Should Electronic Cigarettes be Regulated as a Medicine? Like the Nicotrol Inhaler or the Nicotine Patches and Gums?

[Oberon75]

Believe it or Not. I think, in the Long Haul, that a Regulated e-liquid Market will make the Overall use of e-liquids "Safer".

Unfortunately, that will Not Be the Only Ramification of Deeming e-liquids (that contain Nicotine derived from Tobacco Plants) a Tobacco Product.

And 1 Good Thing and 99 Bad Things Doesn't mean I'm in favor of FDA Regulations in Totality.

Has it made cigarettes safer?

 

[beckdg]

How do you know whats in your food, water?

He doesn't. Though some of us actually have some insight.

Sent from my device.

 

[Tangaroav]

Has it made cigarettes safer?

It probably prevented abuse by the tobacco companies. Like additives to make the addiction much worse.

 

[zoiDman]

Has it made cigarettes safer?

Has any Real Effort been Made to make Cigarettes Safer?

 

[skoony]

Denial is one of the symptoms

look it up.
the medical,legal and classical definition is habit
that causes harm in one and or others.
regards
mike

 

[Oberon75]

It probably prevented abuse by the tobacco companies. Like additives to make the addiction much worse.

It hasn't. They have actually added more since no cigarette is allowed to be labeled safer then another.

 

[PapaSloth]

your not by any legal or medical definition.
seriously,that's what all the ANTZ enslaving
another generation to nicotine addiction is
all about.linking vaping with drug addiction
and all the emotional baggage and mental
imagery involved with it.
regards
mike

When I have to go 2 hours without nicotine, I start suffering from cravings and withdrawal symptoms. These symptoms get worse and worse the longer I go without nicotine. I once went 6 months with no nicotine at all, and I craved nicotine pretty much the entire time (sometimes a lot, sometimes not much). If that's not the "legal or medical definition" of addiction, then the legal and medical definition of addiction is wrong.

 

[PapaSloth]

look it up.
the medical,legal and classical definition is habit
that causes harm in one and or others.
regards
mike

Habit: Check.
Harm: Check.

 

[Jman8]

OK, on this specific topic, you don't agree with the causal connection that:
banning vaping -> people smoking -> death
Because you don't agree that people will start smoking again if vaping is banned, and you don't agree that smoking causes health issues that lead to death. Both of these positions are "religious," in the sense that ultimately you believe what you believe, and no one can convince you differently, because any evidence that contradicts these beliefs is obviously faulty (it must be, because it disagrees with your beliefs).

On the contrary, I am very up for looking at the evidence and having a reasonable discussion on it. I welcome that. I actually relish in it. I'm "religious" about wanting to look at all the available evidence around "smoking causes death" and having that discussion, based on actual evidence. I was convinced previously that smoking caused death. Wasn't exactly religious about this belief, but convinced nonetheless. I then saw differently. And seeing differently has lead me to enter into discussions on the topic because I observe a lot of the same data I used to see as "truth" is actually propaganda deception.

I also fully anticipate that as long as "smoking kills" is not met with critical debate, that "vaping kills" will one day be a meme that many will accept as literal fact. Of course politically aware vapers will be aware of it as propaganda deception and likely attack the heck out of such claims. But I'm surprised that isn't done as much as it could be, right now, with the meme "smoking kills."

As one who has gone cold turkey for over a decade of my adult life, I haven't forgotten what that was like. And so, I don't outright dismiss anti-smoking rhetoric because I somehow believe my position is infallible. Yet, if any person is spouting anti-smoking rhetoric that I've already done critical analysis on and found to be deception, I like to enter into debate on that just to expose, yet again, that this is deception.

Ultimately, we both have strong rationalizations for our respective beliefs based on our addictive processes. Believing that there is no relationship between banning vaping and people smoking helps to reinforce your addictive process, while believing the opposite is true for where I am in the addictive process. Same with the relationship between smoking and death. So, as addicts, we will never agree on this.

I do think that if vaping is banned (which it won't be, but let's pretend it will be) that some vapers will take up smoking again. I am arguing this will by their choice and not by a compulsion that BT is responsible for. I also believe that they won't be met with imminent death and that one day they will die, and possibly die as a smoker. I would say in overwhelming majority of cases, smoking will not be the cause of their death. Perhaps a contributing factor, but not the cause. And if actual science were looking at this matter, I believe the evidence would back this up.

 

[beckdg]

... It must be pretty hard to defend second hand smoke. Just the awful stink in smokers rooms is enough to make me throw up. The breath of smokers is worst that the most odorant fart.... ( that word again ) . I would never kiss my partner if a smoker, that is just repulsive to me.

I hope no one is going to deny the tremendous cost on the public health system of tobacco induced sicknesses .

Sorry, this is not the subject here....

We've looked over the numbers. What it boils down to is its less costly to treat a smoker who dies young than pay for an old persons prescriptions. A total net gain to the system when a person dies from smoking related illness.

If my understanding is correct there's a huge gap between just what smokers pay in excess taxes and what they or society gains back in health care.

Sent from my device.

 

[Jman8]

So all a Company needs to do, in a FDA Regulated Market, is put a "non-BT vapes" banner on their web site (I Mean, B&M - Because Internet Sales are Going Bye-Bye) and the Profits come Rolling In.

Seems a Little Simplest to me?

You are right. Too simplistic.

Still, I do think the non-BT vaping companies will get business solely because they are non-BT. And if industry does collapse to 5 companies, 3 of which are BT and those 3 are seen as main reason for the collapse, then the others in the game will get die-hard loyal customers who may set aside quality issues solely in favor of the fact that those companies are not BT. I think potential vapers will be hip to this as well, and that a definite trend will emerge where buying only from non-BT vape companies will become very lucrative.

 

[Oberon75]

You are right. Too simplistic.

Still, I do think the non-BT vaping companies will get business solely because they are non-BT. And if industry does collapse to 5 companies, 3 of which are BT and those 3 are seen as main reason for the collapse, then the others in the game will get die-hard loyal customers who may set aside quality issues solely in favor of the fact that those companies are not BT. I think potential vapers will be hip to this as well, and that a definite trend will emerge where buying only from non-BT vape companies will become very lucrative.

Problem is, non-BT vaping companies will not be able to afford it. The licensing is too expensive and only a multi-millionaire could go into business.

 

[Jman8]

Problem is, non-BT vaping companies will not be able to afford it. The licensing is too expensive and only a multi-millionaire could go into business.

They will be able to afford it. The licensing is very expensive, but they will have so much business that they will be able to afford it.

Competing opinions on this and I already have a wager on it. I look forward to winning on that. Pubs are making it much easier for me. God bless them.

 

[englishmick]

As I've noted before, all a company (or 20) has to do is advertise as "non-BT vapes" and they'd be making billions their first year and possibly trillions by year 10. Because of how utterly lucrative this could forever be, there would be no incentive to sell out to BT. Arguably they could make more money than BT combined.

American Spirit. "Our cigarettes don't contain all the nasty additives that regular cigarettes do". American Spirit rode that wave pretty well.

 

[zoiDman]

You are right. Too simplistic.

Still, I do think the non-BT vaping companies will get business solely because they are non-BT. And if industry does collapse to 5 companies, 3 of which are BT and those 3 are seen as main reason for the collapse, then the others in the game will get die-hard loyal customers who may set aside quality issues solely in favor of the fact that those companies are not BT. I think potential vapers will be hip to this as well, and that a definite trend will emerge where buying only from non-BT vape companies will become very lucrative.

I Can't really argue with this.

There is a Deep Rooted Hatred of BT by Many current e-Cigarette users.

Unfortunately, I believe the Financial Bar the FDA will set (and Related Costs involved in doing Non-Internet Tobacco Product Sales) will Eliminate all but Mid to Mega Sized Companies.

And I keep hearing this line in my Head from an Old Who Song...

"Meet the New Boss. Same as the Old Boss."

 

[PapaSloth]

I do think that if vaping is banned (which it won't be, but let's pretend it will be) that some vapers will take up smoking again. I am arguing this will by their choice and not by a compulsion that BT is responsible for. I also believe that they won't be met with imminent death and that one day they will die, and possibly die as a smoker. I would say in overwhelming majority of cases, smoking will not be the cause of their death. Perhaps a contributing factor, but not the cause. And if actual science were looking at this matter, I believe the evidence would back this up.

If only one person takes up smoking again as a result of a vaping ban and later dies from smoking-related health issues, such as heart disease, lung cancer, or emphysema, then any organization or individual who was responsible for the vaping ban was complicit in that death. You seem to be arguing that if you only kill a few people, then you're not really a murderer, or if you only contribute fractionally to the murder, then you're not a murderer. Technically, the definition of manslaughter is taking action that results in the unintended death of a human being, as opposed to murder, which is the intentional taking of a life. So, the question is whether BT knows that their actions will directly or indirectly lead to one or more human deaths. If so, that would permit characterization of BT as murderers, and if not, then they would only be manslaughterers. You might also consider this as a conspiracy to commit murder, which doesn't require any direct act on the part of the conspirator. Alternatively, you might also consider the FDA to be guilty of negligent homicide, since their failure to promote vaping as a viable alternative to smoking lead to the death of a person without malice.

 

[zoiDman]

American Spirit. "Our cigarettes don't contain all the nasty additives that regular cigarettes do". American Spirit rode that wave pretty well.

Do you consider American Spirit Cigarettes "Safe" to use. Or just a "Safer" Alternative to Something Else?

 

[Oberon75]

They will be able to afford it. The licensing is very expensive, but they will have so much business that they will be able to afford it.

Competing opinions on this and I already have a wager on it. I look forward to winning on that. Pubs are making it much easier for me. God bless them.

And what prevents the few non BT companies from becoming as bad as Big Tobacco? With money comes greed.

And I really don't see the need for all this regulation since it makes nothing safer. There is nothing in the law that says you need a safe product. Just that you have to pay the government to sell such a product.

And look at the cigarette industry. There is no such thing as small business cigarettes. Because nobody can afford the start up. And even the beer industry was plagued only by American Adjunct Lager from Anheuser-Busch, Miller and Coors until brewing restrictions were lifted.

 

[sub4me]

If only one person takes up smoking again as a result of a vaping ban and later dies from smoking-related health issues, such as heart disease, lung cancer, or emphysema, then any organization or individual who was responsible for the vaping ban was complicit in that death. You seem to be arguing that if you only kill a few people, then you're not really a murderer, or if you only contribute fractionally to the murder, then you're not a murderer. Technically, the definition of manslaughter is taking action that results in the unintended death of a human being, as opposed to murder, which is the intentional taking of a life. So, the question is whether BT knows that their actions will directly or indirectly lead to one or more human deaths. If so, that would permit characterization of BT as murderers, and if not, then they would only be manslaughterers. You might also consider this as a conspiracy to commit murder, which doesn't require any direct act on the part of the conspirator. Alternatively, you might also consider the FDA to be guilty of negligent homicide, since their failure to promote vaping as a viable alternative to smoking lead to the death of a person without malice.

Complete nonsense. If someone returns to smoking its a choice, nobody is forcing you to smoke. What an irresponsible position to have.

 

[beckdg]

Food and water are regulated...

Live near a big city in the states?

Tell me what's in your water then. It's actually pretty easy to get a fair bit of information. And the regulations passed in 2006 should dictate the rest.

Sent from my device.