Testing: What else is needed and how much will it cost?

[TropicalBob]

A few more thoughts on why we should take off the rose-colored glasses. This was a definition of e-smoking I posted last February, I believe it was:

"What we have today is an unregulated drug delivery device being sold at low cost to anyone over the Internet, a device that uses highly poisonous liquid sent by parcel post in leaky glass vials, a device made in China by companies that defraud customs with phony content invoices and value declarations, a device with a single purpose -- sustaining an addiction in the addicted or creating an addiction in the curious."

That definition still holds true.

And I think the ruling of the Food and Drug Administration on nicotine lollipops and lip balm in 2002 could apply to our carts, liquids and devices:

"Today FDA issued warning letters to three pharmacies that are selling "nicotine lollipops" and/or nicotine "lip balm" over the Internet. The letters inform the pharmacies that FDA has found their nicotine lollipops and lip balm to be illegal. Based on statements from the pharmacies' Internet sites, the products are promoted as aids for smoking cessation or to treat nicotine addiction.

"FDA is concerned about the health risk of these products because they appear to be compounded and dispensed without a doctor's prescription, contain a form of nicotine that is not used in FDA-approved smoking cessation products, and because these candy-like products present a risk of accidental use by children."

In further explanation of the ban, the FDA wrote:

"The claims on the websites include that the products help alleviate the "hand to mouth fixation" associated with smoking and are a "convenient, tasty way" to replace the cigarette habit. After investigating and carefully assessing these websites, FDA has determined that the pharmacies' nicotine lollipops and nicotine lip balm are intended for use as "drugs" and appear to be illegal for the following reasons:

"They are compounded and dispensed without a doctor's prescription.

"They are unapproved new drugs which need, but do not have, FDA approval.

"They are made from a drug substance, nicotine salicylate, which is not permitted for use by pharmacists in compounding drugs. The FDA-approved smoking cessation products are made from different forms of nicotine.

"They are misbranded because their labeling does not have adequate directions for the uses for which they are being offered and does not have adequate warnings against use by children.

"FDA is requesting a response from the pharmacies in writing within 15 days of receipt of the warning letters stating the action the firms will take to discontinue marketing of these drug products. Failure to do so may result in further regulatory action, potentially including a seizure or injunction action. FDA will take appropriate action to protect the public health."

And ... bam! ... these items became a footnote to smoking history. 15 days later they were no longer available.

Not one word from the FDA about making smokers healthier with a safer alternative. Not even a consideration. Bam! Banned.

See any sentences here that might be applied to our drug delivery devices and solutions? Sorry to say, I do.

 

[riddle80]

I want my glasses back TB!!!

I know these are all possibilities for worst case scenarios, but what is our best case? Looking at these lists it seems as if there is no hope for these wonderful inventions.

Keeping on doing what we're doing now obviously isn't going to work forever. At the least I'd imagine the liquid bottles need some serious upgrading (warning labels, exp. dates, better caps, ingredient lists). I read in one thread that in the future all liquid will be sealed in disposable cartridges (no bottles) so children and pets can't get into them (also to prevent od on nicotine).

Aside from being banned and safety, another big concern of mine is affordability. The price of e-smoking/vs regular smoking along with the benefits makes it perfectly poised to take over the tobacco market and save smokers money which in this economy is golden. From what I gather if the FDA sees it as a quit smoking device the price would go waaay up. I tried to quit w/Nicorette a few years ago and I remained addicted to the nicotine. The cost was so much more I had to go back to regular cigs.

What a sick and twisted system we have! Profit and greed are above human consideration and quality of life . I don't understand why cigarettes that kill so many each year can continue to be legal when "nicotine lip gloss" is banned. We've all taken the bait and became hooked on these cancer sticks, now why won't government accept and embrace safer affordable alternatives? Population control?? BS!! Even if e-cigs aren't perfect now, the idea and invention is amazing and modifications should be made to make them better. They might not be able to market these as a quit smoking device, but I've never found anything better to quit! I'm "replacing" my nicotine through a different source, but I've quit tobacco with ease. It's unbelievable how easy it's been! Both of my aunts have died from smoking. Both were unable to quit till it was too late. My aunt that passed away this year smoked until she had to be hooked up to life support because she couldn't breathe. My other aunt smoked one last cigarette the day she died even though she couldn't eat or drink. I've seen first hand what these things can do, and as much as I've wanted to quit I haven't been able to until now. My 50 year old mother who was smoking 2 packs a day has almost quit in less than a week with these. She was well on her way to be exactly where my aunts were. This could very well add many years to her life.

It makes me mad to think just because big tobacco/big pharmaceutical co. has a strong competitor these could be flushed down the drain, or that government would shut it down to keep the population in check/make money off taxes. Where are the morals? Sorry to rant, but this is very upsetting to me.

Great posts and information everyone!

 

[spyderuk]

What a sick and twisted system we have! Profit and greed are above human consideration and quality of life . I don't understand why cigarettes that kill so many each year can continue to be legal when "nicotine lip gloss" is banned.

Quite simply put, it's due to the amount of tax the goverment is raking in from it. But hey everyone knows that.

Lip gloss and lollipops is pushing it a bit though imho.

As E-smoking becomes more mainstream it will be brown trouser time for the big tobacco companies as well as the goverment. Would it be easier for them to ban e-cig's, liquid etc or to control and tax it?

Profit and Greed for the fat goverment cats every time.

I remember reading an article many years ago regarding smokers and the NHS. They were complaining that smokers with smoking related illnesses are a strain on the NHS system and why should they get treatment? Considering the extra taxes they have paid through their addiction, why shouldn't they be treated?

 

[TropicalBob]

I worry too, Riddle80. The real hope rests with clinical trials that show these are safe personal vaporizers. Not e-cigs. Not cigarettes at all. Personal use vaporizers.

As for our industrial foes: Big Pharma can offer liquids that contain nicotine but also IMPROVE health. Big Tobacco can demand only American nicotine from American-grown tobacco be used. That might remove both as opponents. China can be shut out for all but the devices (the UK and US can't compete with their labor). Government can, and likely will, tax each product we use.

Don't compare e-smoking to tobacco smoking. Tobacco has a glorious history, from the very first journey of Columbus to the Americas. Tobacco products are grandfathered into laws. If a cigarette were new today, it wouldn't stand any chance of approval -- tax or no tax. It would be banned in a flash. Because of its history, that's not an option.

What we e-smokers are advocating is recreational use of an addictive drug labeled a "toxin" by the FDA. That's it in a nutshell. It's a tall order. Nicotine is otherwise used legally for three things: regulated and approved methods to help smokers quit, not sustain, addiction; special medical concerns addressed only by doctors; and insecticide, which is off the market in the U.S. We are not NRT and can't afford the process to be NRT. And we aren't for bug killing, although if a roach soaks up our e-liquid, it'll be four-legs-up in a few minutes. We hope the same doesn't happen to us down the road.

 

[Kate]

I can see restrictions/controls/bans on liquid nicotine, that isn't a stretch of the imagination. I don't think there is a case to ban or control the hardware though, so we could still satisfy the habit part of smoking with flavoured zero nic eliquid and get nic from another source such as snus, NRT or something else.

 

[deewal]

Surely we in the West must now have all of the different parts of an e-cig and must know how to make one ? Likewise with the Liquid. Somebody must have figured out by now how it's made?
If we can do that then we can carry on using them whether it's illegal or not.
There are more illegal cigarettes in Scotland than there are legal ones.
Likewise Whisky. The Stills in the Glens have never been busier.
FREEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeDom.

It's only following the Government's example. (Illegal War's etc)
I could give you a list with more than Ten illegal things our Government are doing.
I have no respect for our Government or Laws. I hold them both in Contempt.

 

[jackie_UK]

This is a brilliant thread that deserves to be read by every forum member in order to make sure that we all understand ALL the issues relating to the use of e-cigs (which, in the light of posts, might better be referred to as e-vaps !).

I would personally like to especially thank TropicalBob for taking the time to itemise his 10 points as requested. Fascinating reading and spot on. Being in the UK, I have to translate references to FDA to the UK equivalent, but the issues remain the same. Thanks also to those of you who have added to TB's list.

When the 'sh*t hits the fan' we need to get someone (or persons) in a position of authority (who might be able to influence future government/medical/commercial actions) to read this thread and realise what the implications of e-smoking are - they probably would not be able to anticipate all the issues we are faced with anywhere else. This could be an important step towards starting to overcome all the objections. Knowledge (and understanding) is strength. Do such persons exist ? It might be easier for an 'e-vaper' to go into politics. Er...TropicalBob, do you fancy a change of direction ? Anyone else ?

Until then, I for one will vape away and wish I understood electronics to enable me to make my own gadget(s)...lucky those of you who can !

 

[TropicalBob]

I'm far too blunt to be a politician, Jackie. What I have tried to do is influence some researchers and manufacturers, so e-smoking is not derailed during its startup run. I believe these things have incredible potential if allowed to evolve.

Even forums like this have influence. Someone in Big Pharma and Big Tobacco reads Google references to our topic! These people don't contribute to forums, but they take from them. So, Big Pharma, you already sell devices containing approved nicotine. Would a liquid product for a personal vaporizer be difficult to create and sell? Hardly. And, frankly, I'd trust YOU far more than any Chinese manufacturer.

And I note that Nicorette gum now "whitens your teeth" as you chew. Good move. Snus companies in Sweden are adding teeth whitening material to their products. Several snus products now contain caffeine and other energy boosters (think of a Red Bull of snus!). You could add approved medicines and let doctors prescribe individually targeted nicotine/medicine liquid for smoking patients who could benefit from this inhalation therapy treatment. This could be a boom market beyond the $14.9-billion you expect to make on existing NRT products in the next five years.

And Big Tobacco needs to expand products that smokers will flee to as the no-smoking noose tightens. E-smoking devices are one option. Big Tobacco is already into chew and snus and dissolvables. Vaporizing devices are not a stretch; Big Tobacco, in years past, has tried the Eclipse, Premier and Heatbar. None worked well. Try a Janty Kissbox! That one works!

There is light at the end of this tunnel. There are also dead-ends that fraudulent advertising and unregulated products will lead to. Long, long ago, I suggested we never reward irresponsible companies with our monies. I hold that to be truer today than ever. Read this forum and you'll learn the White Hats among the quick-buck Black Hats. Buy from the White Hats as if your future depended on it. It does. Black Hats provide all the ammunition the anti's need to ban us. Shun those sellers like the plague they are.

 

[Lithium1330]

I can see restrictions/controls/bans on liquid nicotine, that isn't a stretch of the imagination. I don't think there is a case to ban or control the hardware though, so we could still satisfy the habit part of smoking with flavoured zero nic eliquid and get nic from another source such as snus, NRT or something else.

Initially they can ban anything, even the hardware, the goverment of my country (Mexico) did it in a blink! they can use any kind of argument to ban the hardware if they want to.

While i was reading the thread some questions pops into my mind, why the FDA hasnt ban the e-cigs yet like in the case of the lollypops? this is weird, maybe they are in their way to ban this.

The only real options i can think about are that the big pharma companies or the big tobacco companies creates their own devices for vaping and their nic-liquid to feed those devices, this could be a good thing since we gonna use a well regulated safer drug than we do now, but the prices gonna be higher.

But we have another option, LEARN, yeah, this gonna sound crazy but if we as a community learn how to setup our own devices, and learn how to produce safer liquid for it, even without the nicotine element, we gonna be far away from any regulation, law, ban, greed or any monetary interest, lets think about it as a GNU, open source, creative commons, etc project, i can see madog discovering the easiest way to make an atomizer and attach to this a big fat battery pack, i can see him selling the parts, manuals and tools for a DIY vaporizing device, I can see kate selling her recipes for a good flavoured liquid with a big production of vapor, and I can see TBob selling manuals and intruments for a save way to extrac some nicotine directly from tobacco.

How could this happen? with KNOWLEDGE, a study could be spensive, we can think that these studies most be done by the principal persons and companies involved and making money from this invention, but we can create our own invention and run our own studies for every aspect of it (with the help of some university or some institution like that), not for a FDA aprove, but for our own use of this knowledge.

If we just stand out and wait for the future, its very probable that this things gonna get banned in a lot of countries or the big pharma/tobacco companies will take charge of the bussiness, so lets do something, lets start our own development team, lets make the foundation of our own open source project.

Maybe we could even save some lifes, the smoke adiction is a really big killer, but there is more involved than nicotine or tobacco in this adiction, maybe we can start this without using nicotine of any kind and from any source.

So, Who is interested? who could contribute to this project? anything is helpful, and perhaps we are NOT sending rockets to the moon, how hard could it be? lets start small and see what happens.

 

[TropicalBob]

Let me say that I read the French position on e-smoking only about an hour ago, and it surely answers Kate's question. What French authorities say is: If the device contains nicotine, it must be classified as a medical device -- requiring lengthy study and an approval process. If it doesn't contain nicotine but is for quitting smoking, it is still a medical device with the same restrictions. If it's not for quitting and contains no nicotine, it's okay.

And that's how our devices can be banned.

An e-cig would be useless to me without nicotine.

 

[Lithium1330]

Let me say that I read the French position on e-smoking only about an hour ago, and it surely answers Kate's question. What French authorities say is: If the device contains nicotine, it must be classified as a medical device -- requiring lengthy study and an approval process. If it doesn't contain nicotine but is for quitting smoking, it is still a medical device with the same restrictions. If it's not for quitting and contains no nicotine, it's okay.

And that's how our devices can be banned.

An e-cig would be useless to me without nicotine.

Maybe it wouldnt, lets say you can buy or make the device for vaping, and then have a well studied method to add your nicotine to it (or to your body), if you can buy or make your own device you have a 50% of the problem solved, BUT if you can't buy or make your device, your only chance is to go back to analogue things... or quit.

Perhaps, have you tried to vape without nic just with a strong flavour? for me it's like heaven.

A friend of mine used nic patches and e-smoking 0% nic, and she's free of nicotine adiction since 2 months ago... she still vapes without nic.

 

[jackie_UK]

Lithium1330 wrote:
'...If we just stand out and wait for the future, its very probable that this things gonna get banned in a lot of countries or the big pharma/tobacco companies will take charge of the bussiness, so lets do something, lets start our own development team, lets make the foundation of our own open source project...'

I'm with you. I put my hand up for the concept of a Development Team. This forum abounds with people from all over the world who are not just experienced with e-vaping and its associated hard and software (if I can put it like that) but who, through liaison, have a shared understanding of the issues. We must be able to do something to ensure that e-vaping continues.

It's good to think that the big commercial concerns might lurk on this forum and read what we, the users are saying. Surely they can see the potential of e-vaping and think of ways in which they can capitalise on it by putting their weight behind it instead of being party to banning it. Tobacco companies in particular have every right to be worried if e-vaping is being marketed as a method of stopping smoking. That has done 'the cause' no good at all and I would like to see retailers who are taking that tack being stopped from doing so. Immediately.

Meanwhile, if I can offer help to any pressure group or development team, I'd be honoured to do so.

 

[Jammi98]

Did any of you see this article in the NYT a couple days ago?

www .nytimes.com/2008/12/29/us/29smoke.html?em
(Sorry, can't post direct link yet)

Interesting quotes from Dr. Benowitz.

 

[No burn baby]

AS LONG as we can obtain e cigarettes we CAN brew our own nicotine and make our own juices, in theory. A massive inconvenience BUT not the end of the world.

Well, I'm a no nic user and I don't use the devise for quitting. Perhaps the eventuality will be that sellers will be prohibited from selling any juices containing nicotine? I would say that our saviour could be clever marketing. For example, disclaimers saying that these products are not intended for use with nicotine? I don't see how they can ban the actual E cigarette themselves, surely its just the juice that will fall under fire? Head shops sell bongs, vaporizers and other paraphernalia which are blatantly only for use with weed all day long over here in London's camden without falling under scrutiny.

 

[dc2k08]

I'm far too blunt to be a politician, Jackie.

I'm far too blunt to be a *successful politician, Jackie.

*fixed it for you.

Bob, where did you read the french position on e-smoking ?

 

[Trumpybloke]

I think I am going to put construction of the underground nuclear bunker on hold ... I may well need the space for a chemical leaching/titration distillation column first...... sighhhhhh

 

[Satire]

Honestly I think if the liquid was truly proven safer than tobacco smoking in clinical trials (we need a good, safe formula that none of the suppliers seem to be working on), they would have a hard time outlawing it (imagine mommyshan on television in 10yr with a hole in her neck saying that she was forced to go back to regular cigarettes by _Insert-sued-like-a-....-corporation-here_ and how that could sway public opinions). The second they tried to outlaw it, it would be known nation-wide and I think the majority of rational people would see its potential and the lack of cigarette smells/cancer as something worth investigating (hell maybe we could get the "Truth" kids to sponsor the e-cig awareness campaign, they would do anything to look like they actually do something).

I was actually going to mention the head shop/make our own/underground supplier network thing when I typed this this morning but was late for work and no burn beat me to it

But the testing could be done in a number of ways, first the liquid could be vaporized at the same temp that it is in the e-cig, then chemically analyzed and the safety of each chemical isolated could be checked in current scientific journals (pg, water, alcohol, are essentially safe but every test I've read has just said "flavorings" or "essential oils" and havent actually said what was used for flavorings, and this is likely to become an issue soon because many flavorings cannot be smoked on a daily basis without doing some damage). An alternative (that would have to be carried out in controlled conditions) would be to just do the battery of tests they run on single liquids for safety, only substituting e-liquid. exposing groups of rats to it over long periods via different methods, battery of mutation tests, etc and seeing how they turn out after a couple of years.

Trumpy you totally turn me on when you talk about distillation equipment :*

*add* From the NYtimes article - "When people quit smoking, they don’t experience things they used to like as pleasure. Things are not as much fun as they used to be. It’s something you get over in time.” <-that sounds terrible. Also makes me wonder, do people who never use psychoactive substances like nicotine have the same capacity for pleasure as someone who uses nicotine daily? Do they have less but are simply more sensitive to it? Of course they can't tell a difference because they haven't tried it so don't know what it's like, and the only way to do a human trial would to test someone then get them addicted to nicotine for a while and test em again and that has many moral and legal problems so who knows. Also, what do people who have been blind since birth dream about? People I have talked to generally dream of things they have seen..

 

[Kate]

This is the report from the only reasonably thorough research, done on Ruyan eliquid - http://healthnz.co.nz/RuyanCartridgeReport21-Oct-08.pdf

Some sellers believe they can ride on the back of that research and call their formulas safe but only Ruyan was tested.

 

[Lithium1330]

Believe me, if they want to ban the hardware, they can do it, they can come up with any "reasonable" motive to do this, even if the nic is taking away from this devices, in my country it was the fact that any thing that looks like a cigarette could engange young people to start smoking, as simple as that.

You need to take on count the monetaries involved in this issue, we are talking about billions of dollars around the world been taking away from BIG tobacco and BIG pharma companies, just think about this: If the motive for ban this kind of devices was the public health, why they don't ban the real cigarettes?? the answer is the money.

Just look at this analogy, Microsoft is leading the software world and there is no one who can beat them, the only project that can make any contest against them is Linux, an Open Source project supported by a BIG community of smart people and used by a recently increasing community of common users, of course in this analogy there is not health implications and there is not a large history behind a product like in the tobacco case, but in this analogy, the "production" of software is way more difficult than the production of a vaping device.

Just wait until this devices get banned in your countries or at least is forbiden the importation and you'll gonna undestand my point.

Maybe is a better idea to put or money, concern and efforts not "against the machine" but on our own benefit.

Maybe we can start sorting an array of things that could make this devices SAFE, low key, efficient, reliable and more "unbanneable", starting for a more accurate name for it, and a design far away from analogues.

For all the folks in the US, i have bad/good news about the design of the device, look at this: Fake Cigarette E-Z Quit Inc's Smokeless Artificial Cigarette I don't know if this are good news because this could indicate that your goverment is confortable with the use of a design that looks like an analogue or are bad news beacause maybe if they ban the e-cigs due to the design, they will ban Mr. William Haber invention... please read to the "history" behind his invention: The E-Z Quit Fake Cigarette Inventor's Story specially here:

"This invention has proven to be a remarkable tool to help people get over the hurdle in their effort to quit smoking," said Dr. Schaffer, who had given Haber his warning.

It's a good idea to contact Mr. William Haber, maybe he could be interesting on enhance his invention he has already a patent and the only thing is missing on his invention is the visual "smoke".

 

[syntaxevasion]

4. Our devices can be triggered by pressure differences. Air blowing over a penstyle will trigger atomizer activation. Same happens when pressure drops occur. Many have arrived burned out or hot after flight transportation. These are hazardous cargo and should never be shipped in a connected form. Yet some are.

This one caught my attention. My friend had one heat up in his pocket after using it, a stuck switch I figure.

I can't seem to replicate what you mentioned regarding the pressure drop. If this were true the device would come on after putting one in a bottle and sucking all the air out. Yes, I actually did that in the name of science!