Thanks for joining us.
Are you able to address any of my questions then (in post #5 above)? I'd appreciate your insight. As well, it's not clear if Bill intends to return...Message from Bill Godshall of Smokefree Pennsylvania
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Are you able to address any of my questions then (in post #5 above)? I'd appreciate your insight. As well, it's not clear if Bill intends to return...
in the great words of peter griffin...lol Come on ....cmoooon
i think that the ecig is a great idea, i wish they were around or i known about them before my mother died. im not saying that ecigs would have saved her life but if she would have been able to get off of analogs maybe it would have helped her a bit. she didnt die of smoking directly but im sure that it didnt help.
i think that the ecig is a great idea, i wish they were around or i known about them before my mother died. im not saying that ecigs would have saved her life but if she would have been able to get off of analogs maybe it would have helped her a bit. she didnt die of smoking directly but im sure that it didnt help.
I havent fully explored what the ramifications would be, but was thinking earlier the best scenario might be if we could get ecigs and eliquid legally defined as a dietary supplement.
That, or have it have its own seperate status, like alcohol does.
That, or have it have its own seperate status, like alcohol does.
Kill that idea. In banning nicotine water, the FDA made it clear that any product containing nicotine won't qualify as a dietary supplement. While nicotine is found in small amounts in some foods, the FDA said it will never be a "supplement".
jamie, hi
just to recap what you asked
b, c & d are very legitimate concerns. Bill has a strong anti-smoking agenda and is very much pro-smokeless tobacco. If the e-cig gets dragged into being categorized alongside tobacco then it would be enable a split between 'less harmful' and 'harmful' tobacco products, which would be to the detriment of the e-cig because of the concerns you raise. Also, the anti-smoking groups have said there is no safe cigarette, which would by extension mean there is no save e-cigarette, just because the words sound the same and they would atttempt to have it banned, regardless of how misguided that was. This would also suggests they has other motives rather than Public Health.
I have left question a to one side for the moment as it complicates the issue, though in fulness of time that question will be answered. Without the complication of nicotine, what seems to be going on?
I have read a number of things here and elsewhere. It seems to boil down to a question of definitions. The FDA seem to want to classify the device as whole. Is this legitimate? It may take a court case to figure it out. Is a car classified as a petroleum product just because it uses petrol? Personaly I do not think so.
The name e-cig doesn't help as it instantly associates it with cigs. So what is this device and what is intended for? Well, it is (IMHO) clearly a Personal Vaporizer (PV). Its intended purpose is to vapourize a liquid to enable it to be inhaled by an individual.
For some that enables them to use it as an e-cig, by using a nicotine mixture, it can be used as an alternative to ordinary (analog if you like) cigarettes. The FDA seem to want to ascribe this as its primary purpose. Yet there are vaporizers on the market designed for herbal mixtures that are not intnended to be e-cigs. So one of the uses of a PV is as an e-cig. Yet this raises an interesting question. Can the PV be called an e-cig when Vaping a zero nic mix? I think not.
If I gave you a PV without nic you would not 'smoke' it you would vape it, wouldn't you? There is no combustion and so the only similarity is that inhalation takes place. Is coffee the same as tea just because you drink it? Note the UK government has banned any lit substance (tobacco, herbs etc) that is capable of being smoked. So clearly HMG make a distinction between burning (combustion) and vaporizing.
So I believe it should be categorized separately. The only point where analogs and PVs meet is in the use of nicotine, puting aside the similarity in the bodily actions whcih AFIK harm nobody. Nicotine is well regulated already and to partially answer question a), if a PV does use nicotine then some regulation, qulaity control mainly, would probably be a good thing for the nicotine mix the PV uses.
As you can see I split apart the 'device' and the use of nicotine. Many people do not do this (many here do) and so see it purly in terms of a cigarette. As a result they have many misconceptions. This is understandable.
Because of this confusion, the PV is possibly seen as harmful to others. Many bans were passed due to people's concerns over the health impacts of SHS/ETS. The message has been so effective that anything resembling smoking triggers a sort of smoking psychosis, that hand waiving, fake coughing syndrome. A classic was recently recounted on another thread here where someone vaped and a women faked a cough and suffered an olfactory hallucination (smelling non-existant smoke) .
Another confusing aspect when tieing into tobacco, is the smoking cessation, NRT aspect. This gets into problems associated with medical safety and efficacy. Reading here a PV using nic does seem to help people either give up or cut down. This could be considered a side effect rather than its main purpose, thus avoiding the minefield of medical regulation.
So far in the UK only trading standards (again AFIK) have questioned PVs and mainly on the issue of labeling and packaging not the atomzier/battery. It seems (unless there is a change) that once properly labeled nicotine cartridges and liquids of suitable potency can be sold. So once again we see the UK making a distinction between the PV and the nicotine mixes it may use.
It was suggested here that the PV should stand on its own merits and this sentiment was decryed somewhat. The basic idea being that vaping is 'a healthier alternative'. Yet even this ties the PV to tobacco. It may be a healthier alternative, just as drinking low alcohol beer may be a healthier alternative to drinking methylated spirit. Yet LA beer is not presented in that way is it?
So to summarize, there is a case to be made for the PV to be put into it's own category, including them within tobacco regulation would (again IMHO) not be appropriate.
I hope I have answered your questions. Just my 2ps worth (more like 10p west - I know, I waffle on a bit - well just a tad!)
be well
just to recap what you asked
b, c & d are very legitimate concerns. Bill has a strong anti-smoking agenda and is very much pro-smokeless tobacco. If the e-cig gets dragged into being categorized alongside tobacco then it would be enable a split between 'less harmful' and 'harmful' tobacco products, which would be to the detriment of the e-cig because of the concerns you raise. Also, the anti-smoking groups have said there is no safe cigarette, which would by extension mean there is no save e-cigarette, just because the words sound the same and they would atttempt to have it banned, regardless of how misguided that was. This would also suggests they has other motives rather than Public Health.
I have left question a to one side for the moment as it complicates the issue, though in fulness of time that question will be answered. Without the complication of nicotine, what seems to be going on?
I have read a number of things here and elsewhere. It seems to boil down to a question of definitions. The FDA seem to want to classify the device as whole. Is this legitimate? It may take a court case to figure it out. Is a car classified as a petroleum product just because it uses petrol? Personaly I do not think so.
The name e-cig doesn't help as it instantly associates it with cigs. So what is this device and what is intended for? Well, it is (IMHO) clearly a Personal Vaporizer (PV). Its intended purpose is to vapourize a liquid to enable it to be inhaled by an individual.
For some that enables them to use it as an e-cig, by using a nicotine mixture, it can be used as an alternative to ordinary (analog if you like) cigarettes. The FDA seem to want to ascribe this as its primary purpose. Yet there are vaporizers on the market designed for herbal mixtures that are not intnended to be e-cigs. So one of the uses of a PV is as an e-cig. Yet this raises an interesting question. Can the PV be called an e-cig when Vaping a zero nic mix? I think not.
If I gave you a PV without nic you would not 'smoke' it you would vape it, wouldn't you? There is no combustion and so the only similarity is that inhalation takes place. Is coffee the same as tea just because you drink it? Note the UK government has banned any lit substance (tobacco, herbs etc) that is capable of being smoked. So clearly HMG make a distinction between burning (combustion) and vaporizing.
So I believe it should be categorized separately. The only point where analogs and PVs meet is in the use of nicotine, puting aside the similarity in the bodily actions whcih AFIK harm nobody. Nicotine is well regulated already and to partially answer question a), if a PV does use nicotine then some regulation, qulaity control mainly, would probably be a good thing for the nicotine mix the PV uses.
As you can see I split apart the 'device' and the use of nicotine. Many people do not do this (many here do) and so see it purly in terms of a cigarette. As a result they have many misconceptions. This is understandable.
Because of this confusion, the PV is possibly seen as harmful to others. Many bans were passed due to people's concerns over the health impacts of SHS/ETS. The message has been so effective that anything resembling smoking triggers a sort of smoking psychosis, that hand waiving, fake coughing syndrome. A classic was recently recounted on another thread here where someone vaped and a women faked a cough and suffered an olfactory hallucination (smelling non-existant smoke) .
Another confusing aspect when tieing into tobacco, is the smoking cessation, NRT aspect. This gets into problems associated with medical safety and efficacy. Reading here a PV using nic does seem to help people either give up or cut down. This could be considered a side effect rather than its main purpose, thus avoiding the minefield of medical regulation.
So far in the UK only trading standards (again AFIK) have questioned PVs and mainly on the issue of labeling and packaging not the atomzier/battery. It seems (unless there is a change) that once properly labeled nicotine cartridges and liquids of suitable potency can be sold. So once again we see the UK making a distinction between the PV and the nicotine mixes it may use.
It was suggested here that the PV should stand on its own merits and this sentiment was decryed somewhat. The basic idea being that vaping is 'a healthier alternative'. Yet even this ties the PV to tobacco. It may be a healthier alternative, just as drinking low alcohol beer may be a healthier alternative to drinking methylated spirit. Yet LA beer is not presented in that way is it?
So to summarize, there is a case to be made for the PV to be put into it's own category, including them within tobacco regulation would (again IMHO) not be appropriate.
I hope I have answered your questions. Just my 2ps worth (more like 10p west - I know, I waffle on a bit - well just a tad!)
be well
yw jamie
It is worth reading this interview (A Global Prison?) with Dr Kamal Chaouachi and Chris Snowdon (Author Velvet Glove Iron Fist) -> velvetgloveironfist.com/kamal_chaouachi_interview.php
Although Dr Chaouachi conducts research on the Hookah, it clearly demonstrates another set of reasons why PVs should avoid getting labeled as a tobacco product.
Note that Hookahs mainly heat tobacco.
(Link courtesy of Colin at Freedom2Choose.info)
It is worth reading this interview (A Global Prison?) with Dr Kamal Chaouachi and Chris Snowdon (Author Velvet Glove Iron Fist) -> velvetgloveironfist.com/kamal_chaouachi_interview.php
Although Dr Chaouachi conducts research on the Hookah, it clearly demonstrates another set of reasons why PVs should avoid getting labeled as a tobacco product.
Note that Hookahs mainly heat tobacco.
(Link courtesy of Colin at Freedom2Choose.info)
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you for that:
A Global Prison? Anti-smoking and hookah bans
There were two hookah bars near my home driven out of business by our no-exemption smoking ban, so the article was interesting for that also.
Here in Queensland, Australia, e-ciggs have been branded a method of "regulated poison" as per the nicotine content. Thus resulting in an outright ban on use as well as even posession. So now I am a criminal.
And Waxman and Lautenberg too! We need to express our objection to any attempt to ban ecigs and explain that we as smokers would prefer to take our chances with nic than with nic combined with smoke, tar, and carcinogens.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 66
Sorry for my delay in responding.
jamie wrote:
"Can you please help me understand the implications of regulating them as tobacco products? I'm concerned that this might include:
a) reduction of nicotine to ineffective levels
b) ecigs pulled into tobacco smoking bans
c) ecigs pulled into tobacco taxation
d) ecigs pulled into other tobacco-related policies such as employment"
It is unlikely that US Congress would deal with (at least in the foreseeable future) with b, c or d.
Regarding a), the Waxman legislation authorizes the FDA to reduce nicotine levels in tobacco products, but that type of regulatory action is unlikely to be taken (and I'll be fighting it ever step of the way) because doing so would cause smokers to smoke even more cigarettes (to get their desired level of nicotine). If e-cigarettes are amended into the Waxman legislation (depending upon the precise language), the FDA would probably have the similar authority over e-cigarettes as with smokeless tobacco, cigars and cigarettes.
Smoking bans are a state and/or local issue (not federal), and I'm not aware of any local or state indoor (or outdoor) smokefree laws that ban the use of e-cigarettes.
Congress just enacted tobacco tax legislation (SCHIP two months ago), and isn't likely to do so again in the near future (although comprehensive healthcare reform legislation might include tobacco tax hikes). State legislatures could consider taxing e-cigarettes in the future, but a modest tax is more reasonable than an outright ban.
Employers already have the authority to prohibit the use of e-cigarettes at workplaces.
Section 102 (page 30) of the Burr/Hagan bill (S. 579) would exclude e-cigarettes from FDA regulatory oversight (which would preempt the FDA from banning them), and would authorize e-cigarettes (and all tobacco products) to be regulated by a new Tobacco Regulatory Agency.
For a copy of S. 579, go to the thomas congressional website (I cannot post the weblink here since it won't let me) and type in S. 579 in search.
jamie wrote:
"Can you please help me understand the implications of regulating them as tobacco products? I'm concerned that this might include:
a) reduction of nicotine to ineffective levels
b) ecigs pulled into tobacco smoking bans
c) ecigs pulled into tobacco taxation
d) ecigs pulled into other tobacco-related policies such as employment"
It is unlikely that US Congress would deal with (at least in the foreseeable future) with b, c or d.
Regarding a), the Waxman legislation authorizes the FDA to reduce nicotine levels in tobacco products, but that type of regulatory action is unlikely to be taken (and I'll be fighting it ever step of the way) because doing so would cause smokers to smoke even more cigarettes (to get their desired level of nicotine). If e-cigarettes are amended into the Waxman legislation (depending upon the precise language), the FDA would probably have the similar authority over e-cigarettes as with smokeless tobacco, cigars and cigarettes.
Smoking bans are a state and/or local issue (not federal), and I'm not aware of any local or state indoor (or outdoor) smokefree laws that ban the use of e-cigarettes.
Congress just enacted tobacco tax legislation (SCHIP two months ago), and isn't likely to do so again in the near future (although comprehensive healthcare reform legislation might include tobacco tax hikes). State legislatures could consider taxing e-cigarettes in the future, but a modest tax is more reasonable than an outright ban.
Employers already have the authority to prohibit the use of e-cigarettes at workplaces.
Section 102 (page 30) of the Burr/Hagan bill (S. 579) would exclude e-cigarettes from FDA regulatory oversight (which would preempt the FDA from banning them), and would authorize e-cigarettes (and all tobacco products) to be regulated by a new Tobacco Regulatory Agency.
For a copy of S. 579, go to the thomas congressional website (I cannot post the weblink here since it won't let me) and type in S. 579 in search.
Has this Burr/Hagan bill fallen by the wayside? Because it seems to make more sense than the Waxman bill. I'm still reading thru it though.
Aloha,
Bottom line I see is the Government spends Billions on advertizing campaignes of "quit smoking" ads, Kick backs are high. Now the FDA is getting pressured by the tobacco Co's, politicians who no longer will receive as many high taxes for bought cigarettes, and the Pharmacies who are selling less asthma medication, and related medications due to smokers illnesses. They all lose money so they ban together to ban the e-cig. Everyone gets sick again because they go back to cigarettes and the .......s are happy again. So I say everyone else get to gether and "Stop the Fat Rat .......s" Now that is a campaign I can get behind.
Bottom line I see is the Government spends Billions on advertizing campaignes of "quit smoking" ads, Kick backs are high. Now the FDA is getting pressured by the tobacco Co's, politicians who no longer will receive as many high taxes for bought cigarettes, and the Pharmacies who are selling less asthma medication, and related medications due to smokers illnesses. They all lose money so they ban together to ban the e-cig. Everyone gets sick again because they go back to cigarettes and the .......s are happy again. So I say everyone else get to gether and "Stop the Fat Rat .......s" Now that is a campaign I can get behind.
That is insulting and unsupported by any evidence. Just what good will accusations like that do our cause? I am saddened every time I read such drivel, and most often just stop reading when threads degenerate into personal rants.
And some wonder why wiser heads don't post anymore ......
And some wonder why wiser heads don't post anymore ......
JD -
There is no doubt that things aren't all rosy and done by the books... however, we have a very good platform (and the moral high ground) with the ecig.
If you are interested, please check out the Electronic Cigarette Association's website. Electronic Cigarette Association. It might make you feel a little more confident in knowing that there is a voice out there for you... if you wish to use it.
Lacey: I have to agree with you that ECA is likely to be much more effective than "Stop the Fat Rat .......s" approach.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
