Senator/Canadian Government, might be right

[chokmah]

My only main concern is that IF the FDA forces a prescription requirement would be that all insurance carriers cover it. That would fall onto the Pharma realm and that is something many fall into currently. Many of the smoking cessation products like chantrix and zyban, even dr presribed patches are NOT covered. This is the catch that scares me the most if this does occur. Still not everyone has insurance and they would be forced to either continue analogs or go back to them or pay the full cost for something they were able to get prior to any ban or change.. Therefore it would be best if it were just left alone.

 

[angel.white]

I really need to start being more understanding of people with this socialist mentality. I continue to wonder why all these socialists trust the government as much as they do and even trust all physicians as if they never make mistakes, either.

Why do cigarette companies keep upping nicotine content causing them to be more addictive? Why do they specifically target children for cigarettes? Because it makes them money. This is Capitalism.

Why does the FDA ban nicotine in e-cigarettes, but not nicotine inhalers? Because they can make money through the pharmaceutical companies, but not the independent e-cigarette companies. This is Capitalism.

I don't consider myself a Socialist, but I trust neither the government nor doctors because they have power, and abuse of power renders money, and we live in a system that values money over philanthropy. The real problem isn't that governments have power, every government must necessarily have power, the real problem is that our society applauds greed and selfishness, the governments use their power to further their own ends rather than benefit society as a whole.

The OP isn't wrong because he thinks the FDA should regulate/ban e-cigs, he's wrong because his logic doesn't follow:
1) Most of us here are not suppliers.
2) Even if we were suppliers, that in itself would not make our statements false
3) Flashy marketing does not make e-cigs dangerous/evil/undesirable
4) Analogue cigarettes use nicotine to keep you coming back, but the nicotine is not what kills you, that is the tar and carcinogens, which e-cigs do not have. Thus e-cigs satisfy the addiction without the dangers of cigarettes. Yes, nicotine is a poison, but it isn't a carcinogen, and an inability on the FDA's part to see shades of gray will kill hundreds of thousands of people.
5) It is unlikely that teenagers are going to get into e-cigs like they would with analogues, because e-cigs cost too much money, take too much work, are too unreliable, break too easily, and quite frankly aren't "cool" the way analogues are. But, even if they do want to get into them, they are not required to use nicotine, because e-cigs come in 0 nicotine liquid, they can get whatever they wish to get from it without any nicotine at all. And then there is no reason to object.

The only part I really agree with him on is the last part, I do not object at all to it being available through a pharmacy, I believe that all dangerous illicit drugs should be legalized and sold through pharmacy via prescription. At least the quality would increase (which would probably save us money, and considering you can make your own e-liquid... well, it would have little impact on us, I suspect, except to give us a better product), and it would significantly reduce the likelihood of a non-addict becoming addicted.

I am also quite prepared to argue that last paragraph, but if anyone wants to focus on that, then lets start a new thread for that discussion.

 

[jamie]

I do not object at all to it being available through a pharmacy, I believe that all dangerous illicit drugs should be legalized and sold through pharmacy via prescription. At least the quality would increase (which would probably save us money, and considering you can make your own e-liquid... well, it would have little impact on us, I suspect, except to give us a better product), and it would significantly reduce the likelihood of a non-addict becoming addicted.

Hi Angel. I'm gonna give this a try. My main concern about prescription supply for nicotine is that by medical oath and practice - which are not the proper terms - a doctor is only supposed to write a prescription for something which treats a disease or condition that they have diagnosed. And prescriptions expire in a year. A whole system would have to be set up for all tobacco users to go to the doctor every year, run through clinical criteria on proper diagnosis of nicotine addiction, all of us going through the diagnostic routines each year, the luck of the draw with the attitude of the doctor you get, have the prescriptions called in, pay for all those doctor visits, pick up the prescription at the prescribed times. What a misuse of scarce resources! And more time off work for the demographic least likely to have paid time off and reliable transportation.

Bulk liquid... I can see having to purchase that from a pharmacy as a behind the counter product, but if it's prescription there would be a black market in no time.

Oh, also by doctor oath and practice, they are not allowed to prescribe simply to maintain an addiction. It would have to be a cessation goal via a clinically approved plan.

The way pharma patents work there would be little incentive to improve quality beyond the minimum to not injure too many people, up until the patents start expiring. Cost would be the maximum possible due to pharma monopoly.

So far as keeping non-addicts from becoming addicted... this has failed with all other addictive pharma drugs and all have black markets.

I'm willing to entertain further points and be convinced, but so far I'm not.

================

UPDATED with info from the Public Health Physicians FDA letter from the News thread... just saw the new letter, it touches on a similar issue as what I mentioned about having to treat diseases:

"Holding the snus and alternative nicotine delivery to the research standards of pharmaceutical products would cost the manufacturers millions of dollars per product and would deny current smokers the benefits of these products for a decade or more. Furthermore, such studies probably could not be conducted at current American academic centers because Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidelines would likely prohibit case/control studies on products with no therapeutic benefit."

 

[calligal]

Hi Zolo,
Congrats purchasing an e-cig. While I may not agree with your thoughts
I really want to share with you was my own positive experience.

I saw an ad for njoy from Costco which led me to researching the ecig and this forum. I don't know if I made the smartest decision on whom to purchase from as only time will tell but I am pleased with my purchase and vendor. In the 12 days since receiving my e-cig I have had 1 defective atomizer which was replaced quickly and easily. I did not have to revert back to analogs as my other atomizer is working perfectly.
My first day of vaping I smoked just 7 analogs without even thinking about it. (I usually smoked 14-18 per day of Djarum Clove)
I spent a lot of time in front of the mirror puffing on both to compare the two and right away they were both comparable in smoke/vapor and throat hit. I honestly did not have a preference. The e-cig had the benefit that I did not have to keep waving the smoke out of my face (which I did not realize was so annoying until then), it did not leave a smell behind, or a dirty ashtray, and I did not feel obligated to smoke until the cig is done. Analogs are definitely more familiar and other than worrying about your health and how your smoking affects others, burning floors or clothing, and running out of them, they are definitely more reliable.
After my extremely enjoyable first impression of the e-cig the next obstacle was adjusting to: batteries dying, the time to recharge them, one of my 2 atomizers cracked ruining one battery,(replaced in 2 days) along with learning that if the vap stops coming when to drip, top off, or clean in order to keep getting that satisfying vap.
Anyhoo....I had almost 2 packs of analogs left so I smoked 4 a day until the last day where I had only 2 analogs left. It was a little tense. I was concerned that I was psychologically committed to analogs and wondering if I wouldn't be running to the cig store first thing in the morning. Well....I have been analog free for 3 days and the desire to smoke an analog has not been a problem nor the desire to purchase more analogs.

In fact, the worst part has been my nose is coming alive and I have been spraying Febreeze on everything (especially in my closet) to get rid of the smell of cigarettes. I even went to a party last night and the smell of analog smoke while being out in the cold was neither appealing or alluring as vaping while sitting inside nice and cosy next to the fireplace.
Just once and discreetly I vaped indoors at a bar but only because going outside was extremely undesireable.
In all I am more than elated with the e-cig. (can one be more than elated?)
Personally I don't believe that as long as cigarettes are on the market that the government or any other agecy has the right nor should involve themselves in e-cigarettes and the nicotine used.

 

[Kendra]

You don't know anything about how the OP was raised... how condescending.

No. She is from Canada, so I concluded that she must be used to and even accepting of the government stepping in to make the decisions that she should be capable of making.

If you want to talk that kind of politics or correct your misunderstanding of socialism, please do so in the Non-Ecig discussion section.

I regret that I used the term too loosely and sarcastically and I apologize for confusing you. I do not apologize for referring to Canada as the nanny state that it is (as much as I enjoy visiting it).

Just for clarification purposes (what I consider a "nanny state" to be): here and here and here

 

[Frankie]

angel.white: Do you honestly believe there is a link between underage smoking/nicotine content and Capitalism? I believe this is as &S%$#)E& as can be. I started smoking when I was 15. In a Socialist country lead by Communist Party. Profit was a dirty word for what some criminals on the black market do until they are caught and disposed of in a labour camp.

Every regime likes to keep its subjects subdued. That is why certain drugs have always been available to the general public.

Alternatively, you can look at China or North Korea and their cigarettes - whether they have lower nicotine contents and are strictly non-abvailable to underage teens/kids.

 

[Nuck]

No. She is from Canada, so I concluded that she must be used to and even accepting of the government stepping in to make the decisions that she should be capable of making.


I regret that I used the term too loosely and sarcastically and I apologize for confusing you. I do not apologize for referring to Canada as the nanny state that it is (as much as I enjoy visiting it).

Just for clarification purposes (what I consider a "nanny state" to be): here and here and here

I was with you on your last post and then you had to go and post something as obviously flawed as this. The technique of using a broad brush to make generalizations is the reason bigotry is so widespread. Your post was more ignorant than that OPs. Congratulations on making him look good.

 

[zolo]

Hi Zolo,
Congrats purchasing an e-cig. While I may not agree with your thoughts
I really want to share with you was my own positive experience.

I saw an ad for njoy from Costco which led me to researching the ecig and this forum. I don't know if I made the smartest decision on whom to purchase from as only time will tell but I am pleased with my purchase and vendor. In the 12 days since receiving my e-cig I have had 1 defective atomizer which was replaced quickly and easily. I did not have to revert back to analogs as my other atomizer is working perfectly.
My first day of vaping I smoked just 7 analogs without even thinking about it. (I usually smoked 14-18 per day of Djarum Clove)
I spent a lot of time in front of the mirror puffing on both to compare the two and right away they were both comparable in smoke/vapor and throat hit. I honestly did not have a preference. The e-cig had the benefit that I did not have to keep waving the smoke out of my face (which I did not realize was so annoying until then), it did not leave a smell behind, or a dirty ashtray, and I did not feel obligated to smoke until the cig is done. Analogs are definitely more familiar and other than worrying about your health and how your smoking affects others, burning floors or clothing, and running out of them, they are definitely more reliable.
After my extremely enjoyable first impression of the e-cig the next obstacle was adjusting to: batteries dying, the time to recharge them, one of my 2 atomizers cracked ruining one battery,(replaced in 2 days) along with learning that if the vap stops coming when to drip, top off, or clean in order to keep getting that satisfying vap.
Anyhoo....I had almost 2 packs of analogs left so I smoked 4 a day until the last day where I had only 2 analogs left. It was a little tense. I was concerned that I was psychologically committed to analogs and wondering if I wouldn't be running to the cig store first thing in the morning. Well....I have been analog free for 3 days and the desire to smoke an analog has not been a problem nor the desire to purchase more analogs.

In fact, the worst part has been my nose is coming alive and I have been spraying Febreeze on everything (especially in my closet) to get rid of the smell of cigarettes. I even went to a party last night and the smell of analog smoke while being out in the cold was neither appealing or alluring as vaping while sitting inside nice and cosy next to the fireplace.
Just once and discreetly I vaped indoors at a bar but only because going outside was extremely undesireable.
In all I am more than elated with the e-cig. (can one be more than elated?)
Personally I don't believe that as long as cigarettes are on the market that the government or any other agecy has the right nor should involve themselves in e-cigarettes and the nicotine used.

I sincerely hope my experience will be the same as yours (minus the product defects).

There is a-lot of posts and forgive me if I don't read them all.

But I'd like to answer to this post:

The OP isn't wrong because he thinks the FDA should regulate/ban e-cigs, he's wrong because his logic doesn't follow:
1) Most of us here are not suppliers.
2) Even if we were suppliers, that in itself would not make our statements false
3) Flashy marketing does not make e-cigs dangerous/evil/undesirable
4) Analogue cigarettes use nicotine to keep you coming back, but the nicotine is not what kills you, that is the tar and carcinogens, which e-cigs do not have. Thus e-cigs satisfy the addiction without the dangers of cigarettes. Yes, nicotine is a poison, but it isn't a carcinogen, and an inability on the FDA's part to see shades of gray will kill hundreds of thousands of people.
5) It is unlikely that teenagers are going to get into e-cigs like they would with analogues, because e-cigs cost too much money, take too much work, are too unreliable, break too easily, and quite frankly aren't "cool" the way analogues are. But, even if they do want to get into them, they are not required to use nicotine, because e-cigs come in 0 nicotine liquid, they can get whatever they wish to get from it without any nicotine at all. And then there is no reason to object.

1,2) First impressions came from things I read from the internet in the first 1-2 hours, which turned out to be posts/websites by suppliers (which i discovered in the next 4-6 hours of reading). Most of them branding e-cigarettes as a miracle product. Not everyone will dig in and research for such a long time. A quick Google search of "cigarette" will teach you of cancer, and all the goodies that come with cigarettes. There should be other source of information other then forum/websites/videos sponsored by e-cig shops.
3) Sure does not make them evil or dangerous, but desirable? Companies would not spend money on commercials if it did not make their product desirable.
4) People should not always relay on Government to make decisions for them. Just because FDA banns the product does not always mean it is "bad". Also saying the product is safe without further testing and releasing it into public is asking for big trouble. At my work as a network administrator I've learned that even a small change, that seems totally harmless will have a trickling effect if not immediatelly then in the comming days.
Of course the governments could just leave the e-cigs alone, and let things play out. This is why I can only hope they interfered to protect the non-smokers.
5) Why to risk? The market laws are that if there is demand, more people will produce the product at a cheaper cost. Right now it is $150USD in a mall kiosk, and already $50 on internet, that is per unit. If there is enough supply we'll can see the price dropping to $10-$30 per month. I am sure someone out there would love to have 50 million LOYAL custmers paying that money.

Coming from a smoker I would not wish nicotine addiction this to anybody (and I am sure you'd have to agree on this one), even to my worst enemy (might not agree with this one ) . E-cigs should be means to an end, not the beginning, no matter how they are distributed. Mind you there always will be a way to purchase them without persciption, even now with the bans happening.

Also it is a good idea for someone to start a .org domain, non-profit, vapour community directed and controlled, with discouraged supplier input. Kind of like wiki.org or quitnet.com. With one goal of educating, and sharing experiences that are not related to specific e-cig unit used.

Thanks for the good points!

 

[angel.white]

Hi Angel. I'm gonna give this a try.

Okay, but lets move it to it's own thread so as not to hijack this one.

angel.white: Do you honestly believe there is a link between underage smoking/nicotine content and Capitalism? I believe this is as bul****ty as can be. I started smoking when I was 15. In a Socialist country lead by Communist Party. Profit was a dirty word for what some criminals on the black market do until they are caught and disposed of in a labour camp.

Yes, I do, a company that hides the fact that it is selling something that will kill you, and intentionally markets it to kids because that makes it money is very disturbing to me.

Your example is flawed for a couple reasons. Namely, it doesn't contradict what I have said. There could be many reasons you smoked at a young age, if you have found an alternate cause, that does not negate the existence of the corporate decisions for profit at the expense of citizen well being in general, and child well being in particular. Additionally, your example is anecdotal, there is too much we don't know, and even if all the unknowns were damning, you could simply be an outlier.

A better approach would be to either find a flaw in my argument, or find a superior argument to which I would have to submit. If you wish to use examples and data, you must find objective, documented data.

I can do this for my point, tobacco companies do target youth (along with just about everyone else) as seen in this Journal article in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. (I can find many more)

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/3811/cigsyouth.png

"The 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) between tobacco manufacturers and forty-six states bans manufacturers from targeting minors through advertising. To determine how youth targeting in magazine cigarette advertisements changed after the MSA, we analyzed magazine readership and cigarette ads in U.S. magazines from 1997 to 2000. In 2000 all three major manufacturers (Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, and Brown and Williamson) failed to comply with the MSA's youth-targeting ban, selectively increasing their youth targeting. Banning all magazine advertising of cigarettes may be necessary to eliminate youth targeting in magazines."

 

[MisterPuck]

"The 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) between tobacco manufacturers and forty-six states bans manufacturers from targeting minors through advertising. To determine how youth targeting in magazine cigarette advertisements changed after the MSA, we analyzed magazine readership and cigarette ads in U.S. magazines from 1997 to 2000. In 2000 all three major manufacturers (Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, and Brown and Williamson) failed to comply with the MSA's youth-targeting ban, selectively increasing their youth targeting. Banning all magazine advertising of cigarettes may be necessary to eliminate youth targeting in magazines."

Funny thing is, this really wont help much here in the US as most of our youth can't f-ing read.

 

[Lithium1330]

I just love nicotine, just like a lot of people love caffeine, so, no, I will never use e-cigarettes to quit nicotine and a lot of people don't want to give up nicotine, a lot of us just want to avoid cancer causing COMBUSTION, that is all.

 

[Nick O'Teen]

I just love nicotine, just like a lot of people love caffeine, so, no, I will never use e-cigarettes to quit nicotine and a lot of people don't want to give up nicotine, a lot of us just want to avoid cancer causing COMBUSTION, that is all.

Amen to that!
Nicotine has been one of the seasonings that has added piquancy and savour through my life - Sullivan Powell #1 Turkish cigarettes (sadly long since banned by the killjoys due to their awesome tar content,) G.Smith's Otto of Roses snuff, my first Partagas maduro robusto from the Segar Parlor in Covent Garden, my first corncob pipe, the pitcher plant meerschaum I carved myself, my experiments with chewing tobacco, water pipes, snus, homegrown tobacco; a hundred other discoveries and delights that have brought me so many hours of enjoyment. Happy days! And now vaping violet-flavoured Marlboro juice

It makes me very sad that future generations will likely be deprived of all these pleasures by the po-faced propagandists of the Nanny State. As I told the doctor last time he said smoking might very well end up killing me: "so you're telling me if I give up smoking I'm never going to die?"

I think there aren't many pleasures worth forgoing in the here and now, just to gain another few years at the end of my life in some cruddy old people's home, being fed pap and tranqulizers as my body and mind incontinently moulder into the grave. I'd just as soon not die tomorrow, but when my time comes, I'm ready. And I shall take my addiction with me to the grave - it's an old and reliable friend who has never failed to provide comfort and contentment in all the circumstances of my life.

For those who are vaping towards quitting their addiction, I really do wish you the best of luck - but I cherish my nicotine addiction.

 

[GermanGoodness]

I haven't yet read all of the responses, but here are my two cents:

First of all, I am not a supplier. I am a consumer, like the majority of users on this forum. Therefore, we have no interest in profits - only in our health.

Most of the videos on YouTube are from suppliers. No problem there. If you're an intelligent consumer, you will take these "advertisements" with a grain of salt.

As far as these "ads" making me or anyone else want to start smoking, puh-lease! In today's world, there are very few that are swayed by ads to start smoking. There is so much more peer pressure to be cool by NOT smoking.

I started smoking when I was 14 when I got away from it. At the time, my entire immediate family smoked. I went to Montana for a summer and craved it because I was in withdrawal. Prior to that, I was an avid Anti. Unknown to me, I had been a second hand smoker all my life.

I seriously doubt that you're a smoker or have even ordered a kit. If you were a smoker (and wanting to quit), you would know the frustration levels in public humilation and intense desire to quit that we go through.

You're a troll. Nothing more. And I'm very angry that you even posted this volatile thread in the first place.

 

[waywardsister]

No. She is from Canada, so I concluded that she must be used to and even accepting of the government stepping in to make the decisions that she should be capable of making.


I regret that I used the term too loosely and sarcastically and I apologize for confusing you. I do not apologize for referring to Canada as the nanny state that it is (as much as I enjoy visiting it).

Just for clarification purposes (what I consider a "nanny state" to be): here and here and here

Kendra just so you know, some Canadians can apply for a Nanny Exemption and are hence able to make their own decisions for a period of no less than 3/no more than 4 years. We get a special badge and everything. I've been on a waiting list for 6 years now - fingers crossed!

 

[Kendra]

Kendra just so you know, some Canadians can apply for a Nanny Exemption and are hence able to make their own decisions for a period of no less than 3/no more than 4 years. We get a special badge and everything. I've been on a waiting list for 6 years now - fingers crossed!

My fingers are crossed for you and, when they finally pick you, make sure to run for office.

 

[staresm]

Don't mean to hijack the tread but imagination got the better of me.
Just be careful when your Nanny Exemption comes through for you. You will still have to follow many silly nanny state rules or they will revoke your exemption. Learn from my sad tale. When my exemption finally came through and all the papers were stamped and it was registered with the appropriate regulatory bodies, I was so excited. I'd always wanted to visit one of those countries where they drive on the wrong side of the road, but finances and life situation always got in the way. I thought this was my big chance! I confidently started driving on the other side of the road, with my badge proudly displayed on my dashboard and my exemption identifier hat firmly in place. Within minutes the local fascist police rounded me up, tossed me before an ultra neo-con judge and my exemption was revoked. I'm currently waiting to hear if I'll have a lifelong ban from applying for a new exemption. So, word to the wise....our exemptions aren't all they are cracked up to be.

Margaret (please take this post in the enjoyably humourous spirit intended...was taken with WaywardSister's spoof on the Nanny Exemption....maybe I should write this up as a sci-fi short?)

 

[Happy Domino38]

Hey Zolo ~~hey! Psst! Are we allowed to swear on this forum? No? Oh.~~~

Never mind.

And I'm embarrassed you're a Canadian too.

 

[Garblesnarf]

Why not just ban nicotine?

A movement to stop e-smokes alone? The healthier alternative? Sounds like an event sponsored by the Analog companies to win back the market share.

 

[~Jo~]

I ll end this by saying that this device should not be sold in local kiosks, and it should only be available through pharmacy with perscription.

Like cigarettes, nicotine patches, and nicotine gum are?

Make your own decisions, and leave me free to make mine.

 

[bornagainst]

Hey Zolo ~~hey! Psst! Are we allowed to swear on this forum? No? Oh.~~~

Never mind.

And I'm embarrassed you're a Canadian too.

Maybe he's just saying he's Canadian like a lot of people go to Europe and say they are Canadian.