I'm not convinced it's the nicotine in cigarettes that keeps someone smoking... I believe it to be all the other additives that keep the smoker addicted and thus so darn hard to quit.
New FDA policy conflicts with itself and vaping
- Thread starter trying
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I don't think anyone is convinced that it's nic alone that makes cigs addictive, but it's part of the addiction. In this case I am pleased to see the head of the FDA differentiate between the effects of the drug and the effects of smoking. I am also cautiously optimistic about the FDA treating vaping as a safer alternative to smoking.
I also thought he was pretty clear in the video. Currently, the FDA's goal is to reduce the damage done by smoking, and to lower nic in cigarettes. He didn't say anything remotely the same about vaping.
Agreed that there is tons of other stuff in tobacco combustibles that keeps smokers hooked, but if you can lower one variable, it will be a LESS satisfying experience.
Also, if nicotine in vape weren't helpful as far as getting rid of the rest of the harmful parts of cigarettes, how is it that so many people are able to switch to vaping? I'm not too worried about the "rest of it," I just hope that yes the public health community can educate the public on the benefits of switching TO e-cigs. There's been clear and recorded damage done, more smokers now think vaping is harmful than when they first appeared. Seems to me that will need to be addressed.
Anna
Agreed that there is tons of other stuff in tobacco combustibles that keeps smokers hooked, but if you can lower one variable, it will be a LESS satisfying experience.
Also, if nicotine in vape weren't helpful as far as getting rid of the rest of the harmful parts of cigarettes, how is it that so many people are able to switch to vaping? I'm not too worried about the "rest of it," I just hope that yes the public health community can educate the public on the benefits of switching TO e-cigs. There's been clear and recorded damage done, more smokers now think vaping is harmful than when they first appeared. Seems to me that will need to be addressed.
Anna
I believe that is what will really happen with the die hard smokers, they will just smoke more, causing even greater harm.
I hate to like your post ENAUD but yes there will be a subset of smokers who will smoke themselves to death. Just as a number of alcoholics and addicts will drink/use themselves to death. That is called free will. We all get offered choices (I think) along the way, and as conditions change, different opportunities appear. I am one of the people who really thought I'd be smoking in my coffin as they lowered me into my grave.... But then the REALITY of COPD and what it feels like taught me a LESSON which I could have CHOSEN to ignore, and I'm still half confused that I MADE the choice I did. It's a sad fact however. I'm glad that I'm not one of those smokers who took up vaping AFTER the oxygen tank, honestly and I wish there were a way to help, but free will.... Is what it is. Do I judge such smokers? Not even remotely, and in fact I wish that there were some totally different option, but free will is what it is. Period.
Vaping in my local starbucks, no one is fussing. It's quite nice.
Anna
Vaping in my local starbucks, no one is fussing. It's quite nice.
Anna
Agreed.
The only thing the government needs to do is spread the word that " vaping is undoubtedly and unequivocally less harmful than smoking " and get out of the way. Oh, and drop the section of the deemings that won't allow new products into the market. That is absolutely essential imo. Innovation must be allowed into the market.
While the misinformation campaign against vaping has played a role in stopping some smokers from switching to vaping, it's undeniably true that some smokers don't find the current products both satisfying and simple and consistent.
I have no doubt that there is some form of vaping that the majority of vapers will find satisfying. The more options readily available, the more chance the smokers will find the " vape for them ". For some it may be nic salts, for others WTA etc....
You know that perfect vape, whatever that is for you. Fresh wick and coil, the right vapor amount and density, great taste, perfect throat hit etc .... once there are devices that can get close to that, consistently, reliably, with minimum fuss, and at a reasonable price, game over for smoking.
FDA not making much sense isn't so new. The original deeming regs had a lot of people - even experienced reg-speakers - scratching their heads.
Still the old story : Folk smoke for the nicontine and die from the tar.
What matters is that we get a break. Five years.
Five years in which BT won't be idle.
Five years in which we shouldn't be idle either...
Still the old story : Folk smoke for the nicontine and die from the tar.
What matters is that we get a break. Five years.
Five years in which BT won't be idle.
Five years in which we shouldn't be idle either...
In theory yes, and I am extremely happy for all. Let us pray to God that we all live that long with all the Sauber rattling going on.
Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
[Removed quote of deleted post]
Please take your comments to the outside forum, before this thread is shut down.
Thanks.
Please take your comments to the outside forum, before this thread is shut down.
Thanks.
Last edited by a moderator:
If you want to talk about Saber Rattling, why don't you Start a Thread in the OUTSIDE? That is what the OUTSIDE is for.
This Thread is supposed to be about the New FDA Policies.
The FDA has been interested in ultra low nic cigarettes for may be 10 years or longer and studies have been done to see how smokers react. It's time to track down that research, read it, and discuss some more. May be the FDA knows some things about this that we don't. Cigs without nic combined wiith available ecigs might be a powerful combination. If it would work I'm all for it.
I'm wondering if the policy of reducing nic in cigarettes isn't about current smokers at all, but is about keeping NEW SMOKERS from getting addicted in the first place.
Yep I avoid the news like it's Ebola, I would rather listen to my car at wot then the news
. So another words he knows that vaping is safer. Heck he might be doing vaping a favor because smokers might switch to vaping to get more nicotine. Nicotine doesn't kill, it's the combustion that does.
I see it as a beginning step in the right direction. The problem with tobacco, from a health perspective vs political (which is a beast in itself), is multifaceted and will require various steps over various time spans to improve. At least there will be time to review existing real studies and start new ones concerning improving harm reduction data.
While I don't want to get into a debate over this _particular_ President, I'm not sure I agree with you here as a matter of general principle. Without taking a position on Trump (aside from how his actions affect vaping, which I think is on-topic here) I'll just say that I do not believe it my duty to support a President or his policies simply because he won an election. You might think Trump is attempting to get the country back on track, and doing so effectively, and others might think he is derailing it. It is natural that you would support him in this case, and that they would oppose him. Again, I am not saying that I am on either side when it comes to Trump- just trying to get at a general principle.
That said, in response to OP:
I do not generally think that the Federal government should be in the business of protecting adults from self-imposed hazards like tobacco. But, if we posit that it should be (and we're way past the point of not accepting that, as things stand,) this policy does make sense, IMHO.
I think the evidence we have right now indicates that vaping is much less hazardous than smoking. If that's the case, and we do accept that the federal government should have sweeping regulatory power over products that contain nicotine, then it should probably use that poewer to punish smokers, but reward them for switching to vaping.
How would you do this? Tax cigarettes heavily (we already do,) don't tax or regulate vaping much at all (that's a tall order, but Gottlieb's statement seems to move at least a bit in that direction,) and make it easier to get a sufficient amount of nicotine from vaping than from cigarettes, probably by requiring cigs to phase out nicotine but allowing juice to contain arbitrary amounts.
I'm not saying I agree with this policy- I don't. I'd rather not have a nanny-state that tells me what I can and cannot do. But if you're _going_ to have a nanny-state you might at least have a sensible one, and the FDA deeming regulations are almost the opposite of what I describe... they reward smoking, and punish vaping. So while I'm, in principle, opposed to the policy Gottlieb seems to be outlining, I do not think it inconsistent, and actually think it better than the policies the Obama-era FDA put in place. I hope the deeming regs will go away soon, but I'm not sure I'm hopeful on that score.
Yep. Even though we still have issues with deeming, Gottleib is provape, antismoke. According to him, combustion is what causes nicotine to be more addictive and cigarettes more deadly. This has been a popular opinion in the vape community for a long time. Now, we hope for more positive changes to the current deeming regs.
I do think reducing nicotine in cigs would possibly have little good results for hard core smokers that refuse to vape, and the focus would settle more on the next generation.
IMHO, there are no conclusions that can or should be drawn on what we know or what was said TODAY! I'm reminded of way back, college Federal Income Tax classes, every lecture started with "as of today" because nothing is or ever will be written in stone. Things will continue to change and at a much faster pace then years ago.
I agree with the premise that reducing the addictive potential of combustible tobacco may prevent future generations of addicted consumers of those products, however the deeming will still surely destroy the current US marketplace as it now stands for vapor products. The tightrope Gottlieb is proposing is allowing sufficient nicotine in less harmful products to transition smokers to those products. It won't matter one iota if those products cease to be legally marketed. Of course, there's always the now unregulated sale of gum, losenges, and the patch, but vaping is still far and away the most satifying alternative for many to transition to, and as it now stands, many vendors will probably fail to successfully be able to keep marketing those products at some now pushed forward date.
And if by some chance the powers that be change hands...the winds of change could again alter the course set by the rudder. We have NOTHING yet to celebrate from this announcement. It's all talk until we see some concrete change in legislation regarding vapor products. This announcement could actually wind up causing more harm to vaping if it causes more complacency because folks think it's all good now, it's only talk at this point...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
