The Meeting Between CASAA and the FDA is Today

[kristin]

A reason I have seen used effectively is "our daughter's friends and teachers get upset if we stink, and doubly so if we pass the stink to our daughter." Harmful or not, it is odious to many people including some vapers (not me) so especially in cold or burning-hot states, we still should not have to go outside. (In CA it is a difficult argument to make if you are north of Santa Barbara and significantly below Lake Tahoe in elevation.)

That could be used, but it's still a bit insulting to smokers? I guess if you are saying it to someone in person, rather than posting it online where smokers can read it, it's not so bad. There are plenty of other valid reasons why vapers shouldn't have to go outside or into smoking areas that don't rely on ANTZ lies: 1) it is a disincentive to switch to vaping if they still have to go outside or to a smoking area; 2) being around people smoking could tempt vapers to smoke (no fault of the smokers); 3) going outside/to smoking areas falsely leads the public to believe vaping is a danger to them; 4) going outside alone can put vapers at risk of crimes; 4) there is no scientific basis for requiring vapers to go outside (same is true of smokers, but that's not our fight); 5) businesses should have the right to decide if people can vape inside, not the government (especially with the lack of evidence there is any public health risk.)

 

[StormFinch]

Name those "nefarious acts" and I bet I could show evidence that most are an ANTZ lie.

Point, but what I consider a nefarious act isn't necessarily what the antz would concentrate on. For example, adding oils to tobacco to enhance the taste. To me it's a no brainer that you don't directly inhale burning oils. (Of course, there's the "burning anything" arguement, but anyway) Why then can I find a good dozen listed in cigarette ingredients? Why add extra ingredients at all? Of course I know that it's all based on making cigarettes more palatable, and that cigarette companies aren't the only one guilty of doing this. I also blame several drink companies for brominated vegetable oil and Kraft for putting Yellows #5 and #6 in my childhood comfort food long after other countries have banned them for health reasons.

So, did the BT actually do research on how to make nicotine more addictive, and did they know years before us that cigarettes contribute to COPD and lung cancer? (I say contribute because, again, I believe at least one of the factors leading to lung cancer is our genetic predisposition.)

 

[Robino1]

From what little I've read, the added ingredients were twofold. One, to make the flavor more consistent from tobacco batch to another. Two, to make the nicotine absorb into our systems faster.

 

[Gautama]

Here's something that will really bake your noodle: most tobacco industry research is far more sound and unbiased than anti-tobacco research. No one will believe it, but it's true.

Think about the claim that the tobacco industry "lied" about nicotine being highly addictive. Thirty years later, what are we seeing in the news about nicotine? Dozens of recent reports of research showing that nicotine itself may not be so addictive after all.

And that's just one example. The ANTZ have lied to us more in the past 30 years than the tobacco industry ever did. This is not intended to support the tobacco industry, just to say that the ANTZ have done everything short of murder to demonize tobacco companies and smokers to force their prohibitionist ideals on us. I believed it all myself until I started advocating for e-cigarettes and really researched the war on tobacco. Think the smoker advocates are crazy, just justifying their addiction or paid shills? Well, isn't that what the ANTZ are saying about e-cig users now?

I assumed research done by BT was more accurate. With the scrutiny that BT receives (and justifiably so), it makes complete sense that their research would need to be airtight. Although, after the hundreds of hours of research, I now firmly believe that both BT and ANTZ are utterly and embarrassingly fos ...

 

[kristin]

So, did the BT actually do research on how to make nicotine more addictive, and did they know years before us that cigarettes contribute to COPD and lung cancer? (I say contribute because, again, I believe at least one of the factors leading to lung cancer is our genetic predisposition.)

Two very complicated accusations with both short and long answers. Short answers:

did the BT actually do research on how to make nicotine more addictive

Tobacco companies may have done research on this, but there is no evidence that the industry succeeded.

did they know years before us that cigarettes contribute to COPD and lung cancer

Honestly, I don't know enough about COPD to answer that part, but the link to lung cancer is less certain. In all of the years of research, no study that exposed animals to smoke at the same levels smokers get was able to cause lung cancer, even using animals highly susceptible to getting tumors. Only 10% of smokers even get lung cancer. Is that higher than non-smokers? Yes, but there are other lifestyle factors that can come into play for smokers. They tend to be lower income and thus more likely to have a poor diet, higher alcohol use and blue collar jobs that may expose them to other carcinogens that are linked to lung cancer. For example, unlike tobacco smoke, exposing animals to diesel emissions DID cause lung cancer in animals. Poor people tend to live in urban areas and work jobs with a lot of diesel emissions. How do they compensate for that when they look at people who get lung cancer? Not only that, but other causes for lung cancer have largely been overlooked by medical examiners. If someone died of lung cancer, if they ever smoked they were tagged as a "smoking related death" whereas people who didn't smoke were tagged as "natural causes" or just "cancer." This can greatly skew epidemiological statistics on the rates that smokers get lung cancer vs. non-smokers. And research showing that there isn't a strong link is buried so no one ever sees it. Researchers must tow the ANTZ line or they lose jobs and funding. So, much of the research published on lung cancer and smoking can be debated, as well. (I can give you the names of several books that cast doubt on the "strong" link between smoking and lung cancer. Some argue that if you account for errors in data, other factors in lifestyles, genetics and unethical studies created by ANTZ, the rates of lung cancer in smokers isn't really higher than in non-smokers.)

So, how could the tobacco companies "know" smoking contributes to lung cancer before the rest of us when there is still debate today? (OK, that was a long "short" answer, lol!)

 

[kristin]

From what little I've read, the added ingredients were twofold. One, to make the flavor more consistent from tobacco batch to another. Two, to make the nicotine absorb into our systems faster.

Yes, but there is little evidence that it actually work or that it made cigarettes "more addictive." You know I've said it before - the ANTZ claim the tobacco companies put additives into cigarette to make them "more addictive" and that made them "more dangerous," but the ANTZ also claim that organic and additive-free cigarettes are not "less addictive" or "less dangerous" than "regular" cigarettes. They cannot have it both ways. That's like saying fat and sugar make regular ice cream fattening and bad for us, but removing the fat and sugar doesn't make "diet" ice cream any better. If removing the fat and sugar doesn't make it any better, then how can it be the fat and sugar that is making it "bad?"

 

[kristin]

Remembering suddenly what thread this off-topic conversation is in, I must put in a disclaimer here that my posts about tobacco companies and ANTZ have been 100% my own views and opinions and do not reflect those of the CASAA board or CASAA policy.

 

[Rickajho]

Yes, but there is little evidence that it actually work or that it made cigarettes "more addictive." You know I've said it before - the ANTZ claim the tobacco companies put additives into cigarette to make them "more addictive" and that made them "more dangerous," but the ANTZ also claim that organic and additive-free cigarettes are not "less addictive" or "less dangerous" than "regular" cigarettes. They cannot have it both ways. That's like saying fat and sugar make regular ice cream fattening and bad for us, but removing the fat and sugar doesn't make "diet" ice cream any better. If removing the fat and sugar doesn't make it any better, then how can it be the fat and sugar that is making it "bad?"

Removing the fat from ice cream, and replacing it with that short lived attempt at a fat replacement substitute, brought us ice cream with a box warning: "may cause .... leakage."

Tis a very twisted world we live in.

 

[Robino1]

I wasn't saying that BT was trying or making cigs more addictive. Just that what the reason was for the additives to begin with. My word maybe should have been more 'Efficient' instead getting the nic faster.

 

[Robino1]

Remembering suddenly what thread this off-topic conversation is in, I must put in a disclaimer here that my posts about tobacco companies and ANTZ have been 100% my own views and opinions and do not reflect those of the CASAA board or CASAA policy.

LOL. I figured as much but do understand why the need for a disclaimer.

I do hope the mods don't think that this so off topic that it needs to be closed. There are some VERY interesting things being brought to light!

 

[kristin]

I wasn't saying that BT was trying or making cigs more addictive. Just that what the reason was for the additives to begin with. My word maybe should have been more 'Efficient' instead getting the nic faster.

Oh, I knew that, Robin! I was just using your post as a jumping off point.

 

[Rocketpunk]

Dude, EricHill, I totally mixed up the Electric Slide with the cha cha. ChaCha slide by DJ casper - YouTube

Ain't that the truth, I would never take a chantix for example. With my personality I'd be walking around the mall with a Kentucky fried chicken bucket on my head singing the theme to Laverne and Shirley while doing the macarena and cha cha slide.

 

[Bob Chill]

I don't think bt made nic more addictive.Its still just nic. We can all get too much nic chewing gum, eating lozenges, patches, and vaping. It's awful hard to deny (even without hard proof) that cigs are the most addicting tobacco product ever created.

This isn't some random occurance. IMO- they were engineered to accomplish that through other means. The only thing I can put a finger on is the maoi aspect. Messing with serotonin in the brain is serious business. Narcotics and opiates are capable of it among other things. That why the overall withdrawal is so powerfully awful feeling.

It's one thing to have basic nic withdrawal. It's another thing to battle the awful feeling in the mind. It's literally depressing.

If it was just nic you could just take nrts, smoke cigars, or whatever and feel fine but we all know that doesn't work. It's absolutely not a coincidence that things like wellbutrin and chantix can be effective. They are both treatments for depression. Especially wellbutrin. They work as cessation products because they fix the chemical imbalance in the mind that cigs jack up. I've thought about this many times and every time I do it really ticks me off.

Regardless, right now I don't miss cigs at all and its the most liberating feeling I've felt in 30 years.

 

[dr g]

4) there is no scientific basis for requiring vapers to go outside (same is true of smokers, but that's not our fight)

The bold raised a flag with me and to be quite honest cast some doubt about the objectivity of the rest of what you are saying. I'm pretty sure it's well documented what is contained in sidestream and secondhand smoke, and the fact that that ends up in the air of nonsmokers indoors is indisputable. Those alone give basis for smokers going outside to smoke, let alone the smell, tar, etc. transferrence to people and surfaces.

Contrast that with vapor and the two don't belong in the same zip code, let alone the same sentence.

 

[EddardinWinter]

The bold raised a flag with me and to be quite honest cast some doubt about the objectivity of the rest of what you are saying. I'm pretty sure it's well documented what is contained in sidestream and secondhand smoke, and the fact that that ends up in the air of nonsmokers indoors is indisputable. Those alone give basis for smokers going outside to smoke, let alone the smell, tar, etc. transferrence to people and surfaces.

Contrast that with vapor and the two don't belong in the same zip code, let alone the same sentence.

Harmful or not, there is no basis to trump the personal private property rights of the owners decision to allow the use of a legal product for its intended use on their premises. If the hazards are as great in second hand smoke as they allege, make the product illegal.

Banning of vaping constitutes the same gross violation of private property rights. If we allow this infringement for another group, why should they stand with us when our time comes?

Tapped out

 

[BigBen2k]

Harmful or not, there is no basis to trump the personal private property rights of the owners decision to allow the use of a legal product for its intended use on their premises. If the hazards are as great in second hand smoke as they allege, make the product illegal.

Banning of vaping constitutes the same gross violation of private property rights. If we allow this infringement for another group, why should they stand with us when our time comes?

Tapped out

The FDA does not have the authority to ban vaping; they don't even have the authority to ban tobacco!

That being said, they could make it harder, or more expensive, but it's not going away.

The hardware is *untouchable* (can be used without nic). What's left is the juice.

 

[dr g]

Harmful or not, there is no basis to trump the personal private property rights of the owners decision to allow the use of a legal product for its intended use on their premises. If the hazards are as great in second hand smoke as they allege, make the product illegal.

You'll notice I didn't mention harm because harm is not necessary for what I said. There's no problem with someone wanting to do it as recreation but their intrinsic freedom to do so stops at the point at which it is imposed on others, which is what burning substances in enclosed spaces does. Whether a private entity wants to allow it is a debatable point, and you will notice I made no case for or against a law per se. However the basis for deciding not to allow it is quite apparent. Private entities are entirely within their right to place a ban on any number of behaviors for almost any reason, "private property rights" give them this power with a far lesser degree of scrutiny than government.

But IMO whereas burning tobacco has significant reason to be the subject of such a restriction, vaping does not, so it does a disservice to mention burning tobacco when making the case for vaping.

 

[SissySpike]

Remembering suddenly what thread this off-topic conversation is in, I must put in a disclaimer here that my posts about tobacco companies and ANTZ have been 100% my own views and opinions and do not reflect those of the CASAA board or CASAA policy.

No cleaning it up now Im telling everyone kristin said so and she get her info from god so its all gospel! ;-)

 

[Dannyboy5691]

So has CASAA released the Drexel study to the news outlets? I thought it was already released to them, but I was told that it's results have only been blogged. Is this correct?

 

[AgentAnia]

So has CASAA released the Drexel study to the news outlets? I thought it was already released to them, but I was told that it's results have only been blogged. Is this correct?

CASAA issued a press release announcing the study. The study itself was conducted and released by Prof. Burstyn of Drexel University. Where did you hear that the study results had only been blogged? (Asked solely out of curiosity.)