WHO Recommendations for Regulaton of ENDS and Smokeless

[Vocalek]

See what the World Health Organization thinks should be done about regulating electronic cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products.

As I read it, they want the products made a lot safer, but they want to keep that fact a secret from consumers.

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2009/9789241209557_eng.pdf

 

[Tendril]

From the intro (PDF page 9)

[T]heir popularity and the fact that they are
marketed as alternatives to cigarette smoking indicate the need to characterize
them, regulate them and establish appropriate educational programmes to
limit their use.

What??

 

[Vocalek]

Their mantra: JKS




(Just Keep Smoking)

 

[Thulium]

From the intro (PDF page 9)

"[T]heir popularity and the fact that they are
marketed as alternatives to cigarette smoking indicate the need to characterize
them, regulate them and establish appropriate educational programmes to
limit their use."

What??

In other words, because e-cigarettes are being used as an alternative to smoking, they intend to begin an "education campaign" to "characterize" them in such a way that people will think they should not use them.

That's their plan. I think our plan is better--its more science-y!

 

[Hiryu]

Theoretically, nicotine delivery by electronic vaporization and inhalation of
combination products could be a safe, effective form of treatment for tobacco
addiction. Nevertheless, testing for safety, efficacy and appropriate labelling
are required to evaluate such potential, as described in reports by WHO and
other organizations (5–8).

So in other words. They can't really prove any harm from vaping, but they will keep on saying it's the bogey man until they are properly convinced by green research papers with pictures of dead presidents.

 

[Vocalek]

Hmmm... Pictures of dead presidents, bought and paid for with the dead bodies of smokers. Nice.

 

[36tinybells]

God forbid we should quit smoking and thereby live long enough to see what possible health hazards vaping poses! And I resent this statement:

The products could also undermine smoking cessation efforts by proposing unproven devices for smoking cessation in the place of products of proven efficacy.

I tried the "products of proven efficacy" and they didn't work & one gave me horrific nightmares. I like these "unproven devices" cause I don't have any desire to smoke anymore!

 

[Vap0rJay]

So in other words. They can't really prove any harm from vaping, but they will keep on saying it's the bogey man until they are properly convinced by green research papers with pictures of dead presidents.

This is your brain...

This is your brain on e-cigarettes...

Any questions?!?

 

[Vocalek]

I remember that old TV commercial: This is your drain. This is your drain on bugs.

 

[evilfrog]

The smokeless tobacco section has even worse ideas. They say all brands should be tested for TSNA levels, but information on which brands have the least amount should be held secret from consumers. And the regulatory agencies should tell consumers that there is no difference in the hazards of a brand with 100x the TSNAs of another brand. This kind of thing is really baffling.

I actually agree with a fair amount of the points raised in this report. I'd like to see smokeless tobacco companies change their curing processes to make a safer product, and I'd like to be sure of what is in the liquid I inhale. And I'd like to know what dangers exist around flavoring compounds, etc...
...but their conclusions show how little they care about people addicted to smoking. In their position, I would be recommending that countries build and distribute PVs and snus to anyone who smokes. Publish and enforce guidelines on liquid manufacturing. Health agencies could make their own liquid if they wished and thus be more sure of it's composition. They mention the potential for PVs as a cessation device -- why not explore that possibility? If PVs didn't work they wouldn't be popular enough for them to have to write these reports.

 

[Thulium]

The only "FDA Approved treatments" all involve nicotine cessation by end of treatment. The problem is that assures a 98% relapse rate in less than 2 years! How is it possible that drugs with side effects that include suicide, depression, and violence toward others can be considered "safe" and 2% after 20 months is considered "effective"??

I know, I know, "follow the money". But seriously you almost HAVE to start looking at the money spent on cigarette taxes, settlement agreements, and treatments for not just the "addiction" itself, but on all sorts of diseases (allegedly caused by smoking) combined to get enough money to explain how Americans would ever believe such a ridiculous and harmful lie and never even question what the FDA means by "safe and effective".

 

[rothenbj]

Thad, the one thing we know for sure is that they DON'T MEAN "safe and effective", as a statement of logic. NRT has been proven as fairly safe, but not very effective. Then those cessation drugs posed as more effective have certainly not proven to be safe. Perhaps what they are actually saying "Safe OR Effective" and profitable for our partners.

 

[xg4bx]

the w.h.o. is a useless, powerless organization who likes to rattle their sabres but really can't do much about anything.

 

[JustMeAgain]

Various ENDS marketers claim that their products mimic the sensory effects of cigarettes with markedly different characteristics, suggesting that ENDS cartridges contain several chemicals in addition to nicotine.

I, for one, am shocked at the notion of 'chemicals' in our liquid. Thank God that cigarettes contain nothing but pure, unadulterated tobacco.

 

[Thulium]

Various ENDS marketers claim that their products mimic the sensory effects of cigarettes with markedly different characteristics, suggesting that ENDS cartridges contain several chemicals in addition to nicotine.

I, for one, am shocked at the notion of 'chemicals' in our liquid. Thank God that cigarettes contain nothing but pure, unadulterated tobacco.

Notice in the bolded portion that they immediately associate "sensory effects" with "chemicals"? They fail to recognize or acknowledge the fact that there is more to the sensory experience of smoking cigarettes than feeding a chemical addiction. This is ignoring evidence that even 0-nicotine cigarettes and "placebo" products (that mimic the "sensory effects" of smoking without any active ingredients) reduce the desire to smoke more than Pharmaceutical nicotine products.


Come to think of it, since Eissenberg "proved" that they do not deliver nicotine, e-cigarettes marketed as "Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems" would be mis-labeled and subject to seizure by the FDA.