If you lost your vaping ability would you go back to smokes?
- Thread starter teabagger
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Probably not, just like you can get Lanacaine OTC but not stronger, less traditional caine derivetives. Just like in most states you can't by over 151 proof liquor. Besides Big tobacco is just too big, and those revenues are not going anywhere. It's all about the money.
Switched - hi.
I should clarify by saying that nicotine has market authorization for human consumption. At the levels found in e-juice (or crappy NRT or even tobacco), nicotine itself is no more harmful than the caffeine in your coffe. Of course, caffeine (just like nicotine) - when concentrated in a pure form - is deadly. But no one's talking about outlawing coffe.
Just about everything is deadly when you concentrate it and/or get too much of it - sunlight, water, sugar, caffeine, aspirin, vitamins - you name it. This is why you can buy a cup of coffe or a container of Tylenol pretty much anywhere...but cannot buy a bottle of pure caffeine or say, a large burlap sack of T3's with codeine.
But yeah. I will say that several Google searches couldn't find me anything about "HARM" or a "nicotine free society by 2020" - but as far as I'm concerned, their proposals aren't ever going to go anywhere. There are simply no legitimate grounds for outlawing safe, recreational human consumption of nicotine, as I explained earlier. Though I would applaud measures to ensure that unsafe levels are not available for sale.
Anyway - regardless of where the nicotine is harvested, it will continue to be harvested. And will continue to be sold to Canadians, in deadly tobacco cigarettes, crappy NRT, and (most importantly) in wonderful PG.
I should clarify by saying that nicotine has market authorization for human consumption. At the levels found in e-juice (or crappy NRT or even tobacco), nicotine itself is no more harmful than the caffeine in your coffe. Of course, caffeine (just like nicotine) - when concentrated in a pure form - is deadly. But no one's talking about outlawing coffe.
Just about everything is deadly when you concentrate it and/or get too much of it - sunlight, water, sugar, caffeine, aspirin, vitamins - you name it. This is why you can buy a cup of coffe or a container of Tylenol pretty much anywhere...but cannot buy a bottle of pure caffeine or say, a large burlap sack of T3's with codeine.
But yeah. I will say that several Google searches couldn't find me anything about "HARM" or a "nicotine free society by 2020" - but as far as I'm concerned, their proposals aren't ever going to go anywhere. There are simply no legitimate grounds for outlawing safe, recreational human consumption of nicotine, as I explained earlier. Though I would applaud measures to ensure that unsafe levels are not available for sale.
Anyway - regardless of where the nicotine is harvested, it will continue to be harvested. And will continue to be sold to Canadians, in deadly tobacco cigarettes, crappy NRT, and (most importantly) in wonderful PG.
Last edited:
When Obama signed the tobacco act whatever recently (the abbr escapes me) he has given the FDA control over tobacco. The FDA has already previously announced their intent to lower the nicotine content of cigarettes to zero, as a means to help smokers free themselves of cigarettes and to have smokers quit. As we know this is all hypocrisy etc... but nonetheless.
Switched - hi.
I should clarify by saying that nicotine has market authorization for human consumption. At the levels found in e-juice (or crappy NRT or even tobacco), nicotine itself is no more harmful than the caffeine in your coffe. Of course, caffeine (just like nicotine) - when concentrated in a pure form - is deadly. But no one's talking about outlawing coffe.
Just about everything is deadly when you concentrate it and/or get too much of it - sunlight, water, sugar, caffeine, aspirin, vitamins - you name it. This is why you can buy a cup of coffe or a container of Tylenol pretty much anywhere...but cannot buy a bottle of pure caffeine or say, a large burlap sack of T3's with codeine.
But yeah. I will say that several Google searches couldn't find me anything about "HARM" or a "nicotine free society by 2020" - but as far as I'm concerned, their proposals aren't ever going to go anywhere. There are simply no legitimate grounds for outlawing safe, recreational human consumption of nicotine, as I explained earlier. Though I would applaud measures to ensure that unsafe levels are not available for sale.
Anyway - regardless of where the nicotine is harvested, it will continue to be harvested. And will continue to be sold to Canadians, in deadly tobacco cigarettes, crappy NRT, and (most importantly) in wonderful PG.
Many laws are built on pieces, taking away a piece at a time I believe the the nicotine as an insecticide will either come into effect by 2011 or 12 at the latest. That is the first step. Modifying a pre existing law is a matter of a stroke of the pen.
Wrt a nic free society, it found in news releases etc... I may have the wrong acronym but read up on the UK ban and the European Union, not to mention the WHOs take on nicotine in the future. It is all there.
Interesting thread, sorry about crossing the border into the Canada Forum, but I see I'm not the only trespasser.
I found rachelcoffe's post #33 very well written and persuasive.
But, I have to admit I was a bit troubled by this bit ...
I found rachelcoffe's post #33 very well written and persuasive.
But, I have to admit I was a bit troubled by this bit ...
Really? Isn't it just a bit of a stretch to claim vaping is GOOD for you? Even if it were true, there's no more evidence for that claim than there is that it's bad for you. My 2¢
Depends on you physical/mental condition. If you don't have high blood pressure/cholesterol, then basically not much if any harm is done. As for benefit, there is quite a bit of evidence that nicotine can help, not only w/ psycological issues, but some physical ailments as well. There is a thread somewhere w/ links. Not sure where.
Hi again Switched.
I did some reading up on the "Family Smoking Prevention & Tobacco Control Act" in the U.S. (the one President Obama signed into law last year). The legislation does give the FDA authority to (potentially) get tobacco companies to lower the nicotine in tobacco cigarettes (whether they'll exercise it is another matter). But it does not give them the authority to eliminate nicotine from tobacco cigarettes altogether.
Bizarrely enough, there's a very good case to be made that reducing the nicotine in tobacco cigarettes could amount to little more than a plan between big tobacco & the FDA to get smokers to smoke even more than now. Insane! From the LA Times:
"Take the bill's handling of nicotine. The FDA would be allowed to mandate lower nicotine levels in cigarettes but not to mandate that nicotine be eliminated from cigarettes. This political compromise accomplishes little. It has been well documented that when nicotine levels in cigarettes are reduced, smokers inhale more deeply and smoke more cigarettes in order to maintain their daily nicotine dosage. This is a phenomenon known as compensation. The catch is that because of compensation, low-nicotine cigarettes end up delivering a greater dose of tar. This leads to an increase, not a decrease, in the risk of cancer and lung disease.
In fact, the bill's entire approach to tobacco products flies in the face of what we currently know about the dangers of smoking. The FDA will be charged with regulating the safety of tobacco products, but it will only be allowed to require the reduction or elimination of some of the more than 4,000 toxins and 60 carcinogens in tobacco smoke. There is no evidence that reducing or eliminating certain constituents in tobacco smoke will reduce the health risks of smoking. In fact, several studies have shown that when you remove one harmful component, the levels of others may increase. Attempting to regulate the levels of certain constituents of tobacco smoke is an absurd approach to the tobacco problem."
As to insecticide...nicotine-based insecticides have been banned in the U.S. since 2001. With good reason, too - they were insanely deadly. Nicotine-based insecticides contain much, much, MUCH higher amounts of nicotine than are found in any products intended for human consumption. The insecticides usually consisted of 40% pure nicotine sulfate (!!!), diluted in water. Definitely deadly, and no wonder they banned it.
So with all respect, I think the info I've uncovered backs my position. Deadly concentrations vs safe dilutions are a distinction that governments make. I hate to repeat myself, but I feel it's important to hammer this home. Just about everything is deadly when you concentrate it and/or get too much of it - sunlight, water, sugar, caffeine, aspirin, vitamins - you name it. All of those things are perfectly fine & indeed, most are beneficial - if consumed at safe levels.
There are simply no legitimate grounds for outlawing safe, recreational human consumption of nicotine...any more than there are legitimate grounds for outlawing the safe, recreational human consumption of caffeine. (Though I would applaud measures to ensure that unsafe levels of nicotine are not available for sale.)
The insecticide was an example of an unsafe nicotine product, banned nearly a decade ago. I respectfully submit that it has nothing to do with the recreational human consumption of safe levels of nicotine.
My 28mg strength flavourless PG with nicotine (which I usually dilute to 18mg) is an example of an eminently safe, healthy product that should never should be banned, and never will be banned.
One should consider too that prohibition (which no one is seriously or even jokingly suggesting, thank goodness) would only drive vapers underground for their nicotine, which no one wants. Historically, prohibition does not work - and in this case, there wouldn't be any valid reason for it (any more than banning coffe because of its caffeine content), so it would super-duper not work.
Such a move would only serve to organize us, hasten the end of tobacco's reign, and increase public demand for a widespread embrace of the wonderful, healthy alternative to smoking that is vaping.
P.S. [Just want to repeat this bit too] I realize this thread was based on a hypothetical "what if?" question. For the record, I think Canada is one of the best places for vapers. Apart from a brief, weak, official "frown" from Health Canada in March 2009...practically speaking, Canada is content to allow people to vape if they want. With or without nicotine. So yay. God keep our land glorious & free.
Bizarrely enough, there's a very good case to be made that reducing the nicotine in tobacco cigarettes could amount to little more than a plan between big tobacco & the FDA to get smokers to smoke even more than now. Insane! From the LA Times:
"Take the bill's handling of nicotine. The FDA would be allowed to mandate lower nicotine levels in cigarettes but not to mandate that nicotine be eliminated from cigarettes. This political compromise accomplishes little. It has been well documented that when nicotine levels in cigarettes are reduced, smokers inhale more deeply and smoke more cigarettes in order to maintain their daily nicotine dosage. This is a phenomenon known as compensation. The catch is that because of compensation, low-nicotine cigarettes end up delivering a greater dose of tar. This leads to an increase, not a decrease, in the risk of cancer and lung disease.
In fact, the bill's entire approach to tobacco products flies in the face of what we currently know about the dangers of smoking. The FDA will be charged with regulating the safety of tobacco products, but it will only be allowed to require the reduction or elimination of some of the more than 4,000 toxins and 60 carcinogens in tobacco smoke. There is no evidence that reducing or eliminating certain constituents in tobacco smoke will reduce the health risks of smoking. In fact, several studies have shown that when you remove one harmful component, the levels of others may increase. Attempting to regulate the levels of certain constituents of tobacco smoke is an absurd approach to the tobacco problem."
As to insecticide...nicotine-based insecticides have been banned in the U.S. since 2001. With good reason, too - they were insanely deadly. Nicotine-based insecticides contain much, much, MUCH higher amounts of nicotine than are found in any products intended for human consumption. The insecticides usually consisted of 40% pure nicotine sulfate (!!!), diluted in water. Definitely deadly, and no wonder they banned it.
So with all respect, I think the info I've uncovered backs my position. Deadly concentrations vs safe dilutions are a distinction that governments make. I hate to repeat myself, but I feel it's important to hammer this home. Just about everything is deadly when you concentrate it and/or get too much of it - sunlight, water, sugar, caffeine, aspirin, vitamins - you name it. All of those things are perfectly fine & indeed, most are beneficial - if consumed at safe levels.
There are simply no legitimate grounds for outlawing safe, recreational human consumption of nicotine...any more than there are legitimate grounds for outlawing the safe, recreational human consumption of caffeine. (Though I would applaud measures to ensure that unsafe levels of nicotine are not available for sale.)
The insecticide was an example of an unsafe nicotine product, banned nearly a decade ago. I respectfully submit that it has nothing to do with the recreational human consumption of safe levels of nicotine.
My 28mg strength flavourless PG with nicotine (which I usually dilute to 18mg) is an example of an eminently safe, healthy product that should never should be banned, and never will be banned.
One should consider too that prohibition (which no one is seriously or even jokingly suggesting, thank goodness) would only drive vapers underground for their nicotine, which no one wants. Historically, prohibition does not work - and in this case, there wouldn't be any valid reason for it (any more than banning coffe because of its caffeine content), so it would super-duper not work.
Such a move would only serve to organize us, hasten the end of tobacco's reign, and increase public demand for a widespread embrace of the wonderful, healthy alternative to smoking that is vaping.
P.S. [Just want to repeat this bit too] I realize this thread was based on a hypothetical "what if?" question. For the record, I think Canada is one of the best places for vapers. Apart from a brief, weak, official "frown" from Health Canada in March 2009...practically speaking, Canada is content to allow people to vape if they want. With or without nicotine. So yay. God keep our land glorious & free.
P.S. [Just want to repeat this bit too] I realize this thread was based on a hypothetical "what if?" question. For the record, I think Canada is one of the best places for vapers. Apart from a brief, weak, official "frown" from Health Canada in March 2009...practically speaking, Canada is content to allow people to vape if they want. With or without nicotine. So yay. God keep our land glorious & free.
That and Tollerance to "Herbal" smokables. lol Maybe I could be a Canadian if I learned to say aboot instead of about. What do you say, eh? j/k lol
Hi NCC.
In its vapourized form, propylene glycol (PG) is a powerful germicidal/bactericidal agent (and in some cases, even virucidal). That's why they pump it through the air ventilation system in many hospitals...to keep the air clean. It's also used as the delivery agent in asthma inhalers.
This is why vapers are far less likely than non-vapers to catch a seasonal cold or flu bug. Because the inside of their lungs & the air around them is being kept clean as a whistle.
Frightening, yet not surprising at all!
I've heard this before and wasn't sure if it was true.
The operative word is reducing, what does reducing mean. What is a contry's mandate to be under the umbrella of the WHO. What does it mean to fall outside of the umbrella and the possible consequences?
The FDA already stated their intentions. As vapers it is my belief we should be cognizant of what is happening around us, that can affect directly or indirectly vaping. It is all there and does come together for those who seek.
The FDA already stated their intentions. As vapers it is my belief we should be cognizant of what is happening around us, that can affect directly or indirectly vaping. It is all there and does come together for those who seek.
BTW are you aware that the US has lost 13 amendments to their bill of rights. 9 went away with the Patriot Act and another 4 with their health care bill, BTW we in Canada have something similar in Canada. I believe it is Bill 63, and that is buried here and there and not found spelled out in its entire meaning, but across many laws that are now in place.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
