WESH: Smokeless Cigarettes Deliver Nicotine Electronically

[LaceyUnderall]

There have been many tests done. Do we need more? Absolutely. But it doesn't matter how many tests come out positive for the ecig, they will call for tests until one does come up negative and that will be the test the media and the naysayers will latch onto. It is obvious they have done little research on the ecig as they simply believe that the ecig ONLY carries nicotine to the user. They are completely unaware (or unwilling to be aware) that these devices are no different than the "Wizard Stick" being sold to children, except we use ours as individual smokers and the "Wizard Stick" could have nicotine added to it and become a device for a group.

In researching liquids, I came across at least four independent labs that have done tests. That was almost five months ago. Laugesen even had tests done at what, three independent labs world wide and brought all of those results back for compilation for his analysis and his thoroughness is still being ignored, even by those reporting from Ruyan's perspective.

This all comes back to nicotine prohibition. It really has nothing to do with smoking anymore. It has to do with one group of people forcing their beliefs on another group. Maybe we should take the ecig in a different direction. Start the Church of Electronic device Worshipers and the ecig is our religious meditation device and the nicotine helps us be closer with our god.

 

[Lorddrek]

This all comes back to nicotine prohibition. It really has nothing to do with smoking anymore. It has to do with one group of people forcing their beliefs on another group. Maybe we should take the ecig in a different direction. Start the Church of Electronic Device Worshipers and the ecig is our religious meditation device and the nicotine helps us be closer with our god.

__________________

LOL! I like this. Think outside the box.

 

[strayling]

(Responding to an assertion that we're betting e-cigs are less harmful than analogs.)

This is such a common misconception, one the FDA will not even consider. It's not e-cigs or real cigs. It's e-cigs alone. An e-cig must prove itself safe -- not against tobacco cigs or vodka martinis or speeding Porsches or anything else. The FDA won't weigh e-cig vs. cigarette, and the health groups lined up against this say we all have a choice among approved NRT products (none of which work and all too expensive and too wimpy). The hardcore anti's simply say, quit or die. No one suggests we return to cigarettes. If we do, then it really is our choice.

It's not a misconception at all, it's a simple statement of fact. It might not be something that prohibitionists like to hear but it's true nonetheless, and by accepting their "analog or quit" message you are embracing a false dichotomy. I'm sorry to say it, but I think that by endorsing such a wrongheaded notion you are doing more harm than good.

The FDA, I hope, will see beyond that simple either/or choice and realise that people who would otherwise continue to smoke analogs will switch to vaping, and thus do themselves less harm.

 

[Lorddrek]

I think right now the FDA has taken the middle road. That could most certainly change. I just read here somewhere the FDA has stopped shipment of 17 packages last month. Now we all know so many packages have gotten thru that true enforcement has not even begun to happen. Many have been inspected before being delivered. They are cracking down on the false claims. They have repeatedly said so. All suppliers and manufacturers should have changed marketing and packaging immediately. Many have. Some have not. Let's hope the greedy and arrogant ones don't ruin it for the rest of us.

 

[TropicalBob]

Strayling, it is not what I believe, but the reality. The playing field is uneven. If Philip Morris wants to introduce a new cigarette, nothing stops it from doing so. If Philip Morris wants to introduce an alternative nicotine delivery device like the Aria, then regulations force it to considered a pharmaceutical. Years of expensive study are required.

Tobacco products and alternative nicotine products get very different treatment by the government. Now that's reality. What we need to do is to get behind harm reduction legislation that will include e-cigarettes, and force the government to look at the big picture. In that big picture, e-cigarettes are vastly superior to tobacco cigarettes. No real question. But the big picture is not allowed, so we can stop dreaming it and work toward changing a flawed regulatory system that actually works against innovation and a higher health good.

 

[yvilla]

(Responding to an assertion that we're betting e-cigs are less harmful than analogs.)



It's not a misconception at all, it's a simple statement of fact. It might not be something that prohibitionists like to hear but it's true nonetheless, and by accepting their "analog or quit" message you are embracing a false dichotomy. I'm sorry to say it, but I think that by endorsing such a wrongheaded notion you are doing more harm than good.

The FDA, I hope, will see beyond that simple either/or choice and realise that people who would otherwise continue to smoke analogs will switch to vaping, and thus do themselves less harm.

Agreed. Of course it's not a "misconception"! It's harm reduction. And it permeates the reasoning of several doctors who have come out in support of keeping ecigs legally accessible: Dr. Nitzkin, Dr. Siegel and the doctors at Tobacco Harm Reduction.Org.

Electronic Cigarette Letter

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

Electronic cigarettes. (tobaccoharmreduction.org)

Edit: It's also the philosphy underlying Buyer's proposed amendments to the pending legislation regarding FDA regulation of tobacco.

 

[TropicalBob]

Yvilla,

It's also the philosphy undelying Buyer's proposed amendments to the pending legislation regarding FDA regulation of tobacco.

This is exactly the type of legislation we need to support. Exactly. I try to project from reality, not idealism. Reality works against e-cigs: they are pharmaceuticals with all the red tape that entails. We need to rethink how devices like e-cigs are regulated for mass market sale. Buyer's amendment would have been a good start (wasn't it defeated?).

Harm reduction has to be adopted if we're to lower the health toll from cigarette smoking. Quit-or-die won't work.

 

[strayling]

Strayling, it is not what I believe, but the reality.

We'll continue to disagree on that. I maintain that I'm talking about the real reality and you're talking about an interpretation of legal regulations. I think we've said all that can productively been said on the subject for now though, so I'll leave it at that.

What's much more interesting and possibly fruitful is that excellent essay on harm reduction you pointed us to. I think that's the best direction in which to take the debate with the regulators.

 

[strayling]

Agreed. Of course it's not a "misconception"! It's harm reduction. And it permeates the reasoning of several doctors who have come out in support of keeping ecigs legally accessible: Dr. Nitzkin, Dr. Siegel and the doctors at Tobacco Harm Reduction.Org.

I think this is one of the strongest arguments in favour of e-cigs and I hope the FDA considers it carefully.

 

[yvilla]

The Buyer amendment was defeated by the House panel vote, but the fight is not over yet. Buyer is still fighting apparently, planning to bring it to the full House.

"Despite the defeat of the Buyer amendment on a 34-18 party line vote, McIntyre said he and Buyer are committed to bringing their bill to the House floor." House panel passes tobacco regulation | Washington Bureau

And then there's the Senate yet to come.

 

[andreo]

I think that one of the biggest factors involved in getting the rabid anti's going against e-cigs is the poor decision to market them as away around smoking ban laws.

"Use it in non-smoking areas!"

"Get around your smoking bans!"

There is no way marketing like this is ever going to help us gain support in the anti community.

But those statements are technically true. I've seen interviews with state and local heath officials that stated that they do not violate smoking bans because they contain no tobacco.
Now what I would have a problem with is people insisting that they can smoke them anywhere they please. I've always insisted on getting prior permission before using them instead of waiting on someone to challenge you about using them.
And since I normally have better things to do then try to convince someone that they should allow me to use my e-cig in their establishment I just wait until I'm outside to start vaping.

But on the same note. Chewing tobacco also skirts around the smoking ban very nicely also. I know that if I'm in a restaurant I would much rather see someone puffing on an e-cig then to see someone spitting out their chew in cup or god forbid a glass.
Or perhaps we should just bring back spittoons in bars and restaurants. I'm sure the staff at those places would love that.

I guess what I'm saying is that there has to be some give and take. I don't quite understand what the underlying mission of the anti crowd is. Since even when there's no tobacco involved they are still throwing fits and wringing their hands over this. But I'm willing to keep my vaping to myself and only in places where it is allowed. If they keep their nose out of my business.

 

[TropicalBob]

Tear it apart if you like, but one of the anti's biggest arguments is that smokeless products -- snus, dissolvables, e-cigs -- will lead to nicotine addiction for newbies and will thus be a stepping stone to Demon Tobacco from .. gasp... cigarettes.

It's very easy to hide snus and dissolvables, even for a high school kid in class. And it's not just e-cigs on their radar. I wish. They're after the snus and Stonewall I use daily, in addition to my e-cigs. They are herding us toward the Cigarette Corral, like it or not. There, we can be controlled better.

How many people here have said this is about "control". Sure it is. And Big Money. Sure it is. And misplaced priorities? You bet.

 

[OutWest]

This all comes back to nicotine prohibition. It really has nothing to do with smoking anymore. It has to do with one group of people forcing their beliefs on another group.

And that's one of the problems. We have forgotten that we are not a democracy, we are a republic; there's a significant different. In a republic, you have certain liberties and a responsibility to not tread on the liberties of others. In a democracy the majority can vote to take away the rights and liberties of the minority (in this case the prohibitionists wanting to take away the liberties of the nicotine users).

 

[andreo]

you WILL have the right to use it...AFTER some real testing has shown results one way or the other. Just because its harmful doesnt mean you wont be able to get it (look at the patch and gum afterall)...it just means that youll be better informed of what you're really in for by using it and that you might have to get it from properly monitored/regulated sources other than joe shmoe on the net. Inconvenient?, yep!...safer? possibly, in some ways.

...and by the way...if its shown that this is actually MORE or JUST AS harmful as analog smokes then the industry is doomed anyway because nobody's going to bother spending money on a NEW habbit that is actually alot less convenient than just lighting up a real smoke and that theyll still have to use outdoors away from non-smokers.

I honestly have no problem what so ever with them asking everyone to take a step back while they sort everything out and figure out just what e-cigs are capable of doing to the human body. However my biggest fear is that will not happen. It will get put on the back burner and sit in limbo forever.

What has happened in the countries that have banned them already? Are they doing any testing or have they just gotten the pesky new gizmo off their streets and moved on to other things.

I do not want to see that happen.

 

[jerimiah797]

Smokeless Cigarettes Deliver Nicotine Electronically
No Ashtrays Necessary For E-Cigs
March 29, 2009

Here's the letter I sent to Kim after reading her quotes..

Hi Kim,

I saw you interviewed about electronic cigarettes in a news story on channel 2 yesterday'. I encourage you to explore the information on this website, created by Dr. Carl V. Phillips.

www . tobaccoharmreduction . com

I was a pack a day smoker for 15 years, despite the fact that my father died at age 51 after being diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer. I have been using my electronic cigarette exclusively for 10 weeks, and I love it. I now consider myself a 'non-smoker' in the sense that I no longer use cigarettes. I have separated my nicotine addiction issues from the numerous and highly documented negative effects of tobacco combustion. I know these new electronic cigarettes are not being marketed as smoking cessation devices, but anecdotally, (not to mention logically) every current smoker who starts using an electronic cigarette instead of regular cigarettes has effectively quit smoking. I thought you might find my perspective interesting.


Thanks for your efforts against tobacco use, especially for children.


Jerimiah Ham
Seattle, WA

 

[jamie]

Buyer's amendment would have been a good start (wasn't it defeated?).

I'm not sure that Buyer is worth backing either... he may have some other agendas. I mentioned here recently I was concerned after I read in Buyer's own p.r. what appeared to be an intent to further harrass youth:

Buyer notes that his measure encourages states to penalize youths for the purchase, possession, and use of tobacco—aligning tobacco laws with states’ alcohol laws. “My substitute would strengthen current law by encouraging states to make it illegal for minors to purchase and possess tobacco products, similar to the laws for alcohol.”

Then I saw this blurb, which has comments from Godshall and others about the Buyer proposal plus other pertinent info (in the Comments section):
-- An alternative to FDA regulation of tobacco?

If folks want to peruse for themselves, the Buyer bill is here:
-- H.R. 1261 Youth Prevention and Tobacco Harm Reduction Act

BTW that blurb was written about the Burr/Hagen proposal in the Senate, which is here:
-- S. 579 Federal Tobacco Act of 2009

 

[jamie]

Here's the letter I sent to Kim after reading her quotes..

Thanks Jerimiah. I know the conversation has gotten quite off track of the original news, including what I just posted!