Remember Favor smoke free? Worried?

[vaportiger]

I do not remember "Favor smoke free" product but is sounds close to what the FDA is trying to do to E-cigs. See attached letter from FDA or check out link. I do not think anyone fought this fight. Does anyone remember what happen?

http://www.health.gov.bc.ca/guildford/pdf/059/00006023.pdf

 

[Vicks Vap-oh-Yeah]

I don't remember this happening, but really read the descriptors on the document:

A nicotine-impregnated plug.....

That's the prescription inhaler - BP at work.....

 

[zgsp]

I vividly remember the 'Favor' cig. It was released the summer before RJ's Premier (later re-introduced as Eclipse) was released.

The difference was people (in Texas - the only place where where Favor was sold) really liked Favor. CNN did a story where they had a bunch of people on camera trying Favor. Everyone seemed to like it, saying it was the same as regular cigarettes. Favor produced no visible vapor of any kind. The CNN clip showed people in Texas buying them in stores, but CNN also reported about how Favor probably was going to be pulled off the market.

Eclipse is still on the market, and it uses a heating element (carbon) and glycerin coated sheet tobacco where the heating element vaporizes the glycerin off the sheet tobacco. But Eclipse doesn't sell all that well and has big tobacco behind it, so it probably isn't worth the FDA's trouble. I really like Eclipse, but they cost $78.00 US/carton. E-cigs are a better value.

The problem I see with the claims of SE in these legal filings, is that if they want to be treated like a regular cigarette - then they should expect to be taxed like a regular cigarette. Imagine the same tax as a pack of cigarettes on a single e-cig cartridge (or liquid equivalent). So, even if SE wins their argument, that there e-cig is not a drug or drug device - but rather a cigarette, that would still spell trouble for the taxation and cost of these things as cigarettes.

 

[starlord]

I bought Favors in Denver, Co., not Texas. Almost quit with them too. Let myself have two real cigs at night before bed and all day long nothing but Favor. Loved it, got to where I just used the same one over and over, so there couldn't have been much of anything left, only some flavoring. I imagined they got 100s of homeless together and had them smoke filterless Camels and breath into a little sponge for the "kick". Wondered whatever happened to them, just figured they didn't make it. My problem came from a four day weekend, and looking at this carton of cigs in the pantry thinking "at two a night, those are going to go stale, I'm doing so well I'll just let myself have a few extra this weekend". Well, by the time the weekend was over, I was looking at a half pack and then up from there. Have big hopes for the e-cigs.

 

[TropicalBob]

Wow. Read that letter from the FDA about Favor and then substitute the words "electronic cigarette" for Favor and you have what will soon be a new letter from the FDA addressing our practice.

 

[ladyraj]

But the terminology of the statement from the makers of Favor called it "a novel nicotine delivery device". Seems like they shot themselves in the foot from their own statements.

 

[ThrashNeon]

In view of the above, it is our position that Favor is a nicotine delivery
system intended to satisfy a nicotine dependence and to affect the
structure and one or more functions of the body.

Umm... so is a cigarette.

 

[TropicalBob]

Irrelevant.

The Favor was very, very similar to what we are using. Here's some history from a Google book search. Note the terminology in the second paragraph:

* * *

A variation on the inhaler technology is the nicotine-delivering rod or "smokeless cigarette" first described by Jacobson and his co-workers (Jacobson 1979) and then markteed by Advanced Tobacco Products under the trade name Favor.

Even though the FDA decided that this nicotine vapor inhaler fell within its jurisdiction and was subject to its regulatory powers, it was initially marketed as a nontherapeutic cigarette substitute.

In some studies (Schumaker and Grunberg 1986; Russell and Jarvis 1987), pulling on this inhaler created several effects that mimicked those of nicotine delivered by tobacco, including acute heart rate increase and some of the sensations of tobacco smoke inhalation.

In fact, in a study by Henningficld (personal communication), use of the vapor inhaler produced reliable decreases in self-reported desire to smoke cigarettes, although it was not determined whether or not such effects would persist if abstinence from cigarette smoking were prolonged.

Interestingly, use of the vapor inhalers in these two studies did not produce detectable elevations in plasma nicotine levels. Russell and colleagues (1987) found that measurable nicotine plasma levels could be produced by use of the vapor inhaler, but only following extremely active inhalation.

These findings suggest that the vapor inhaler, as currently designed, is not a practically effective means of nicotine delivery, and that the apparently nicotinic effects are actually conditioned responses elicited by the peripheral stimulation provided by the vapor inhaler. In fact, Rose and Hickman (1987) have demonstrated that the oral inhalation of a citric acid spray can mimic certain properties of tobacco smoke and reduce self-reported "craving" for cigarettes.

Despite their current limitations, future versions of vapor inhalers might possibly provide a useful adjunct to other forms of replacement therapy and to behaviorally oriented tobacco treatment strategies.