PG questioned in Canada
- Thread starter TropicalBob
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I guess PG will be our Archilles Heel.....as I am guessing right from the start, the fears will be concentrated on PG instead of Nicotine...sigh...alternatives within an alternative....a wolf in a sheep clothing, I guess a new battleplan will be drawn again...
We do pretty well know nicotine's dangers -- and benefits. We know nothing about inhaling PG 300 times a day. The fact that PG is used for some inhalation applications doesn't mean it's safe to inhale it all day, every day, as a transporter for nicotine. That will surely come under regulatory fire.
I couldn't agree more - nicotine is not something they can easily pin down for a ban - they are going to look at the other chemicals and justify things based on that.
This is why I can't agree with bringing e-cigs to Governments attention - though it's a bit late for us here in the UK - they are already hard at work trying to find a way to ban it
.We can only hope manufacturers will start to quickly develop carts & juice that can't be shot down in any way.
Damn governments. If they cant control it, ban it
There is nothing wrong with PG !!.
The one good thing, if they try to ban it for E-cigs, they would have to ban ALL fog machines as well. I cant see that happening.
IF they want to put a stipulation of it haveing to be Food grade, I might say ok to that, but it is "suppost" to be anyway.
There is nothing wrong with PG !!.
The one good thing, if they try to ban it for E-cigs, they would have to ban ALL fog machines as well. I cant see that happening.
IF they want to put a stipulation of it haveing to be Food grade, I might say ok to that, but it is "suppost" to be anyway.
I have noticed that EVERYTHING is debated in this world and that you cannot please everyone all the time! Doesn't matter what we do, we will offend someone! 8-o
My thoughts about it are - smoking bans succeed because of the lies about second hand smoke, which is not a statistically significant health risk to other people, ...., is believed to be 'known' to be true, even though it isn't. Anti-smokers call it a 'known'.
As the anti-smokers say, using e-cigs is an unknown, AND they've also said it would take at least 20 years to 'know', so, you can't ban an 'unknown' for 20 years to find out.
AND, what we do to ourselves is different from what we might be doing to others.
The one thing I wonder about is - them claiming that the e-cig vapour is PG and nicotine so other people get exposed to it.
They lie about SHS, they'll lie about PG and nicotine and get away with it - again.
Isn't there something else that could be used that they cannot possibly get away with lying about ?
steve
As the anti-smokers say, using e-cigs is an unknown, AND they've also said it would take at least 20 years to 'know', so, you can't ban an 'unknown' for 20 years to find out.
AND, what we do to ourselves is different from what we might be doing to others.
The one thing I wonder about is - them claiming that the e-cig vapour is PG and nicotine so other people get exposed to it.
They lie about SHS, they'll lie about PG and nicotine and get away with it - again.
Isn't there something else that could be used that they cannot possibly get away with lying about ?
steve
Steve, take a look at the new Ruyan infomercial set to begin broadcasting this month and note how many times second-hand smoke is mentioned. Ruyan is the inventor of this movement, and owns most of the patents for our devices. They are reputable and are sponsoring the only clinical trials on e-smoking and our liquids. A major argument in their infomercial in that e-smoking does not produce deadly second-hand smoke.
You represent a small minority who still believe that second-hand smoke is harmless to others. It's not worth arguing now; the argument that it was harmless was lost long ago. Argue now only for smokefree methods of satisfying nicotine addiction.
You represent a small minority who still believe that second-hand smoke is harmless to others. It's not worth arguing now; the argument that it was harmless was lost long ago. Argue now only for smokefree methods of satisfying nicotine addiction.
I understand your points TB, and appreciate.
Aside from my not being one of the few left who still believe SHS is not a health risk to others, there are in fact many millions who believe that too,
I do agree the fight over SHS is over and the anti-smokers won.
I wasn't trying to re-fight that SHS fight. Hopefully, to clarify, I was refering to SHS for comparison sake on what to expect from anti-smokers regarding e-cigs, and to learn how to stop them from getting away with that crapola again in regards to e-cigs.
steve
Aside from my not being one of the few left who still believe SHS is not a health risk to others, there are in fact many millions who believe that too,
I do agree the fight over SHS is over and the anti-smokers won.
I wasn't trying to re-fight that SHS fight. Hopefully, to clarify, I was refering to SHS for comparison sake on what to expect from anti-smokers regarding e-cigs, and to learn how to stop them from getting away with that crapola again in regards to e-cigs.
steve
Even if second-hand smoke didn't harm anyone, it's still quite annoying for a non-smoker to be in the same proximity as a smoker. Non-smokers are sensitive to cigarette smoke, and second-hand smoke is even more harsh than the smoke that just comes off the cigarette. It lingers, it stinks, and has been proven to carry a whole plethora of harmful chemicals.
IMO anyone should be allowed to do whatever they wish to themself (granted they are of legal age to be considered able to think on their own), but when you bring an innocent bystander into it it's just inconsiderate and quite frankly, rude.
IMO anyone should be allowed to do whatever they wish to themself (granted they are of legal age to be considered able to think on their own), but when you bring an innocent bystander into it it's just inconsiderate and quite frankly, rude.
It appears I misjudged your argument and I apologize to you for mine, although I'm sure you will agree.
okie dokie ed...., -- i've no bad feelings about it.
Glad I was able to clarify myself better.
Thanks for letting me know,
steve
Glad I was able to clarify myself better.
Thanks for letting me know,
steve
The SHS argument has application to this point: No matter the fact that our e-smoking vapor exhalation quickly evaporates, there are already cries from antis of "I don't want to breathe your second-hand nicotine." So, yes, this will be a battle front.
There's an old joke about it: "I don't mind you inhaling, just don't exhale." That pretty well sums up how a majority feel about smokers of any elk.
There's an old joke about it: "I don't mind you inhaling, just don't exhale." That pretty well sums up how a majority feel about smokers of any elk.
Yes TB, that's the point I'm making. Particularly the nicotine in the vapour one can see around a person using an e-cig. That is what the anti-smokers will go after. They will convincingly claim that we are exposing other people to nicotine addiction, and claim it is even far more dangerous than being exposed to SHS because it will be a far more concentrated form.
My question is - might there be a way to respond to that claim and make it work.
Our counter-argument therefore has to be that nicotine is in a lot of fruits and vegetables, some have far higher concentrations.
Potatoes, eggplant, most beans, broccli, cauliflower, beets, cabbage, spinach, asparagus, and ergo in many bottled sauces too, like tabasco, and all the many processed products that contain anything that naturally has nicotine in it.
Furthermore, nicotine is an alkaloid, and the other similar alkaloids are in many other things that everybody eats.
SO, when anti-smokers claim e-cigs must be banned because nicotine MUST be eradicated, then so too must all the other alkaloids, and so then the consumption of all those other sources will also have to be - banned.
n'est pas, eh !
steve
My question is - might there be a way to respond to that claim and make it work.
Our counter-argument therefore has to be that nicotine is in a lot of fruits and vegetables, some have far higher concentrations.
Potatoes, eggplant, most beans, broccli, cauliflower, beets, cabbage, spinach, asparagus, and ergo in many bottled sauces too, like tabasco, and all the many processed products that contain anything that naturally has nicotine in it.
Furthermore, nicotine is an alkaloid, and the other similar alkaloids are in many other things that everybody eats.
SO, when anti-smokers claim e-cigs must be banned because nicotine MUST be eradicated, then so too must all the other alkaloids, and so then the consumption of all those other sources will also have to be - banned.
n'est pas, eh !
steve
Oh I missed mentioning some very important other veggies n fruits.
TOMATOES !
PEPPERS AND CAPSICUMS
w_w_w_dot_craigsams.com/pages/tobac_dot_html
"If the nightshade foods were to be introduced to the Western diet today, under current Novel Foods regulations they would have to be tested for safety. It is unlikely that they would be permitted to enter the food supply, solely because of their solanine and nicotine content. However, like cigarettes, they slipped into our diet despite some voices in opposition and have assumed a major role in our nutrition and health, a role that, in a free society, should be accepted. However, moderation in all things is a worthy principle and it could be argued that, in our diet we have perhaps gone too far down the road of nightshade acceptance.
Nomato products enable all consumers, not just those with particular problems with tomatoes, an opportunity to enjoy foods like ketchup, pasta sauce, tomato soup, vegetarian chilli and baked beans without exposing themselves to solanine alkaloids or nicotine found in tomatoes and other nightshades.
Bon appetit! "
ban e-cigs, ban all those fruits and vegetables too.
steve
TOMATOES !
PEPPERS AND CAPSICUMS
w_w_w_dot_craigsams.com/pages/tobac_dot_html
"If the nightshade foods were to be introduced to the Western diet today, under current Novel Foods regulations they would have to be tested for safety. It is unlikely that they would be permitted to enter the food supply, solely because of their solanine and nicotine content. However, like cigarettes, they slipped into our diet despite some voices in opposition and have assumed a major role in our nutrition and health, a role that, in a free society, should be accepted. However, moderation in all things is a worthy principle and it could be argued that, in our diet we have perhaps gone too far down the road of nightshade acceptance.
Nomato products enable all consumers, not just those with particular problems with tomatoes, an opportunity to enjoy foods like ketchup, pasta sauce, tomato soup, vegetarian chilli and baked beans without exposing themselves to solanine alkaloids or nicotine found in tomatoes and other nightshades.
Bon appetit! "
ban e-cigs, ban all those fruits and vegetables too.
steve
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked