It's suck but typically I'd hope the courts would say otherwise. Innocent until proved guilty. They did with the prior SMoking everywhere case.
Just dreaming
FDA Nicotine - "Derived From Tobacco" Implies Logical Absurdity
- Thread starter toddkuen
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
It's suck but typically I'd hope the courts would say otherwise. Innocent until proved guilty. They did with the prior SMoking everywhere case.
Just dreaming
Would you believe (see your Avatar), when you say "most of us think" that in actuality you are speaking for just for yourself? And that others are speaking for themselves. And those who have an organization can speak for themselves, which is their organization.
Acting as if your personal views are the majority's, is a means to bolster your personal view.
Glantz and his team are major ST advocates. (paid) But the problem is ST (as far as majority of users and sales) is---> Chewing tobacco.
So when you say Smokeless Tobacco, you are talking Chew.
Chew, has many many serious problems, and E-Cig are significantly a better solution. Chew is recognized as being Cancer Causing.
E-Cigs are not.
So don't anchor E-Cigs with a proven Cancer producing product. Thank you very much for not doing it.
Last edited:
TB, you may want to read this:
FAQ: Health Effects (tobaccoharmreduction.org)
Before you repeat ANTZ 30+ year old propaganda.
FAQ: Health Effects (tobaccoharmreduction.org)
Before you repeat ANTZ 30+ year old propaganda.
or this....Assessment of Swedish snus for tobacco harm reduction: an epidemiological modelling study...reading is fundmental
Just for the record, if anyone wants to know what Glantz thinks of ST (smokeless): http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-articles-smokeless-tobacco-e-cigarettes.html
Good article....
Can't place which thread I heard that term before, reguarding possible FDA actions...
Agreed, well put Roger.
The false notion that ST (even "chew") was as bad, or nearly as bad, as smoking was pounded into our heads for so long, that it seems some can't let go, despite being provided with overwhelming reams of evidence to the contrary. Those of us that understand this now know that all modern ST products are orders of magnitude safer than smoking. Is any of it 100% safe? Of course not, nothing is.
As I said, the majority of Smokeless is Chew, Chew is proven to be Cancer causing. It is understood that Chewing Tobacco has significant levels of risk, and actual harm.
E-Cgs are new, novel, and not part of Smokeless, which is a definition of a specific range of products. No Medical doctors are suggesting otherwise. I am familiar with the Smokeless Tobacco Industry feeling about Chewing Tobacco. If you want to view a bunch of CEOs from Chewing Tobacco companies get up and raise their hands saying that Chewing Tobacco is not cancer causing.
If several people want to advocate against the data, fine, but these are not problems for Vapers.
E-Cgs are new, novel, and not part of Smokeless, which is a definition of a specific range of products. No Medical doctors are suggesting otherwise. I am familiar with the Smokeless Tobacco Industry feeling about Chewing Tobacco. If you want to view a bunch of CEOs from Chewing Tobacco companies get up and raise their hands saying that Chewing Tobacco is not cancer causing.
If several people want to advocate against the data, fine, but these are not problems for Vapers.
Agreed, well put Roger.
The false notion that ST (even "chew") was as bad, or nearly as bad, as smoking was pounded into our heads for so long, that it seems some can't let go, despite being provided with overwhelming reams of evidence to the contrary. Those of us that understand this now know that all modern ST products are orders of magnitude safer than smoking. Is any of it 100% safe? Of course not, nothing is.
Chewing Tobacco, is proven to be cancerous. Period. Smoking is worse, we know this.
The testimony before the FDA from advocates of Chewing Tobacco was 75% of oral cancers are caused by Analog Cigarettes, and Chewing Tobacco was 1/10 of that. 7.5%
E-Cigarettes are not proven to be cancer causing, and not expected to. Why, because it is established that Nicotine is not cancer causing.
The establish risk profile of Chewing Tobacco is significantly greater than E-Cigs. Nothing is zero, fine and dandy. But recognizing one, causes cancer, and the other does not, is HUGELY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENT RISK.
Shouldn't this be easy to accept? Cancer risk (Chew) vs no Cancer risk (E-Cigs)
"Only" 10 times safer? Why were we lied to for the last 30 years? Why were snuff and snus included in those lies? Does anyone expect people who would lie and sentence those who would have switched long ago to death by smoking to have any problem lying now?
It sounds like you don't want the facts brought up about the group we are dealing with.
One also has to wonder how many back of the mouth and throat cancers were included in that 7.5% figure that have recently been found to be at least 50% caused by oral HPV?
Have no doubt, they do not care about our health, they only want to protect their income source.
It sounds like you don't want the facts brought up about the group we are dealing with.
One also has to wonder how many back of the mouth and throat cancers were included in that 7.5% figure that have recently been found to be at least 50% caused by oral HPV?
Have no doubt, they do not care about our health, they only want to protect their income source.
Agreed, well put Roger.
The false notion that ST (even "chew") was as bad, or nearly as bad, as smoking was pounded into our heads for so long, that it seems some can't let go, despite being provided with overwhelming reams of evidence to the contrary. Those of us that understand this now know that all modern ST products are orders of magnitude safer than smoking. Is any of it 100% safe? Of course not, nothing is.
I thought Snus has a good record that goes back for many decades? (So it's not just the modern products.) Maybe I misremember that.
I believe that Authentic suns has good data. It's the American snus that doesn't have a good track record ( not manufactured the same way)
Swedish snus does have a good record going back decades; one of the exceptions.
HPV is not entirely causally determined, it could be contributory, even if you take you 3.5% rate, try to come up with the percentage of Nicotine vs Chew. Nicotine is not a carcinogen. Lets get your number when you divide with a zero.
Lied to? I have to think you actually think that warning labels do anything. Warning labels on Cigarettes have been on Tobacco since AT LEAST the early 1980s Big white labels saying they cause cancer.
You think if people saw a label that says, its safer, it causes less cancer. That that would be meaningful? That it would change much of anything?
I do not. I think warning labels have about as much usage as fine print in TV ads. Every smoker who started smoking since the 70s was well aware of the risks, did it anyway, ignored the warnings, or comprehended the warning labels, and chose to be adults and accept the risks.
I have used Coppenhagen and Kodiak back in the day, and tried the packets of chew when they first went on the market. The damages to the gum tissue is pretty quick, and wear marks and a pocket in the gums develop fast.
Anyone who has used ST which in 90% of the cases is Chew, is not confused.
Last edited:
Exceptions from Cancer causing Chewing Tobacco.
FEW, as in barely used.
SNUS is not Chew
Do you at least accept, that Chewing Tobacco is as a entire unit, is a carcinogen?????
Last edited:
In post #55 I point out how USP registered (or whatever they call it) known chemicals are expressly prohibited from being part of "derived from tobacco."
But there is more to the story.
The term "USP" has meaning in and of itself. There is a scale from seven (7) to one (1) for purity. One (1) being the most pure, seven (7) the least.
USP is number three (3): "A chemical grade of sufficient purity to meet or exceed requirements of the U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP); acceptable for food, drug, or medicinal use; may be used for most laboratory purposes."
Hence any nicotine that is of "USP" purity would be considered by established science to be a product usable in any context for which that chemical is appropriate. By this I mean that it is considered "pure nicotine" and not some FDA-defined mish-mash of tobacco alkaloids.
These are scientific standards that apply to all manner of chemicals covered by the US Formulary, not just nicotine. (Look up the USP formulary web sites.)
Now if one inspects a site such as nicSelect we see this claim "NicSelect doesnt just meet it exceeds U.S. Pharmacopeia standards" (on their website directly under the main page as standards-chart).
I will argue that while the FDA could attempt to argue that, for example, nicSelect nicotine is "derived from tobacco" such an interpretation would imply that any USP-grade chemical that was sufficiently pure for a USP designation would not be what it was but in fact what it was derived from.
More absolute nonsense as I originally postulated.
So while one can argue nano- and micro-gram amounts of nicotine in second hand smoke or vapor, for example, these standards are simply not applicable here.
Effectively the FDA would have to single out nicotine as somehow "magical" in the sense that only it remained a tobacco product once it was sufficiently pure to receive a "USP" designation.
More importantly bypassing the intent of the legislature.
I find it hard to imagine, and in fact in the legislation linked above it is not present, there would be any special meaning for nicotine outside the actual statutes.
So while the FDA and Mr. Zeller can say whatever they like they would have to undo a lot of established science to create the fiction that USP nicotine was somehow a tobacco product.
So, as they say, stick that in your pipe and smoke it...
But there is more to the story.
The term "USP" has meaning in and of itself. There is a scale from seven (7) to one (1) for purity. One (1) being the most pure, seven (7) the least.
USP is number three (3): "A chemical grade of sufficient purity to meet or exceed requirements of the U.S. Pharmacopeia (USP); acceptable for food, drug, or medicinal use; may be used for most laboratory purposes."
Hence any nicotine that is of "USP" purity would be considered by established science to be a product usable in any context for which that chemical is appropriate. By this I mean that it is considered "pure nicotine" and not some FDA-defined mish-mash of tobacco alkaloids.
These are scientific standards that apply to all manner of chemicals covered by the US Formulary, not just nicotine. (Look up the USP formulary web sites.)
Now if one inspects a site such as nicSelect we see this claim "NicSelect doesnt just meet it exceeds U.S. Pharmacopeia standards" (on their website directly under the main page as standards-chart).
I will argue that while the FDA could attempt to argue that, for example, nicSelect nicotine is "derived from tobacco" such an interpretation would imply that any USP-grade chemical that was sufficiently pure for a USP designation would not be what it was but in fact what it was derived from.
More absolute nonsense as I originally postulated.
So while one can argue nano- and micro-gram amounts of nicotine in second hand smoke or vapor, for example, these standards are simply not applicable here.
Effectively the FDA would have to single out nicotine as somehow "magical" in the sense that only it remained a tobacco product once it was sufficiently pure to receive a "USP" designation.
More importantly bypassing the intent of the legislature.
I find it hard to imagine, and in fact in the legislation linked above it is not present, there would be any special meaning for nicotine outside the actual statutes.
So while the FDA and Mr. Zeller can say whatever they like they would have to undo a lot of established science to create the fiction that USP nicotine was somehow a tobacco product.
So, as they say, stick that in your pipe and smoke it...
It's the way this administration has done with every thing they've done. One of the campaign promises was to straighten out the VA but after 6 yrs. nada. The healthcare bill was supposed to save everyone. Guess what it's hurt more people that it's helped. If they tie this to the evils of tobacco they get more action. Lies? Yes. Incorrect or missing data? Of coarse. Only posting or listening to one side? Same O Same O. It's the way they get what they want whether it's right or better it's not what they want. We are just citizens after all and what's good for us doesn't count.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
