- Status
Something just popped into my head which may explain why the FDA is treading so lightly here. If nicotine is a drug and is deemed illegal, then how about this comparison. THC is a drug, which then makes sources of this drug, such as the marijuana plant, illegal. Wouldn't nicotine being illegal make the tobacco plant illegal.
Dunno, maybe this actually makes too much sense to be true. Someone please point out where my logic is failing me.
I hope that this is the case, though, because then we are home free.
Dunno, maybe this actually makes too much sense to be true. Someone please point out where my logic is failing me.
I hope that this is the case, though, because then we are home free.
<<<kate the clown is here lol no worries. well here in fort worth ive got a couple of friends who are cops using e-cigs so i guess that may look bad if/when they become illegal. But, on the whole i think that i wanna poop in phillip morris's shoe then,tell the fda to get me an exact count of how many chemicals are in it, and asking what the long term exposure to bulls**t is. Sorry, politics and me dont get along. where's that guy with the "i pooped a little" pic i need back up.
Wait. I am confused. Nicotine isn't safe to inhale? Am I missing the point of the NRT puffer?
Discount them if you will, but it is just not true that "no studies" have been conducted at all that show any safety. It is irrelevent who the studies were done for. They were done by an independent testing lab just like any other drug gets tested. Pony does a lot of tests for a lot of different products and drugs. Discount the New Zeland test if you want and Ruyan's latest tests done by Pony--but do not say that there is no evidence at all--that is rubbish.
Here is what was supplied to this Reporter--and in by book PG is PG, nicotine is nicotine, and flavorings, although vary--are for the most part favors---that is how I see it at least---Sun
Submitted to Reporter--
sStudies that have been conducted on the use of these devices in doing your report:
See
http://www.healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartr...t30-Oct-08.pdf
Also see Pony's Testing. Pony Testing identifies themselves as:
PONY TEST(Short for PONY TESTing International Group),the leading testing organization, has qualification of the CNAS and CMA, gets mutually recognized agreement including USA, UK, Germany etc. 58 countries and regions. As a large comprehensive testing organization which runs on the basis of ISO/IEC 17925, the report provided by PONY TEST obtain international approval and international notarization & credit. Up to now, we have set up 4 large laboratories in China, 6 branches and 21 offices in UK, HK etc., formed an international testing network. In 2007, it honored "Deloitte Technology Fast 50 China" and "Deloitte Technology Fast 500 Asia Pacific". See http://www.ponytest.com/about-en.html
Here are the four new reported test results performed for Ryan by Pony and they are very encouraging. Note. Click on the photo after opening to enlarge the photo.
Results For Propylene Glycol
http://www.ruyan.com.cn/UploadFile/20081120052241578.jpg
Results For Chemical Reaction When Cartridge is Atomized
http://www.ruyan.com.cn/UploadFile/20081120052835906.jpg
Results For Zero Nicotine Cartridge and Temperature
http://www.ruyan.com.cn/UploadFile/20081120051915593.jpg
Results For Nicotine in Cartridges
http://www.ruyan.com.cn/UploadFile/20081120052713875.jpg
The American Cancer Society is concerned some of the ingredients in the devices, including nicotine and propylene glycol, arent safe to inhale.
you know, this may be overlooked in this thread, but propylene glycol is used in fog machines. any of you in "my age group" will remember that in junior high and high school dances...there are fog machines a-plenty...and kids are "inhaling" propylene glycol as a byproduct of said fog machines.
that's ok though i guess right?
but now that we want to inhale it, it's dangerous and causes disease!
i'm going to start lobbying against schools and spookhouses to stop using fog machines because they will give you cancer, according to the ACS.
oh, i'm also going to sack all the tobacco shops for selling PG for humidors since it is an uncontrolled substance and is illegal.
you know, this may be overlooked in this thread, but propylene glycol is used in fog machines. any of you in "my age group" will remember that in junior high and high school dances...there are fog machines a-plenty...and kids are "inhaling" propylene glycol as a byproduct of said fog machines.
that's ok though i guess right?
but now that we want to inhale it, it's dangerous and causes disease!i'm going to start lobbying against schools and spookhouses to stop using fog machines because they will give you cancer, according to the ACS.
oh, i'm also going to sack all the tobacco shops for selling PG for humidors since it is an uncontrolled substance and is illegal.
The American Cancer Society is concerned some of the ingredients in the devices, including nicotine and propylene glycol, arent safe to inhale.
you know, this may be overlooked in this thread, but propylene glycol is used in fog machines. any of you in "my age group" will remember that in junior high and high school dances...there are fog machines a-plenty...and kids are "inhaling" propylene glycol as a byproduct of said fog machines.
that's ok though i guess right?
i'm going to start lobbying against schools and spookhouses to stop using fog machines because they will give you cancer, according to the ACS.
oh, i'm also going to sack all the tobacco shops for selling PG for humidors since it is an uncontrolled substance and is illegal.
Not to mention, it's one of the ingredients in regular cigarettes..
Well if nicotine isnt safe to inhale the analogs should be illegal and yet they are sold OTC? That would also mean that patches and gums are also illegal and sold OTC. Analogs have been proven to cause cancer and are still sold OTC and yet the e-cigarette that hasnt been proven to cause harm is already illegal? Man is the ACS and the FDA jumping fast here..
I think that we're talking about different things.
There are reports good enough for rumor [the media]
There are reports good enough to convince me that it's likely healthier
There are reports good enough to convince the FDA and the federal judges that will hear any lawsuits.
We've got lots of the first kind, some of the second, and none of the third.
There are reports good enough for rumor [the media]
There are reports good enough to convince me that it's likely healthier
There are reports good enough to convince the FDA and the federal judges that will hear any lawsuits.
We've got lots of the first kind, some of the second, and none of the third.
The entire focus is about control and making money to enforce that control, hence the FDA in ref. to this point. What else can you expect from a nation that uses pollution points as a commodity on Wall Street, where it's too unhealthy for children to play outside in most cities, and health care is a matter of "get it if you can afford it"? Sure, less than moderate smoking is bad, inhaling nicotine can't be all good, but where the hell does government in a supposed democracy have the right to restrict anyone's reasonable pursuit of happiness? I'm certainly not harming anybody .. so what's the point if not MONEY and CONTROL? Our founding fathers are spinning in their graves.
are we REALLY going to argue about the "full" story before we've even seen it??
from what i read in the online article.. it didn't sound to me as if she was "leaning" any direction... i believe we have these arguments on a regular basis on here about tone and inflection unobservable in text...
most of the negatives in the article are statements made by OTHERS.. not Jaclyn or however you spell her name..
exactly how do we expect it to lean more towards us when unfortunately the fact is.. within the population we are ALWAYS going to be the short end of a 10-1 argument until VALID studies are done and PROOF POSITIVE is given to the opposition...
that said.. Kate... i'm actually surprised you haven't read the studies.. not that you NEED to mind you.. and it's not an attack of any sort.. you have that right to ignore what you feel isn't pertinent to YOU.. was just mentioning as it's always seemed to me that you were normally a bit more up to speed on things of the reports nature.. reading unpublished reports are neither here nor there in the long run.. we need SOLID reports if we want to complain that people aren't heading them..
Disclaimer: this post was for clarification of point purposes ONLY.. anything felt to be offending probbly wasn't pointed at YOU and was not done purposely.. it's all good.. Sun.. i still enjoy reading your posts.. and Kate.. i still lubsya
from what i read in the online article.. it didn't sound to me as if she was "leaning" any direction... i believe we have these arguments on a regular basis on here about tone and inflection unobservable in text...
most of the negatives in the article are statements made by OTHERS.. not Jaclyn or however you spell her name..
exactly how do we expect it to lean more towards us when unfortunately the fact is.. within the population we are ALWAYS going to be the short end of a 10-1 argument until VALID studies are done and PROOF POSITIVE is given to the opposition...
that said.. Kate... i'm actually surprised you haven't read the studies.. not that you NEED to mind you.. and it's not an attack of any sort.. you have that right to ignore what you feel isn't pertinent to YOU.. was just mentioning as it's always seemed to me that you were normally a bit more up to speed on things of the reports nature.. reading unpublished reports are neither here nor there in the long run.. we need SOLID reports if we want to complain that people aren't heading them..
Disclaimer: this post was for clarification of point purposes ONLY.. anything felt to be offending probbly wasn't pointed at YOU and was not done purposely.. it's all good.. Sun.. i still enjoy reading your posts.. and Kate.. i still lubsya
I guess the reports might be important, I'm really counting on others who have read them at the moment to point out anything relevant. They are bookmarked and on my to do list but they won't prove anything about the cocktail of chemicals most of us are using. I'm content to use propylene glycol from the research I've seen already. If they were tests about flavouring chemicals I'd be straight onto them.
taukimada said:
I just want to point out that the broadcast news report was worse than the published news piece. There was definitely a "ooh, this is scary" spin to it. It put e-cigs into a negative light. As to whether the linked studies are "valid enough", I'd think that two of the most known chemicals in are of some importance when it comes to inhaling them. All the segment gave was some negative hype that made it seem like most people were flocking to the e-cigs because of the upcoming tax hike.
She didn't want to opinion of e-smokers-- that wasn't the point of the interview... she wanted some fancy props for her lead-in.
I can record the DVR'd segment with my camera, off of my TV if you guys don't want to wait until I have a chance to upload the HD (which I'll downsize, to 480p) to a video site, so I can share it.
i think the faster we get to see it the better... we need to not argue and fuss over something we haven't seen for ourselves... it's not that i don't trust your judgement.. FAR FROM IT.. it's just i personally can't have an opinion on the piece without seeing it myself..
and really.. i wasn't trying to be mean or nasty with my post.. i was just trying to point out we're argueing over something none of us actually know about
I read the article, I didn't think it was biased. I think the quotes from Russel were very positive, they show that you can get off of analogues with e-cigs.
As for our reports. They are good, they are a step in the right direction, but we would be deluded to consider them definitive. Peer-review is essential, any interest group can compose a study to support their goal, and many do. We must endure the same gauntlet that science uses to sufficiently test any hypothesis.
I have very little doubt that electronic cigarettes will be shown to be non-carcinogenic, and a hundred times safer than analogues, but it would be dishonest to suggest that this has already been illustrated.
So I'm with TropicalBob and Kate, I am satisfied with this article.
As for our reports. They are good, they are a step in the right direction, but we would be deluded to consider them definitive. Peer-review is essential, any interest group can compose a study to support their goal, and many do. We must endure the same gauntlet that science uses to sufficiently test any hypothesis.
I have very little doubt that electronic cigarettes will be shown to be non-carcinogenic, and a hundred times safer than analogues, but it would be dishonest to suggest that this has already been illustrated.
So I'm with TropicalBob and Kate, I am satisfied with this article.
Last edited:
I see what kate is saying and I myself havent and wont read the reports , but you cannot compare the tests from one or two liquid manufacturers and expect all other manufacurers to have the same results.
You could also argue that just because one batch is tested doesnt mean the next batch is going to meet the same standards.
You could also argue that just because one batch is tested doesnt mean the next batch is going to meet the same standards.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
