Hey No Problem nicnik.
And perhaps it was Part My Fault for not Explaining how well I knew this Person.
FDA Tomorrow's FDA workshop on Biomarkers of Tobacco Exposure to focus on e-cigs
- Thread starter Bill Godshall
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Hey No Problem nicnik.
And perhaps it was Part My Fault for not Explaining how well I knew this Person.
BTW - "The End Justifies the Means" is a concept that could/can Easily be Abused. Or used as a Justification for Acts that are Hard to Justify under what Most People would consider to be Normal situation.
But will say this. I will Go to a Much Higher Level to get someone that I Do Care About Deeply (still) to Get Off Cigarettes.
Especially when this Person has Tried and Failed with Everything they Tried. Even, Almost, e-Cigarettes.
But will say this. I will Go to a Much Higher Level to get someone that I Do Care About Deeply (still) to Get Off Cigarettes.
Especially when this Person has Tried and Failed with Everything they Tried. Even, Almost, e-Cigarettes.
I checked their faq on it and it didn't say but I assume 24mg/ml.
As far as nicotine.... I'll just let you read the faq:
WTA FAQ
Baiscally yes WTA contains nicotine and the extra alkaloids in the extraction but no 'added nicotine'. So the 24mg would be the whole extract including nicotine. I haven't vaped it alone and likely wouldn't as 24mg nic only eliquid gives me hiccups
But some do vape it 'straight'.
I checked their faq on it and it didn't say but I assume 24mg/ml.
As far as nicotine.... I'll just let you read the faq:
WTA FAQ
Baiscally yes WTA contains nicotine and the extra alkaloids in the extraction but no 'added nicotine'. So the 24mg would be the whole extract including nicotine. I haven't vaped it alone and likely wouldn't as 24mg nic only eliquid gives me hiccups
Of the "whole alkaloids," nicotine is generally 90%-95%, closer to 95%. So if unflavored WTA from Aroma or any WTA from wholecig or mothersmilkwta says 24mg, approx 22.8mg of that is nicotine, appox 1.2mg is all the other alkaloids. It really is strange that such a small amount can make such a big difference -- I use 24mg WTA, but I started using it at 10% of my vape, and now down to 2.75%. But maybe that's why those who need WTA are such a small minority of vapers.
Andria
Bill, I can only report my summary interpretation of the conversations I've had with both of them.
Did you read Lindblom's piece? He maintains that the FDA can allow e-cigs on the market even though they're illegal. His point is that FDA has the discretion to do this if it perceives e-cigs to have a public health benefit. I think the FDA does believe this, but does not have the knowledge required to determine which products are having this benefit.
Now, perhaps "very light touch" is over-egging things, but where I think Eric is going is towards a model in which the FDA maintains complete fiat control over e-cigs and allows those on the market that it decides are creating a public health benefit.
Do I think this is a good thing? No, emphatically not. But, his view must be considered in the context of his desire for the FDA to enact its low-nicotine cigarette policy.
Now, I accept that an ANTZ lawsuit could force the hand of the FDA. But the FDA does have this discretionary authority and also has the data (the PATH study) which would justify the public health rationale for allowing e-cigs to remain on the market.
Don't get me wrong, Bill, all of this is pointless, destructive, dangerous and costly. BUT, it's also what we might actually be facing, regardless of what we want.
Last edited:
Well, I think Lynn would find the ethics very troubling.
The context, however, is the wider debate on "tobacco endgames" which have been taking place amongst tobacco control over the last 18 months or so. I think the general "ethic" is that if new-smokers can be prevented from starting, then forcing current smokers into withdrawal is the lesser of two evils.
Interestingly, on ethics, I have another perspective I've written about before. There IS an ethical argument, based on utilitarian principals, for the tobacco control strategy of reducing smoking through stigmatisation (I don't subscribe to it, naturally). But that argument and logic relies on there being no alternative. The fact is, there is no ethical argument for stigmatisation that exists in the context of safer ways of gaining nicotine.
Reversing that logic, perhaps there IS a new argument (from the tobacco control side) which suggests that cigarettes CAN be radically altered, forcing withdrawal, providing that there is an acceptible alternative form of nicotine that can be utilised by smokers.
i have said this before but its interesting to note.
only about 30 % of cigarette smokers develop a dependency
from a classical medical stand point.
of these 30 % your going to find everything from mild dependency
to hard core addiction and countless points in between.
this and the fact that by the time smokers reach the age of 30 to
40 years about 50 % just quit on there own makes the study of
addiction more complicated. after all 70 % do not develop a
dependency. why do about 20 % still smoke when theoretically
they should not be dependent?
these view points are about 40 years old from when i had
studied this subject.currently there has been a lot more chemistry
involved in the process of making cigarettes and other things
that probably has had an effect on what is happening now so
the figures i stated may not be correct but,the profile should
be similar.
the reason i think its important for people to know this is
because aside from the newer designer or enhanced products
legal and illegal all addictive compounds have similar profiles.
a large percentage of any group of users of a particular item
in fact do not develop a dependency.
i believe this is where all the weak willed character flaw
theories spring from which causes additional problems in
trying to understand addiction.
just musing and regards
mike
T
Willpower is a finite resource, and some people have more of it (from research over the last 10 years or so). So there's likely to be a number of people who are dependent, but who also possess additional reserves of willpower, or have less burden on their willpower in other domains.
I suspect you're probably close to the truth, although I've not seen those specific figures. Something else to consider, though:
Willpower is a finite resource, and some people have more of it (from research over the last 10 years or so). So there's likely to be a number of people who are dependent, but who also possess additional reserves of willpower, or have less burden on their willpower in other domains.
Bill, it seems sometimes people are capable of changing their minds on things. For example, back in 2010:
I find the dependance issue to be an interesting one. I have a friend about my age (mid 50's) whom occasionally smokes and has since we were teens for the "high" but never develops any cravings. He smoked for a year or so back then and one day just quit dayly smoking. Sometimes he goes months without 1 then smokes just 1. Before ecigs I always had cravings within an hour or less. The most I was able to willpower was almost a year, but a day....no...more like a moment didn't go by that I did not have cravings. I was miserable and so was most everyone around me so i decided to heck with it i would live a shorter but happier life and started again. I have a very high tolerance for most pain relieving drugs which is a bummer when I need pain meds, while an aspirin can practically make him sleep. I often wonder what is so different about our brain chemistry.
I don't drink all that much coffee and I don't even average a cup per day.
But I can have a cup of coffee before bed and go right to sleep.
Not that it puts me to sleep, just that it doesn't keep me up like it does my wife.
But two Advil really does a number on me.
So much so that I can practically use them as sleeping pills.
I really am starting to wonder if anyone has studied any of these "differences" that people have.
Paradoxical and bidirectional drug effects. - PubMed - NCBI
I go through some phases where coffee makes me sleepy rather than awake.
And if I over-use my rescue inhaler, instead of helping, it can actually make the attack worse.
Probably the hardest thing I've ever had to learn was to just sit and try to breathe calmly, slowly, when I'm having an asthma attack. There's such a strong need to hyperventilate, which actually makes the whole thing MUCH worse.Andria
ETA: Nyquil has a paradoxical effect on alcoholics; it's never "knocked me out", it just lights me up like an xmas tree, all those little tingles running thru my limbs, telling my body PARTY TIME!
I don't take any medicine with enough alcohol in it to do that.Bill, it seems sometimes people are capable of changing their minds on things. For example, back in 2010:
The key to adequately understanding Bill's 2010 quote is noticing
that there's a big difference between being regulated by the FDA
as a tobacco product vs. a drug. There is also a big difference between
having a grandfather date of 2007 and 2015.
This, Bill's post comes from a time when vaping as we know it was going through court as the FDA had tried to halt import by calling nicotlne a drug and our equipment drug delivery devices. Judge Leon said no but they could possibly deem it a tobacco product and regulate it under the FSPTCA, the FDA took it to the Appeals Court and lost there 12-0. That battle left us where we are now, several million strong and fighting the overbearing deeming regulations.
Will there be anything left for the FDA to do after everything is banned or controlled at the local levels?
With Red States like ARKANSAS and INDIANA on the forefront of the most draconian laws regarding vapor products, by the time the FDA gets around to doing anything, IMHO there won't be anything left to do, because it will already be done.
The FDA might be left with some minor labelling and packaging decisions...
It worries me that by keeping to your behavior of constantly making this a partisan issue that it will cause many people to take their eye off the real targets.
From what I can see some Arkansas vapers were blindsided when they found out a law, written and passed by 2 Republicans, was pushed thru and passed as law, and now they can no longer order eliquids online. I truly think a lot of people did not see it coming because they assumed since AR is a republican stronghold, and a state well known for very lax gun laws, and basically, quite "libertarian", that vaping and vaping products wouldn't suffer the same fate as somewhere less conservative.
I think that by constantly making this into a partisan issue, which you always do, when it isn't, really doesn't serve us. As a matter of fact, over the years I've been here, it has actually turned off some people who realize it isn't about partisan politics.
I'm a Little Hazy on some of the event dates. Is this the Ruling you are referring to?
FDA can't block importing of 'electronic cigarettes'
That's the original ruling, the FDA appealed it and lost 12-0, it was a unanimous decision. Somewhere on ECF there is an extremely long thread that I think rolygate put together and followed this fight from start to finish. Smoking Everywhere would end up bankrupt fighting the appeal and Njoy who had joined them would finish it. I read most of it trying to understand what had almost killed vaping legally before I started in Dec 2010.
Changed anywhere to everywhere, got it wrong.
Last edited:
That's the original ruling, the FDA appealed it and lost 12-0, it was a unanimous decision. Somewhere on ECF there is an extremely long thread that I think rolygate put together and followed this fight from start to finish. Smoking Anywhere would end up bankrupt fighting the appeal and Njoy who had joined them would finish it. I read most of it trying to understand what had almost killed vaping legally before I started in Dec 2010.
That's what I thought.
Somewhere I came across a in-depth e-Cigarette Timeline. I can't seem to find it though.
I disagree with your assertion that Bill is trying to make a partisan argument by pointing out the fact that it is mostly (if not only) the democrats at the federal level who are pushing for the FDA regulations. I don't like partisan debates (as they usually lack any substance), and the most frustrating thing about the democrats on this issue is the nearly complete obfuscation they demonstrate toward tobacco harm reduction, especially since democrats have historically been the most supportive of harm reduction on all but tobacco related issues. It's not a partisan issue (in the negative condentation) to identify and expose hypocrisy and general ignorance of an issue at a party level when the votes and public comments of those that hold office show a specific trend in the party.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
