We are still using a tobacco product.

[ohai]

I'm not really up to snuff on current vaping news , But the last I read here and every where else, was that the vaping community in general, was telling the FDA hey just regulate it as a tobacco product(so they could get there pvs through customs). Tobacco product, Cha Ching$$$$$$$. Open up your wallet boys, and don't step out in public with that pv.

Would you rather go to your doctor for a prescription, and then to the drugstore for some tasteless, overpriced, weak version of a pv from some pharmaceutical company? Did you think the alternative was going to be "Oh, ok, we'll take your word for it, vape away"?

So yes Ohai keep going that route, thats your right to do so. I don't know about your state But here in Wisconsin the tax on tobacco products is ungodly, I'd be willing to bet it's at least 2.00 a pack. I know the last guy raised it at least a 1.50. The signs around here don't say no smoking, they say no tobacco products allowed.

A lot of the signs here actually say "No smoking, No e-cigs" specifically. There are people doing their best to change that, as I'm sure there are in your state.

Besides I was only ranting to explain to the original poster why people especially me might get defensive about calling it a tobacco product. If you had been shafted as hard as Wisconsinites you'd be ticked too.

And I get that, and yet I still don't think he deserves getting pounced on for saying something we all know to be true just because we don't want it to be true. If we could find a way to extract nicotine from something else cost effectively, I'd be thrilled, too. As for your state being worse than others, I'm sure it's bad there, it's bad everywhere there's a smoking ban, and we are the only ones who can change that.

As far as not drinking and driving I respect you for that, I haven't either by the way. Honesty I don't really care where caffeine comes from, it was only an analogy. I thought you were full of crap about the kola nut's but you were correct. I've never heard of a kola nut. Just like Ron White said ,"You can't cure stupid". I tend to agree.

Yeah, well, yesterday you didn't know what a kola nut was.

More information is better than less.

Down in the tobacco belt that argument will probably fly. Here I will just loose my right to vape in public pretty much, and end up paying about double on my,"tobacco Products. So Whatever.

And how much do you think big pharm is going to charge you for your new "medical device"? There is no way in hades I'd rather be paying a pharmaceutical company for my PV. Do you have any idea how long it tastes them to get anything through FDA trials? Our grandchildren wouldn't even be vaping.

 

[kristin]

It doesn't matter whether it's a tobacco product or not - it's a "recreational nicotine product" and it will be regulated and taxed as such if we don't change public perception on ALL recreational nicotine products. Currently the only recognized "recreational nicotine" is tobacco. All other approved nicotine products are "medical treatments."

We need to get the message out there there is nothing wrong with recreational nicotine anymore than there is with recreational caffeine. Smoke-free tobacco products have VERY LOW health risks similar to caffeine products. Rather than convincing people that OUR recreational nicotine product is not a tobacco product, we should work on convincing people that there is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying low-risk, smoke-free nicotine products - whether they are e-cigarettes, snus or dissolvable tobacco. There are millions of tobacco users who enjoy smoke-free products that don't increase their health risks any more than e-cigarettes increase our health risks. There are e-cig users who need smoke-free tobacco to keep off cigarettes. Why do e-cigarette users want to throw those folks under the bus to justify THEIR type of recreational nicotine? How would e-cig users like it if the Swedish snus users tried to throw them under the bus by pointing out that Swedish snus has 30+ years of scientific evidence to show little to no increased health risks while e-cigarette have none to really speak of?

Regardless of whether it contains tobacco or is called "tobacco" the ANTZ have an issue with recreational nicotine use and not being a tobacco product isn't going to change that. We have to base our arguments on scientific evidence and not semantics. If we don't change attitudes and beliefs about recreational nicotine use, the ANTZ will still try to use their junk science and lies to ban e-cigarettes based on the intended use or add sin taxes - not whether or not they are called "tobacco." The fact that the ANTZ have convinced the public that smoke-free tobacco is just as dangerous as smoking is why we see bans and excessive taxation - not because it's "tobacco." They will use the same arguments against e-cigarettes unless we fight for the truth about ALL smoke-free, recreational nicotine products - tobacco product or not.

 

[Stubby]

Well Stubby, I didn't really say it isn't a tobacco product. It's classified as such. However, the nic could come from potato sources too. Then what?

As Kristin has stated, it's a recreationally nicotine product. I would clarify that and call it a recreational nicotine/tobacco product. It could come from other sources but the amount needed to process it would be hugh, and there would be no advantage as far as safety goes.

We don't have 30 years of data on e-cigs. I don't claim anything in particular. However, if I were to gamble, I'd gamble on e-cigs over chew or snus any day of the week. In fact, with the possible exception of a very specially processed Swedish snus, I'd stay the hell away from it if at all possible. Note that that's my personal choice, not an incrimination of snus and dissolvables... like I said.. they are valid forms of harm reduction.

I don't know how chew got into the discussion. I specifically said snus and dissolvables, not that it really matters. I personally don't know anyone who uses chew, but I do know several people who use american style snuff. I would never try and push them to use snus instead of snuff, even though I am a snus user. The difference in risk between snus and snuff, if it exist, is so small it's not worth my time to try and convert someone. I'm not going to argue the difference between 98.8% less harmful then smoking compared to 99.2%, or whatever it may, or may not be.

You can't read. However, if I've actually said anything that is specifically wrong (rather and how you twisted it) then please let me know.

I shouldn't allow myself to get dragged into this, but OK. I hadn't intended to discuss relative safety. If you can prove that snus and/or dissolvables are safer than e-cigs, I'd like to see the data. If you can show me ANY data were the concentrations of known carcinogens in e-cigs are higher than the snus and dissolvables, please point me to it.

Actually it's you that has to prove that e-cigs are somehow less harmful then snus. There is already decades of studies done on snus that have proven the very low risk factor. No cancer, no heart disease, about as harmful as your morning cup of coffee. A very good case can be made that snus is the way to go as far as health goes. We know without a doubt the long term risk factor of snus. We don't know the long term health effect of inhaling flavorings and PG/VG long term.

And before I forget, you are trying to say that american snus is somehow more harmful then Swedish snus. I haven't seen any evidence of this. If you look at the TSNA numbers of american snus it is very low, comparable to Swedish snus.

I am not saying e-cigs are more harmful then snus, but to say that snus and dissolvables are more harmful then e-cigs is simple silly, just as a snus user saying e-cigs are more harmful then snus (though they would have a better argument).

Not that I had even intended to argue this point. However, my original point of using synthetic, or potato, or tomato extracted nic if it were possible was to reinforce my point about being as tobacco free as practical while still using nic. Not to imply "superiority" of any sort. Nor did I state any safety claims of either product in the post you quoted.

I have no idea why people want to disassociate themselves with the word tobacco. The first thing I tell people about what I am using is that it certainly is tobacco, and that what I am using is about 100 times less harmful then smoking. You won't find me running away from the word tobacco.

You are letting the ANTZ frame the debate, and that is a big mistake.

I have to thank Kristin for chiming in and adding clarity to the debate.

 

[propagandax]

Ecigs = tobacco product

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[denali_41]

i am vapin zero nic,,does that mean i am still using a tobacco product ?? short answer is NO

 

[scalewiz]

Nicotine rules! heh heh......

Safest anti-depressant on the market, got no problem with it, especially vaping it!

 

[AttyPops]

Ecigs = tobacco product

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2

Well.... not to nit pick... it's the e-juice that contains nicotine, TA or WTA. The e-cig is just a device. And the zero-nic people have a valid argument against calling it a tobacco product. Rather than grouping all e-cig users into the same group, I'll point out it depends on the juice not the device.

Stubby, I'm done. I quoted Swedish-snus as an example because that's what the study is about. If I read a study about apples, and use the word apple, you pop in an accuse me of hating oranges. I never said I hated American snus. Only that the safest snus studied so far seems to be the Swedish one with a 20 year study.
I have no burden of proof regarding e-cigs since I made no claims, only told you what my gamble was and why I'm on an e-cig site. There's nothing I can try to prove unless I make a claim...and I didn't. However, you did make a claim:

There is already decades of studies done on snus that have proven the very low risk factor. No cancer, no heart disease, about as harmful as your morning cup of coffee.

It was about two decades...rather short for this type of thing. However, the study found a double increase in pancreatic cancer. So the very study you are quoting proves you wrong. There's an increased cancer risk at minimum. ?Another? study also found an increase in heart disease (probably associated with nicotine, but IDK for sure. Also, they were former smokers so IDK.)

Tobacco harm reduction is, I believe, a valid avenue and needs to be better understood. Just because my personal gamble is in staying away from as many tobacco elements as possible (hence e-cigs) doesn't mean I invalidate your choice of using snus. I've tried other nicotine sources (patch, gum, lozenges... didn't work well for me) so e-cigs are a logical next step for me.

I've managed to break the WTA part of my addiction (or it's contribution/interaction with my nic addiction). Good for me!!! If others want to use snus along with e-cigs, for example, fine by me. Some use WTA juce too. I'm specifically trying to get the WTA monkey off my back. Again, a personal choice, not an incrimination of those that want it.

I usually recommend that people try e-cigs with non-WTA juices 1st. If they find it fails them, they could try WTA juices and/or snus or some such (vs smoking). Those that seem to "need" or specifically enjoy the WTA aspects will gravitate toward it. In other words, a minimalist approach 1st, with a backup plan.

The 1st post I made in this thread was trying to be on topic. Not dragging it into a snus debate. I'm as tobacco free as I can be while still using nicotine. If they could isolate the nicotine molecule from everything else, I would be completely tobacco free but not nic free. So, as I said in my 1st post, I'm tobacco free as I can be while still using nic. I think that nicotine extract should have its own classification, or lacking that, its own tier in the tobacco product list.

 

[AttyPops]

I should also add that I wish Congress would do it's job and acknowledge that nicotine is here to stay, so we make it as pure as practical and give it it's own classification...like we do with alcohol products. Does a beer brewer that adds...IDK...grains-of-foo-foo to the mix have to go through a 20 year study?

Forcing nicotine into the existing tobacco laws makes some limited sense. However, it also complicates the issue. As technology changes, so could nicotine production. Remember that when we say nicotine, we are talking about one particular molecule. When we say tobacco, we are talking about 100s or 1000s of chemicals. If technology improves to isolate nicotine, we have to go through this whole debate again. Argh!

Some drugs are here to stay. They are realities. Pre-existing drugs in widespread common use that aren't currently banned. The FDA's attempt to force e-cig makers/juice vendors to go through a huge study for IDK how many years is a good CYA move on their part as well as a precaution. However, it's impractical. It's that simple. It leaves those addicted to nicotine with either ineffective alternatives or worse alternatives... like smoking.

The FDA, if it is truly working for the benefit of our society, should quit playing CYA and start looking at harm reduction. For e-cigs in particular, but other alternatives too. They should not work overtime trying to find a few examples of accidental contamination in some e-cig carts and consider that contamination the norm. If they haven't already done so, they should have launched a valid long term e-cig study funded by Congress.

 

[kristin]

i am vapin zero nic,,does that mean i am still using a tobacco product ?? short answer is NO

Doesn't mean that the ANTZ don't still want to ban even the ones without nicotine. Attend some of the hearings (listen online or read transcripts) where they are trying to ban indoor use of e-cigs and listen their justifications:
"It still looks like smoking."
"It sends the wrong message to youth."
"It normalizes smoking."
"It will cause smokers to light up where smoking is prohibited."
"It will be a nightmare for business owners to police."
"We don't know what other toxic chemicals (besides nicotine) is in the vapor they are exhaling into MY air."
"The FDA found nicotine in e-cigarettes labels as no-nicotine, so how do we know they aren't addicting bystanders with their vapor?"

That's what people need to understand. It doesn't matter what we call them (e-cigs or PVs); it doesn't matter how they are classified (tobacco or other), it doesn't matter if they are safer than smoking and it doesn't matter if they contain nicotine. The ANTZ object to what the devices threaten to do to their mission of abolishing all tobacco and nicotine use: reverse social attitudes about smoking-like behavior and nicotine use.

 

[kristin]

The 1st post I made in this thread was trying to be on topic. Not dragging it into a snus debate. I'm as tobacco free as I can be while still using nicotine. If they could isolate the nicotine molecule from everything else, I would be completely tobacco free but not nic free. So, as I said in my 1st post, I'm tobacco free as I can be while still using nic. I think that nicotine extract should have its own classification, or lacking that, its own tier in the tobacco product list.

I think that Stubby was bringing up snus in an attempt to ask people why they feel it's so important to be "tobacco free" and why e-cigs being considered a "tobacco product" is considered such a horrible thing by some vapers. Think carefully about where that sentiment comes from.

We should not be made to feel ashamed for being nicotine users or tobacco users in the first place - especially smoke-free users when the supposed objection to "tobacco" is the harm and cost of smoking, not smoke-free tobacco use.

People who continue to use nicotine via e-cigarettes should stop and think WHY they "hate" tobacco. More likely than not, it originates from the ANTZ efforts to shame smokers for being addicts, for allegedly costing society for their health care, for allegedly endangering the lives of bystanders with second-hand smoke. The ANTZ have slowly transferred the "disgust" of smoking and smokers over to ALL tobacco and nicotine users - even though there is little health risk and ZERO health risk to bystanders. By buying into the ANTZ agenda that ALL tobacco is bad (because of the "cost to society" and how horrible addicts are) and therefore e-cigarettes being considered "tobacco products" is bad, you only support their arguments against e-cigarettes, as well.

There is no more wrong with using smoke-free tobacco products and nicotine than there is using caffeine products. As soon as you try to act like smoke-free tobacco products are somehow as bad as smoking, you only support the same arguments and junk science that the ANTZ use against e-cigarettes. Vapers MUST stop believing the ANTZ rhetoric and lies about smoke-free tobacco, because that only furthers their agenda - which includes getting rid of e-cigarettes.

There is simply no way to be "against" smoke-free tobacco products without giving validity to the junk science and lies that the ANTZ also use against e-cigarettes.

 

[AttyPops]

Yeah, OK. But who said I was "against" them? I'm not. Unless the "you" in the next-to-last paragraph is a general "you".

Your point is well taken. However, I was refuting Stuppy's accusation, not vilifying tobacco... there's enough of that already. However, I shouldn't be taken to task for making a personal choice to be as tobacco free as possible. I respect others choice not to be.

Another example. I've tried vaping unflavored e-juice. Again, to keep the # of chemicals down as much as possible. Does that mean I think that all food flavorings are evil? No. I just can't stand unflavored e-juice! lol. So I DIY and flavor it.

Maybe someday I'll get down to PG+VG+nic. Or even PG OR VG + nic. Or maybe give it up entirely. IDK.

I think you're correct about not mattering how it's classified to the ANTZ. They'll still be ANTZ.

 

[kristin]

However, I shouldn't be taken to task for making a personal choice to be as tobacco free as possible. I respect others choice not to be.

Not "taken to task." Of course it's a personal choice. But too many people "want" to quit all nicotine or tobacco only because they don't seem to realize how unfair it is just that the expectation they MUST quit even exists.

I (and I suspect, Stubby) was just trying to get anyone reading the thread to stop and think why they feel they "must" be tobacco free or nicotine free. We put such high pressure on ourselves and for what? Billions of people enjoy the benefits of caffeine use and no one makes them feel guilty for being dependent upon on those cups of coffee in the morning. The "quit or die" mantra of the ANTZ has millions of tobacco/nicotine users in this miserable cycle of trying to become abstinent and for what, I ask?? Why are we expected to want to be "free" of something we enjoy and may derive benefit from, when the health risks are so comparable to coffee drinking? Why do we torture ourselves? Just because a bunch of busy body nannies has declared it to be what we are SUPPOSED to want? (I'm just on the soapbox here, AttyPops - this isn't directed only at you.)

People need to stop feeling guilty for needing/wanting their smoke-free tobacco/nicotine. You shouldn't feel anymore guilty over it than other people do for needing coffee in the morning or shots of 5-Hour Energy or their expensive little happy pills they get from Big Pharma, with all their nasty side effects that nicotine doesn't have. No one complains that caffeine comes in tasty, sugary soda or creamy coffee drinks that "hook our kids." It's ridiculous and ticks me off.

Personally, I'm no longer any more embarrassed, ashamed or unhappy for being a tobacco product consumer than I am for being a coffee, chocolate and Pepsi consumer. I'm sick and tired of being judged and ostracized for my "vice," yet the hypocrites continue to freely enjoy their vices, all while trying to ban my preferred product without any scientific reason. So, you can see why it is completely meaningless to me if e-cigarettes are classified "tobacco products," because (in my opinion) there is absolutely nothing wrong with the majority of tobacco products in the first place.

We should be fighting for equality - not buying into the ANTZ claim that all tobacco is "bad" and therefore, an undesirable label for e-cigarettes.

 

[DC2]

Preach!!!!

 

[Stubby]

Stubby, I'm done. I quoted Swedish-snus as an example because that's what the study is about. If I read a study about apples, and use the word apple, you pop in an accuse me of hating oranges. I never said I hated American snus. Only that the safest snus studied so far seems to be the Swedish one with a 20 year study.
I have no burden of proof regarding e-cigs since I made no claims, only told you what my gamble was and why I'm on an e-cig site. There's nothing I can try to prove unless I make a claim...and I didn't. However, you did make a claim:

It was about two decades...rather short for this type of thing. However, the study found a double increase in pancreatic cancer. So the very study you are quoting proves you wrong. There's an increased cancer risk at minimum. ?Another? study also found an increase in heart disease (probably associated with nicotine, but IDK for sure. Also, they were former smokers so IDK.)

The one study linking snus to pancreatic cancer has been debunked some time ago, along with the studies linking snus to heart disease. Beware of anything coming out of the Karolinska institute. The Kaolinska institute has a notorious abstinence only agenda.You may want to read this to get clued into the politics behind some of the studies.

http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2011/12/karolinska-institute-study-heart-of.html

And this is the study that debunks the pancreatic cancer scare, which you are still trying to push

http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-study-smokeless-tobacco-is-not.html

The 1st post I made in this thread was trying to be on topic. Not dragging it into a snus debate. I'm as tobacco free as I can be while still using nicotine. If they could isolate the nicotine molecule from everything else, I would be completely tobacco free but not nic free. So, as I said in my 1st post, I'm tobacco free as I can be while still using nic. I think that nicotine extract should have its own classification, or lacking that, its own tier in the tobacco product list.

Snus got into this discussion because the OP is a snus user (along with nasal snuff and e-cigs) and ask the very valid question as to why there is such an anti-tobacco sentiment among some e-cig users. I completely agree with him. I have to ask why you think it is so impotent to be as tobacco free as possible. It's essentially irrelevant as far as harm reduction goes. I guess on a personal level it may make you feel better (though I don't know why). It is simple not necessary to make the distinction.

It is completely unnecessary to make a separate class in the form of nicotine extract only products, and would be counterproductive to the idea of tobacco harm reduction. That's not where the problem is as far as risk goes. The problem is that all tobacco/nicotine products are vilified to the same degree. The real distinction is between tobacco products that are combusted and those that are not. Making a separate class of nicotine extract would only confuse the issue. You are still trying to run away from tobacco when tobacco isn't the problem, its combustion.

Making a separate class is simple not a reality with todays regulation structure.

The idea of tobacco harm reduction gets a hugh amount of attention from the ANTZ. The reason is because we are the biggest threat to them (and their pay checks). As Kristen said, they don't care what it's called they are going to attack it. In fact it is the least harmful products as in snus, dissolvables, and e-cigs that get the most amount of attention. We are there biggest threat. Far bigger then BT.

 

[kristin]

It is completely unnecessary to make a separate class in the form of nicotine extract only products, and would be counterproductive to the idea of tobacco harm reduction. That's not where the problem is as far as risk goes. The problem is that all tobacco/nicotine products are vilified to the same degree. The real distinction is between tobacco products that are combusted and those that are not. Making a separate class of nicotine extract would only confuse the issue. You are still trying to run away from tobacco when tobacco isn't the problem, its combustion.

Exactly. Believing that we'd be better off or somehow safer if we weren't classified as "tobacco products" or weren't called "e-cigarettes" is like believing AA or MADD would be OK with people drinking beer, because it isn't "hard liquor." To them, alcohol is alcohol - doesn't matter what you call it, doesn't matter how it's classified and they are right. But that is the type of argument being made against smoke-free alternatives - if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Because people support the ANTZ lie that all tobacco,nicotine is equally dangerous and smoking-like behavior is not acceptable in public, e-cigarettes are threatened. But we know the truth and that analogy just isn't true. The most dangerous thing in all alcoholic beverages is the alcohol and they are trying to convince the public that a similar rule holds true for tobacco/nicotine products. They have convinced people that tobacco/nicotine is horribly bad and dangerous in and of itself, when it's the smoke that is dangerous. That is as ridiculous as claiming all beverages are dangerous, because some beverages contain alcohol and can cause alcohol-related diseases and accidents.

 

[TomCatt]

Preach!!!!

Amen!! ......................

 

[N rustica]

People need to stop feeling guilty for needing/wanting their smoke-free tobacco/nicotine.

I'm starting to believe people NEED to feel guilty.

Screw guilt and screw self righteousness.

 

[yzer]

Doctors will advise you to quit smoking prior to a scheduled surgery, if possible. Smoking will slow the ability of the body to heal from wounds. I ran into this unfortunate situation myself while smoking and healing from a skin cancer surgery.

It is not known which constituent of tobacco smoke interferes with tissue healing. Nicotine has been a strong suspect as it is known to constrict blood vessel flow.

At least one study has shown nicotine may not slow healing. The jury is out on this issue pending further study.

Effect of smoking, abstention, an... [Wound Repair Regen. 2009 May-Jun] - PubMed - NCBI

 

[rlh445]

So wait guys, what was this topic originally about? Was it about people saying we're still using tobacco (or at least a product of tobacco) or what? I'd have to agree with that..it's like arguing that drinking orange juice isn't the same as eating an orange. It's the same either way, and so what? I'm not inhaling a ton of other chemicals from cigarettes, so that's all that counts to me.

 

[yzer]

Of course, e-liquids that contain nicotine are a tobacco product in the general sense. Nicotine is derived from tobacco.

What you call tobacco and products made from it is not just a matter of semantics. A tobacco product as defined for purposes of taxation in California must contain "leafy tobacco material." If it doesn't contain leafy tobacco material it isn't taxed as a tobacco product in CA. I'm sure similar legal language may be found in the laws of other states as well. This definition exempts the taxation of nicotine in smoking cessation products like the patch.

The FDA has no voice in the taxation of tobacco. It can classify and define tobacco products for the purposes of it's own regulatory functions as subject to judicial oversight. Taxation is not the responsibility of the FDA.