Nicotine in Canada
- Thread starter Melloh
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I am a concerned about someone starting out DIY with nic level that high. Please be careful, was that what was recommended?
When first starting DIY stick to small bottle sizes until you get a recipe that you like. I would suggest mixing a 30 ml bottle with no flavour just slightly higher then your desired nic level. Then use that to experiment with your DIY flavours. You want to limit your exposure to the raw nic liquid and its exposure to the elements.
If you want to end up with 18mg strength mix a flavourless to 20mg strength.
For a roughly 80/20 PG/VG
6ml nic
6ml VG
18ml PG
When first starting DIY stick to small bottle sizes until you get a recipe that you like. I would suggest mixing a 30 ml bottle with no flavour just slightly higher then your desired nic level. Then use that to experiment with your DIY flavours. You want to limit your exposure to the raw nic liquid and its exposure to the elements.
If you want to end up with 18mg strength mix a flavourless to 20mg strength.
For a roughly 80/20 PG/VG
6ml nic
6ml VG
18ml PG
Hi there, and thanks Rachel and Hotone for catching this. I changed my order to much much less nic strength. I seriously did not think it was bad bad stuff. I have too many precious lives in my household to dare think I could mess with 100mg nic juice. You guys saved me!! Thanks so much!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just to split hairs... 
This is exactly the opposite of what Health Canada states. They have instituted the ban because they feel there is no proof, as yet, of the safety of nicotine liquid used in e-cigs. In a letter from HC regarding the approval of the nicotine inhaler NRT vs e-cigs, the Director General stated this:
"...The nicotine delivered from the exempted inhalation device is deposited in the mouth and absorbed via the buccal membrane whereas the nicotine delivered by the electronic cigarette is delivered directly into the lungs. The absorption of nicotine via the pulmonary route is more complete and more rapid than via the buccal route would lead to a different pharmacokinetic profile. Greater and more rapid absorption of nicotine can lead to a greater risk of poisoning and addiction. In the absence of clinical data showing the pharmacokinetic profile of the substance administered under those conditions, the safety of nicotine inhalation from the electronic cigarette remains unknown...."
The whole letter (as well as others sent to and from HC) can be seen on this blog: CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT ENCROACHMENT CITOYENS ANTI GOUVERNEMENT ENVAHISSANT: HEALTH CANADA'S REPLY TO OUR 2ND LETTER ON E-CIGARETTES
Interesting read.
This is exactly what HC is asking for. Proof. Nicotine containing e-cigs, like any other drug, need to be submitted, assessed and approved before being granted market authorization. At that time, HC can stipulate guidelines on the chemical composition and maximum nicotine levels of e-juice. To my knowledge, this has not yet been done.
This is exactly the opposite of what Health Canada states. They have instituted the ban because they feel there is no proof, as yet, of the safety of nicotine liquid used in e-cigs. In a letter from HC regarding the approval of the nicotine inhaler NRT vs e-cigs, the Director General stated this:
"...The nicotine delivered from the exempted inhalation device is deposited in the mouth and absorbed via the buccal membrane whereas the nicotine delivered by the electronic cigarette is delivered directly into the lungs. The absorption of nicotine via the pulmonary route is more complete and more rapid than via the buccal route would lead to a different pharmacokinetic profile. Greater and more rapid absorption of nicotine can lead to a greater risk of poisoning and addiction. In the absence of clinical data showing the pharmacokinetic profile of the substance administered under those conditions, the safety of nicotine inhalation from the electronic cigarette remains unknown...."
The whole letter (as well as others sent to and from HC) can be seen on this blog: CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT ENCROACHMENT CITOYENS ANTI GOUVERNEMENT ENVAHISSANT: HEALTH CANADA'S REPLY TO OUR 2ND LETTER ON E-CIGARETTES
Interesting read.
This is exactly what HC is asking for. Proof. Nicotine containing e-cigs, like any other drug, need to be submitted, assessed and approved before being granted market authorization. At that time, HC can stipulate guidelines on the chemical composition and maximum nicotine levels of e-juice. To my knowledge, this has not yet been done.
Last edited:
Too tired to get into this right now, but HC is full of crap, Blondie. Scientists know exactly what the "pharmacokinetic profile" of nicotine absorbed through the lungs is. It's the exact same way we got nicotine back when we were smokers. The only difference now is we're not inhaling all the deadly crap that was in smoke...but a clean, safe vapour instead (which they also know the "pharmacokinetic profile" for - they know exactly what the body does to vapourized PG inhaled into the lungs, etc).
Pharmacokinetic just means 'what the body does to the substance.' And in any event HC isn't really concerned with any test results. Their aim has been to use prohibitively high-cost testing requirements (for superfluous tests, no less), redundantly applied to every manufacturer, to keep vaping unapproved. Vapers shouldn't & won't stand for "testing" being used as a pretext to ban.
Nicotine isn't a "new drug" & the whole world knows how the body treats it when it's inhaled. HC can take its letter from its Director General and shove it up its buccal route.
Pharmacokinetic just means 'what the body does to the substance.' And in any event HC isn't really concerned with any test results. Their aim has been to use prohibitively high-cost testing requirements (for superfluous tests, no less), redundantly applied to every manufacturer, to keep vaping unapproved. Vapers shouldn't & won't stand for "testing" being used as a pretext to ban.
Nicotine isn't a "new drug" & the whole world knows how the body treats it when it's inhaled. HC can take its letter from its Director General and shove it up its buccal route.
Did you look at the price..
Thats how I know not just anyone will be buying it.
I stand by my earlier statement.
With all the respect for you I can give Danesnpits, if you have to ask that question, its in your best interest not to have the juice. Its a bit like having a ticking time bomb and not knowing how to turn it off.
Again not to knock you at all.. Same as you can't buy a gun until you have a licenced and are trained, you can't drive a car on the road until you pass a test...
This stuff should not be handed out like candy to anyone who asks!! The responsable vendor would've made darn sure you knew the answer and were 110% compfortable before selling you that stuff.
Too tired to get into this right now, but HC is full of crap, Blondie. Scientists know exactly what the "pharmacokinetic profile" of nicotine absorbed through the lungs is. It's the exact same way we got nicotine back when we were smokers. The only difference now is we're not inhaling all the deadly crap that was in smoke...but a clean, safe vapour instead (which they also know the "pharmacokinetic profile" for - they know exactly what the body does to vapourized PG inhaled into the lungs, etc).
Pharmacokinetic just means 'what the body does to the substance.' And in any event HC isn't really concerned with any test results. Their aim has been to use prohibitively high-cost testing requirements (for superfluous tests, no less), redundantly applied to every manufacturer, to keep vaping unapproved. Vapers shouldn't & won't stand for "testing" being used as a pretext to ban.
Nicotine isn't a "new drug" & the whole world knows how the body treats it when it's inhaled. HC can take its letter from its Director General and shove it up its buccal route.
That was my point, actually, in the last paragraph. (Note that I started by saying "this is what HC states". Not that I believe them...
) HC is waiting for "proof" from a sponsor/manufacturer who will PAY to submit for them superfluous tests. And them tests ain't cheap!The problem in dealing with HC is that they can argue whatever they want. They have deemed nicotine containing juice as a drug, and so regulated by the Food and Drugs Act. Cigarettes, on the other hand, are regulated by the Tobacco Control act.
So their argument, in effect, is that even though we know the pharmacokinetic profile of nicotine inhaled via cigarettes, it isn't relevant. They want "proof" that nicotine - as a drug delivered via e-cig - inhaled directly into the lungs is safe, and in what dosages. And that proof will be costly.
Anyone stupid enough to pay those prices is EXACTLY the type of person dumb enough to misuse it. Bad news buddy...you've only filtered out the masses who are capable of using it responsibly.
Did you look at the price..
Thats how I know not just anyone will be buying it.
I stand by my earlier statement.
Trust me no one buys it by just clicking on it, so rest assure no one is that stupid...
I can't expand beyond that due to the rules here, but you are welcome to assume what you will, you'll know you have it right when it fits with everything I have been saying, and how you feel about the issue in regards to yourself.
Just to split hairs...
This is exactly the opposite of what Health Canada states. They have instituted the ban because they feel there is no proof, as yet, of the safety of nicotine liquid used in e-cigs. In a letter from HC regarding the approval of the nicotine inhaler NRT vs e-cigs, the Director General stated this:
"...The nicotine delivered from the exempted inhalation device is deposited in the mouth and absorbed via the buccal membrane whereas the nicotine delivered by the electronic cigarette is delivered directly into the lungs. The absorption of nicotine via the pulmonary route is more complete and more rapid than via the buccal route would lead to a different pharmacokinetic profile. Greater and more rapid absorption of nicotine can lead to a greater risk of poisoning and addiction. In the absence of clinical data showing the pharmacokinetic profile of the substance administered under those conditions, the safety of nicotine inhalation from the electronic cigarette remains unknown...."
The whole letter (as well as others sent to and from HC) can be seen on this blog: CITIZENS AGAINST GOVERNMENT ENCROACHMENT CITOYENS ANTI GOUVERNEMENT ENVAHISSANT: HEALTH CANADA'S REPLY TO OUR 2ND LETTER ON E-CIGARETTES
Interesting read.
This is exactly what HC is asking for. Proof. Nicotine containing e-cigs, like any other drug, need to be submitted, assessed and approved before being granted market authorization. At that time, HC can stipulate guidelines on the chemical composition and maximum nicotine levels of e-juice. To my knowledge, this has not yet been done.
Hey nothing wrong with splitting hairs
, the first part about the <4 mg is a matter of my own hypothesis/ opinion and nothing more, from experience. I am more than willing to state that for the record Once we have the proof it will help our case IMHO
Last edited:
In the regulations about nicotine there are exemptions for "inhalation devices" providing less than 4mg per dose. I see no need to submit anything.
Time to tear up their latest load..
It’s nice that they somehow can explain exactly where the nicotine is absorbed, like experts. buccal, pharmacokientic LOL fire off those big words to make it sound important..To know what they claim they would either of had to study the product or they are guessing and blowing hot air.
If they took the time to conduct trails so their knowledge of where nicotine was absorbed was proven, they would also know the rate at which it was absorbed and therefore be able to determine "the safety of nicotine inhalation".
By their admission they didn't do that, so its them blowing hot air again, just like their ill-conceived “drug delivery device” crap. Or maybe they do know the answer, and they are just trying to play dumb to spread fear.
The catch 22 for them on this, is they need to study the product to prove that it even has any effect at all, to be considered a dangerl. In doing so they would come to the conclusion that this product is safe, in my view. Wouldn’t want to do that…
Last edited:
Not sure if you finished reading the thread and the further comments by myself and Rachel, but...
HC is arguing that the e-cig as an inhalation NRT differs than the inhalation devices already exempted because the nicotine delivery, and therefore absorption, is different. They say there is no clinical data proving that nicotine inhalation from an e-cig is safe.
HC's stance is that it is up to the sponsor or manufacturer of the device to provide the proof. They do not conduct trials or studies. All of the exempted NRTs have been approved because the studies were done, "proof" submitted, assessed and approved. This is extremely costly, but Big Pharma will pay for it. Most e-cig manufacturers (or distributors) either won't, or do not have the cash to pony up.
HC is arguing that the e-cig as an inhalation NRT differs than the inhalation devices already exempted because the nicotine delivery, and therefore absorption, is different. They say there is no clinical data proving that nicotine inhalation from an e-cig is safe.
HC's stance is that it is up to the sponsor or manufacturer of the device to provide the proof. They do not conduct trials or studies. All of the exempted NRTs have been approved because the studies were done, "proof" submitted, assessed and approved. This is extremely costly, but Big Pharma will pay for it. Most e-cig manufacturers (or distributors) either won't, or do not have the cash to pony up.
They can argue whatever they want, doesn't make it right, nor based in law. The legislation states "an inhalation device". If they want to argue that one type of inhale is different from another, so be it, I don't agree and I suggest that notion sounds rather foolish. I don’t read "safe" anywhere, other than the implication that nicotine from an inhalation device is exempt and therefore implied to be safe.
I'll save my money, and cite Big Pharma's own studies to prove that nicotine inhalation is safe. An inhale is an inhale, HC wants to say different, fine the ball is back in their court and I don't see them producing any evidence to support their claim.
Also remember that was their position on “drug delivery devices” not nicotine that it needs market approval. The answer there was simple, I'll cite the rulings on bongs and pipes, a product is not a drug delivery device unless it has a drug in it to be delivered.
Last edited:
HERE! HERE! Well said. If they ban pv's on that basis, they'd better be prepared to take away the coffee makers too.
I never said it was right... it just IS.
This is their position on e-cigs containing nicotine. From their website: To All Persons Interested in Importing, Advertising or Selling Electronic Smoking Products in Canada - Health Canada Notice 2009-03-27
"In the absence of evidence provided by the sponsor establishing otherwise, an electronic smoking product delivering nicotine is regulated as a New Drug under Division 8, Part C of the Food and Drug Regulations. In addition, the delivery system within an electronic smoking kit that contains nicotine must meet the requirements of the Medical Devices Regulations."
From this, it can be understood that e-cigs on their own are perfectly legal.
I also understand that as I am neither importing, advertising nor selling e-cigs and/or nicotine, my use is completely legal. So you keep selling; I'll keep buying.
Last edited:
That was my point, actually, in the last paragraph. (Note that I started by saying "this is what HC states". Not that I believe them...
....They want "proof" that nicotine - as a drug delivered via e-cig - inhaled directly into the lungs is safe, and in what dosages. And that proof will be costly.
...actually - this is NOT accurate. HC is NOT asking for someone to submit eliquid for testing in order to regulate it - they are asking for eliquid to be placed under a different set of laws - with the knowledge that no eliquid company or ecig manufacturer will ever be able to meet their requirements.
The law is clear that nicotine - in any form other than naturally occuring - is a Schedule F drug - regulated by Health Canada - EXCEPT when in "doses" of 4 mg or less. This exception allows for recreational and industrial use of nicotine. If the exception did not exist - you could be arrested for possessing eliquid as an "illegal drug".
Pharmaceuticals fall under an entirely different set of regulations and laws. New pharmas can only be submitted for testing by licensed, regulated laboratory's - and only after initial studies show possible therapeutic effectiveness in medical treatment. It's a very long process that can take years - even decades in some cases.
Judges in the US courts have all agreed that the FDA's similar attempt to classify eliquid is wrong. Eliquid is NOT a pharmaceutical and, as such, does not fall under the complex laws of pharmas.
IF eliquid were to be regulated as a pharma in Canada-
1) ecigs could never be sold by anyone other than a pharmacy and possibly only with a prescription.
2) The only people who could manufacture ecigs (the hardware) would be licensed medical equipment manufacturers (who don't hold any patents on the ecig)
...HC's statements on ecigs are not what they seem on the surface.
Regulation as a recreational "tobacco cigarette substitute" - is another story - and a different set of laws. It's what (imho) we should be aiming for. It would allow for protection from unscrupulous companies and better standards.
- Status
Similar threads
