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

[caramel]

I also lung hit ... 12mg/ml eliquid ... at 50W

You the man!!!!

I choke at 20W....

 

[PapaSloth]

Here is something I posted a long time ago. Maybe it could be of some Help.

It was a good story, and I thank you for it, but I already leave my atty in my car, and I still find myself needing a vape. Maybe after I've been vaping longer and lower my nic level some more, the cravings will be less intense. After 32 years of smoking, it might take a while.

Also, I teach programming courses, and when I start feeling nic deprived, I get a little fuzzy headed, and start making mistakes in my coding. That also contributes to my craving for a vape. <- example rationalization from an addict defending his addictive behavior.

 

[Oberon75]

You the man!!!!

I choke at 20W....

I'm doing 12mg at 40W. I would be going 50W but my Atlantis gets burnt at that point.

 

[zoiDman]

Definitely not safe. I have no idea whether they are actually safer. It made me feel better about myself when I started smoking them, but that's probably just one of those addict behaviors. Like, at least I'm not as bad as those other alcoholics who drink cheap gin.

Their success does suggest that quite a few people would go for vaping products that were marketed as not-BT.

I Agree.

I Smoked American Spirits at the end of my Smoking Career. Never considered them to be "Safe". Just a Better Alternative to what I had been Smoking.

Was this True? I Dunno.

I wonder if Analogies can be made between something like American Spirit not Adding Additives to their Cigarettes to Companies Not having Certain Chemicals in their e-Liquids?

 

[Rossum]

I don't consider that "tax free" because taxes were legally paid at the point of sale. Maybe Ohio didn't get their cut when I lived there, but SC got it for them. If Ohio wanted the tax monies, they should not have taxed them to the point it was at.

Right, I should not have used the word "untaxed" without qualification. Pretty much nothing sold openly, in high volume anywhere is truly untaxed. What I meant was untaxed by the local jurisdiction, where the tax rate is so high that it makes sense find a way to buy the same product taxed at a lower rate somewhere else and "import" it. Such a jurisdiction can be quite small, like a city, or as large as an entire country.

BTW, see what I did there? I mis-used a word. I got called out on it, and admitted that I was wrong in my useage.

 

[BlkWolfMidnight]

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.

I may weigh in on this one, it would seem that everyone is approaching this like BT is going to care if 1 person, or a dozen people die if vaping is banned and they go back to smoking.
Some say that money can buy you anything, and in this day and age it is correct that it can. BT's will get their customer base back and money will flow like sap from a maple tree. Their pockets will be lined and in turn so will the bureaucrats that support the BT companies as well as the FDA. Chantix was known to cause suicidal thoughts in people, did that stop them from pulling it for a long while (Hint, answer is no). Do the BT companies care that the patch causes horrible waking nightmares, nope. Do they care that all available products have less then a measureable success rate at making people quit smoking, nope again.

The world we live in runs on money, those that think BT Companies, FDA or government care is living in a dream, most of it is about bottom line and us being told what is "Healthy" for us rather then base line research being done and presenting the user with the options and informed judgments and choices. If its bad for me that is fine as it is my body and this is my temple and my house, what I choose to put in it is my option and should not be the decisions of anyone else.

I would almost bet that a lot of the "Decisions" to come after E-Cigs is financially motivated and has almost nothing to do with concern of the end user. For a long time now the FDA has endorsed BT companies which science has proven that Cig's and smoking (Burning of a substance) and inhaling it causes a mutation in cell structure (Cancer) and will kill you. It would make no sense to try to rationalize why the FDA wouldn't support E-Cigs with so far only positive reports unless it was based around financial means or lack there of for the FDA and Government in general (kick backs).

I took a look at it from the angle of "What if" in a previous post without factoring in that they won't proceed with regulation because it will happen, to what extent and measure is yet to be seen. On borrowed time is a good statement to keep in mind here folks, we are just waiting for the docket of rules to come forth, some small companies may be washed out to sea but divided they will fall, united they stand and have a lot more pull in the industry.

Just a thought

 

[beckdg]

Do I see a competition brewing for highest nic and power combo?

Sent from my device.

 

[zoiDman]

It was a good story, and I thank you for it, but I already leave my atty in my car, and I still find myself needing a vape. Maybe after I've been vaping longer and lower my nic level some more, the cravings will be less intense. After 32 years of smoking, it might take a while.

Also, I teach programming courses, and when I start feeling nic deprived, I get a little fuzzy headed, and start making mistakes in my coding. That also contributes to my craving for a vape. <- example rationalization from an addict defending his addictive behavior.

It is Gonna Take Time.

Just like breaking the Dependency to Cigarettes can be Hard for Some People, breaking the Dependency to e-Cigarettes can be Just as Hard.

Sometimes Harder.

Because e-Cigarettes do not carry the Baggage that Smoking does. And the Ability to Vape where you could Never Smoke raise its own set of Problems.

During the 1st year after I switched, I found myself vaping more and More and MORE. There came a point where it seemed that I had Traded the One Monkey on my back for Another. Albeit a Nicer, Healthier Money. But a Monkey all the Same.

So I put down the PV.

Meaning, I used it like I used to Smoke. Take 10 or 12 Hits and then put it down for 30 or 40 minutes. Seemed like it was just like Quitting Smoking again.

But after about a Month, things leveled off. And those Vaping Urges/Cravings disappeared. Just like what happened when I quit Smoking.

 

[Jman8]

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.

Then, this would be true for all people who feel a ban on minors vaping is a good thing. For if one minor takes up smoking because vaping is too cost prohibitive, then all vapers who voted for a ban on sales/use by minors are complicit in that death (80 years later).

Honestly, this to me is just ANTZ rhetoric in another, more tempered form. Like if ANTZ argue right now to make vaping illegal because we don't know what's in them, and later find out that some died from vaping related health issue (according to ANTZ science), then all these vape vendors are just greedy people trying to make a buck off of a product that kills people. Do you think any vapers will one day die? Do you think ANTZ won't be right there to point out that vaping is what killed them?

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.

I'm arguing that smoking doesn't kill, and will be in the crowd that says vaping doesn't kill. By the logic that suggests smoking kills, well so does water. Everyone that has ever drank water has died. Thus a contributing factor. Water kills.

If smoker dies and smoker made the choice to smoke, then smoker engaged in long term suicide. Suicide is illegal. All people smoking ought to be tried for the crime they are committing for surely they will one day die. Vapers too will die some day. All people on the planet ought to be put into jail including the jailers because all of them, or us, are guilty of killing humans. Maybe the toddlers aren't. We can let them be in charge of society for they are the only ones not producing products that are not 100% harmless.

 

[VapinWolf]

what states allow that? at least here the law is not asking
to see an i.d.

mike

I think I am going to have to sit in the corner with englishmick, when I spoke with my wife to help me recall where we had witnessed that news story....well, it was a local police force that WAS reprimanded for misconduct in the matter. It was a cigarrette sales to minors sting. Neither of us can remember where we were (local TV while OTR drivers).

My apologies to everyone, at no time was I trying to mislead the forum.

3:45 comes early when the TV keeps you up till 11.....
It should be regulated

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Rossum]

Do I see a competition brewing for highest nic and power combo?

VPF = Vape Power Factor = watts x mg?

I top out at around 300 at present.

 

[PapaSloth]

Then, this would be true for all people who feel a ban on minors vaping is a good thing. For if one minor takes up smoking because vaping is too cost prohibitive, then all vapers who voted for a ban on sales/use by minors are complicit in that death (80 years later).

Honestly, this to me is just ANTZ rhetoric in another, more tempered form. Like if ANTZ argue right now to make vaping illegal because we don't know what's in them, and later find out that some died from vaping related health issue (according to ANTZ science), then all these vape vendors are just greedy people trying to make a buck off of a product that kills people. Do you think any vapers will one day die? Do you think ANTZ won't be right there to point out that vaping is what killed them?

Actually, I do think it's likely there will be some deaths as a result of vaping. In fact, there have been some already (battery fires and eliquid ingestion, leading to death). However, the issue here is comparative harm. In the long run, there will be fewer deaths as a result of vaping than there would have been if people who switched to vaping from smoking didn't have that alternative available. So, as a public policy issue, vaping should be supported rather than suppressed.

And yes, there will be lawsuits, and some companies will lose those lawsuits. That's what really causes companies to self-regulate effectively, that and consumers making informed decisions and switching to brands and products they feel more comfortable in buying. The invisible hand sorts that out pretty efficiently, and I've never heard of government regulation being viewed as efficient by anybody's definition of the term.

I'm arguing that smoking doesn't kill, and will be in the crowd that says vaping doesn't kill. By the logic that suggests smoking kills, well so does water. Everyone that has ever drank water has died. Thus a contributing factor. Water kills.

Here, we just have to agree to disagree, because to me saying that smoking doesn't kill is just crazy talk. My grandmother died of heart disease after being a life-long smoker and my father died of lung cancer after being a life-long smoker. You just won't be able to convince me that those deaths weren't smoking related, so it's not even worth wasting the energy required to type in your argument.

 

[Jman8]

So, I have a three hour lecture on Monday and Wednesday nights this term. After about an hour, I start to get tetchy and short tempered. I have to call a 10 minute break for the class, so I can go out and medicate myself, so I don't start yelling at my students. Then, an hour later, I need to do the same thing.

If that's not a clear-cut example of negative consequences, then I don't know what is.

Not calling the break and then yelling at your students because you need nicotine but can't have it, would be a negative consequence. Calling for a break or two is not a sign of a problem. If you were honest with people about your desires for nicotine, so that you don't inflict perceived harm on them (or yourself) then chances of addiction would be lessened. If a student or other person (say someone that has power to end your job) were to call you out on your honest desire for nicotine, then that could have negative impact on you. But wanting to take two breaks during a 3 hour class hardly strikes me as unreasonable. If you were saying every 5 minutes you required a 10 minute break, I think the negative impact would be "perfectly obvious." And given the way you are framing things, I could very easily see you arguing for a break every 5 minutes. But you don't feel you need a break that often. Thus, not really appearing like an addict.

I also lung hit several ml per day of 12mg/ml eliquid with 20-30% flavor at 50W, without really knowing (or really caring) if there will be any negative long-term consequences. I have to assume that there will be, but I'm perfectly happy to accept that level of risk.

An addict would know that there is long term risk, or be told there is by qualified professional. And then choose to use anyway. But even this would be debated by any addiction specialist worth their weight, for surely every product on the planet carries with it a long term risk. I am currently aware of zero exceptions.

 

[DC2]

Regulations are not coming because the current system is abused ... regulations are coming for the sole purpose of taxing eLiquid.

That is not the sole purpose. The regulations are also coming because Big Pharma wants them, and is paying to get them.

 

[PapaSloth]

Not calling the break and then yelling at your students because you need nicotine but can't have it, would be a negative consequence. Calling for a break or two is not a sign of a problem. If you were honest with people about your desires for nicotine, so that you don't inflict perceived harm on them (or yourself) then chances of addiction would be lessened. If a student or other person (say someone that has power to end your job) were to call you out on your honest desire for nicotine, then that could have negative impact on you. But wanting to take two breaks during a 3 hour class hardly strikes me as unreasonable. If you were saying every 5 minutes you required a 10 minute break, I think the negative impact would be "perfectly obvious." And given the way you are framing things, I could very easily see you arguing for a break every 5 minutes. But you don't feel you need a break that often. Thus, not really appearing like an addict.

I also structure my life around my addiction and actively try to avoid situations where I'll be unable to vape for extended periods.

I have also "stealth vaped" when I needed a vape but knew that I could be fined (or worse) for vaping openly. So, my addiction has caused me to break regulations, with a disregard for the negative consequences if I got caught.

Those are also part of the definition of addiction.

 

[DC2]

Perhaps the added tax will keep some from using the addictive product. Might be a deterrent and help some quit.

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

 

[zoiDman]

That is not the sole purpose. The regulations are also coming because Big Pharma wants them, and is paying to get them.

This is True.

(It also Appease a Large Voting Block that feel that their Elected Officials need to Protect their Children from Smoking and e-Cigarettes.)

 

[skoony]

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.

then you are an extremely rare exception.
in as much that the rarity of such an acute addiction
should hold no sway on what should or should be not
regulated.

regards
mike

 

[zoiDman]

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

I've been doing that in this Thread A Lot Lately!

 

[DC2]

Or when some don't get their way they complain to the internet about things they have no control over.

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little again.