The costs of running this huge site are paid for by ads. Please consider registering and becoming a Supporting Member for an ad-free experience. Thanks, ECF team.

Positive article...

Discussion in 'Media and General News' started by krispy, Mar 14, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Image has been removed.
URL has been removed.
Email address has been removed.
Media has been removed.
  1. krispy

    krispy Full Member ECF Veteran

    Mar 13, 2009
    Tokyo, Japan

    GAINESVILLE, FL, March 14, 2009 /24-7PressRelease/ -- With the number of people wanting to quit smoking cigarettes, it seems surprising that the Food And Drug Administration and World Health Organization attack one of the best ideas yet: the electronic cigarette.

    It looks like a cigarette, tastes like a cigarette, and feels like a cigarette, and yet all most contain are less than 20 chemicals in most cases, including mostly nicotine, propylene glycol (used in a number of food products), and water.

    The e-cigarette works by dissolving nicotine within a cartridge that contains the chemical propylene glycol, which is used to make the smoke in such things as fog machines used at parties. Other uses for this chemical include being put in bakery goods, prepared fruits and vegetables, food coloring, flavor concentrates, sunscreen, hand moisturizers, cosmetics, toothpaste, mouth wash, and even baby wipes.

    WHO claims that there is not enough evidence that e-cigarettes are a safe alternative to smoking, but where is the evidence supporting that they are not safe? The major chemicals within an e-cigarette are either already on the FDA's GRAS ("generally recognized as safe") list or are already contained in cigarettes themselves. There isn't anything in them more dangerous than the pack of normal cigarettes a person can get at their nearest convenience store and the most important chemical in them, nicotine, isn't listed by any health organization as a carcinogen.

    Not only that, but nicotine levels in e-cigarettes can be managed in a way similar to both nicotine patches and nicotine gums which are approved for use by the FDA in the United States and in other countries abroad. There are even cartridges that contain no nicotine at all and there are talks about adding cartridges that contain, of all things, vitamins.

    So, what's not in an e-cigarette? Paint stripper (acetone), lighter fluid (butane), cyanide, ammonia, mercury, the embalming chemical formaldehyde, and not even radioactive Polonium-210... all of which are in the cigarettes produced by big tobacco companies. When being smoked, a cigarette emits 4,000 chemicals... and 69 of them are known to cause cancer.

    The Australian state of Victoria banned e-cigarettes and other unapproved nicotine delivery systems due to the fact that "nicotine has been linked to cardiovascular disease", according to the Health Minister, Daniel Andrews. As of this writing, normal cigarettes and all of the 4,000 chemicals they emit are still legal for adults in Victoria.

    There are also currently no statistics to support the claim that the marketing of e-cigarettes would lure in non-smokers to the habit. E-cigarette vendors online, however, are making it clear that these are not to be purchased by minors and typically have a number of health warnings on their sites concerning nicotine, addiction, and pregnancy, so the industry is already attempting to regulate itself outside of the law, much the same way the movie industry regulates itself with its rating system.

    The sale of nicotine gums or patches are not regulated in the United States and are subject to no minimum age law. If the e-cigarette industry is regulated to the extent of needing a prescription to obtain one, many believe it will cause the e-cigarette to slip out of reach for those desperate to quit or desperate for an alternative to traditional smoking.

    Even the Mayo Clinic states that even though nicotine is most of what keeps a cigarette smoker hooked, it's the other toxic chemicals in cigarettes that cause the majority of a smoker's health concerns.

    Can e-cigarettes really be slammed simply because of the chemicals they contain? Is it just a health issue? Considering the amount of chemicals contained in a normal cigarette versus an e-cigarette, shouldn't the FDA be elated that there is such an alternative that both mimics the habit of smoking and reduces the amount of carcinogens the smoker and those around him are inhaling by 100%?
  2. TropicalBob

    TropicalBob Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 13, 2008
    Port Charlotte, FL USA
    That's an excellent press release - a publicity release from a seller. Many points made are valid, and should be used by manufacturers seeking FDA approval. The invalid part is comparing e-cigarettes to tobacco cigarettes. The FDA won't do that and doesn't need to. It's not either-or with the FDA. It's each product's proven safety and efficiency that is a concern (and the FDA doesn't regulate tobacco products). E-cigs will not gain approval because they are safer than cigarettes. They will gain approval because they are safe -- period -- if that can be proven to FDA satisfaction.
  3. trog100

    trog100 Moved On ECF Veteran

    May 23, 2008
    and that comes down to whether or not they want them approved or not.. if they dont want them approved they will keep moving the goal posts until they eventually get banned..

    it all comes down to the FDA hidden agenda.. things are never as they seem...

    the best hope for the US is official inactivity.. or in other words they have higher priorities than messing with e cigs..

  4. SnarkyClark

    SnarkyClark Full Member

    Mar 13, 2009
    This is actually something that worries me TB.

    If electronic cigarettes are accepted as "safe", and especially if given a FDA stamp of approval, then there becomes a HUGE reason to ban them. You know all those 'NoStankYou' commercials? Such favorites as: "Smoker's mouth is scarey", "Smoking makes your teeth rot", "Weezy lungs", and "Kids running away from monster giant cigarette buts in asstray desert and finally get eaten by them". Then there is and other 'public service organizations' that are funded and vested to help stamp out smoking by teaching our youth how horrible smoking is. Of course they sometimes lie like a fly with a bugger in it's eye (Simpson's quote), but I guess the ends justifies the means...

    Well, FDA approved safe smoking devices completely nullifies ALL of those messages. Smoking becomes equivalent to drinking a beer or latte. Electronic cigarettes might become almost as common as cell phones. There is no real reason NOT to use them (besides cost).

    Given the admitted social engineering goals of many in the government, this would be completely at odds with what they want to happen. What are the main reason people quit smoking? Because it is stinky, society tends to spit on you, and it can be deadly. If those reasons go away, no one quits, right?

    Methinks that scenario is the real reason behind all the FUD currently aimed at electronic cigarettes. Not money, but fear that they might actually be safe and effective. And they don't want that. Because then smoking would increase - greatly. And I think their fears would be founded.
  5. SnarkyClark

    SnarkyClark Full Member

    Mar 13, 2009
    Hmmm... so if electronic cigarettes costed alot more and had some bad side effects (like nicotine gum, patch, or inhalor), the likelihood of them being approved would greatly increase - if my logic is correct.

    What a lovely and sensible world to live in today!
  6. trog100

    trog100 Moved On ECF Veteran

    May 23, 2008
    the real problem here when someone gets charged with "protecting" the public from "possible" harm.. emphasis on the word "possible"..

    this involves covering your own tracks and protecting your own back... if there is any doubt at all and there mostly is.. its easier for these dudes to simply bring in the ban.. its the safest and easiest course of action for them.. ban it..

    once someone gets charged with this odious task.. it means ban it.. its just the way it is.. when in doubt take the safe way and ban it.. there are no come backs with this one..

    they have only two courses of possible action... ignore it or ban it.. everything else carries too much risk for them..

  7. taz3cat

    taz3cat Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Nov 2, 2008
    Port Arthur, Texas
    PRs. Oboma just said the FDA was to consintrate on food safty and that the drugs were not the proity. Maybe they will be too busy to mess with us, untill someone does someting stupid and OD's (probably a Anti doctors miss diagnosises and CYA) and dies.
  8. TropicalBob

    TropicalBob Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 13, 2008
    Port Charlotte, FL USA
    Good points, Trog and Snarky.

    But ban it or approve it? No middle ground? There's Big Money at stake here. For multiple interests. I suggest a middle ground could be CONTROL. At the moment, were I the FDA commissioner, the only e-cig product I would consider approving would be the Ruyan Jazz. It can be easily regulated for content and a single tube construction prevents tampering - in the aftermarket or by children.

    I do see a ban coming: All e-liquid and 99% of the devices we now use -- including the beloved Screwdriver -- cannot meet safety standards that will block these things.

    Just an opinion, however. As you point out, Trog, no one here is privvy to what pressure the FDA is under at the moment. Good to see you posting here, BTW, because if these are banned, how many puffs per cartridge becomes a silly discussion, doesn't it? Better we focus on how these might get an official stamp of approval. My bet is many manufacturers read this forum religiously. FDA minions probably do, too. We, however, don't tell them anything they haven't already considered. Any intelligent mind can see the problems ... Let's work to resolve them.
  9. trog100

    trog100 Moved On ECF Veteran

    May 23, 2008
    its not just an e cig thing with me bob.. as yet big money isnt behind these things.. big money can persuade "mother" to turn a bliind eye or even permit with license or control..

    i think both of us took the view that it was better to fly under the radar and enable mother to pretend she hadnt noticed the new possible danger for as long as possible..

    money and (small) business interests has kind of put an end to this.. so mother is now aware..

    but my only hope is she will be too busy doing other things to bother with e cigs.. she will have plenty of other things to worry about and thats for sure...

    i see no way on this planet of validly proving e smoking to be "safe"..

    i think the US has bigger problems than the UK.. the UK doesnt seem to be taking the "new drug" must be proven safe approach.. once a country takes this approach i think e smoking is on very dodgey ground..

    in my world a product would have to be proven to be "unsafe" before the ban.. but it aint my world.. its "their " world.. they just take the easy course of action and ban every new thing just in case.. unless like with cell phones for instance big money pushes things the other way..

    i see no big money behind e cigs so i see either inaction or a ban... i hope for inaction...

  10. TropicalBob

    TropicalBob Vaping Master ECF Veteran

    Jan 13, 2008
    Port Charlotte, FL USA
    The money in the future is on nicotine sales for all products that do not use tobacco. What will addicts buy instead of tobacco?

    That's the future -- and Big Pharma will be the recipient of the fortunes. It sells approved nicotine products!

    E-smoking is an upstart nuisance, a gnat to them. We are not big money. You are quite correct. My fear is that a few words behind FDA doors will turn the trick for Big Pharma. The words? "Testing and approval". Just as all other nicotine products have been required to undergo.

    Certainly this is not something Big Tobacco is concerned about. We are nothing -- and their machines don't stamp out electronic products. They want to sell .. tobacco products.

    Your last thought, however, brings a mixed reaction for me. To ignore new drugs entering the marketplace is to invite a return to the barker for snake oil. A lot about e-smoking has that quality now, with false claims and distortions found on many Web sites. So I'm mixed. Free market practices cannot extend to drugs. Those must be regulated for the common good.

    I know that you and I both grew up in freer, gentler times. Today's reality is all we have, however, and you are a realist, to your credit. You ain't never been a "happy bunny." :cool:
  11. Flitzanu

    Flitzanu Ultra Member ECF Veteran

    Feb 9, 2009
    Tulsa, OK, U.S.A.
    not the most appropriate reply for this, but sortof? ok so the problem is "big money" isn't backing these, and of course everyone is going to flip out bc they aren't regulated and made in china, etc...

    so why doesn't a battery company like Duracell or Energizer step in, make some UL (that right??) standard and tested batteries, and let big 'bacco produce the real tobacco to be used for nicotine extraction? seems there's money there for the companies to make if they'd jump on it.

    hell, i'd venture that if the world embraces it...we can see an Apple iCig in a couple years from now! ;)

    if the FDA spits on it...maybe we can all just move to the UK? :)

    it's funny, i never really questioned smoker vs anti smoker and the issues and such until now. i guess i've been a passive smoker and didn't care about the risks and 4000 chemicals in cigs and all that until now. i almost feel like a poser, but really, in just a few short weeks it has given me something to be passionate about, and really turned on a light in my head about what i was really doing with all those analogs.
  12. KitP

    KitP Full Member

    Feb 17, 2009
    The question becomes who will regulate it and who will pull the strings of the regulators? If the industry can't self-regulate, an oversight agency will step in to do so and as was pointed out, pharm fingers will likely be in the pie.

    The ease with which internet sites can be started up and bad marketing take effect is disturbing. One question that comes up: Is it possible for the industry to self-regulate using existing laws? False advertising is not a small thing if it's actually pursued.

    The other consideration is the fact that the internet makes it an international industry in ways that other things don't become international. People in the US can buy from the US, UK, China directly, and many other places. The opposite is also true. UK folks can buy from the US. This scares regulators. They can take action against things in their own country more easily than other countries. So the failsafe is to ban. It's a pity overall the way politics works these days.

    Unless it stays fully beneath the radar, effective self-regulation may be one of the only ways short of getting full approval (with possible strings attached).
  13. CssReb

    CssReb Super Member ECF Veteran

    Jan 7, 2009
    USA, NYC
  14. Becky

    Becky Full Member

    Mar 7, 2009
    Damn I got pretty scared about all the other news thats been going on... 20 to 1 good news right now. Which I guess isn't too bad.. = T
  15. andreo

    andreo Unregistered Supplier

    Feb 7, 2009
    Saint Charles, Iowa
    What I don't understand is that the device itself is safe. If someone was just selling a device with an atomizer and a battery with a pressure sensitive switch then there would no issue here.
    Which is what I'm hoping the FDA looks at also. If they must focus on something, then focus on the liquid and the carts. That the manufacturers can work on to get approval. But if they ban the entire e-cig because of what it *can* do then that would be bad. Or at least that's the way I look at it.
  16. ozrick

    ozrick Super Member ECF Veteran

    Mar 16, 2009
    Chicago, IL

    This is the same thing as finding pipes at corner liquor stores. These "pipes" (one-hitters, bowls, bongs) are obviously associated with illegal drug usage but aren't being sold with the drug and can be used to smoke something else other than the illegal products. They are perfectly accepted as merchandise as long as the illegal product they are associated with isn't sold.

    PS- I'm agreeing with you, just rationalizing it to things already accepted and in the marketplace.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice