OMS went to war war against cigarettes electronics

[margouillat]

Sorry, It's here in french from AFP
19 septembre 2008

AFP: L'OMS part en guerre contre la "cigarette lectronique"


Please, re-write tittle !

 

[dc2k08]

Translated version of http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ia8CGeXxUqoBy_PVhtCP1rcg64Lw
in english via google translate

In France, the Directorate General of Health (DGS) and the Medicines Agency noted that "electronic cigarettes may contain chemicals, such as propylene glycol, a solvent irritant or terpene derivatives, which "could have an impact" in case history of epilepsy.

never heard of this

The World Health Organization is particularly angry because "manufacturers of electronic cigarette + + in the world have used the name and logo on the WHO website, on packages or in advertisements for present their product as an aid to smoking cessation

anyone have an example of a business associating their product to WHO?

 

[TropicalBob]

This is not good.

Our WHAT doesn't need an angry WHO.

 

[MagusSteele]

Like I said in the other thread, "Here We Go !!"

The cartridges containing nicotine in varying concentrations usually beyond the taxes imposed by states to tobacco products, according to Dr. Bettcher.

Far from being a tool of struggle against smoking, "electronic cigarette" may be used by smokers addicted to circumvent the ban on smoking in bars, restaurants and other public places, feared finally the head of the anti campaign - tobacco WHO.

Ecko: This is Not good.

 

[strungmind]

Well, we wanted more people to know about e-cigarettes, and now they do....

I think this is a prime example of governments trying to enforce their beliefs rather than the safety of the public. The thing that seems to irritate these officials the most is the fact that we are able to smoke in public, and where ever we want.. not only getting around the laws, but not quitting tobacco products as the leading authorities wish we did.

I did some searching from google and found a few links regarding Propylene Glycol, and only came up with effects relating being applied to the skin...

Harmful ingredients in personal care products

ABDITUS VERITAS OF HARMFUL INGREDIENTS.

I found a slightly more useful report, unfortunately it states under effects via inhalation... "not relevant"... *sigh*, so close, but I figured I would post it so we can be more aware of the findings...

Propylene glycol (PIM 443)

This article makes mention of a 11 year old boy going into seizures after taking a medication over the course of a year, and they also state for adults that "The estimated acceptable daily intake is 25 mg/kg (17th Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, 1974)".

So being that this device is marketed only and HOPEFULLY only sold to adults, doesn't seem to me that their is any evidence stating that the Propylene Glycol is harmful to us, but I could be wrong and misreading, please correct me, this is why I am posting on the forum.


I do agree however, that their should be clinical testing funding from the manufactors themselves, and hope to see this soon say we can have a back bone to stand up against.

 

[MagusSteele]

Unfortunatly, reports and tests are meaningless to most government agencys.
This forum is full of reports that say PG or Vg are harmless in 99% of the cases, as long as its pure.
If its not, I am the only living corpse I ever met.

 

[karenwest1961]

I hope y'all are stocked up. No joke.

 

[trog100]

it isnt smoking as regards UK law.. nothing is lit or set fire to.. and UK tax is on tobacco not nicotine which can come from other sources..

other countries have different laws.. legally e smoking is not getting round smoking bans in bars.. it isnt legally smoking and thats that.. there is no getting round anything..

they are gonna have to try a bit harder than that to ban it.. its gonna need a whole new legal definition i think.. as yet they dont actually have one..

trog

 

[Ruby]

If they say it is lit & smoked Trog - that's the given truth & what's worse is they do:


http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...garette-smoking-legal-public-places-uk-4.html

 

[trog100]

If they say it is lit & smoked Trog - that's the given truth & what's worse is they do:


http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...garette-smoking-legal-public-places-uk-4.html

they choose their words carefully.. but whatever they say it isnt lit or set fire to so it isnt smoked..

the smoking ban in the UK Is based around anything that can be set fire to (lit).. it isnt just tobbaco cigarettes.. in some ways it covers all.. but it also excludes things that are not set fire to..

hoist by their own petard so to speak..

trog

 

[ApOsTle51]

well if they want to ban it then surely they are going to need some sort of medical/lab tests to give reason to the ban , well on health and safety grounds anyway, which is why the current smoking ban is in place.

If these test's are carried out by government agencies and found that it is harmfull , then i guess thats what we would all want to know.
On the other hand if e-smoking is found not to be harmfull then that'll make us all much happier.

I think it's a win ..win situation.

 

[MagusSteele]

And if its found to be harmful, because they say it is, regardless of a report? (because reports/tests can be read and twisted, and biased anyway you want them to read)

 

[Ruby]

...and they will twist it. They don't have our interests at heart - they only see their mega-profits gliding out into vapour.

 

[Ludo]

deja vu... same history in Holland last year... nothing to worry about
45000 panic postings for nothing, result today: we're still vaping away
Just chill folks

 

[Ruby]

Ludo I'm hoping you are right. If you are not I will move to Holland -LOL!

 

[trog100]

deja vu... same history in Holland last year... nothing to worry about
45000 panic postings for nothing, result today: we're still vaping away
Just chill folks

yes just keep using the things whatever u call them.. at present we have the upper hand..

the smoking connection has to be maintained cos the devices are aimed at "smokers".. but according to UK law using one isnt "smoking".. in the end they will develop a name all of their won.. i refer to them as e smoking devices.. not a good name but "vaping" sounds too silly to me.. he he

but no matter what they are called as long as they continue to look like tobacco products the "smoking" connection will still be made.. but legally it isnt smoking.. at least not where i live..

to legally ban smoking first they had to legally define it.. they will have to do the same with e gigs.. their legal definition of smoking excludes our e cigs.. this suits us..

trog

 

[JaneDoe]

Well, I must admit the 3,4-Dihydro Cumarin scares me.

 

[Tallgirl1974]

I feel like we have the testing partially done based simply on the studies done on nico inhaler and fog machines....Ok, this may sound insane but I think it holds logic- and my apologies if someone has already discussed it, Im a newb. I have been researching fog machines and studies done on people who are exposed to them often. The contents of a lot of fog juice: water and glycol, or water/glycerin. Our e cigs are basically mini foggers, so I really think that my line of though isn't that far fetched....(the basic science and how they work seem to be exactly the same...)
So far I have debunked wiki, surprise they have it wrong whats new, and found another study that says it(the fog) can irritate your lungs- and throat- and another one that claims they found long term exposure can create "respiratory problems." (by this I have no idea what they mean yet) I'm tracking down my sources, to see if they are legit- but its very hard to wade thru the mass amount of feces you find on the internet. One study was funded by an actors protection agency because they believe their actors can get sick from it and now limit the amount and type they can be exposed to. I find bias and agenda in that study. Nothing I have read has scarred me- nothing I have read is even close to putting 69 carcinogens in my lungs with the perfectly legal & deadly traditional tabacco cigarette. I whole heartly feel that my 901 is safer and I feel strongly about the threat of losing it. Like, want. to. panic. just thinking about having to smoke again if they ban these.
I think I might be slightly obsessed?