouldn't exist without the FDA's strong hand.

Knowing this, it is therefore with sadness that even I conclude that FDA has laid an egg with its regulation of cigarettes.

The whole theory of FDA's regulatory jurisdiction is shaky.

The reason FDA goes after CIGARETTES is because they deliver a "DRUG" called "nicotine," which therefore makes cigarettes a "MEDICAL DEVICE," and therefore under FDA's jurisdiction.

Now, you and I both know that whatever else cigarettes are intended to do, they are NOT intended to be a deliverer of any medical substance in any way, shape or form.

Thus, however, has FDA bent and twisted its own jurisdiction over cigarettes.

More evidence of the politically-correct Nanny-State hard at work.

Then mine-

I hear you Alto. I retired from Pharma a few years before you on the IT support side so I really had little involvement with the scientific side. I spent way to many years smoking heavily and cursing on the FDA approved stop smoking alternatives that I used and failed with. After me last attempt with Zyban followed by a second attempt at hypnosis, I gave up trying to quit.

Then a couple of years ago my girlfriend had heard of the new savior, electronic cigarettes. I laughed that one off, but she insisted. I reluctantly gave in and "wasted" my money on this new product. Amazingly, I immediately was smoking less. However I wasn't quite satisfied so I searched the net and found e-cigarette-forum.com and started asking questions and soon had bought another type PV (personal vaporizer, a better name for E Cigs), a 510. I was soon down from two packs a day to half a dozen smokes. After six months I was still there but by then I wanted to completely quite smoking.

I spent more time on that site asking questions and learned that beside nicotine, there are other alkaloids in tobacco that provide MAOI effects, which help with depression. I never considered myself to have depression but I may have been self medicating for some 43 years. Someone suggested Swedish snus which I immediately had a negative reaction to. Smokeless was worse than smoking or so I was led to believe.

However, I started doing some research and found all the studies on Swedish snus and within a month I had my first portion. I have not had a cigarette in a year and five months now, not a puff. I still use my PV on occasion since I use a flavored liquid that tastes pretty good, but I have very little nicotine in the solution. I only need four or five portion of snus to keep me balanced and I don't have to inhale smoke or take medicine to feel normal.

Someday, I believe PV liquid will be developed with these additional alkaloids but for now they are a good product for those that need to continue the hand to mouth habit or need the nicotine. In itself nicotine is a lot like caffeine with similar addictive aspects.

I wasn't real happy when the FDA decided they wanted to turn the PV into a medical device. Had they gotten their way, they would have been banned from the market and undergone what you described above. As you said, either they would have run out of money or the Pharma industry would have gained access and the price to the consumer again raised to the prohibitive for most smokers.

I'm a strong harm reduction advocate at this point. I don't know what damage I may have caused to myself over 43 years of smoking and I'll need to live with however that works out. I'd just like to see those earlier in the journey knowing that there are far safer and successful methods out there to get off cigarettes.

My comment hasn't shown up yet but hopefully he'll respond with his thoughts.

 

[rothenbj]

Altosackbuteer came back and replied to my last comment-

The FDA's jurisdiction in cigarettes is a product of tortured reasoning.

The FDA's reasoning is, cigarettes are a medical device because they introduce a drug(s) into the human body.

What is a "drug"? I COULD argue, ANYTHING which affects bodily metabolism. Even water. Even sugar.

In THIS case, there is no such thing as "food." Everything is a "drug."

Now, the FDA has regulations concerning so-called "food" too, but they are naturally less stringent than that regulations concerning drugs.

FDA employed a sophistry in order to classify cigarettes as a medical devicie when CLEARLY, whatever else cigarettes may or may not be, they are NOT medical devices, intended to deliver a pharmacological product.

This quy is really not a bad scientist. For those that are like myself and aren't familiar with the word-

soph·ist·ry   
[sof-uh-stree] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ries.

1. a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.
2. a false argument; sophism.

Seems like we're surround by sophistry these days!