I just don't see them being concerned that much. I really think it boils down to money. Look at all the crap you can buy that isn't FDA approved. Diet this, energy that.
The war against electronic cigarettes
- Thread starter Petrodus
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- revolution
- Status
I just don't see them being concerned that much. I really think it boils down to money. Look at all the crap you can buy that isn't FDA approved. Diet this, energy that.
There has to be boundaries (limits) to the debate on "SAFE"
The water that comes out the taps in our kitchens is "Safe and Clean"...NOT
The air we breathe is "Safe and Clean"...NOT
Monsanto's FDA approved Drugs are "Safe" but many have disclaimers
Examples are endless
In today's world there seems to be little (if anything) that can be certified 100% Safe
Even if some profess something is 100% Safe...There are those who disagree.
Speaking for myself: E-cigarettes are safe and if there are those that can PROVE
they are truly a dangerous alternative to smoking cigarettes....Show me the
Scientific Proof
Even a blind person can clearly see that E-cigarettes are safer than smoking
Even a blind person can clearly see there are No issues with 2nd hand vapor
Last edited:
Speaking for myself I agree.
That doesn't change the fact that there no proof either way. I am also seeing a move away from GRAS ingredients to suppliers that are doing their own extracts, herbal juice, organic juice. Can anyone say that all of the ingredients that are being sold for flavoring is really safe.
I can still say vaping can be safer than tobacco but not that it has proven to be safe.
My point really is that this industry is going to be regulated and we should be trying educate and work with the FDA and other groups instead of just trying to defend ourselves. The campaign against vaping may at this be driven mostly by money and a reflective reaction by the antismoking, anti-nicotine, anti-drug caffeine addicts but other people do have real concerns.
Educate the FDA? Educate the King County BOH?
Work with the FDA? ... Work with others like the King County BOH?
Educate the public...OK, that's a more realistic goal
It is impossible to prove something safe, because, to be safe, that something has to lack any capacity whatsoever for causing for harm. That's what they call "trying to prove a negative." Because you can't prove a negative, our judicial system is based on being "innocent until proven guilty." The accuser has to pony up facts and evidence to prove guilt.
Do you believe that the testing required by the FDA proves that the drugs it approves are safe? All that the drug-approval type of testing can show is an absence of harm under carefully controlled conditions for relatively short periods of time. A drug's true safety profile cannot be known until it is out in general use.
Have you ever read the exclusion criteria for participating in some of the clinical trials? Once you can't exclude people over age 50, or those with depression, or those with a history of heart disease, we begin to find out where the safety margins are. The other thing we find out is whether problems emerge with long-term use. Pharma companies can't afford to run a clinical trial for 5 or 10 years.
So let's look at this from the opposite viewpoint. The products have been in use world-wide for about 7 years. They have been in the U.S. for around 3 years. What evidence do we have that e-cigarettes are unsafe? How many consumers have died? What type of serious adverse events have been reported? What is the short-term effect on general health--negative or positive? What health problems do we see emerging for those who have been using the product for a year or two? For five years? Seven years?
Nothing in life is 100% safe, not the water we drink, the food we eat or the air we breathe. All I do know for sure is that using an ecig is 100's of times safer than smoking tobacco.
Bottom line is as long as the sheeple keep endorsing politicians that adore "Nanny State" policies they will continue to regulate everyone including mentally fit adults. Unless a product causes intentional excessive harm or poses a wide public threat, Adults should be allowed to decide for themselves what goes into their body. Legal substances that cause neither of those should be left alone.
Vokaleck you are absolutely right I agree with everything you said. Remember thalidamide?
I am not deluded enough to believe that the FDA approval means a drug is safe. The FDA has become a bureaucratic monstrosity subject to political influence, mainly interested in perpetuating itself and by no means infallible even with the best of intentions. Never the less it is a there.
Going back to my original post this is a drug delivery device and it is going to be regulated. We won a temporary victory in the courts. Don't forget laws can be changed and there are the states with their own laws. Currently I estimate that somewhere between 500,00 and 1,000,000 people are vaping and increasing rapidly. I think that as the industry grows there will be more unsafe juices and drugs being sold and that will only increase the pressure to regulate. On the other hand our political clout will also grow with our numbers.
I am not deluded enough to believe that the FDA approval means a drug is safe. The FDA has become a bureaucratic monstrosity subject to political influence, mainly interested in perpetuating itself and by no means infallible even with the best of intentions. Never the less it is a there.
Going back to my original post this is a drug delivery device and it is going to be regulated. We won a temporary victory in the courts. Don't forget laws can be changed and there are the states with their own laws. Currently I estimate that somewhere between 500,00 and 1,000,000 people are vaping and increasing rapidly. I think that as the industry grows there will be more unsafe juices and drugs being sold and that will only increase the pressure to regulate. On the other hand our political clout will also grow with our numbers.
Probably the first challange will come from the countries that have already banned the devices as well as the nicotine-containing liquid. They will petition the US to regulate and prevent "illegal" sales of the devices from the US shipping to their countries. Our government will overreact and overregulate in response.
The second challange will be the lawsuits by watchdog groups against vendors who don't have their feces coagulated with the legal stuff like not making health claims, using "safe" in their ads, or saying "no tar, no carcinogens", etc. Then once they get up steam, they will sue the Merchant Services providing Credit Card services to any ecig vendor and they will respond like PayPal did and ask if the risk is worth the gain. Since the industry is still fledgling, they will probably say "not". Then they will start on the lame "their selling to kids" track again and once precedent has been set they are off to the races.
The third challange unfortunately is exactly what you mentioned -- Unprofessionally manufactured e-liquid. It is my personal opinion that all the "kitchen sink" juice vendors are probably the easiest target for the legal dogs to attack and may pose the biggest risk to ending the industry. Just 1 event that "may" be linked to tainted juice and it's probably all over.....
FWIW
First, the electronic cigarette is no more a drug delivery device than is a pipe, a coffee cup or a spoon as examples. A pipe delivers drugs such as nicotine, a coffee cup delivers caffeine and a spoon delivers sugar. However none of these have gone through any FDA testing to determine whether they were "safe and effective"by the FDA. A much more used drug delivery device is the cigarette. It's a paper device, sometimes filtered to deliver a multitude of unhealthy ingredients that the FDA has only limited the flavoring in. In fact, they supported RIP cigarettes without screaming about the chemicals that are added that might harm the 46m smokers to "perhaps" prevent an occasional fire.
Second, IF the FDA WOULD DO THEIR JOB, and regulate the E liquid as they've been asked to by congress, there should be less unsafe juices and drugs being sold because they ARE regulating them. That the FDA has elected to waste tax payer's money fighting to protect BP interests is the true travesty here.
As far as the states are concerned, their efforts are being driven by the ?non-profit?"health" organizations that years ago generated contributions with the goal of "finding a cure" for their particular body part disease. Somewhere along the way they lost their dream in a cloud of GREEN brought to them by their friends in BP and the contributions brought to them by the people they supposedly are trying to cure, the smokers. MSA money, excise tax money and state tax money all flows into their comfortable lives as long as there is a war to be fought. RANT OVER
Last edited:
Thank you for repeating what I've said so many times before. I just couldn't do it again.
Where there's Smoke...there's Fire
We probably wouldn't be in the fight today IF
The name that stuck from the beginning was
Personal Vaporizer and NOT E-cigarette
PVs never were created to look just like a cigarette
PVs did not produce a visible vapor
We could live with PV
We could live with a PV that looks like a pen or an eGo
No visible vapor??? Well, that would never fly!
But for the sake of the argument...No visible vapor
Unfortunately for us...
E-cigarettes are simply "Guilty by Association"
Nicotine is also "Guilty by Association"
Makes sense?
Or is this a SLIMSBID (Seems Like it Makes Sense But it Doesn’t)
We probably wouldn't be in the fight today IF
The name that stuck from the beginning was
Personal Vaporizer and NOT E-cigarette
PVs never were created to look just like a cigarette
PVs did not produce a visible vapor
We could live with PV
We could live with a PV that looks like a pen or an eGo
No visible vapor??? Well, that would never fly!
But for the sake of the argument...No visible vapor
Unfortunately for us...
E-cigarettes are simply "Guilty by Association"
Nicotine is also "Guilty by Association"
Makes sense?
Or is this a SLIMSBID (Seems Like it Makes Sense But it Doesn’t)
That's a gutsy video to put out while the FDA is on its witch hunt, but I love that they did it. Thanks for sharing that link.
Ok, so I wrote a big rant about all this and then clicked the wrong button [I'm a n00b here; hate me].
To sum it up, after getting a Gamucci Micro for xmas[it stopped working a day later- don't worry, I'm ordering the Riva 510] I did some research to see if any studies have come out showing any health risks have been associated with vaping[aside from those known to be caused by nicotine itself] and found an amazingly unfounded wealth of anti-vaping information:
The FDA seems to be demonizing e-cigs, which frightens and infuriates me
They have no real evidence to support the banning of e-cigs, so I assume they're only considering it to suck up to their dark overlords; the lobbyists[big tobacco, in this case]
People are somehow worried that smoking delicious, moderately safe, blueberry flavored e-cigs will lead kids to smoking nasty, smelly, carcinogenic analogs that make you hack up a lung every morning[seriously]
Many anti-smoking sites are also anti-vaping[SERIOUSLY!?]
Some of these sites are now claiming that NICOTINE is the most dangerous chemical found in tobacco[my faith in humanity died a little].
This is the FDA article: FDA Warns of Health Risks Posed by E-Cigarettes
And I'll be the first to say that no, I don't believe e-cigs are 100% healthy[nicotine IS a stimulant, after all] but it doesn't take a mental giant to figure out that inhaling anything other than cyanide is probably better for you than smoking- wait, doesn't cigarette smoke contain trace amounts of hydrogen cyanide?? But I digress...
Anyways, thanks to everyone for posting the great articles! And sorry that my summary is still kinda long-winded! >
To sum it up, after getting a Gamucci Micro for xmas[it stopped working a day later- don't worry, I'm ordering the Riva 510] I did some research to see if any studies have come out showing any health risks have been associated with vaping[aside from those known to be caused by nicotine itself] and found an amazingly unfounded wealth of anti-vaping information:
The FDA seems to be demonizing e-cigs, which frightens and infuriates me
They have no real evidence to support the banning of e-cigs, so I assume they're only considering it to suck up to their dark overlords; the lobbyists[big tobacco, in this case]
People are somehow worried that smoking delicious, moderately safe, blueberry flavored e-cigs will lead kids to smoking nasty, smelly, carcinogenic analogs that make you hack up a lung every morning[seriously]
Many anti-smoking sites are also anti-vaping[SERIOUSLY!?]
Some of these sites are now claiming that NICOTINE is the most dangerous chemical found in tobacco[my faith in humanity died a little].
This is the FDA article: FDA Warns of Health Risks Posed by E-Cigarettes
And I'll be the first to say that no, I don't believe e-cigs are 100% healthy[nicotine IS a stimulant, after all] but it doesn't take a mental giant to figure out that inhaling anything other than cyanide is probably better for you than smoking- wait, doesn't cigarette smoke contain trace amounts of hydrogen cyanide?? But I digress...
Anyways, thanks to everyone for posting the great articles! And sorry that my summary is still kinda long-winded! >
Welcome Kirlog from one of your 35 mile north neighbors. You've got a lot of reading to do if you want to catch up on this topic. The NZ study is a good starting point as well as coing over to the CASAA | The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association site. They have a lot of info on studies done.
To give a quickie view, using too high a nicotine level or vaping too much can give you the same issues as smoking too much for your system. The most difficult decision you'll have is figuring out what works for you. A lot depends on how much and how long and the type cigarettes you smoked. After that, some people can't handle PG or VG as well as others. Then there is reactions to all the different flavors that are available. Finally there are all the things that pop up on just stopping smoking, if that's what you want to do.
Obviously not smoking, not vaping and not using nicotine is the best solution for those that can live without any of it. However, there are reasons people have continued to smoke after years of being told how bad it is for you, I know I did- 43 yrs, 2-3 packs a day at the end. I reached the end about 10 1/2 months ago after spending 7 months vaping and smoking about half a dozen cigs a day. When I started I wasn't even considering quiting smoking, just appeasing my gf. So, I've been pretty much smoke free for 17 1/2 months and she lasted about a month before returning to smokes, go figure.
If you get serious about PVs, the people here will guide you through your questions. The more you read the better off you'll be, plus when you have questions, ask. Good luck
To give a quickie view, using too high a nicotine level or vaping too much can give you the same issues as smoking too much for your system. The most difficult decision you'll have is figuring out what works for you. A lot depends on how much and how long and the type cigarettes you smoked. After that, some people can't handle PG or VG as well as others. Then there is reactions to all the different flavors that are available. Finally there are all the things that pop up on just stopping smoking, if that's what you want to do.
Obviously not smoking, not vaping and not using nicotine is the best solution for those that can live without any of it. However, there are reasons people have continued to smoke after years of being told how bad it is for you, I know I did- 43 yrs, 2-3 packs a day at the end. I reached the end about 10 1/2 months ago after spending 7 months vaping and smoking about half a dozen cigs a day. When I started I wasn't even considering quiting smoking, just appeasing my gf. So, I've been pretty much smoke free for 17 1/2 months and she lasted about a month before returning to smokes, go figure.
If you get serious about PVs, the people here will guide you through your questions. The more you read the better off you'll be, plus when you have questions, ask. Good luck
I agree but disagree.
I think part of the success of e-cigarettes in general is their ability to replicate in many respects the smoking experience. No, it's not the same, but it's close enough to satisfy many long-term, inveterate smokers. A smoker might not be particularly intrigued by a "personal vaporizer," but an "electronic cigarette" might grab his or her attention. A larger device like an eGo might satisfy many, but a significant number of smokers who are willing to try vaping don't feel comfortable with larger devices . . . they crave something that mimics the general size and ergonomics of a traditional cigarette. Some even deliberately choose an e-cigarette with a white battery and an orange cartridge so that they won't stand out. (Of course, once over the initial hump, many folks seem more than happy to embrace less "traditional" looking devices, myself included.
)Early on, it became clear that the FDA was attempting to classify them as drugs, and there were those who felt that phrases such as "personal vaporizer" sounded perhaps a bit too "medical" or "pharmaceutical."
In the final analysis, it all seems crazy to me. In my mind, whether e-cigs (or PVs, if you prefer) are safe in the absolute sense is really immaterial. There can be no doubt that they are safer than traditional cigarettes. Thus, the way I see it is that so long as traditional tobacco cigarettes are available, then its less harmful cousin once- or twice-removed, the e-cigarette, should be available as well.
JustJulie... I totally agree
I should have said...we probably wouldn't be in such a "High Profile" fight today if
they were known as a PV and didn't create clouds of vapor in the face of the zealots
so focused on banning cigarettes.
The post was more of a "rambling" thought
PS: If the PV didn't create a vapor like smoke...I would still be on cigarettes
I should have said...we probably wouldn't be in such a "High Profile" fight today if
they were known as a PV and didn't create clouds of vapor in the face of the zealots
so focused on banning cigarettes.
The post was more of a "rambling" thought
PS: If the PV didn't create a vapor like smoke...I would still be on cigarettes
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
