Parliamentary discussion regarding Nicotine...

[JayTheVapingGuy]

don't know if anyone else saw this... March 25, 1998

they're talking about reducing and restricting nicotine levels in tobacco...

then one of the members of the discussion says this...

"...We know that, despite all the education efforts in the world, we will never stop 12- and 13-year-old children from experimenting with cigarettes. However, we can stop the onset of addiction which results from that experimentation. Bill S-8 will make great strides toward addressing that problem by moving nicotine levels to a very low level.

However, we still have a problem, and we may exacerbate it with respect to existing smokers by moving nicotine to very low levels. We must team with Bill S-8 a redefinition of the entire nicotine market to encourage the tobacco companies, the pharmaceutical companies and other manufacturers of consumer products, to enter into the nicotine market and to create a viable market which will give consumers a real choice so that we can start to see the introduction of more products.

This is a nicotine product which a person could use 20 or 25 times a day every day for the rest of their life and never get carbon monoxide. They would be addicted to nicotine but would not get heart disease or lung cancer from this product. This is maintenance nicotine for the rest of your life. This is the product of a pharmaceutical company. We would see competition which would encourage the introduction of new technologies.

This product, which is from a tobacco company, does not burn. It will vastly decrease the amount of lung cancer, although it will probably increase the amount of heart disease. This is not innocuous. It is like the Model T of the generation of automobiles that we have ended up with today. We must create a climate in which competitive pressures encourage the manufacturers to produce ever more safe products -- not because they are trying to save lives, but because they want to sell more product and they sell product by competing based on the safety of their products...."

geeze... doesn't that sound like an e-cig??? where is this guy now?

actually found this when the meanie posted that the gov't had regulated nicotine to a sched 1 drug.

 

[JayTheVapingGuy]

another quote from the document...

agree with what you said earlier in your comments, namely, that people might begin to smoke two cigarettes. That is why you need a twin approach: One to reduce nicotine levels for those products to which children have access; and the other to provide viable alternatives to those existing smokers who will need to get that nicotine. We do not want them to get that nicotine by smoking more cigarettes because every available cigarette has a low nicotine level.

We need to give them viable nicotine devices that operate both for their pharmacological and social needs with respect to smoking. It cannot just be a patch that we stick on someone's arm. I am talking about maintenance nicotine for the rest of someone's life or for a long period of time, not just remedial nicotine to assist them to bleed the market. We need a multi-faceted approach.

Senator LeBreton: On that point, does that not just compound the problem? Are you saying that nicotine by other means is not as bad as nicotine through cigarette smoke?

Mr. LeGresley: This product will not kill you, but you can become a nicotine addict. It may be your entry vehicle and then you end up smoking. This will not give you lung or esophageal cancer and it will not give you heart disease, but you will be addicted to it.

Senator LeBreton: What are the side effects of it?

Mr. LeGresley: I do not know. You would have to bring in someone who knows about the effects of nicotine. It is not good for you, but it does not kill you, as I understand, except in extremely large doses.

Senator LeBreton: I am not a smoker, but it seems to me that for people who smoke a cigarette, it is a bigger problem than just giving them a nicotine alternative. They smoke for relaxation or at social functions or after they have had a big dinner. One hears these stories about why they smoke. I do not know if popping a pill or chewing a piece of gum is the answer.

Mr. LeGresley: I agree with you that you must answer their needs beyond their direct physiological needs for nicotine.

There is no reason why the nicotine delivery device cannot be in a long, white tube that looks like this. This will deliver nicotine to you, but it is not a traditional cigarette. It does not burn tobacco but it can fulfil many of the social functions of cigarettes.

 

[VAPOINSANO]

almost sounds like this guy may have had a crystal ball
should get him to pick some lotto no#s

thanks jay

 

[Switched]

Interesting find Jay, thanks for sharing

 

[GoneWiththeWind]

"geeze... doesn't that sound like an e-cig??? where is this guy now?"



Von Eric Legreasley is a Canadian lawyer who is involved with WHO's (World's Health Organization) Tobacco Initiative. He is an advocate of getting under control the consumption of tobacco products (especially teens). I am under the impression that he is more concerned with the harmful effects of the additives found in most smoking producs rather than nicotine.

 

[runout_mick]

Good find.