The AEMSA presentation did have it problems. AEMSA's idea of creating a separate category for non-tobacco recreational nicotine products is on the silly side. The insistence of AEMSA of trying to distance themselves from tobacco is not based on any good science. The implication that tobacco is the problem, rather then combustion, shows their own prejudice and/or ignorance on what tobacco harm reduction is. He did mention combustion later in the talk but still implied that extracted nicotine is somehow overwhelmingly less harmful then tobacco.
AEMSA has its own agenda and they appear to be very willing to sacrifice good science if it fits there goals.
Can you describe how you've reached these conclusions? do you have any quotes from the presentation today that support your opinions?
I only ask because I felt quite the opposite after watching their presentation this afternoon. I don't recall hearing him talk about creating a separate regulatory category such as the one you described above- rather, he only explained how AEMSA's standards are a cross between the FDA's alcohol-distillation standards and food preparation standards. Also, while creating a non-tobacco category may be a silly idea, it would be based on facts- and, he did receive a lot of attention from the board after his presentation, which makes it obvious that most of them were actually listening to what he had to say.
Edit: in fact, wouldn't you be even more incorrect by calling e-cigarettes a "tobacco" product? At most, they may contain ONE ingredient present in tobacco, perhaps not even extracted from it. I guess you have more than one dog in this fight, i.e. other NRT's that you care about or something.
that I take after my grandparents, who all smoked for 70+ years and were healthy as could be...but regardless I am happy to have finally stopped smoking now.
