I've never considered it to be a smoking cessation device, but a smoking alternative. The fact that I've quit smoking is just a bonus. Lots of people don't completely quit smoking by using ecigs.
-
Need help from former MFS (MyFreedomSmokes) customers
Has any found a supplier or company that has tobacco e-juice like or very similar to MFS Turbosmog, Tall Paul, or Red Luck?
View thread
SE, NJoy vs FDA -- Discussion
- Thread starter rolygate
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I've never considered it to be a smoking cessation device, but a smoking alternative. The fact that I've quit smoking is just a bonus. Lots of people don't completely quit smoking by using ecigs.
I totally agree, I didn't start ecigs because I wanted to quit smoking. I started ecigs because I wanted to cut costs and overabusive taxes heaped upon analogs.
Quiting smoking was totally not thought of or anticipated. Albeit a welcome result!
My reasons too, Grammie !!! I never expected to switch completely from using tobacco to e-cigs.
First I'm underestimating ECF's members, then I'm overestimating ... Mashugana! (Funny, I don't know any traffic ticket lawyers.) Count the number of posts about vaping and quitting smoking on ECF. Vaping is primarily about quitting smoking, whether acknowledged here or not. Bottom line is this: If the industry doesn't want to help itself except by skirting the line, and if consumers don't want to form meaningful interest groups, then we'll simply get what the FDA, and states and various municipalities give us. It really makes little difference to me, but it seemed like it meant a lot to you. The action onus therefore is on the industry and on you. I won't be offended if you toss my suggestions in the crapper, TW notwithstanding.
Last edited:
No movement on either docket.
As soon as I get filing information on TW, it will get added to the docket watch here.
As soon as I get filing information on TW, it will get added to the docket watch here.
Onesie-twosie replies about the lawyers you don't know are unhelpful. My "small suggestion"--really, a how-to guide about the approach to take in involving transactional lawyers (not litigators) in what would be, after all, business entities having governance structures--are aimed towards interested members who know an appropriate lawyer candidate, or who might know somebody who does. I've seen this work out well before, and it could be helpful to the members' interests. Now kindly stop whining about your bruised egos.
Last edited:
You're smarter than this... at least you present as such.
It's unnecessary editorialization such as this that annoys folks (and demeans you). Remember... You're not who you think you are. You are - in reality - who others perceive you to be.
This is true. Thinking otherwise is denial. But you in particular should understand the ramifications of pursuing this argument in the legal arena.
I'm not an attorney, nor do I travel in circles of well-heeled law practitioners. Maybe you could contribute some - rather than just suggest or direct? Yesterday Bill Godshall requested some interpretation of pending Utah legislation. You could have helped him out without crossing your self-imposed borders & in so doing, begun to become a participant rather than a directorial spectator. If you're not part of the solution...
And Thanks! Julie...
You are not recoginizing the fact that is is a collective forum with players that are stronger and weaker in various respects.
But you seem to be overestimating us as a collective group with respect to availability to the necesssary resources.
At least that is why I've come to conclude.
You are confusing two things which the entire world also seems to be confusing...
Stopping smoking combustible tobacco (quitting smoking) is not the same as quitting nicotine use.
And that is a CRUCIAL difference, because there is nothing wrong with nicotine use, but there is a lot wrong with combusting tobacco.
Most of us have quit using combustible tobacco, but continue to use nicotine, and many of us insist on being able to continue doing so.
We do not subscribe to the bogus concept that nicotine=smoking.
This passes the truthiness test.
The thing is, we ARE trying to form consumer interest groups.
And you might be underestimating what such groups we have formed have been able to accomplish.
But you're right that we are woefully under equipped without the necessary financial resources.
And people such as you portray yourself to be would be a huge addition to what we might be able to to accomplish going forward.
But why does it make no difference to you?
Last edited:
ScottB, you need a Utah lawyer for that. But "You are - in reality - who others perceive you to be."? So if nobody is there, then you're nobody? Just kidding. I understand your point, and I'll endeavor to restrain myself, but the whining ... sheesh!
Last edited:
Do you understand that what we are up against isn't the issue of smoking--it's the belief that nicotine is evil?
When you say "smoking cessation", I'm fairly sure that what you mean is that you no longer set fire to and inhale the smoke from <fill in your favorite brand name> cigarettes. Are you aware of the fact that when the FDA, CDC, AMA, ALA, AHA, ACS, CFTK, etc. etc. says "smoking cessation" they mean that you no longer use nicotine in any form? You are still a smoker in their book if you use any form of nicotine long-term.
Using their definition of "smoking cesation"--not ours, e-cigarettes are not intended to be a smoking cessation device. They are intended to replace your practice of inhaling smoke. The products that the FDA approved as Nicotine 'Replacement' Therapy are not intended to replace the nicotine you got from smoking. They are intended to Reduce your nicotine use down to zero over the course of about 12 weeks.
So if the e-cigarette manufacturers had gone to the FDA and said, "Hand me a New Drug Application. I want to seek approval of my new smoking cessation device," the first thing that the FDA would have ordered is that the manufacturers lower the amount of nicotine delivered to no more than 4 mg. per cartridge. That's because the medical profession has this theory that there is an "addictive" level of nicotine. They keep the amount of nicotine delivered by NRTs well below the amounts smokers take in. They know those levels are unsatisfying, and they do this on purpose. They believe that if they do this, kids won't become "hooked" on NRTs. They apparently don't care that the stated purpose of the product is to allow smokers to stop inhaling smoke, and that the failure rate for achieving permanent smoking abstinence using their approved products is around 95% -- and they pretend that this huge failure rate isn't caused by the very inadequate "replacement" levels of nicotine.
FDA would also have required the e-cigarette maufacturers to come up with a nicotine cessation plan to accompany their product--a gradual lowering of nicotine intake down to zero. You will see these plans as inserts with your Nicoderm, Nicorette, and Nicotrol products.
Now perhaps that's the end goal you have in mind. But there are thousands of us (at minimum) e-cigarette users who have zero desire to become abstinent from nicotine--only from smoking.
Also keep in mind that many members of the medical community do not believe that it is "moral" to allow you to continue to use enjoyable levels of an addictive substance...not because doing so is unhealthy, but because addiction is "wrong." So they work to take away the safer alternatives, and then they can feel superior to you because you go back to smoking. And subsequently, they accept no responsibility whatsoever for their contribution to your smoking-related (not nicotine-related) death.
Last edited:
DC2: It makes no difference to me because I tend to think more regulation, particularly quality assurance and ingredient tracking, is a good thing. And as others correctly point out, I've whipped the TW cartoon horse to death and the FDA is already on their case ... I side with the medical profession on questions of what is good, and not good, for the body. I get a little excited and greasy from inhaling this stuff all day (not to mention occasional slight conjunctivitis from getting vapor in the eye once in a while)--so I do have independent health-related doubts about it. Finally, I'm used to being banned. (I thought you'd enjoy that one.)
Last edited:
They pronounce, as they drink their third cup of coffee for the day.
But the FDA currently has the authority to do so under the FSPTCA, if the would only choose to do so.
Not me, I want you to avoid being banned.
Particularly if you could help us, and yourself, keep electronic cigarettes available.
Assuming, that is, that you would prefer to continue your nicotine usage.
I would prefer my nicotine usage to continue for the time being, but would be much more outraged if chocolate cheese cake were banned. I'd be marching tomorrow! Incidentally, I do think the FDA, should they ultimately not get the court results they seek, will form a regulatory regimen under the FSPTCA, with a host of C.F.R.'s to match.
Last edited:
Many, if not most, of us think that quality assurance and ingredient tracking are a good thing. Ongoing longer-term testing is also a good thing. I agree that the manufacturers need to begin with self-regulation, get their marketing acts together, and fund GOOD studies, and to have consumer organizations provide oversight and a voice. I have no problem with any of these. I even like the idea of getting the biggest, baddest law firm possible. But we have to start from where we are now. A heterogeneous bunch of consumers who like to vape and have an addiction to ECF
( chocolate cheesecake flavor e-liquid will go away too, does that count?)
( chocolate cheesecake flavor e-liquid will go away too, does that count?)
That is a battle that we are already beginning to fight...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...o-products.html?highlight=committee+standards
We being Bill Godshall, and of course CASAA.
I call CASAA "we" because though I don't do all that much, I do give them money.
My sentiments are closer to Amsterdam than Utah. So I generally disfavor bans of this nature. But I do see that the sentiments of soccer moms and others will be employed against vaping, and they have some legitimate concerns. Maybe I haven't seen enough, but when I have fished about, I usually see all sorts of references to one solitary doctor piece and a lobbyist from Arizona. Line up 'dem doctors ...
Last edited:
They are already lined up, and doing their best...
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...4891-comments-please-aaphp-petitions-fda.html
Being honest, I have to say that I began ecigs with the absolute, 100% intention of quitting analogs. It wasn't worried about cost of cigs, taxes, or anything other than seeing my youngest (2 years old at the time) graduate from college.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
