It's too bad the e-cig claims can't fall into that category. Look at all of the people on this forum alone who use the e-cig and feel "healthier".
- Status
It's too bad the e-cig claims can't fall into that category. Look at all of the people on this forum alone who use the e-cig and feel "healthier".
First off
Ewe I bet she is the kind of person who shakes hands uses both hands (The "Power" shake). Those kinds of people make my skin crawl.
On the other hand I think she is viewed as an extremist. I mean, what person in their right mind would attack Gardasil?
Oh and I think fast food will be illegal before caffeine. Couldn't you see the ads? "Cheeseburgers KILL" Or Frys the gateway food. Just say NO
Our country proved that if you try to control or tax something that is used as widely as caffeine, it never ends well.
On the other hand I think she is viewed as an extremist. I mean, what person in their right mind would attack Gardasil?
Oh and I think fast food will be illegal before caffeine. Couldn't you see the ads? "Cheeseburgers KILL" Or Frys the gateway food. Just say NO
Our country proved that if you try to control or tax something that is used as widely as caffeine, it never ends well.
She specilizes in research ethics and she can't research a story better than that. Where are her ethic in her mind and can't get out to make contact with her brain , mouth and fingers doing the typing?
I replied to this nonsense as well, I hope it's alright that I linked to this site ,so the good Dr. may read the posts of people here who have decided to stop inhaling all the carcinogen's from analog smokes and now inhale vaporized nicotine as a way of life.If not I will gladly go back and edit.
Sfog, I hope you don't cause her to have a stroke, when she reads all about us die hard vaporers. Rabid people can't take big shocks, like others don't think like they do.
I Submitted the following comment on that blog I hope they publish it.
Again, a dissenting viewpoint. If the electronic cigarette is shown to be much safer than smoking, it seems more ethical to me to keep an open mind concerning the beneficial uses it has rather than to demonize it which is how your review reads to me, and the position statements of WHO appears to me to amount to an attack. Warfarin killed my mother, but doctors who pledge to do no harm endorse it. The same "potentially toxic" additives that are referred to by the WHO in the US News report are found in nicotine patches, and the only other additives are propylene glycol and a little flavoring which are non-toxic. That's it. And safety studies have been done. Certainly WHO needed to make a response if false claims of endorsement were made. But it thus appears to me that their response is retaliatory and slanted against the entire industry because of an isolated incident, which would certainly be unethical on their part. I have not heard claims of these being marketed as a smoking cessation product and yes, another battery of studies would need to be done to make that claim. False claims is the basis for two thirds of the complaints by WHO and seems to be nothing more than a smoke screen. Now I've covered all of the points they make against them. But again, about safety. The electronic cigarette does not contain any of the 4000 plus carcinogens found in tobacco products. They contain no carcinogens, there is no second-hand smoke and they do not cause cancer. The vapor produced by the product, as determined by laboratory tests, has been deemed non-harmful by the FDA.
Again, a dissenting viewpoint. If the electronic cigarette is shown to be much safer than smoking, it seems more ethical to me to keep an open mind concerning the beneficial uses it has rather than to demonize it which is how your review reads to me, and the position statements of WHO appears to me to amount to an attack. Warfarin killed my mother, but doctors who pledge to do no harm endorse it. The same "potentially toxic" additives that are referred to by the WHO in the US News report are found in nicotine patches, and the only other additives are propylene glycol and a little flavoring which are non-toxic. That's it. And safety studies have been done. Certainly WHO needed to make a response if false claims of endorsement were made. But it thus appears to me that their response is retaliatory and slanted against the entire industry because of an isolated incident, which would certainly be unethical on their part. I have not heard claims of these being marketed as a smoking cessation product and yes, another battery of studies would need to be done to make that claim. False claims is the basis for two thirds of the complaints by WHO and seems to be nothing more than a smoke screen. Now I've covered all of the points they make against them. But again, about safety. The electronic cigarette does not contain any of the 4000 plus carcinogens found in tobacco products. They contain no carcinogens, there is no second-hand smoke and they do not cause cancer. The vapor produced by the product, as determined by laboratory tests, has been deemed non-harmful by the FDA.
Last edited:
I don't think so, the FDA have not assessed safety of these products in any way yet.
Jbbishop, you make a good point.
All the individual subtances or drugs have been aproved by the fda. They have not been aproved for this use is all. Nic gum, nic inhaler, pg for inhaler, flavors for food etc..
I do not believe there is anything in the e-liquid that the FDA has not looked at and approved for use in some other product. all the stubstance I have looked up have been tested for toxcity.
You can find all of them on the internet and what they are used for and toxcity studies. There may be one or two the FDA has choosen to ignore such as the homopathy stuff, but even that is regulated in as they don't care about it (tabacco absloute etc.).
Of course the FDA has given us some drugs that have killed a number of people and was not safe.
All the individual subtances or drugs have been aproved by the fda. They have not been aproved for this use is all. Nic gum, nic inhaler, pg for inhaler, flavors for food etc..
I do not believe there is anything in the e-liquid that the FDA has not looked at and approved for use in some other product. all the stubstance I have looked up have been tested for toxcity.
You can find all of them on the internet and what they are used for and toxcity studies. There may be one or two the FDA has choosen to ignore such as the homopathy stuff, but even that is regulated in as they don't care about it (tabacco absloute etc.).
Of course the FDA has given us some drugs that have killed a number of people and was not safe.
As Kate said, this is so wrong that it's hard to know where to begin. OMG, retract these false statements and apologize for your inaccurate post.
1. There aren't 4,000 carcinogens in smoke. There are 4,000 chemicals. About 40 are thought to carcinogenic.
2. At present, we don't know if any component of our vapor is or is not carcinogenic. More study is needed. Cancer isn't caused overnight.
3. We produce second-hand vapor, and concerns have already been expressed for its impact on the environment and living things.
4. The only FDA involvement with e-smoking has been emails to sellers warning against the sale of them. E-cigs have not been approved, and e-liquid contents have been said to contain a "new drug."
This post is just so wrong. Please state only what you know to be true. Assumptions will make public fools of us all. You have given "anti" forces all the ammunition they need to kill you in a reply!
Bob, I quoted a doctor of pulmonary medicine almost word for word from here:
YouTube - What The Dr Says About Electronic Smoking
A PHD, pulmonologist and a practicing physician for over 20 years, he is also a spokesman for the e-cigarette industry endorsing the Smoke51 product who's reviewed the studies.
Phrasing issues can make the interpretation of comments on these often complicated matters somewhat tricky. The last statement about the FDA I had clearly worded wrongly, owing mainly to the necessity of addressing the content of nicotine. It should say something like: The harmless vapor produced by the product, as determined by laboratory tests, contains 99% water, 1% nicotine and trace elements that have been deemed non-harmful by the FDA.
So I did a couple of corrections and resubmitted it. Doubtless there are still errors and omissions. But seriously, do you really think they're going to publish it? The only specific concern I've heard about, besides the possibility of inevitable impurities that derive from the nicotine extraction process in the otherwise pure nicotine additive is, that the vapor may contain traces of acetaldehyde. It seems to me that half a thimble full of vodka would be likely to produce more of the same toxin in a person's body (as a byproduct of alcohol metabolism), or possibly we could get the same amount from using a mouthwash, even after rinsing. What other concerns are others aware of?
Anyway here's the correction:
[If the electronic cigarette is shown to be much safer than smoking, it seems more ethical to me to keep an open mind concerning the beneficial uses it has rather than to demonize it which is how your review reads to me, and the position statements of WHO appear to me to amount to an attack. Warfarin killed my mother, but doctors who pledge to do no harm endorse it. The same "potentially toxic" additives that are referred to by WHO in the US News report are found in nicotine patches, and the only other additives are propylene glycol and a little flavoring which are non-toxic. That's it. And safety studies have been done. Certainly WHO needed to make a response if a false claim of endorsement were made. But it thus appears to me that their response is retaliatory and slanted against the entire industry because of an isolated incident, which would certainly be unethical on their part. I have not personally heard of these being marketed as a smoking cessation product and yes, another battery of studies would need to be done to make that claim. False claims are the basis for two thirds of the complaints by WHO and seems to be nothing more than a smoke screen. Now I've covered all of the points they make against them. But again, about safety: the electronic cigarette does not contain any of the 4000 plus carcinogens found in regular cigarettes. They contain no carcinogens, there is no second-hand smoke and they do not cause cancer. The harmless vapor produced by the product, as determined by laboratory tests, contains 99% water, 1% nicotine and trace elements that have been deemed non-harmful by the FDA.]
YouTube - What The Dr Says About Electronic Smoking
A PHD, pulmonologist and a practicing physician for over 20 years, he is also a spokesman for the e-cigarette industry endorsing the Smoke51 product who's reviewed the studies.
Phrasing issues can make the interpretation of comments on these often complicated matters somewhat tricky. The last statement about the FDA I had clearly worded wrongly, owing mainly to the necessity of addressing the content of nicotine. It should say something like: The harmless vapor produced by the product, as determined by laboratory tests, contains 99% water, 1% nicotine and trace elements that have been deemed non-harmful by the FDA.
So I did a couple of corrections and resubmitted it. Doubtless there are still errors and omissions. But seriously, do you really think they're going to publish it? The only specific concern I've heard about, besides the possibility of inevitable impurities that derive from the nicotine extraction process in the otherwise pure nicotine additive is, that the vapor may contain traces of acetaldehyde. It seems to me that half a thimble full of vodka would be likely to produce more of the same toxin in a person's body (as a byproduct of alcohol metabolism), or possibly we could get the same amount from using a mouthwash, even after rinsing. What other concerns are others aware of?
Anyway here's the correction:
[If the electronic cigarette is shown to be much safer than smoking, it seems more ethical to me to keep an open mind concerning the beneficial uses it has rather than to demonize it which is how your review reads to me, and the position statements of WHO appear to me to amount to an attack. Warfarin killed my mother, but doctors who pledge to do no harm endorse it. The same "potentially toxic" additives that are referred to by WHO in the US News report are found in nicotine patches, and the only other additives are propylene glycol and a little flavoring which are non-toxic. That's it. And safety studies have been done. Certainly WHO needed to make a response if a false claim of endorsement were made. But it thus appears to me that their response is retaliatory and slanted against the entire industry because of an isolated incident, which would certainly be unethical on their part. I have not personally heard of these being marketed as a smoking cessation product and yes, another battery of studies would need to be done to make that claim. False claims are the basis for two thirds of the complaints by WHO and seems to be nothing more than a smoke screen. Now I've covered all of the points they make against them. But again, about safety: the electronic cigarette does not contain any of the 4000 plus carcinogens found in regular cigarettes. They contain no carcinogens, there is no second-hand smoke and they do not cause cancer. The harmless vapor produced by the product, as determined by laboratory tests, contains 99% water, 1% nicotine and trace elements that have been deemed non-harmful by the FDA.]
Last edited:
Wrong. There are not 4,000 carcinogens in cigarette smoke. Do some elementary research about this commonly misused statement. Even paid-for doctors screw up.
We do NOT know that there are no carcinogens in our vapor. There is second-hand vapor and it has not been tested in clinical trial. We do NOT know these do not cause cancer. No one can say that as a fact.
All of the above, aside from the factual error on carcinogens in tobacco smoke, are assumptions. Assumptions will cause great problems for e-smoking because assumptions, if made publicly, might later require proof of truthfullness. There is no proof.
I don't mean to fuss at you, but this dog is best left sleeping. A knowledgeable representative of any anti-tobacco group can rebut your statement easily and thus discredit your response -- and e-smoking.
It's a slippery slope to engage in exchanges open to anyone, or where the article writer has the last word. Best not to pull your anger trigger. Lord knows too many passionate people shoot from the hip -- and hit their own foot.
Hi Bishop, welcome to the forum and thanks for the interesting posts you've been making.
Don't believe anything anyone tells you about personal vaporisers or vapour without double checking to verify accuracy. There are lots of myths and misinformation around (some deliberately spread by unscrupulous money makers).
This thread might interest you and you can find lots of information on health and safety concerns on the health board - http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ussion/3992-esmoking-myths-11.html#post104155
Don't believe anything anyone tells you about personal vaporisers or vapour without double checking to verify accuracy. There are lots of myths and misinformation around (some deliberately spread by unscrupulous money makers).
This thread might interest you and you can find lots of information on health and safety concerns on the health board - http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...ussion/3992-esmoking-myths-11.html#post104155
how do i challange the current laws in toronto?
can any one give me a starting point?
thanks,
mlady
can any one give me a starting point?
thanks,
mlady
the only ways I can think of offhand to challenge a law are:
class action lawsuit against the city (or province, as applicable)
petitions
organized protests
get a lawmaker on your side and get him/her to help change it
class action lawsuit against the city (or province, as applicable)
petitions
organized protests
get a lawmaker on your side and get him/her to help change it
As is evidenced by the anti-gunners... not one statistic validates their laws or intended controls... not one.
E-cigs are no different. Those who were born to protect those who cannot protect themselves are on an eternal mission of self import and imposition through incrementalism...
The English and the Australians said the government would never take their guns. I hear Americans saying it now.
In this thread I hear, "they will never take our e-cigs," and I laugh.
Change is nigh...
I worked on Capitol Hill in the states for awhile and if you can find someone who aligns with you... this is a great option.
You don't need a lot of money... you need time and heart. Find a smoker, hopefully someone who isn't in the "closet" and plead your point. Start with letters. Every week. Make appointments. It will take time but if you think it out logically and reasonably, your chances of being listened to are pretty good.
Believe it or not, an every day constituent has as much power as a lobbyist if you find the right MP/Congressman/MLA/Senator.
Mlady, what will you tell those who control your laws when they ask: Are the things you propose we allow proven safe and efficient? What approvals have they been granted? Who oversees the manufacturing and marketing? What safeguards are in place to prevent accidental poisoning? What could prevent an underage person from acquiring your addictive device?
Until you are ready to provide proof of both safety and efficacy, I suggest you pressure only manufacturers and hold back on any demands for e-smoking laws. At this time, any e-smoking laws will likely turn against you.
Until you are ready to provide proof of both safety and efficacy, I suggest you pressure only manufacturers and hold back on any demands for e-smoking laws. At this time, any e-smoking laws will likely turn against you.
Last edited:
tropical bob : in responce to you. i have already aligned with epuffer.com they are ready to support any action that i may take up with the city. i also have two women ready to be distributors of the product. at the moment we are only going on word of mouth, and a few well placed craigslist ads.
i also have a club owner chomping at the bit to get this thing going, and will also support me.
LaceyUnderall : thanks for pointing me in the right direction on that one! i thought i would have to go all out and learn how to be a lobbyist! but you are right, this is a passionate plea for a healthy toronto! (o man listen to me already)
8-ball "In this thread I hear, "they will never take our e-cigs," and I laugh." that is scary. better not be what happens these things are really great.
outwest : i aggree that a lawsuit of some kind would be appropriate. i just have to figure all of this out.
i also have a club owner chomping at the bit to get this thing going, and will also support me.
LaceyUnderall : thanks for pointing me in the right direction on that one! i thought i would have to go all out and learn how to be a lobbyist! but you are right, this is a passionate plea for a healthy toronto! (o man listen to me already)
8-ball "In this thread I hear, "they will never take our e-cigs," and I laugh." that is scary. better not be what happens these things are really great.
outwest : i aggree that a lawsuit of some kind would be appropriate. i just have to figure all of this out.
Hi, maybe something you wish to do first, is to PROVE that the liquid will NOT kill somebody, because at this moment NOBODY can prove it is safe (we believe it is, but we don't know for sure), nicotine is a very dangerous poison alone, but God knows what the manufacturers are putting in our beloved e-liquid. Everyone you lobby with will ask you if this thing is safe but that person maybe will requiere Scentific prove of it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
