I mean ecf is a quit smoking forum almost to a certain degree. How come companies are not allowed to make the claim that e cigs help them quit. Or has something changed in law and now companies are allowed too?
Why is it that companies cannot claim that e cigs help them quit?
- Thread starter son et lumiere
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
I think it is because the FDA has not aproved e-cigs as a nicotine replacement. I am pretty sure the reason they haven't is because of political and $$$$$$$ reasons. This prevents companies as selling it as a "quit smoking agent" and forces them to sell e-cigs simply as another way to get nicotine because the FDA hasn't put their stupid little stamp on them.
to be fair there wasn't any research into the safety of ecigs. I think there should be accountability for claims made by any product. Now that studies are emerging that give proof to the claim (which I was pretty sure of don't get me wrong) Companies should be able to market them with evidence to stand on. The smear campaign against ecigs is the real bull that I'm mad about.
Just have them point to this forum. What more evidence does one need? Yea, yea, it's not "scientific", just completely overwhelming.
I know what you mean but while I was vaping and loving it and felt better after switching, you really have to KNOW what your dealing with. People can say that chanting and some time in a sweat lodge cured their cancer and they feel great. This isn't taught to medical students because proof isn't there. By no means do I think this is the case with ecigs but the same rules apply.
There have been studies done. E-cigs are 85% effective for quitting smoking. I think that was published by msnbc.
It's a weird mixture of marketing, legalese, and "science". Claims of quitting smoking or nicotine replacement (as opposed to being an alternative to smoking) put e-cigs under the jurisdiction of the FDA as a drug and drug delivery delivery device, because quitting smoking is a therapeutic claim. There are very specific requirements and LOTS of money related to the type, number, and form of studies to allow new drugs/drug delivery devices onto the market. Since the millions of dollars required to do the clinical studies weren't done before e-cigs were marketed, that classification would allow the FDA to take e-cigs off the market until the studies are done and "safety and effectiveness" shown. in this context, "safety and effectiveness" have very specific meanings. For example, approved nicotine replacement therapies and chantix have been shown to be "safe and effective".
No, it's not really logical, but it's the reality of the regulatory environment. That's why the ongoing legal fight to regulate e-cigs as a tobacco product, or even better as a reduced harm alternative (though the FDA is dragging it's feet in defining what that category would look like). Unfortunately tobacco products are now under the jurisdiction of the FDA so there are down sides to regulation as a tobacco product- but it wouldn't result in an immediate ban.
There do need to be more studies and lots of education of the public. But in the meantime, suppliers have to be very careful how they word things.
No, it's not really logical, but it's the reality of the regulatory environment. That's why the ongoing legal fight to regulate e-cigs as a tobacco product, or even better as a reduced harm alternative (though the FDA is dragging it's feet in defining what that category would look like). Unfortunately tobacco products are now under the jurisdiction of the FDA so there are down sides to regulation as a tobacco product- but it wouldn't result in an immediate ban.
There do need to be more studies and lots of education of the public. But in the meantime, suppliers have to be very careful how they word things.
Last edited:
It's very well known what we are dealing with. There are 16 or 18 peer reviewed studies out there. PV has been studied for over 60 years as an inhalant. The FDA has scoured the globe searching for an e- cig death and can't find one with 7,000,000 users world-wide and seven years of use-that's in the "long term" study range. Thousands have documented right here how they have quit. Case closed.
Playing devil's advocate here.
1. If cigarettes had only been invented 7 yrs ago would anyone have died from it yet?
2. Yes cigarettes are correctly stamped and approved and it is ironical but we have to remember they were sold for years before anyone knew the links between them and cancer / heart disease etc and by that time it was simply too late to ban them otherwise they would have just gone underground with all the nasty things that comes with that. It is simply too late to ban sale of cigarettes for public consumption. I'm not saying that big pharma and bt and possibly the fda are not all a bunch of corrupt money hungry whores, as they are of course. But we live in a more aware climate now and that means that you cannot have a nicotine delivery device that is inhaled without first testing it and properly classifying it, you just cannot and sadly it is too late for cigarettes - a product that had they recently been invented would be banned straight away for sure.
Ecigs need to be tested in a way the fda finds acceptable - as they own the power. of course chantix and other big pharma companies lie about their findings and testing and supress resluts that would be unfavorable for marketing etc, but there is not much e-cig manufacturers can do - but play the same torrid little game by the same cruddy rules and irt seems the problem is they cannot afford it.
Somethign else I am curious about is that bt have recently been marketing and selling snus and other smokeless forms of tobacco in the usa. Why the hell haven't they began tapping into the e-cig market yet? With their clout they could quite easily get them passed and I doubt they would lose that much money in sales from tobacco - would they...? Of course at current prices vaping is cheaper than smoking in the long run, but perhaps they could keep the money coming in by making better juices (possibly with WTA) and attys, with the money they have at their disposal.... I for one haven't completely quit smoking yet and wouldn't mind paying hell, up to 15 usd for 10ml of juice if it was more satisfying than the stuff I've tried so far as I'm all for vaping, but it isn't enough yet for me... I say let them get their hands on it and sell it as a tobacco product rather than harm reduction or drug delivery and make it full of alkaloids and as cigarette-like as it is possible to get as long as their is no combustion and proven less tna's...
Serioulsy, as corrupt and nasty assclowns that they are I would welcome bt getting into the vaping business and believe it would be one of the best all round things for the vaping community - due to the way the game is played obviously, as stated above, they can afford to play it the way it needs to be played, they have the clout. Not saying I am happy with the way the game is played and I find it hard to believe that people who make a living selling and marketing cigs are able to live with themselves and sleep at night... but you know - they could get vaping out into supermarkets and safe from a ban in next to no time, so again - I wonder why they aren't getting on board...
1. If cigarettes had only been invented 7 yrs ago would anyone have died from it yet?
2. Yes cigarettes are correctly stamped and approved and it is ironical but we have to remember they were sold for years before anyone knew the links between them and cancer / heart disease etc and by that time it was simply too late to ban them otherwise they would have just gone underground with all the nasty things that comes with that. It is simply too late to ban sale of cigarettes for public consumption. I'm not saying that big pharma and bt and possibly the fda are not all a bunch of corrupt money hungry whores, as they are of course. But we live in a more aware climate now and that means that you cannot have a nicotine delivery device that is inhaled without first testing it and properly classifying it, you just cannot and sadly it is too late for cigarettes - a product that had they recently been invented would be banned straight away for sure.
Ecigs need to be tested in a way the fda finds acceptable - as they own the power. of course chantix and other big pharma companies lie about their findings and testing and supress resluts that would be unfavorable for marketing etc, but there is not much e-cig manufacturers can do - but play the same torrid little game by the same cruddy rules and irt seems the problem is they cannot afford it.
Somethign else I am curious about is that bt have recently been marketing and selling snus and other smokeless forms of tobacco in the usa. Why the hell haven't they began tapping into the e-cig market yet? With their clout they could quite easily get them passed and I doubt they would lose that much money in sales from tobacco - would they...? Of course at current prices vaping is cheaper than smoking in the long run, but perhaps they could keep the money coming in by making better juices (possibly with WTA) and attys, with the money they have at their disposal.... I for one haven't completely quit smoking yet and wouldn't mind paying hell, up to 15 usd for 10ml of juice if it was more satisfying than the stuff I've tried so far as I'm all for vaping, but it isn't enough yet for me... I say let them get their hands on it and sell it as a tobacco product rather than harm reduction or drug delivery and make it full of alkaloids and as cigarette-like as it is possible to get as long as their is no combustion and proven less tna's...
Serioulsy, as corrupt and nasty assclowns that they are I would welcome bt getting into the vaping business and believe it would be one of the best all round things for the vaping community - due to the way the game is played obviously, as stated above, they can afford to play it the way it needs to be played, they have the clout. Not saying I am happy with the way the game is played and I find it hard to believe that people who make a living selling and marketing cigs are able to live with themselves and sleep at night... but you know - they could get vaping out into supermarkets and safe from a ban in next to no time, so again - I wonder why they aren't getting on board...
Last edited by a moderator:
Cigarettes are not FDA approved. The FDA actually has little to no control over cigarettes as the only power they do have over them was granted by Congress with strict limitations on what the FDA can do. It's all been grandfathered in thanks to Congress, Big Tobacco, lobbyists, evil greed and our governments overdependence upon the tax money related to tobacco.
It may be well known when dealing with nicotine & PG... but we have little data on the flavorings. Some flavorings are molecules used in the ppm range, and likely have little to no effect- but we still don't know for sure. New flavorings are coming out often, there is a swing towards "organic" flavorings by vendors trying to separate themselves from the pack in this unregulated free market. Such as using "organic" vanilla extract, which involves steeping vanilla beans in ethanol. This produces a "tea" of hundreds to thousands of complex compounds that we have no clue what they're going to do when put in the reactive crucible of a hot atty with other unknown chems. Other vendors are making "organic" tobacco flavored ejuice by soaking tobacco and making tobacco "tea". Again, huge unknowns when put to that red-hot atomizer. I've seen a vendor using mushroom extracts. Mushrooms are mostly proteins & water. Our lungs are tricky & well-protected, and often the response to inhaled proteins unknown to the body, is that the immune system mounts a massive counter-attack in the form of an allergic response. It how our bodies protect against disease & (mostly in days gone by) parasites.
Now, these new potions/concoctions/etc, may end up being the best thing ever- or they could end up being every bit as bad as combusting tobacco, possibly worse. We don't know. So many variables are being introduced at such a fast pace, and most consumers see the word "organic" and related it to "healthy", which is a false association. It may be good when dealing with tomatoes that go through a very tough digestive system, but when it's applied to one of the most sensitive systems in the body, it's a totally new ballgame. And I think a lot of newbies get the wrong idea about ejuice Co's. I think a lot of people assume that their "american made juice" is being whipped up by PhD's in lab coats, slaving over hot beakers & cool distillation rigs, or working with reagent grade solvents, and rotovap's, all to produce the next 15mls of apple pie juice.
This is far from reality, and while I have no problem with it (they have tasty recipes!), some people might.
And the population that they're being introduced to are already compromised to some degree or another. There may be deaths out there that were a response to vaping, that no one knows was due to vaping, because the disease/defect causing the mortality ended up being chalked up to smoking due to the fact that the guy that croaked was a 20yr smoker.
Like a few others, I'm kinda playing devils advocate. Of course I'd like to see us unregulated, or at least successfully self-regulated. I am uncomfortable with the number of variables being introduced to the original model. Sometimes adding just two "organic" or "naturally derived" components to ejuice can raise the possible combination of variables exponentially. Than can be a problem when troubleshooting...
And/Or... people die every day from all kinds of stuff. Life is terminal- period.
With that in mind, I'm kinda torn about whether I should care about all this stuff (and other stuff).
deusXmchna - a rare voice of reason.
And re - your last sentence
As me and my friend both said the other day - 'There aren't many of lifes mysteries or ills that can't be solved with beer! i kid, i kid, sort of....
And re - your last sentence
As me and my friend both said the other day - 'There aren't many of lifes mysteries or ills that can't be solved with beer! i kid, i kid, sort of....
Wow, a lot of advocates for the devil out there...
From what I understand, 7 years is enough time for the particularly susceptible individuals to drop. I agree with the comments about flavorings which is why I avoid them.
From what I understand, 7 years is enough time for the particularly susceptible individuals to drop. I agree with the comments about flavorings which is why I avoid them.
Really? I believe it was well after more than 7 years that the health proffessional community made the links from cigs to cancer and heart disease?
Smoking a pad for 7 years wouldn't make anyone drop dead.
For starters, yes these devices were invented 7 years ago, but how long has there been significant numbers of Americans using them? A lot less than 7 years. Probably more like 3 years.
deusXmchna is correct about flavorings. We can defend the harmlessness of nicotine (in small quantities), PG and VG until we are blue in the face but the real mystery is the flavorings, which often comprise 10% or more of the mix. In an effort to develop hundreds of different flavorings, a massive array of stuff is being added to juices. Just because some extract is considered food safe doesn't mean there cannot be adverse health effects to long term inhalation of the same substance.
As for health claims, once the makers of a substance or a device start making health claims, they start to put themselves into the very heavily regulated realm of medical and health devices. They are better off just avoiding those claims, at least in any official capacity.
deusXmchna is correct about flavorings. We can defend the harmlessness of nicotine (in small quantities), PG and VG until we are blue in the face but the real mystery is the flavorings, which often comprise 10% or more of the mix. In an effort to develop hundreds of different flavorings, a massive array of stuff is being added to juices. Just because some extract is considered food safe doesn't mean there cannot be adverse health effects to long term inhalation of the same substance.
As for health claims, once the makers of a substance or a device start making health claims, they start to put themselves into the very heavily regulated realm of medical and health devices. They are better off just avoiding those claims, at least in any official capacity.
- Status
Similar threads
