General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDo smoking bans apply to e-cigarettes?
Do smoking bans apply to e-cigarettes?
WASHINGTON -- Smoking's not allowed on Washington's Metro system. But what about e-smoking?
I was riding on the Orange Line recently when I saw a woman holding what I thought was a high-end felt-tip marker. It had a round barrel that tapered to a narrower point. Then she stuck the narrow end in her mouth, sucked, and blew out a white cloud.
It didn't smell like cigarette smoke, at least from where I was sitting. It seemed like more of a vapor. And, indeed, that's what it was.
The modern nicotine-delivery device -- the electronic cigarette - doesn't produce smoke. Nicotine-infused liquid is heated, creating a vapor that the user inhales and then exhales.
...
People are still figuring out how to treat the devices. The Department of Transportation said it was going to ban them on airline flights and then decided to defer to individual airlines. In Hawaii, the buses of the Oahu Transit Services implemented a ban May 1.
...
In 2010, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II ruled that the state's smoking ban does not apply to electronic cigarettes. On the other hand, the D.C. Council is considering the Electronic Cigarette Parity Amendment Act of 2013, which would classify fake cigarettes pretty much the same as real ones.
http://www.kjonline.com/opinion/do-smoking-bans-apply-to-e-cigarettes__2013-05-20.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I guess the question is "how does the nicotine content of the exhaled-steam contrast with that of combusted tobacco exhaled smoke?"
I'd think it would be fine and thus not a problem except in the smallest of confined spaces.
Doremus
(7,261 posts)There are dozens and dozens of harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke such as tars which are products of combustion.
There is no combustion in e-cigs, only heated water (steam) and some nicotine liquid (although not necessarily so. I use no nicotine when I smoke my e-cig). The vapor quickly dissipates once exhaled and there are no harmful chemicals for others to inhale like there are in second-hand smoke. The people advocating for the banning of public vaping need to educate themselves before making silly assumptions.
E-cigs, btw, helped me kick a disgusting 30-year 3-pack/day habit. I'm coming up to my 4 yr smoke-free anniversary on June 1. Hooray for me! 
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)Its a hell of a thing to beat. 
5 months and change, free myself, and I'm never going back.
E-cigs succeeded for me where the patch, lozenges, and cold turkey failed repeatedly, miserably.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)Yet the Mommas are out there try to put the kabosh on them.....
I quit smoking last weekend, and e-cigs are helping me do just that ....
BainsBane
(53,035 posts)from what I can tell. I hate cigarettes and I've not been bothered around people with e-cigarettes.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and they won.
They wanted the classification so they could avoid FDA regulations.
If they want to NOT be classified with tobacco, then they will be subject to FDA rules.
They can't have it both ways.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)They are beneficial for human beings ... you speak of a stone cold legality as if it trumps the health and well-being of billions of human beings ... it does not ..
It is unfortunate that some would place adherence to legal minutae over the essential health of their fellow human beings .. some of which are their own family ....
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Yes, the e-cigarettes will lower exposure to smokers, and that's good. But the research hasn't been done to show that they don't pose an increased risk to second-hand smokers who otherwise wouldn't be exposed.
Non-smokers benefit from the current bans.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)The manufacturers refuse to do the research to show what's in the vapor. They'd prefer to be classified as tobacco products and avoid complying with FDA rules.
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm172906.htm
Electronic cigarettes, also known as e-cigarettes, are battery-operated products designed to deliver nicotine, flavor and other chemicals. They turn nicotine, which is highly addictive, and other chemicals into a vapor that is inhaled by the user.
As the safety and efficacy of e-cigarettes have not been fully studied, consumers of e-cigarette products currently have no way of knowing:
whether e-cigarettes are safe for their intended use,
how much nicotine or other potentially harmful chemicals are being inhaled during use, or
if there are any benefits associated with using these products.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)that don't emit smoke. That's why it's called a "smoking ban", and not a "tobacco products ban". So the fact that they're classified as a tobacco product isn't really relevant.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)So they need to prove that it is safe, and they refuse to do so.
http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/smoking-cessation/10-facts-about-e-cigarettes9.htm
2: Public Places
Regulation of electronic cigarette use is still evolving, as the product is relatively new. Manufacturers often market e-cigarettes as cigarettes you can smoke anywhere, saying that they present no health risks because they don't emit secondhand smoke. However, health experts say there is no basis for a safety claim, as e-cigarettes have not been adequately tested. Regulations vary, but some countries, including Australia, Canada, Israel and Mexico, have banned electronic cigarettes [source: NPR]. Others consider electronic cigarettes legal, but are in the process of legislating where and how people can use them.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)and tobacco products that don't emit smoke are generally not prohibited under smoking bans. Smoking bans, by definition, ban smoking.
nebenaube
(3,496 posts)You are going to die from bad breath long before you have any effects from these things... get a life people! There's three nuclear reactors that been in a full melt down for over a year and we're still bitching about second hand smoke?
Mariana
(14,858 posts)Vapor that may or may not have some nicotine in it, depending on the fluid being vaporized. Vapor that dissipates immediately, unlike smoke, which hangs in the air and deposits itself on anything it comes in contact with, including ibystanders' lungs. Vapor that is usually odorless (although one of my flavors does give off a faint odor of vanilla when it's heated by the device). Vapor.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)to determine what it contains besides H2O.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and submit it to the FDA. But so far, none of them have done that. Instead, they supported the lawsuit that successfully got it declared to be a tobacco product.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Otherwise, they couldn't market these nicotine products without research data because nicotine is regulated.
(They could market the products with no nicotine or other toxic chemicals.)
beevul
(12,194 posts)
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)The FDA regulates tobacco products, so, how would classifying them as such prevent the FDA from regulating them? NJoy sued to prevent them from regulating them as smoking cessation devices:
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/e-cigarette-health-effects-2013-5#ixzz2U5TDGmO4
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)many of the normal regulations that would require them to produce a safe product. That's the same category e-cigarettes are now in. They don't have to be safe as long as they're classified with tobacco products.
Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)The East German judge gives you an 8.5.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)When presented with proof that you were full of BS, you backpedaled and changed and clarified and parsed.
Have a nice day.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)
DJ13
(23,671 posts)eCigs only emit a steam vapor, which has no carcinogenic properties.
The rabid anti smoking groups (including governments) should be praising their use instead of either condemning them or trying to figure out how to tax them.
annabanana
(52,791 posts)
SirRevolutionary
(579 posts)If the anti-smoker nannies truly cared about smokers, they'd praise vapes, especially zero nicotine. Bloomberg would be handing out vapes in the streets rather than nicotine patches from big pharma.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
bighart
(1,565 posts)Truly curious what your thoughts are on this
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)
bhikkhu
(10,718 posts)...because nicotine is a deadly addictive drug (causing heart disease, for one, 600k deaths a year or so). I don't think all deadly addictive things should be (or can be) banned, but I don't want to be in the company of addicts feeding their addictions either.
I suppose when I was younger I was happy enough to eat crappy food, to drink and hang out with drinkers, and for a time to smoke cigarettes and hang out with smokers. Having gone through all that, I think I'm lucky to have aged into some measure of mental and physical health. The two go together, addictions destroy both, and all the behaviors that go with the addictions are fairly obnoxious once you recognize them for what they are.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)it is an addictive drug.
By the way, it is the tar that is the cause of all those deaths. Not the nicotine. E-cigs don't contain tar.
bhikkhu
(10,718 posts)Plenty of research, and little doubt about the role of nicotine and heart disease. The main argument is not about how safe nicotine is, but about how much less harm nicotine alone does when used as a part of aids to stop smoking.
One of the reasons I would post is that misinformation is so common. Simply put, smoke destroys your lungs, nicotine destroys your heart. Its better to just destroy your heart, but its much better to not be addicted to nicotine.
And I did mention that I don't have much interest in alcohol as well. I'm only in my late 40's, but I've watched too many people die from it, too many people destroy themselves. Its better to not drink, and the boisterousness of a party-lifestyle loses its lure when you see all the sickness afterwards, and recognize the sickness in people without a will to stop even at the cost of their job, their family, their self respect.
tridim
(45,358 posts)
jbond56
(403 posts)bhikkhu
(10,718 posts)here's a good review, more recent: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/50838.php
other more recent research questions that somewhat, but the general consensus is that nicotine alone is less harmful than cigarettes, so if you use patches, gum, or e-cigs to get your nicotine, you're better of than if you kept smoking.
I still think the harm of nicotine is such that it be regulated similar to alcohol and cigarettes, and that regulating nicotine use at the same relaxed level as cigarette use is reasonable. Expanding the opportunities for nicotine use (bringing it back into public places, restaurants, the workplace, schools and so forth) and addiction doesn't serve to reduce cigarette use, but only serves to make it easier (and potentially fashionable, again) to become addicted.
Your link doesn't simply say "nicotine alone is less harmful than cigarettes". It says, specifically:
-- More than 20 years of studies have shown no increased risk of cancer or heart disease among therapeutic nicotine users.
-- More than 110 studies involving more than 35,000 participants have demonstrated the safety of therapeutic nicotine, even in populations with specific health conditions, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, lung disease, and existing heart disease.
Therapeutic nicotine is not associated with any increase in the risk of heart attack, stroke or death.
-- Therapeutic nicotine is a safe and effective treatment approach even in people already diagnosed with angina or with history of heart attack.
bhikkhu
(10,718 posts)Smoking.
So, as I said, nicotine alone is less harmful than cigarettes. Nicotine is also a highly addictive drug that will give you heart disease, among other things, but if you have to have it e-cigs, patches and gum are less harmful ways than smoking.
nicotine by its self is not highly addictive, its equal to the addictiveness of caffeine. It also has the same side effects as caffeine. Will not give heart disease. The nicotine that is in e-cig juice is the same as you find in the FDA approved patches, and all the other NRTs.
Its the smoking tobacco that gives the heart disease and all the other health problems. Using nicotine by its self does not cause these health problems.
"When nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) products were first marketed almost 30 years ago to help people stop smoking, there wasn't a lot of data available on how long consumers could safely use them, and whether they could be used in combination with other NRTs or continued smoking.
That has changed in the intervening years as researchers conducted studies and clinical trials.
Now, the Food and Drug Administration—after reviewing scientific research on the safety of NRT products sold over the counter (OTC)—has decided that some warnings and limitations specified in the directions for use on the labels of these products are no longer necessary to make sure they are used safely and effectively to quit smoking.
The changes that FDA is allowing to these labels reflect the fact that although any nicotine-containing product is potentially addictive, decades of research and use have shown that NRT products sold OTC do not appear to have significant potential for abuse or dependence."
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm345087.htm
Remember the nicotine in e-juice is the same medical grade nicotine that is used in the NTRs including the Nicorette inhaler.
And like with the NTRs the only people that would opt to use the e-cig would be a person that smokes.
"Nicotine replacement therapy is safe when used properly. Nicotine by itself is not nearly as harmful as smoking. Tars, carbon monoxide, and other toxic chemicals in tobacco cause harmful effects, not the nicotine."
"Heart disease. Nicotine replacement therapy has been shown to be safe in most people with heart disease. But if you recently had a heart attack or if you have serious heart problems, such as an irregular or rapid heartbeat (arrhythmia) or chest pain (angina), consult your doctor before you use nicotine replacement products."
http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/nicotine-replacement-therapy-for-quitting-tobacco
Remember the nicotine that is contained In e-juice is the same medical grade nicotine used in the NRTs. How can one be safe for use and fda approved and the other is not safe, its the same nicotine.
jamiea99
(16 posts)That article says in the very first line those stats are from smoking. It doesn't matter what they further speculate ("it is believed that..."
when the research is from nicotine (and everything else included) delivered by smoking cigarettes.
Studies on nicotine replacement therapy alone, that do not include smoking, have not found those same results, and neither has the so far one small study on nicotine via ecigarette use.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)When you see someone with an e-cig, you shouldn't assume they're taking nicotine. You may wonder why someone would continue to use e-cigs when they're no longer addicted to nicotine. I imagine the answer would be that vaping is pleasurable in its own right, and they enjoy it.
bhikkhu
(10,718 posts)Any objection I would have is with addictive drugs, not with the delivery vehicles. No drugs, no problem. Of course, drugs have their place as well - I support marijuana legalization, for instance. But like other legal and addictive drugs, they are regulated to the extent that they aren't used around children and in public places.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)Almost everyone who uses these things are using them to END their addiction. When you see someone using an e-cig, they're almost certainly either in the process of withdrawing from nicotine, or are already off it. I don't know why you'd consider either one a bad thing to see.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)this post is ridiculous even by du standards
bhikkhu
(10,718 posts)and had them wish to you that they hadn't smoked, that they could have had years still? It happens to people all the time. Every time I see a kid smoking, which is common in my area, I see a younger version of the last guy I know who died of heart disease. His greatest sorrows were first that he got sick a year before he retired, so the retirement he meant to spend with he family he spent dying instead. And second was that he had passed on his smoking habit to his son, and expected him to die the same miserable way.
I know the OP is about e-cigarettes, which aren't as bad as smoking, but nicotine is a highly addictive chemical that causes heart disease. Amazingly, even years after the manufacturers were forced to give up their propaganda campaigns and sham science, some people seem to still not know that.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)way to free them of their addiction 
you can justify your judgmental attitude any number of ways you want to but it is still a way for you to feel morally superior. it does the person you are judging no good, so pretending you are doing it because you care about their lives is ridic.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)bhikkhu dislikes.
ryan_cats
(2,061 posts)I agree. Nicotine doesn't just cause lung cancer. It hardens arteries and causes heart attacks. It killed my mom in the worst way and while the vapor emitted by the smoker may be harmless to those around them, it isn't harmless to the smoker.
I can understand my mom starting smoking in the forties but to start smoking today, WTH?
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)It is primarily all the other crap in cigarettes that makes them harmful.
bhikkhu
(10,718 posts)but here's some information on the mental addiction side of nicotine http://whyquit.com/whyquit/linksaaddiction.html
To me, that's the worst of it. Having smoked and having been around smokers for years, the mental effects are the most easily recognized - and that's caused by nicotine, not cigarette smoke.
Heart disease is the other side of that, which should be a concern for anyone who expects to have a reasonably long or active life: http://www.livestrong.com/article/15659-does-nicotine-cause-heart-disease/
...some hundreds of thousands dead from that every year. I'm not sure how caffeine compares.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)These manufacturers are seeking to put their products in the tobacco category and thereby avoid limits.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)bhikkhu
(10,718 posts)RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)As I said in my other post you just replied to.
bhikkhu
(10,718 posts)Not trying to be obnoxious, but references are standard good form to attach to factual claims.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)Will have to hope an expert can chime in on this. (Let the record show that I am not claiming to be an expert, merely just ruminating )
Seems like the claim which I recalled reading, that nicotine and caffeine are comparable, may simply be the result of big tobacco trying to obfuscate the poisonous nature of nicotine itself.
That said, I still believe my original question to be interesting. Many in this thread are labeling nicotine users as 'drug addicts' (a valid label, really). But, does the same apply to caffeine addicts? Why stigmatize one group, and not the other?
bhikkhu
(10,718 posts)as we are all more or less addicted to sugars and so forth by nature. Some sugars (and chocolate) have the same kind of effect on brain chemistry as scheduled drugs.
It does come down to harm though. Refined sugars might mess with your metabolism a bit, causing weight gain and complications, but on the other end of the scale are things like heroin and meth. These addictive substances that will kill you relatively quickly, and so are not regulated but banned. Even more, they seem to hijack the parts of the brain that might chose to stop taking them. Nicotine is similar but milder, and so is regulated rather than banned, which I think is fine. Marijuana should be treated the same. And to be fair heart disease is much less certain, perhaps involving genetic inclinations and other behavioral factors besides.
I only know about caffeine from personal experience, where I drank coffee daily years ago, but became less and less tolerant of it as I aged. Headaches, stomach aches and a bit of dizziness, so I no longer partake. There were no withdrawals, though the smell of good coffee still attracts.
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)To be honest, caffeine was significantly harder for me. Pretty bad withdrawal symptoms, felt lethargic for an extended period of time, and do crave coffee still. I drank a lot, though. Couldn't agree with you more about the smell of coffee. The benefits I've noticed by giving up caffeine are too significant for me, though. I've been experimenting with various caffeine free teas to try to replace the coffee ritual.
Cigarettes, for some reason, I really felt no withdrawals. I got quite lucky. Very glad I was able to just stop cold turkey.. truly a disgusting habit and I have no idea why I even started. That said, I also crave cigarettes occasionally, and it did take me a few times to actually stop. It's still especially difficult when I see other people smoking, but knowing where that money is going and what it's doing to the body is enough deterrent at this point.
Sometimes strange how addiction works.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)That's the stuff that coats the walls in a smoker's home. And the lungs. You can have someone in a closed room puffing away all day with one of those e-cigs and have a non-smoker enter and smell NOTHING.
Alan Selk
(17 posts)You are wrong bhikkhu. Nicotine does not cause heart disease or cancer. Decades of studies on Swedish snus have shown that tobacco and nicotine are in fact very low risk, about equal to caffeine. They are both mild stimulants that temporarily increase blood pressure and heart rate but is not associated with any serious health issues.
It's the tars and other bi-products of combustion that kill people.
Other then that your views on addiction appear to be come straight from the Puritans.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,015 posts)
bhikkhu
(10,718 posts)and I'd be happy to read the Swedish studies if you can link to them. When I look for research on it I find studies like this most prominent: http://www.medicaldaily.com/articles/9169/20120223/cigarette-smoke-nicotine-cardiovascular-disease-benefits-smoke-free-products.htm
The argument is over how bad nicotine by itself is. Clearly its not as bad as smoking, but the best guesses, or the sum of the arguments, seems to be that of the 600,000 deaths a year in the US caused by heart disease, perhaps a third of them are caused by nicotine. That could be wrong, and obviously most stuff is never that clear cut, but I still don't see how anyone would promote nicotine addiction.
Aside, did you join DU just to comment on an old thread and equate dislike of addiction with Puritanism?
Alan Selk
(17 posts)Your link isn't working so can't comment on that.
http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-study-documents-health-effects-from.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21163315
There are many more. What the studies are showing, besides that lack of cancer, is that nicotine is not associated with increased risk of heart disease.
Since when is telling the truth promoting anything. I do hope you are staying off the caffeine in your pursuit of an addiction free life as it has about the same negative health effects as nicotine.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)if you must be judgmental for absolutely no logical reason, do it at home.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)to prove the safety of their product to second-hand smokers. Pure water vapor contains no carcinogens, but this vapor isn't pure water.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)Polyethylene glycol is used in some e-cigs and it's also used in eye drops, laxatives, ointments, etc. Vegetable glycerin is used in other e-cigs and is also used as a skin softener, in food, cosmetics, etc.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)are sensitive to lung irritants.
And it can produce formaldehyde when heated, and that is a carcinogen.
The uses you cite are topical. Many products that can be applied to the skin shouldn't be inhaled into the lungs.
energumen
(76 posts)propylene glycol can be the major ingredient of inhalable asthma medications
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)And formadehyde is not the only toxic chemical that has been found in some of these products.
Why will the manufacturers not come clean about what is in the vapor by releasing safety research to the FDA? The limited data conducted by outsiders shows toxic contaminants and varying levels of nicotine. Why don't the manufacturers counter this with their own research?
beevul
(12,194 posts)Its propylene glycol, which is used by asthma inhalers such as nebulizers, and given to lung transplant patients, and even dispersed within the air circulation system at some hospitals because it is a germicide, I'm told.
That's probably pretty safe to be inhaling, first or second hand, I think.
And its also vegetable glycerin, which is used in about a hundred things just about everyone touches, tastes, feels and ingests every day.
Also safe, I'd say.
Whether its one or both of those things, depends on the blend of e-juice.
Its also flavor additive, and nicotine. Debate can be had about the level of safety of these things, however it is important to keep in mind that the VG/PG solution makes up 90 to 95 percent of a given volume of most e-juices, and the flavor and nicotine make up 5-10 percent of it.
The 10 thousand-ish other things also present in cigarette smoke, are not present in vapor from vaping.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)
Some people just need to live in a bubble and be done with it.
beevul
(12,194 posts)ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)It's a good thing humans aren't as delicate as some people seem to think they are....none of us would ever make it out of childhood.
beevul
(12,194 posts)There are a great many people in this world, that want to legislate, restrict, and ban a great many things, simply because they don't like those things.
But simply not partaking/owning/doing whatever that thing might be, isn't enough for the bunch I'm referring to.
Ohhhh no. They need to make my decision for me too, and yours, and everyone elses.
The world is full of them, sadly.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Limited studies have also found nitrosamines in the vapor and other chemicals; and have found leakage of nicotine from poorly designed dispensers that could affect children and pets.
EVen the manufacturers do NOT claim their products are safe. The attorney of one of the two largest importers specifically said they are inherently UNSAFE when they pushed for, and received, classification as a tobacco product.
sweetloukillbot
(11,030 posts)None in the building.
Every bar I've been in it's been a non-issue though - as long as it doesn't stink and people don't complain, they don't care. Mostly I've gotten curiosity when I've used mine.
I struggled with quitting for 20 years, switched to an e-cig and haven't had a real cigarette in 2 years this week. I now use non-nicotine e-juice, I still get the sensation and taste without any nicotine.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...I've been cigarette free for over 2 years with my handy-dandy E-Cig. I take it and use it everywhere and no one is the wiser. Except for the small amount of steam that looks like smoke, there's no smell. You're likely to get more "smoke" and "smell" coming from a steaming hot bowl of soup than someone puffing away on their E-cig. I've smoked my "cig" on airplanes...including on a crowded one with someone nearly sitting on my lap and she never noticed when I was taking a puff.
The "smoke" from an E-cig is vapor...a mixture of a vegetable-based liquid mixed with a small amount of nicotine. I gladly demonstrate the system to anyone whose interested. I've been especially happy with the response from non-smokers whose major objection has been the secondary smoke and smell...those are gone with an E-cig. I strongly encourage anyone whose looking to quit the "coffin nails" (I smoked for 35 years) and still enjoy the smoking sensation to look into this alternative.
As far as the "legislation"...this should be a private matter. It should be up to the property owner to determine if they want to permit or prohibit this device. I think big tobacco is threatened by these devices as they are proving to be effective in helping people quit. Also, they're getting more economical than smoking. With taxes included a pack of cigs can cost upwards of $8 or a carton for $70...while an E-cig can go for two weeks on $10 worth of VG base liquid.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...it's vapor that is exhaled...thus "vaping"...
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)sound made by drawing on a doobie as it dwindles in length.
Ah, prohibition. First there is a law against pot-smoking, then against anything resembling or represented as a fatty. Then laws against "second hand smoke," now proposals to outlaw something resembling smoking, even when it is not. We know the truth: Cigarette smoking bans are about banning a "drug," whether smoked or not; whether second hand or not.
Prohibition is never a moderate approach in this country. It is always extremist. Believe me, there will come a time when smoking bans will be enforced in ones home; starting first in those homes where children reside.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...A close friend of mine who smoked was forced to move from the apartment complex he's lived in for the past 25 years. The new owner deemed the building "smoke free" and he either had to approve of the change or find a new place to live.
As a kid of the 50s and 60s I grew up around smokers...including my father. When I got into my profession in the mid 70s, almost everyone in my office smoked. While we knew the hazards, the social ostracism wasn't as strong as it would later become. In some ways this was a good thing as it made one think about the health implications of what smoking cigarettes could do to one's health, but the rising number of "smoking nazis" would turn this from a health to a political issue.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)This model has been used and advocated for in a number of societal problems -- demonizing the oil companies for their persistent & aggressive pursuit of oil; stigmatizing smokers; stigmatizing gun owners. This approach is ALWAYS used in prohibition campaigns. The extension of the stigmatization model to oil and climate change politics is curious, and suggests there is little viability in other change methods; an air of desperation.
Malikshah
(4,818 posts)automobiles. It is all about how one does it.
I use V2 (w/ liquid). No smell, no mess, etc. It's easy to hide your battery in your hand and take a pull. You needn't go the "smoke-ring" route with it (although one can). Just keep it in and exhale slowly and all is well.
For smokers/ex-smokers out there, think about it-- often one does not need to have a full cigarette.
Is it tied to addiction--of course. For those militants out there, be careful of your glass houses.
SirRevolutionary
(579 posts)as someone who "vapes" zero nicotine juice, I'd like the hear the pathetic argument against a poor passerby inhaling my second hand vapor. The product I vape (99.9% inside my own house and car) is made out of the same food products we all consume every day. So while the ant-smoker czars may be pissed off that it looks like smoking, it's actually nothing like smoking at all.
Stupid is as stupid does though. You don't hear them complain about inhaling the emissions from the train on the Orange line, standing in an underground tunnel with diesel engines emitting pollutants 24 hours a day, or the countless cars zooming around in the streets, but cripes forbid someone inhales a zero nicotine vape because it LOOKS like they're smoking and it sets off anti-smoker sentiments because it LOOKS like smoking.
I'm very glad I quit smoking over three years ago, vapes were the only way I've been able to do it. At first, I used nicotine and realized I didn't need it because I didn't notice the difference between nicotine vapes and zero nicotine vapes. I would voluntarily not vape in most places where smoking is banned. Planes and other public transportation might be dangerous if someone sees what appears to be smoke flying around for a split second, especially if you have brown skin, the authorities will be all over you. Even worse, if an anti-smoker combatant thought I was smoking, it would cause a horrific stir because it would set off their holy self righteousness and they couldn't possibly pass over a chance to attack someone they felt was inferior.
Iggo
(47,558 posts)SirRevolutionary
(579 posts)If someone wants to argue against nicotine ecig bans (and still hold their cellphone to their heads, or drive a car, or ride the subway, or eat high fructose corn syrup) so be it. But zero nicotine ecigs like I vape? Under what grounds? It looks like smoking?
I've never in my life had someone complain if I run my car in the parking lot for hours and a heap of people walk by because they don't see smoke coming from the exhaust and tons of people have cars. But how stupid is that? If some anti smoker purist Nanny Bloomberg ban-happy warriors see a tiny wisp of what they interpret to be as smoke while I'm puffing happily on my zero nicotine ecig as I walk down the street, based on zero scientific evidence at all, simply because it appears to be smoke, what logical reason is there to ban that?
I'm not a huge fan on banning things in general. Some anti smoker nut can open carry a gun right next to me in the street, but I can't puff on my zero nicotine ecig?!?! wtf?? Maybe if I'd complain that firing guns causes smoke, then someone would do something to ban them all.
msongs
(67,420 posts)DevonRex
(22,541 posts)
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)and say the same thing over and over.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)from a puff on one of those pacifiers. Once I have some reliable data on that, then I'll offer an opinion on whether or not they should be subject to smoking bans.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)carcinogens in cigarette smoke that are the problem. Meaning the smoke itself, really. Smoke contains tar which is a carcinogen. There is no smoke in ecigs so no tar.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)The difference in vapor vs. smoke is insignificant, as far as the mode of carrier is concerned.
politicat
(9,808 posts)We're working right now on figuring out how to standardize the data and get enough funding to do more samples. Basically, we did the experiment because our lab has several vapers and several... People who objected to them. (Science geeks' equivalent of a bar bet.)
Background nicotine in the local air is between 5 and 24 parts per million, with a statistical mean of 8.7 ppm.
The exhalation of a single puff by a regular user is between 6 and 28 ppm, with a statistical mean of 9.1 ppm.
Nicotine levels in a closed 8' cube where two vapers were going at their devices hard (every other breath for 5 minutes) were between 12 and 33 ppm, with a statistical mean of 14.5 ppm (which is still within the background levels). In comparison, the same room, with two burning cigarettes, was 390-570 ppm.
Statistically, it's a wash, given what we've looked at so far. (9 different users who all live at a mile above sea level, who each did ten exhalation captures.) it's a small data set.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I'd love to hear more about it.
politicat
(9,808 posts)It doesn't need a lot of funding as these things go, but it needs some. (And time to write it up, submit, review, et cetera.)
Science would move a lot faster if we didn't have to spend half of our hours writing grant proposals.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)As you yourself pondered the question, it's something best handled by true scientific investigation. You've convinced me, I guess there is no substantial risk to those nearby. Now I won't feel as worried as I have been when somebody fires one of those things up near me at the bar.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)I for one would love to read it.
politicat
(9,808 posts)I have allergy-related asthma that was very poorly controlled half of the year. I'm allergic to juniper, conifer, ragweed and hemp, so indeed, my immune system pretty much lives in overdrive. Half the year -- no walking outdoors, no biking, no picnics in the park. Sometimes car to grocery store was too much, and forget public transit or non-motorized commuting. I could move to Antarctica or the Australian Outback...
Regularly inhalers were causing massive blood pressure swings because we couldn't control dosage well enough, so my doc prescribed unpressurized liquid albuterol and salmeterol, with the idea of using it sublingually by the drop. That worked better, but not great. Then I saw the vaporizer hardware and I figured my worst case scenario was I'd need to pay out of pocket for a month of drugs and the hardware. As an experiment, it was cheap. I was inspired by insulin pumps which deliver a consistent low level dose, and wanted something similar.
That worked. I haven't had an asthma attack in three years. I can control my dosage down to the microgram and maintain consistent blood levels. I take small hits via vaporizer throughout the day, getting regular, small doses. If I need to forestall an attack, I can, by hitting a second vaporizer of high dose albuterol three times. It's easier to use than a puffer, too. (Natural, deep breathing rather than the the sudden inhale a puffer requires, which is a PITA when the lungs are on strike.) I can run. I can bike. I like spring for the first time in my life. (Also, the ability to flavor my meds is nice, and the vaporizer is less obtrusive and easier to carry than a puffer.) I'm trying now to get somebody interested in a larger scale study (because sample size=1 is anecdote, not data).
Vaporizers are my lifeline. I wish that every nicotine user would drop the e-cigarette terminology and use vaporizer and vaper instead because the anti-smoking zealots only hear the cigarette part.
I've seen the hardest of the hard-core smokers kick the habit thanks to these -- schizophrenics have successfully quit. (80+% of schizophrenics have a 1+ pack a day habit that seems to be a functional self-regulated medication. Nicotine and the MAOIs in cigarette smoke seem to serve as neural regulators. For a schizophrenic to quit smoking, compare it to a diabetic going off insulin.) I wish the anti-smoking lobby would listen to those of us who are actually doing research into these devices. If they were smart, they'd be backing these devices and handing them out.
But no, because Puritan-blah-blah-all-about-me-shit-I-don't-like-la-la-la-not-listening!
Okay, sleeves rolled up, jaw set. Point me at the politicians.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)Hardly anyone ever does. My e-cig/vaporizer doesn't look like a cigarette, and I don't hold it like a cigarette, so most people who see me take a drag just don't "see" someone smoking.
I'm so glad you found something to help you manage your condition. My doctor has been thinking about ways of using the e-cig hardware to deliver medications. He also recommends it to all his patients who smoke, and he's even asked me to demonstrate it for a few of them.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)It's vapor. It doesn't stink, it doesn't give you "second hand" effects, much of it doesn't even have nicotine in it. And it doesnt matter if it did, The vapor dissipates instantly, doesn't linger in the air like smoke.
Seriously, if anyone complains about this they're just being a douche.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)so you should blame them.
They didn't want to be subject to FDA regulations, so they got their products classified with tobacco. They can't have it both ways.
Either they're tobacco products and they can be freely sold, or they're a nicotine delivery system, like a patch, and they're regulated.
virgogal
(10,178 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and the manufacturers had to submit research to the FDA before they could be sold.
The e-cigarette manufacturers don't want to do that, so they sued to be classified as a tobacco product. That was their choice.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Or one that only harms the individual using it.
But whatever. It doesn't affect me one way or the other. I just hate the smoke (or the product of your choice) Nazis.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)how do you know it's a harmless product?
I'm sure there is less risk to the smoker. And that's good. But they need to prove that there is no risk to the second-hand smoker -- and they haven't done that.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)But I'm not a scientist nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)Water, propylene glycol and/or vegetable glycerin.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...ones that serve hot, steaming soup...especially those that have a tomato-base. Tomatoes have a small amount of nicotine and surely are absorbed into the steam of the soup and then inhaled. Should that be regulated as well? Sure wouldn't want someone to suffer from second-hand Manhattan...
http://www.vidarholen.net/contents/junk/nicotine.html
After spending an extraordinarily long time figuring out exactly how much nicotine eggplants contained, I found a proper source and made this page to make Google more helpful in the future. The data is taken from the New England Journal of Medicine vol 329 p437, available here.
Vegetable Nicotine in ng/g g per 1µg nicotine
Cauliflower 16.8 59.5
Eggplant (Aubergine) 100.0 10
Potatoes 7.1 140
Green tomatoes 42.8 23.4
Ripe tomatoes 4.3 233.0
Pureed tomatoes 52.0 19.2
1µg of nicotine is the equivalent of sitting in a vaguely smoke filled room for three hours. A cigarette contains about 7mg of nicotine, of which 1mg is absorbed. In other words, 100g of eggplant contains 0.01mg of nicotine, and 10kg of eggplant is equivalent to one cigarette. However, absorbtion rates from ingestion are low and nicotine is quickly metabolised, so the effect isn't nearly the same.
The big story is E-cigs have helped millions, such as myself, to get the cigarette monkey off our backs. Legislate E-cigs and treat its users like a cigarette smoker defeats the incentives for those to quit and make the air cleaner for us all. I find it amazing the intolerance of some about assisting those in trying to break an addiction...fortunately in my real world my family and friends have been extremely accepting of the my E-Cig and that helped me in being cigarette free for the past two years after smoking for the past 35 years.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Which was what the FDA wanted to consider them.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)which would be required UNLESS they were considered a tobacco product.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Its important to note that this:
"AND because they didn't want to have to provide the safety research..."
Is an unsubstantiated assertion. An opinion. A belief. With pejorative flavoring.
In this case, that which can be asserted without evidence, can likewise be dismissed without evidence.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)nothing has been stopping them.
This is a fact.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Real research isn't done overnight.
I suspect you'd have the following objections:
It was done by e-cig users.
It wasn't done by what you consider a non-biased group.
It was done too quickly and isn't in depth enough for you.
You have a chip on your shoulder, that much is perfectly crystal clear.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)They've had time, at least for short-term studies. They clearly have had time to measure the chemical output of their devices, which wouldn't require any long term look at "human subjects."
I wouldn't object to studies that were acceptable to the FDA under their usual standards.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Once again, you show everyone whos reading that you know nothing...zip zero zilch nix nadda...about the subject matter.
Vaping, as it is today, is not what it was 4 years ago. In fact, its almost unrecognizable from what it was 4 years ago. That goes for the devices, the e-juice, and the mediums that mesh the two together.
Of course it would require looking at human subjects. E-cigs don't just puff out smoke on their own. They don't sit and burn like a tobacco cig does. They actually have to be activated every single time a puff is taken, and different people take different size puffs, just like with analogue cigs. So obviously you would have to look at the people who used them.
But I suppose that's too much like self selection for you.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)the chemicals that are off-gassed into the air and the health effects on the humans vaping the e-cigs. Those are two separate issues.
In a simple study of the output, you would be measuring just the output --you wouldn't have to look at the same time at the long term outcome on the health of the people doing the vaping. So any such study could easily have been completed by now if any of the manufacturers were so inclined.
The long term study on health would be needed to demonstrate the effects on the vapers themselves; but short term studies showing what particular chemicals (and in what amounts) were off-gassed or leaked into the air would show if there was any risk to second or third hand users.
If there was no risk to second or third hand users, then there wouldn't be a need to ban them in public or work spaces.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)bans out of ignorance?
Because they dont know they make laws. Its a knee-jerk reaction. Instead of finding out what e-cigs are all about by asking the people who use them they just make laws. The vaping community were the ones that researched and devoloped and made better what the chinese pharmacist made years ago. NO government agency, no large tobacco company.Most law makers dont even know what they are unless they have a family member that use them. If they are scared of them or whatever they think they need to make laws.
Long term, that is very subjective, there are drugs on the market right now that are just being found out to have problems and they have been on the market 5, 10, 15 years as more people take them. Even the FDA doesnt require drug companies to do that long of studys before sending the drug out to market. The long term study starts when they go to market.
There are plenty of people that have been using e-cigs 4 years now, alot that started years ago have long quit using them and are smokefree.
To have an ethical study you need a control group and a user group. I dont think your going to find anyone that are non-smokers and that dont use nicotine to start, I wouldnt want them to.
Its just not easy and it takes along time. There is a study going on in a few different places right now, PA, MA and one other I believe in MI.
To get a lab and drs, scientist and the equiptment its very expensive. CASAA is starting a study this summer and are still raising money to have it happen.
if anyone here would want to donate some money to further the study that would be so nice.
www.casaa.org
There was a study done with vapor on heart cells, comparing cigarette smoke effects and vapor effects at the cell level on heart cells. Short story is the cigarette smoke saw lots of deaths of cells, with vapor they saw growth of heart cells and very little death.
So yea there plenty of studies going on and have been done, but it seems nobody wants to look at these studies. And its not just studies done in the US but in many other countries, more people use e-cigs in the EU and all the other countries outside the EU. 7 million just in the EU, 2.5 and growing here in the US, maybe as many as 2million + in the remaining countries.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)They have to be submitted to the FDA before they can be acted on. And this is a multi-billion dollar industry -- they have the resources.
And again, they wouldn't need a multi-year long term study just to determine what is in the off-gas.
beevul
(12,194 posts)My point, is that human test subjects would be required, since the only way vapor is released into the air, is through exhalation - they don't just sit and smoke if you lay one in an ashtray, like a real cig does.
I already linked you one study. Did you read the whole thing?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Why doesn't someone in this multi-billion dollar industry send it to the FDA if it is scientifically supportable?
beevul
(12,194 posts)"multi-billion dollar industry".
This so called "multi-billion dollar" industry, is made up of very very few large companies, and a whole lot of mom and pop small operations, with major tobacco companies getting into e-cigs well after the horse left the barn (and the big tobacco version are behind the rest of the industry by years) - but don't let that interfere with trying to paint them as large evil corporations. Maybe you should just start calling them "big-ecig" and just get it over with.
For what its worth, I believe the FDA was already given the air quality study, when a group of vapers had a sitdown with fda which was scheduled for 1 hour and lasted 2 or 3.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)How do you know the e-cig community ready havent?
The communications with the special team put togeather for e-cigs in the tobacco part of the FDA were very interested in finding out all they could about the stick like e-cigs and the mods and juice. FDA doesnt require anyone in the community to send them anything, that is not how it works. But the community wants to make sure they have all the information they can before the FDA determines how they will work on regulation of e-cigs. Remember FDA has limited power on what they can do. And like I said its up to local governments to make rules about e-cigs in the work place, in public places. The only thing FDA can do is create standards of public safety. We see how well that works with Chantix, welbutron. There is always the % of exceptable loss of life.
Billion dollar industry, well maybe if you put all the vendors togeather from all the world it might be billion dollar, multi-billion, that might be a real stretch to say.
jamiea99
(16 posts)And it's not just a chip, it's well-distributed (if sloppily-honed and inaccurate) talking points.
What's amazing to me is their eagerness now in partnering with Big Tobacco to knock out all the small online ecig vendors so that Lorillard (who bought Blu) and RJ Reynolds (Vuse) can capture the explosively-growing market by fiat.
Anything to guarantee continued employment via all that tobacco settlement money, apparently.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and had to submit research on their safety and effectiveness before they got approved as a nicotine delivery system.
The e-cigarette manufacturers didn't want to do this, so they sued to be classified as a tobacco product instead.
If they want NOT to be subject to smoking bans, then they should do the research and prove that the vapor doesn't contain harmful substances such as formaldehyde.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)This is not smoke. I suspect this is why these manufacturers wanted the tobacco classification. Respectfully, there is a flaw in your thinking.
jamiea99
(16 posts)The manufacturers wanted the tobacco classification because their inventory was confiscated and that was the only way to get it back and to stay in business.
It's not a flaw, it's consistent, misleading talking points.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)FDA did not have the legal abilty to stop the import of e-cigs into this country, it was not within their job to do that.
That is why the were taken to court and lost. 2009
It was a full year later and a different company that took fda to court about the classification. 2010
Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)That you've spread that BS in this thread.
It's not true.
Period.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)But I do know the legislation hasn't caught up with the technology yet.. the company I work for treats them like cigarettes, mainly because the insurance company does right now...
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)ever since the manufacturers won a court case insisting that they be classified that way.
(Otherwise, they'd be subject to FDA rules, just like nicotine patches and other nicotine products. They don't want that.)
frylock
(34,825 posts)just sayin.
Buns_of_Fire
(17,183 posts)No stems, no seeds that you don't need..... 
virgogal
(10,178 posts)created the problem and this isn't smoke.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)having to conduct the studies they would need to prove what is or is not in the vapor.
They're not regulated by the FDA, just the same as tobacco products are not. If they don't want to be subject to tobacco bans, then they should allow their products to be regulated by the FDA, just as other nicotine delivery systems are, and do the necessary research. Instead, they brought suit to have their products classified with tobacco.
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)they won a court battle against the FDA making e-cigarettes a more cigarette like product and not a nicotine delivery system. If I remember correctly it had something to do with e-cigarettes not being a smoking cessation product. By being a 'more like cigarette product' they could get sold in convenience stores.
http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/publichealthfocus/ucm252360.htm
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Creates the Center for Tobacco Products, a tobacco control center within the FDA and gives the FDA authority to regulate the content, marketing and sale of tobacco products.
Requires tobacco companies and importers to reveal all product ingredients and seek FDA approval for any new tobacco products.
Allows the FDA to change tobacco product content.
The ban on flavoring applies to any product meeting the definition of a "cigarette" according to section 3(1) of the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act. This includes any tobacco that comes rolled such as cigarettes and cigars, and added to this definition in the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act is any tobacco with the purpose to be rolled such as rolling tobacco.
Calls for new rules to prevent sales except through direct, face-to-face exchanges between a retailer and a consumer.
Limits advertising that could attract young smokers.
Requires cigarette warning labels to cover 50 percent of the front and rear of each pack, with the word warning in capital letters.
Requires FDA approval for the use of expressions such as "light, "mild" or "low" that give the impression that a particular tobacco product poses less of a health risk.[13]
The bill makes no provisions that ban the import of the banned items for personal consumption, only for "sale or distribution". (Division A Title II Section 201) [14]
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)You are right -- there is some regulation. They get to be in a special category of worthless, addictive products that pose danger to users and others, and still are allowed to be sold.
These e-cigarette manufacturers sued for the right to be in the same category.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)For starters, one manufacturer, not "manufacturers" sued for the right to not have their product classified as a smoking cessation device.
As I already pointed out:
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/e-cigarette-health-effects-2013-5#ixzz2U5TDGmO4
And as to whether or not they're "worthless", I've been a 1 1/2+ pack a day cigarette smoker for 30 years. I never even slowed down when I was sick with chest colds or even bronchitis, but I have been completely cigarette free for 2 weeks now, without even trying, thanks to my vape rig, and have no desire what-so-ever to light up a cigarette... so, the idea of "worthless" being subjective and all, I'd say so far my little nectarine juice delivery system is worth a few thousand times what I paid for it. Particularly when I see how happy my kids are that I'm not sucking a bunch of carcinogenic smoke all day.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)Doesn't it feel great?
I suspect some of the people who are so opposed to e-cigs are just pissed off because they allow people to quit smoking painlessly. As you put it, you're not even trying, and have no desire what-so-ever to light up a cigarette. They can't stand that. You're supposed to be miserable, dammit. You deserve to suffer. Well, anyone who thinks like that can go to hell. E-cigs are saving lives.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)And I suspect you're spot-on in your assessment of the nannies who are opposed...
Boom Sound 416
(4,185 posts)i tried them too and really liked them. then after about 3 weeks or so I woke up one morning feeling like i got punched in the lung. later I think I found out what pneumonia feels like. I quit them then. That's just me. Its too bad. I really like smoking and was excited to have a product i could smoke in the house when alone and in the car. i'd be happy without the stupid water vapor.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)And the vapor isn't pure water. Until the manufacturers do the research, there is nothing to prove the safety of this vapor.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)unless they can prove with research that the vapor won't harm non-smokers.
All they have to do is present the same kind of research the nicotine patch people presented to the FDA, and every other drug manufacturer. Only tobacco products are exempt from having to do this, which is why they sued to be classified as a tobacco product.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)not a sound approach to public policy. At a minimum, these devices fall under the "second " hand" smoking laws. It is not smoking.
These current laws will have to be distorted and force-fit to accomplish more prohibition, or, only slightly more reasonably, a new set of bans would have to be passed.
I'm not impressed by the "leakage" studies. The word "attenuation" comes to mind.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and all the other laws that protect our air from contaminants.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)one of the toxins that has been found in e-cigarettes.
It isn't up to the FDA to do all the research proving that the e-cigarettes are unsafe. It's up to the manufacturers to prove that they are -- or to be classified with tobacco products (which don't have to meet all the usual safety standards), which was their preferred choice.
The attorney for Smoking Everywhere – one of the two major e-cigarette importers -- insists that e-cigarettes are tobacco products and inherently unsafe.
Yet they advertise something different to their gullible customers.
http://www.njgasp.org/NPR_ecigs_08-05-09.pdf
The industry has sued the FDA, claiming it should not be regulated like a drug.
Walt Linscott, an attorney for Smoking Everywhere — one of two major importers of electronic cigarettes, cigars and pipes — says the e-cigarette is a tobacco product. And it should be regulated as such.
"It is a cigarette, and cigarettes inherent by their design and nature are not safe," Linscott says.
But as the company engages in a legal battle with the government, its very own telemarketers could be presenting a different picture to consumers, including marketing claims online. A Smoking Everywhere representative making a sales pitch said the product had been approved as safe by the FDA.
Linscott says that was a mistake that has been corrected.
http://www.njgasp.org/E-Cigs_White_Paper.pdf
The FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation, Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis (DPA) conducted a laboratory analysis of e-cigarette cartridges from two leading brands. The analysis indicated that e-cigarettes expose users to harmful chemical ingredients:
• Diethylene glycol, an antifreeze ingredient toxic to humans was found.
• Tobacco specific nitrosamines that are human carcinogens were detected in 1?2 of
the samples.
• Tobacco-specific impurities suspected of being harmful to humans – anabasine,
myosmine, and B-nicotyrine – were detected in a majority of the samples.
• The e-cigarette cartridges labeled as containing no nicotine had low levels of
nicotine present in all cartridges sampled, except one.
• 3 different e-cigarette cartridges with the same label emitted markedly different
amounts of nicotine with each puff, ranging from 26.8 to 43.2 mcg nicotine/100 ml
puff.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Yeah...stuff from 09 when the industry was in its infancy...thats what I thought.
That and formaldehyde in lower levels to the USER than cooking dinner on a gas range.
Oh, and a paper from GASP. Theres a real unbiased source for you...NOT.
That's all you got.
Well, that and a lot of bias.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)more of these devices.
None of the manufacturers have chosen to submit any safety or effectiveness (at helping smoker's quit) data to the FDA.
And no one knows what the formaldehyde levels are (or other toxic chemicals) are because the only studies done have been very limited and not submitted for FDA approval.
There is no reason they can't do the same work other nicotine sellers do, and get their items approved. But they'd rather just be classified as a tobacco product, acknowledge that tobacco related products are "inherently unsafe," and call it a day.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Nothing important has changed since 2009 except they've sold millions"
If you had the slightest inkling of a hint of a notion of knowledge about the subject matter, you'd never have said that. That's a fact. Just that sentence ALONE, proves you know nothing about this topic.
Nothing.What.So.Ever.
And now you've switched to tangential arguments.
Which anti-smoking/anti-tobacco orgs do you work for? You're working from their template, I know it well.
You might...I dunno...bother to actually educate yourself about the subject matter, its current state and its history.
Or you could continue making further utterances that anyone knowledgable at even the most rudimentary level about the state and history of e-gigs would instantly know were fact free ignorance fueled bias filled off the cuff pejorative contrivances - and those of us who DO know, we'll keep pointing them out for what they are.
Your choice.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)backing up your claims.
What e-cigarette manufacturer are YOU working for?
When I was younger and there were no smoking bans anywhere, I had to work 8 hours a day in a small room with 12 desks, and 8 of those at the desks were chain smokers. The windows were non-openable. The non-smokers weren't supposed to be bothered because "cigarette smoke isn't an allergen, it's an irritant." Well, that irritant developed into asthma for me, and then into pneumonia.
Restaurants and airplanes were full of clouds of smoke, too -- and anyone who worked in those places was also exposed to constant second hand smoke.
So I'll always be grateful to the people at the anti-smoking orgs who fought so hard over the years to get our indoor air clean, and I'm glad they're doing what they can to make sure they stay that way.
And I'm glad if smokers can get their nicotine fix in a safer way, or better yet, get off the stuff altogether. But don't expect people like me to believe that these devices don't pollute the air -- not without the research that these manufacturers are refusing to provide. Anyone who's read about the history of tobacco knows that cigarettes were once marketed as a health product. And then menthol was supposed to be an added benefit. And people believed it .. .
"You've consistently refused to produce any links to any research backing up your claims."
I don't need to provide shit. I'm not proposing anything be banned. You are. The onus is on you to justify a ban, not on everyone else to justify things being allowed. That's how things work in a free society for the third time.
"What e-cigarette manufacturer are YOU working for?"
Really? Am I trying to force anyone to use them? Am I trying to sell them? Yeah, I didn't think so.
You on the other hand...I do recall you using standard antz talking points. I do remember you calling for a ban.
"When I was younger and there were no smoking bans anywhere, I had to work 8 hours a day in a small room with 12 desks, and 8 of those at the desks were chain smokers. The windows were non-openable. The non-smokers weren't supposed to be bothered because "cigarette smoke isn't an allergen, it's an irritant." Well, that irritant developed into asthma for me, and then into pneumonia."
"Restaurants and airplanes were full of clouds of smoke, too -- and anyone who worked in those places was also exposed to constant second hand smoke."
"So I'll always be grateful to the people at the anti-smoking orgs who fought so hard over the years to get our indoor air clean, and I'm glad they're doing what they can to make sure they stay that way."
Bully for you. Have you researched asthmatics who vape, or bothered to test yourself around a vaper and see if it sets off an attack? Or do you need research to decide those outcomes for you?
"And I'm glad if smokers can get their nicotine fix in a safer way, or better yet, get off the stuff altogether. But don't expect people like me to believe that these devices don't pollute the air -- not without the research that these manufacturers are refusing to provide. Anyone who's read about the history of tobacco knows that cigarettes were once marketed as a health product. And then menthol was supposed to be an added benefit. And people believed it..."
Once again, manufacturers aren't "refusing" anything. You keep asserting it, but you've never shown where research was requested of them by the fda or any other body. Being in the know myself, I know it has never happened, and that your spewing a falsehood. And knowing that you've been told this previously in this thread, I know you're spewing this particular falsehood deliberately, and so does anyone else that gives a shit and bothers to read the whole thread.
I'm a member of ECF, that forum I linked in another post, and I see examples of this sort of methodology of posting pejoratively about e-cigs regularly. I'm intimately familiar with the tactics of the antz, and you're either running plays from their book, or its a huge cosmic "stars aligning once every billion years" magnitude of a coincidence. I don't expect you to "believe" anything. I expect you to start acting like an intelligent liberal, and find out for yourself whether these e-cigs are a problem for you where your asthma is concerned, for starters. I expect you to start acting like a truth seeker, and talking to people, rather than letting some "research" which could be biased in any direction depending on who funds it, decide what you think.
You need to get this through your head:
Vapers aren't smokers.
The vaping industry isn't big tobacco 2.0.
As for me, I'm a former machinist. I had my last cigarette January 2 of this year, after smoking heavily (and I do mean heavily - couple packs a day, huge drags, long held inhale) for 26 years. I switched to E-cigs, and I KNOW they work, where the patch, lozenges, and cold turkey failed. For both myself, and for my other half who smoked heavily for 30 plus years as well.
I currently use whats called a "mod". It is variable voltage or variable wattage, depending on how you set the settings. I use cartomizers in it, made by bogetech.
It looks like this:
It takes rechargeable batteries in the 18650 format. I chose Panasonic 3400 mah batteries, which I can vape on for roughly two days before I need to swap to a fresh one, and throw the other on the charger.
I use whats called a carto tank, which screws into the top.. There are many different ones, buyt the one I use is called the locking udct tank, made by smoktek. It looks like this:
When installed, it looks similar to this:
I get my e-juice from a place in MN, called vermillion river e-juice, mainly - as finding a flavor that I can vape all the time - known in vaping circles as an "all day vape" isn't an easy thing to do. Everyone has a different sense of flavor. I currently vape cinnamon roll flavor. it only took being away from ciggs 3 days before they tasted and smelled horrible to me, and I prefer a sweet vape instead.
FWIW, theres 5 different companies worth of stuff there. I don't work for any of them. Oh, and none of them, or the level of quality/engineering employed in their design, or the purity of the juices used in them, were around in 2009.
It took me a couple months of trial and error to find the right combination - battery/power delivery device, juice holder, cartomizer, and juice, just to find a single flavor that I can vape and not dislike, and roughly 5 months of searching to find a second flavor.
I'm sure that means absolutely nothing to you, but it was a hard journey for me. The patch and lozenges and cold turkey failed MY research - I tried them earnestly, and they failed. The e-cigs didn't.
I get a little touchy when I hear the same old talking points that come from the antz, being spewed repeatedly in spite of 20 other posters telling you you're wrong. I get even more touchy, when someone clearly ignorant of the current state of affairs, proclaims the worst based on that ignorance, and demands a ban until someone can assuage their fears, when the onus is on the banners to justify the limitations they seek to impose.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Just keep it out of my airspace unless your manufacturers can prove that it's not fouling up OUR air.
"My airspace".
That about says it all right there.
I note that you took the time to address everything I wrote.
"Just keep it out of my airspace unless your manufacturers can prove that it's not fouling up OUR air."
The onus is on you to justify banning it in the first place.
Forget banning it unless you can make your case.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)as a tobacco product.
So any public entity that wants to ban it the same way as other tobacco products is free to do so. As my county has already done.
Vapors, smoke -- the difference doesn't matter. Both can carry contaminants through the air into the lungs. The question is which contaminants and in what amounts -- but whether a toxin is carried in a vapor or "smoke" doesn't matter.
No, just no.
The onus is always on those seeking to restrict. Always. Whether its a tobacco product or a firework or a piece of green cheese from someones moon is quiet irrelevant. All things are allowed until forbidden. When something is proposed to be forbidden, it requires justification.
That's the NATURE of a free society.
Its a shame that you can not see that simple truth.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)These are classified as tobacco products.
Therefore, we already can legally ban them. And many places do.
Get it?
We already restrict some tobacco products in public places based on studied well established "harm to others" parameters.
While these may be classified as "tobacco products", those harm parameters have not been proven by the proposers of a ban.
Hence, no scientific justification for modification of public policy, like there is with those other "tobacco products".
I don't doubt they can be "legally banned", however, if its done, it will be with contrived justification, because no such scientific justification like what is established with those other tobacco products which are restricted in public places, exists.
Get it? You want a ban in public places, without scientific justification for it. That's a fact.
If we start getting our nicotine in our e-cigs from tomato plants, or that shrub in Australia with 6 times the nicotine content of a tobacco plant, we can call it "non-tobacco-nicotine" and then it wont be a tobacco product right?
not all tobacco products are restricted, like cigars, smokeless tobacco are not. its only cigarettes that are restricted.
Get your fact straight.
bighart
(1,565 posts)"Electronic smoking device" does not include a cigarette, as defined in RCW Chapter 82.24 or tobacco products, as defined in RCW
68 Chapter 82.26.
And further note:
NEW SECTION. SECTION 12. Use of electronic smoking devices prohibited
in public places and places of employment. Owners, or in the case of a leased or rented
space the lessee or other person in charge, shall prohibit the use of electronic smoking
devices in public places and places of employment
When Viloations of section 12 of this rule occur, a warning shall first be given
to the owner or other person in charge. Any subsequent violation is subject to a civil
penalty of up to one hundred dollars. Each day upon which a violation occurs or is
permitted to continue constitutes a separate violation.
Notice no penalty for the person violating the rule only the " Owners, or in the case of a leased or rented
space the lessee or other person in charge"
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)And, in the case of rented space, the lessee would be fined for smoking, or for allowing anyone else to smoke in the space.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)I live in a state that has no law against e-cigs.
It will depend on the state,county, city. Those would be laws created by local governments. And there is no Federal laws agains e-cigarettes or smokeless tobacco.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)in Washington, too, and much of the rest of the country has benefited from the example.
I remember when my work space was filled with a constant cloud of smoke, and I remember traveling on airplanes where it was impossible to get away from it, even in the "non-smoker" section. Those were the days when asthmatics were told that cigarettes weren't a problem and that asthma was a psychosomatic illness. No one wanted to admit that cigarette smokers weren't just making themselves sick, but many people around them.
After the experience we've had with cigarette manufacturers and their safety claims, I'm not about to start trusting e-cig manufacturers without solid data and FDA approval.
cigarette smoke that last in the air for 30 + min and vapor from an e-cigarette that last in the air 11 seconds that doesn't have 4000+ chemicals in it are two different things.
its not up to the FDA to approve them don't you understand that? they are not a drug delivery device. The FDA can only set standards for them. Its up to each state, county, city how they want to treat them. And its the localities that are the ones saying they should be treated like cigarettes and that is what we are fighting every day from happening. We don't want to be pushed back in the shadows, have to be with the smokers where we vape, we don't want second hand smoke. We are smoke free and intend on staying that way. We hate smoking as much as a non-smoker. This is what you don't understand.
What if the e-cig was called something else like personal vaporizer (that is what people that use them call them) and it didn't look like a cigarette, ( mine doesn't) and it gave off no vapor ( vapor can be held in) then what would you think.
I understand cigarette manufactures I don't either. But I do trust the research and development that has gone on with the e-cigarette. The cigarette manufactures have nothing to do with the research and development of ecigs they just jumped on the bandwagon this year. E cigs have been around for 10 years. Was invented by a chinese pharmacist for his sick father to get him away from cigarettes.
This is by the smokers (now smoke-free) for the smokers to get them off cigarettes.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)They approved nicotine patches after seeing the research; but they banned "nicotine water." Nicotine is an addictive drug under its purview and so they could ban it.
They could have banned e-cigs the same way, but the manufacturers went to court for the right to be treated the same as other cigs, so they escaped the same kind of FDA regulation other nicotine sellers
have to comply with.
By the way, are you aware that all the major cig companies are now jumping into the e-cig arena? Are they suddenly going to be companies you can trust?
Tyhanna
(145 posts)patches are drugs made by drug companies, nicotine water is food. those things are regulated accordingly. Food is not regulated the same way as drugs, and testing is different for each food and drugs.
The tobacco part of the FDA has its own set of rules, the e-cig companies dont have to prove anything to them by FDA law, and FDA is very limited to what they can do with e-cigs, they cant really even regulate the battery part that would be a whole other department out side of the FDA. 99% of all batteries and parts are made in china. A large amount of juices are made here in the US, Italy, and some in china. The only thing they can do is put regulation of standardizing the labels on the juice, the safety of how its made and what is in it, how much nicotine is in each bottle of juice. All the juices made in the US use FDA approved medical grade nicotine, medical grade glycerine, and food grade flavors. all FDA approved. Johnson Creek is already FDA approved.
I would have thought if you read all that I have said you would have understood some of this by now. I dont think you want to understand and just want to argue.
iemitsu
(3,888 posts)The United States is notorious for its lax regulation of food and drug safety. We have rules but no one to enforce them. The EPA, that you referenced earlier, is not any better at protecting our health than the FDA. Our government protects Monsanto's Frankenfoods from being labeled as GM products and refuses to let specific beef ranchers test all their cattle for spongiform encephalitis, because then other ranchers, who don't want to test all their cattle, will seem suspect to the consumer. In Utah it is illegal to film the conditions in a henhouse (chicken ranch). The US government does little to protect its citizens from the abuses of corporations, abuses that are linked to wild fluctuations in weather patterns, to economic collapse, to destabilizing other countries or regions, and to marketing dangerous consumer products. A government agency's stamp of approval is little more than that, a stamp of approval.
While I was never a cigarette smoker, I was around those who smoked all the time. I don't like the smell of cigarettes, or pulp mills, or gasoline, or cooking cabbage but I have been subjected to their smells throughout my life. My wife smoked, when we were kids and later when we were married. One day, 35 years ago, she quit (got some of that gum, chewed half a piece, and never smoked again).
I don't miss the cigarette smoke in my house or in my car and I was happy when cigarettes were banned from restaurants and other public places but it is unreasonable for any of us to believe we can or should control everything about our environments.
Having a clean and healthy environment to live in is as important to me as it clearly is to you but banning vaporizers will not result in clean air for you to breathe.
The pollution you worry about is statically insignificant, especially when compared to pollutants introduced, into the atmosphere, by automobiles and industry. Someone up-thread mentioned the ongoing radio-active pollutants escaping from the Fukushima Daiichi reactors. This is a much more pressing health issue than vaporizers, especially if you live in the Pacific Northwest. The waters here are already contaminated from the ongoing Fukushima disaster and from leaking storage tanks on the Handford reservation. This is what you should use your energy protesting. It is a significant health risk. Carbon emissions are a significant concern too. You should demand our government address the levels of this poisonous addition to our air.
Insisting that individuals, who use vaporizers, be demonized and blamed for the poor quality of our air when other factors are largely responsible, is unfair and won't help to achieve your goal (of clean air).
Your commitment to clean air is laudable and I don't intend to ask you to give it up, but use your energy where it might make a difference. Attack the big polluters not individuals, who use vaporizers. Once you have convinced the government and its corporate masters to reduce or eliminate the pollutants they spew into the air and water then you can target smaller concerns.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)I agree that air pollution is still a serious problem, but it is actually much better in the PNW than it was when we moved here decades ago, due to the success of requirements put on the auto manufacturers combined with emissions testing requirements. And orgs like GASP, whom many here despise, had a lot to do with those laws.
There's practically nothing anyone here can do individually about the problems in Japan or in China or the rest of the world for that matter.
bighart
(1,565 posts)and a cop was to come in the lessee would be told to ask me to stop. If they decided against doing so the lessee would be fined but I would not.
What would happen to me, based on your own county ordinance, if I were using my "e cig" in a public space that is owned by the city or county and refused to stop when asked?
Tyhanna
(145 posts)This is a little old dont you think, alot has changed in the research and devlopement since then. They have improved and gotten better batteries, better juice, juice that is made here in the US. Your are linking very old news that all the ANTZ use to defend their stance.
The FDA used cartomizers from china at that time and they were faulty, and that problem was corrected.
There has been studies and links sent put here to show you what they are finding within the last year. Even with the problems nobody got sick or nobody died from using them.
"Tobacco specific nitrosamines that are human carcinogens were detected in 1?2 of
the samples"
the amounts were below excepted standards.
"Tobacco-specific impurities suspected of being harmful to humans – anabasine,
myosmine, and B-nicotyrine – were detected in a majority of the samples. "
again were below the excepted standards.
myosmine is also found in other foods
"In a follow-up study, myosmine was found to be present in staple foods like wheat, rice, and maize but also in fruits, vegetables, and milk (Tyroller et al., 2002). "
http://dmd.aspetjournals.org/content/33/11/1648.full
Sottera Inc or now NJoy was who sued. and the judge opinion was to make it a tobacco product.
"On December 7, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) effort to broaden its own jurisdiction by expansively interpreting what is meant by a “medical device.” The court ruled that Congress did not intend to permit FDA to regulate electronic cigarettes (or “e-cigarettes”) as medical devices. The decision was a victory for WLF, which filed a brief opposing FDA’s regulatory efforts. The court agreed with WLF that FDA’s authority to regulate “medical devices” is limited to products promoted for their therapeutic benefits, at least when the products are derived from tobacco. The court held that e-cigarettes are not “medical devices” because they are not promoted for any therapeutic use. If FDA wishes to regulate the sale of e-cigarettes, it may do so only in connection with its authority to regulate tobacco products, the court said."
http://www.wlf.org/litigating/case_detail.asp?id=629
"On Tuesday December 7th, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s ruling in Sottera, Inc. v. FDA, No. 10-5032, (D.C. Cir. Dec. 7, 2010) holding that that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could not regulate as a medical device the electronic cigarettes (often referred to as “e-cigarettes”) at issue in that case. Instead, the court affirmed the district court’s finding that FDA’s authority over these e-cigarettes, as labeled, was limited to that over traditional tobacco products"
http://www.fdalawblog.com/2011/01/articles/legislation/ecigarettes-get-a-smoking-break-dc-circuit-clarifies-scope-of-fdas-authority-over-ecigarettes/
The smoke anywhere case was this when FDA tryed to ban e-cigarettes from being brought into the country, and they could not do that. It was not in their power to do at the time.
"A Florida company that imports and distributes so-called electronic cigarettes filed suit yesterday against the Food and Drug Administration, claiming the agency is illegally blocking imports of its product into the United States.
The suit, filed by Smoking Everywhere in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, argues that the FDA has overstepped its regulatory authority by banning shipments of the devices and insisting they need to go through the drug approval process."
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/04/fda-sued-over-electronic-cigarette-embargo-.html
so you do have things a bit confused.
But I totally understand you dont know anything about what you are talking about so Im sure it could be confusing.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)In the pdf you link above they are not very truthful about e-cigarettes being ban in Canada, that is not true. Also they are not 100% ban in Australia either.
also this is what Walt Linscott said"Like a traditional cigarette, this product is not intended to produce a therapeutic effect," says Walt Linscott, legal counsel for Smoking Everywhere Inc. "It is not a drug, if you will. This is an adult smoking experience, and it should be thought of and regulated in that similar construct." On NPR.
They dont even quote where they saw that he said "
"It is a cigarette, and cigarettes inherent by their design and nature are not safe," Linscott says" hes talking about cigarettes not e-cigarettes big difference there.
seems they like to spin information they get. What was the rest of his quote and what was in reference to that he said that about cigarettes. Thats pretty bad when they dont give credit to where they quoted his statement from. Guess that is so nobody can check where it came from.
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)Your attempt to speak as an authority on this topic is being undermined by your inability to even *pretend* that you know wtf you are talking about.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Your attempt to speak as an authority is undermined by the fact that you don't understand that contaminants can be dispersed through vapor -- not just smoke -- into the air and the lungs.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)of whether they are included in smoking bans. That is the subject of this thread, after all.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)The King County, WA ban says that the use of e-cigarettes will be prohibited in all the same public places as other cigarettes and tobacco products.
And since the manufacturers fought to have their products classified as tobacco products, you should blame them.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)The "manufacturers" did not "fight to have their product classified as a tobacco product." As has been pointed out to you no less than 4 or 5 times in this thread.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)to have them reclassified with tobacco products. And none of them objected when the FDA conceded on the issue.
But any single manufacturer at any time can simply decide to have their own product reclassified OUT of the tobacco products category, simply by submitting the necessary research and request for approvals from the FDA.
Why haven't they done so if they have the data to prove their products are safe?
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Sweet Jeebus...
Again.. Njoy sued to keep their product from being classified as a smoking cessation device. The FDA is now attempting to classify them as tobacco products.. not at the request of the ecig makers .. FFS, tobacco products are some of the most heavily regulated and taxed products on the open market.. why in the name of all that is unholy would a company that was trying to avoid regulation fight to have their product classified as such??
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)but it was the judge, as a result of the lawsuit, who agreed with the lawsuit that sought to classify it with tobacco products. The FDA at that point caved.
By classifying their product as a tobacco product, they AVOIDED the need to submit research showing their products are safe. Tobacco would not be allowed on the market if it was required to submit to all the usual FDA regulations for addictive and toxic substances. So they have a special exemption and the e-cigarette manufacturers have chosen to take advantage of that exemption.
Any one of them could on their own go to the FDA, produce their research, and ask to be reclassified as a nicotine (or other) delivery system. But they don't want to.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)E-cig use is not prohibited under the smoking bans as currently written in most places. Most smoking bans only prohibit tobacco products that emit smoke.
I understand that you wish it wasn't true, but it is.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)The "product" referred to below is an e-cigarette.
http://www.njgasp.org/E-Cigs_White_Paper.pdf
. 1. Product is 'smoked', therefore not permissible under the 2006 New Jersey Smoke- Free Air Act (NJSFAA). The NJSFAA definitions section, NJSA 26:3D-57, defines smoking as "... or any other matter can be smoked": "Smoking" means the burning of, inhaling from, exhaling the smoke from, or the possession of a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe or any other matter or substance which contains tobacco or any other matter that can be smoked." The heating element in the e-cigarette heats and vaporizes the nicotine/propylene glycol solution, creating the 'smoke' which is inhaled and exhaled. Since the product is 'smoked’ and creates a 'smoke', e-cigarette use is not permissible for use in public places and workplaces that are covered under the NJSFAA. In addition, some e-cigarette companies admit in their marketing materials that their products are ‘smoked’. GASP surveyed some e-cigarette websites, and, for example, Smokeless Revolution’s website admits many times, that the product creates a 'smoke': "The EVO is an electronic, smokeless alternative that delivers true tobacco flavor through a vapor mist smoke, with your preferred level of nicotine.” http://www.smokelessrevolution.com/home.html
Tyhanna
(145 posts)We vape the vapor....
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and they won the lawsuit.
ErikJ
(6,335 posts)Mariana
(14,858 posts)and therefore they are not taxed as cigarettes. Just like any other tobacco products that aren't cigarettes and therefore are not taxed as such.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and as such they can be taxed.
Nicotine patches, for example, are NOT classified as tobacco products, so they are not subject to the taxes.
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm252360.htm
Between 2008 and 2010, the FDA determined that certain electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) were unapproved drug/device combination products and detained and/or refused admission to those offered for import by Sottera, Inc. and other manufacturers. Sottera, Inc. challenged that determination in court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in Sottera, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration, 627 F.3d 891 (D.C. Cir. 2010), recently issued a decision with regard to e-cigarettes and other products “made or derived from tobacco” and the jurisdictional line that should be drawn between “tobacco products” and “drugs,” “devices,” and combination products, as those terms are defined in the FD&C Act. The court held that e-cigarettes and other products made or derived from tobacco can be regulated as “tobacco products” under the Act and are not drugs/devices unless they are marketed for therapeutic purposes.
The government has decided not to seek further review of this decision, and FDA will comply with the jurisdictional lines established by Sottera.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)But since they're not cigarettes, they aren't subject to cigarette taxes. If you want them taxed in the same way cigarettes are, new laws will have to be written to do that.
Similarly, if you want them banned the same way smoking in public places is banned, new laws will be required in most places, since current smoking bans generally do not include tobacco products that don't emit smoke.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)For example, here's the law in my county:
http://www.kingcounty.gov/healthservices/health/tobacco/laws.aspx
Prohibits selling electronic cigarettes to minors.
Prohibits offering free or nominal cost electronic cigarettes.
Prohibits electronic cigarette use in all areas where smoking is prohibited by law.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)But in most places, they don't. So, to ban them everywhere, you have to get all the places whose laws DON'T include e-cigs in the ban (like my state, for example) to write news laws that DO include them.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)They were right then, and they're right now. Unless and until e-cigarette manufacturers prove that their vapors are harmless, with FDA approved research, they shouldn't be used in public.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Unless and until e-cigarette manufacturers prove that their vapors are harmless, with FDA approved research, they shouldn't be used in public."
I this society, all things are allowed, until forbidden via due process, which SHOULD be based on fact, not suspicion or bias.
The burden of justification is on those wishing to restrict.
That's how free societies work.
"They were right then, and they're right now."
Based on exactly nothing other than suspicion or bias, do you make this claim.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)The government has approved some nicotine products -- such as the patches -- after appropriate research was submitted. And it has banned some nicotine products -- like "nicotine water."
The only reason e-cigs are on the market now without the appropriate research is that after the major manufacturer brought suit, the government agreed that it could be classified with tobacco as inherently unsafe (and buyer beware).
So any jurisdiction that wants to treat e-cigs the same as regular cigs has every legal right to do so.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)the patches are a drug under as defined by the FDA, e-cigs are not so they dont have to prove anything. There is a big difference on how the FDA handles drugs, food and the tobacco. not the same requirements have to be ment when its tobacco unless its a cigarette, then they have to get approval if they come out with a new type of cigarette. But even the FDA dont see e-cigarettes as cigarettes.
Please get your facts straight.
the manufactures dont have to prove anything to the FDA about e-cigs. They do the research, studies and so on for the vaping community and to prove to the public at large that they are safer than cigarettes.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I'm not questioning the legal power (you do realize that goverments have powers, not rights, and that rights and powers are different ...in fact, complete opposites, right?) to regulate them.
I'm questioning whether its justified, since nothing but hokey bias based justification has been offered up thus far.
Just because something can be done, it does not follow that it must be done.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)When the research gets submitted and approved by the FDA showing that these are safe products -- not just for direct users but for second and third hand users, I'll support an FDA approval.
Until then, I'm accepting the FDA position that the safety of these devices has not been shown.
And because these devices distribute some amount of the drug nicotine, not pure water, there is every justification for requiring FDA approval if their use is to be allowed in public and work spaces.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Nothing but " hokey biased justification" for selling these products has been offered up so far."
No justification is needed to sell about anything.
Restricting peoples behavior and actions through legislative means, on the other hand, generally does and should require it.
Without credible scientific justification for a ban, it is the textbook definition of arbitrary, if not also capricious (though I dare say if we polled the thread participants, they'd say capricious as well, with very few exceptions.)
ar·bi·trar·y :
Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arbitrary
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)So I have no problem with the FDA regulating nicotine, just as they do other toxic drugs.
This isn't capricious; it's science based. Your method is faith based, and I don't have your faith in the corporations that have turned this into a billion dollar industry.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)I am going on a science base here, and fact base. I worked in a pharmacy, very science based. I saw what the FDA does all the time and am quite aware what they can do and what they cant do.
I know that the ingredients in the e-juice is medical grade nicotine, medical grade glycerene, and medical grade proplyene glycol, food grade flavoring.
Its the same ingredients that is used in the medical field all the time, and in the cooking field also. Look to see what is in Nyquil and tooth paste and many many other things you use everyday. the medical grade nicotine is the same they use in nicorette gum, patches, lozenges, and inhaler.
Who are these corps you are talking about, most of the juice companies are small companies here in the US. There are only a few that are large and they have been around for quite awhile. Johnson Creek has FDA approval with their juice.
Its not the authority of the FDA to do anything with the batteries or any of the other parts other than the juice. There are 100s of parts of different kinds to the e-cig other than the juice.
I just dont think you know enought about this whole issue to argue here like you have, you seem to read something and post it up here not knowing what it even means.
I guess you just want people to keep smoking, guess that would make you very glad.
beevul
(12,194 posts)What the fuck does libertarian Democrat or progressive have to do with it? Other than a failed attempt at a cheap smear? Did you really think such a thing would change the minds of the clear majority of posters in this thread that agree with me and disagree with you?
I wasn't, as I'm sure you well know, speaking of the fda. I was speaking of local and state level attemps to ban them, which are almost 100 percent based on ignorance, bias, and caprice. Any so called "science based" attempt at the state or local level to ban e-cigs, is by definition arbitrary, because no science based research showing that they're harmful to others second or third hand beyond the threshold of other commonly accepted unbanned things exists.
Its just that simple.
My method is faith based? No. My method says that things get banned when a certain harm to others via second/third hand exposure exposure level is met and not before. My method says "I don't like people doing that", is not a good enough reason, so you're gonna have to put up or shut up. That's not libertarian, that's the doctrine of the free society we live in, plus or minus the arguable degree that lobbying can bypass it.
Yours says ban them first, ask questions later.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)the manufactures of the e-cig industry do not have to submit anything to FDA to prove anything. They are not claiming anything as far as smoking cessation. That would be the only reason they would have to.
All the studies they are doing are for the community and the public at large. To help the public undestand there is not threat.
You just dont understand this, I just dont understand why you dont.
You do realize not one person has died from direct use of any of the many many ecigs on the market in the last 10 years.
They cant say so much for Chantix and welburtron. And your worried if the FDA thinks they are safe.
thousands of dollers have been payed out to people and families of people that used both of these drugs. Deaths are mounting up from those drugs.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)the same people come on it and post the same crap, over and over and over again. I remember the last one I participated in, someone said that breathing "secondhand" e-cig vapor was just like breathing car exhaust. I don't know if that particular poster was being delusional or dishonest, but either way, there's just no point in trying to have a discussion with someone who says something that stupid.
Consider the possibility that some of the people in favor of banning e-cigs aren't always completely truthful about their motivations for wanting it done.
I appreciate the posts you've made in this thread.
beevul
(12,194 posts)It is the same tiny handful every time.
Though they're not always completely truthful about their motivations, they are almost always completely transparent.
So theres that at least.
Its a constant up hill battle with the ANTZ, big pharmacy, big tobacco.
Seems we are fighting everyone, this issue is also very political. The states and feds will loose so much in taxes as people move away from smoking. So really they dont want a item that will help that, for the last 10 years they have been happy with the high failure rate of the NRTs, their programs were still being payed for with tobacco taxes, but in the last couple years they have seen a big drop since the e-cig has been shown to work, people that use e-cigs by word of mouth getting friends and family to use them and they have spread like wild fire. BD are loosing sales, BT are loosing sales. So yea we are fighting a huge battle. We have won in many states to keep laws to a minium. We agree with not selling to minors. We dont believe with taxing like they are analog cigarettes.
We spread the word with truths and facts. and hope we can get rid of some of the ignorance associated with e-cigs. We find we are combating lies and more lies being spread by many. ANTZ, ALA, WHO, CDC, ACA. A few of them get donations from BD like the ALA.
We do have many Drs and lawers on board. People that use the e-cig come from all walks of life, young and old, all political beliefs, all religious beliefs, rich and poor, all races. Smoking is a common problem no matter what anyone believes. And we need to get more people away from smoking. I would think they would put politics/money aside and work in getting people to stop. Most people that smoke will continue even if they are expensive, they just take the money away from something else, that is what I did.
The e-cigarette works, I am living proof.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)FDA can not make judgements like that to say about work places and public places, that is not their job, its the local governments that kind of thing with laws.
you really need to learn what the FDA can do and what they cant do.
bighart
(1,565 posts)Let's get all of the cards on the table from both sides.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and sought for and received a classification as a tobacco product,
why do you think they'd have a chance of winning?
bighart
(1,565 posts)"Smoking" means inhaling, exhaling, burning, or carrying any lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, or other lighted smoking device for burning tobacco or any other plant. "Smoking" does not include the burning of incense in a religious ceremony."
why should a ban on vaporizers be upheld?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)And they would have trouble winning, since the FDA now classifies e-cigarettes as a tobacco product.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)there is very little regulation for smokeless tobacco and there is very little regulation on cigars and pipes also.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Among other design flaws, they discover that these cigarettes can leak -- exposing children and pets to nicotine.
http://newsroom.ucr.edu/2506
To address this question, researchers at the University of California, Riverside evaluated five e-cigarette brands and found design flaws, lack of adequate labeling, and several concerns about quality control and health issues. They conclude that e-cigarettes are potentially harmful and urge regulators to consider removing e-cigarettes from the market until their safety is adequately evaluated.
Unlike conventional cigarettes, which burn tobacco, e-cigarettes vaporize nicotine, along with other compounds present in the cartridge, in the form of aerosol created by heating, but do not produce the thousands of chemicals and toxicants created by tobacco combustion. Nothing is known, however, about the chemicals present in the aerosolized vapors emanating from e-cigarettes.
“As a result, some people believe that e-cigarettes are a safe substitute for conventional cigarettes,” said Prue Talbot, the director of UC Riverside’s Stem Cell Center, whose lab led the research. “However, there are virtually no scientific studies on e-cigarettes and their safety. Our study – one of the first studies to evaluate e-cigarettes – shows that this product has many flaws, which could cause serious public health problems in the future if the flaws go uncorrected.”
SNIP
“More research on e-cigarettes is crucially needed to protect the health of e-cigarette users and even those who do not use e-cigarettes,” said Kamlesh Asotra, a research administrator at UC TRDRP. “Contrary to the claims of the manufacturers and marketers of e-cigarettes being ‘safe,’ in fact, virtually nothing is known about the toxicity of the vapors generated by these e-cigarettes. Until we know any thing about the potential health risks of the toxins generated upon heating the nicotine-containing content of the e-cigarette cartridges, the ‘safety’ claims of the manufacturers are dubious at best.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)I worked for an Ambulance company there and they all had stickers on their windows saying that some items used in the making of this vehicle are known to cause cancer.
Ambulances.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)For several months I have enjoyed recording digital music files through my keyboard, thanks to a simple device that connects it to my laptop. But it wasn’t until recently that I discovered that the following label came with it:
WARNING: This product contains chemicals, including lead, known to the State of California to cause cancer, and birth defects or other reproductive harm. Wash hands after handling.
I freaked out. How could a set of cables attached to a small blue blinking cylinder cause cancer? The USB connector and keyboard inputs seemed harmless enough, and I hadn’t felt obvious symptoms while making music. Was I risking my life for the sake of my four-person fan base?
So I called the company, M-Audio. Apparently, manufacturers have to put this label on certain products to comply with Proposition 65, a California law that requires a warning on anything containing lead or other hazardous substances found to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.
Under this law, whose full title is The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, warnings must be placed on products with a chemicals present in amounts larger than what the California government has decided is a “safe harbor number.”
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/28/cancer-warning-labels-on-products-a-cause-for-concern/
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)that, among other things, can allow nicotine to leak into the environment, exposing children and pets. This isn't an insignificant risk.
Why is it that the manufacturers are refusing to do the research that all the other manufacturers of similar products (nicotine gum, patches, etc.) were happy to do?
Why should we blindly trust the corporations that are producing these products, many of them in China? (Which doesn't have a great safety record, by the way.)
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Which spew a lot worse and yet most people here own and use one?
Or any household chemical, perfume, etc and so on?
If we go based on our moral principles and such, which is worse for us all - a person smoking an e-cig or someone using a laptop/driving a car/etc?
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)That is seriously the stupidest article I ever read. Anyone who uses their brain even a little bit must realize that the terminology they're using is ridiculous. Leak into the environment!!
Nicotine is not now and never WAS the reason smoking was banned in public. And cigarettes contain nicotine. To suddenly switch the argument NOW to nicotine HAS to be a red flag for the thinking person. Big tobacco is being hurt by the electronic cigarette industry. And Big Pharma is being hurt by the electronic cigarette industry. Those are 2 powerful lobbying groups who have a huge monetary interest in seeing electronic cigarettes banned.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Regular cigarettes off-gas certain chemicals. No one knows what's in the vapor of e-cigarettes, but some of the manufacturers products have been tested and contain substances like formaldehyde in their vapors. And leaking nicotine where it can be absorbed by children or pets is not innocuous.
If these products are so safe, why object to having them do the research to prove their safety, like other nicotine products?
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)vapor, as long as there's no carcinogen then there's no issue. You're inhaling crap every single day because of exhaust fumes and factories and wood burning fireplaces and barbecues.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)of some of these products. So have other chemicals.
Until the companies provide the studies, they cannot say, and neither can anyone else, that the vapor contains no dangerous components.
http://www.newstribune.com/news/2012/sep/30/anti-smoking-group-targets-e-cigarettes/
Americans for Non-Smokers Rights is slamming the marketers of e-cigarettes, claiming they are using press releases and social media to tout the benefits of their product, despite a lack of independent peer-reviewed scientific evidence demonstrating the safety or effectiveness.
SNIP
"What I find most egregious are the direct advertisements with false and misleading claims, including that e-cigarettes are effective smoking cessation devices, that e-cigarette use is permissible in all indoor environments, including venues that are smoke-free, and targeting pregnant women claiming that e-cigarettes are safer and healthier than other tobacco products," said Cynthia Hallett, executive director of Americans for Non-Smokers Rights.
Disputes claims
In a press release of its own, the group disputes e-cigarette manufacturers' claims that e-cigarettes are "safer than commercial tobacco products." It says the contents of the e-cigarette liquid and the "vapor mist" that is exhaled by the user remain undisclosed. E-cigarettes are currently an unregulated product, which leaves a great deal of unknowns not only about the health risks, but also about product manufacturing quality and safety.
The group points to a study recently published in Indoor Air, which measured the contents of exhaled e-cigarette vapor and found that exhaling the vapor releases measurable amounts of carcinogens and toxins into the air, including nicotine, formaldehyde and acetaldehyde.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)Water, propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin don't turn into formaldehyde that I know of.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)E-cigarettes clearly seem safer than cigarettes, for cigarette users.
But they aren't necessarily safe for non-users, who are protected from cigarette exposure with smoking bans.
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/03/new-study-of-electronic-cigarette-vapor.html
Although this study demonstrates that e-cigarettes are safer than tobacco cigarettes, it also refutes the idea that e-cigarettes are safe in an absolute sense. It appears that the main risk associated with vaping is the potential inhalation of formaldehyde. Formaldehyde may result from the heating of propylene glycol or the oxidation or hydrolysis of glycerin. Of interest, the levels of formaldehyde among the 12 brands of electronic cigarettes ranged from just 3.2 micrograms per 150 puffs (about the same as a nicotine inhaler) to 56.1 micrograms per 150 puffs. This presents an opportunity to examine the reasons for these significant differences and hopefully, to find ways to produce e-cigarette liquid that does not produce high levels of formaldehyde. This should be a research priority for the FDA
The other health concern related to e-cigarette use is the risks associated with long-term inhalation of propylene glycol. If an excipient can be found which allows vaporization of nicotine but avoids propylene glycol and limits the formation of carbonyl compounds such as formaldehyde, it will be a huge advance and may lead to the development of an electronic cigarette product that is not merely safer than smoking, but is essentially safe as well (comparable to a medicinal nicotine product). The development of such a product should also be a priority for the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products.
beevul
(12,194 posts)For those that might be alarmed by what you write, I post this:
"Last but not least, it should be mentioned that traces of formaldehyde have also been discovered as a product of human metabolic reactions. Lindinger et al.(103) have shown that formaldehyde is a component of exhaled human breath. Wehinger et al.(104) have identified increased levels of formaldehyde in exhaled breath samples from primary lung cancer patients. Moser et al.(105) report formaldehyde concentrations in the deep lung portion of human breath up to 72.7 ppbv with a median of 4.3 ppbv. Kushch et al.(106) have examined trace compounds in the exhaled breath of 81 smokers, 210 nonsmokers, and 79 ex-smokers. For formaldehyde, median values of about 10 ppb were measured and no statistically significant difference between smokers and nonsmokers was observed."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc2855181/
I suggest you look at levels of formaldehyde that the every day person encounters every day, doing things such as cooking dinner on a gas range, or contained in a new car, before you post any more in this "direction".
As to the study referred to in your link:
Results: We found that the e-cigarette vapours contained some toxic substances. The levels of the toxicants were 9–450 times lower than in cigarette smoke and were, in many cases, comparable with trace amounts found in the reference product.
Conclusions: Our findings are consistent with the idea that substituting tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes may substantially reduce exposure to selected tobacco-specific toxicants. E-cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy among smokers unwilling to quit, warrants further study.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/03/05/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859.abstract
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)but not so great for the public, which is protected from cigarette smoke by public smoking bans.
I have no problem with the manufacturers producing these products, as long as they're not marketed to children. But if they want other people to have to breathe those vapors, then they should do the research to prove that the vapor is safe.
Either that, or they should just accept the same public bans that apply to aerosolized tobacco products.
beevul
(12,194 posts)You think "ban them unless they're proven safe", and I think "leave them alone unless and until you prove them unsafe".
One of them meshes with a free society.
And never the two shall meet.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)First you have to buy the PDF to see the whole study and im sure you didnt do that.
Second here is what they concluded :
"Conclusions Our findings are consistent with the idea that substituting tobacco cigarettes with e-cigarettes may substantially reduce exposure to selected tobacco-specific toxicants. E-cigarettes as a harm reduction strategy among smokers unwilling to quit, warrants further study. "
Results:" We found that the e-cigarette vapours contained some toxic substances. The levels of the toxicants were 9–450 times lower than in cigarette smoke and were, in many cases, comparable with trace amounts found in the reference product. "
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2013/03/05/tobaccocontrol-2012-050859.abstract
In other words most that were found were trace amounts, below the threat level set by different government agencies.
I dont see here where anything was mentioned about formaldehyed at all. In fact in any of the studies done here, Germany, New Zealand to they ever mention formaldehyde.
The point is e-cigarettes are not ment for the non-smoker, they are ment for those trying to quit smoking and they are 98 to 99% safer than smoking cigarettes. And the reseach studys done by a few different labs show second hand vapor show no danger to by passers. vapor only last in the air 11 seconds. cigarette smoke last 30 min or more.
So you think its ok to condem people to continue smoking when they cant quit with any of the other things on the market?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)I'm perfectly willing to concede that these e-cigs are probably much safer for the direct consumer than the dangerous products they'd otherwise consume.
But the general non-using public is better off not being exposed to them, unless research shows that the toxins they emit are truly insignificant, even for children and those in poor health.
Until then, I will continue to strongly support bans in public places and at work.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)we have supplyed you with a few of them how many more do you need?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)so they no longer have to be regulated as tobacco products.
Not random, ad hoc studies paid for by the e-cig manufacturers as a marketing ploy while they continue to avoid submitting acceptable studies to the FDA.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)there are no regulations in place for e-cigarettes, you do understand there is no tobacco in them right?
they dont have to do any studies for e-cigarettes for the FDA.
You really dont understand all this do you?
beevul
(12,194 posts)Maybe in ...2007 when all that could be had was dekang or something lol.
Anyway, cite it please.
And cite for everyone, exactly WHO is objecting to testing.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and they sued in order to be classified as a tobacco product, so they wouldn't be required by the FDA to do safety testing.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Furthermore, you completely spin the facts about the lawsuit.
Exhibit A:
"and they sued in order to be classified as a tobacco product, so they wouldn't be required by the FDA to do safety testing."
The "they" which did the sueing, was a single manufacturer, "Njoy", not a whole industry.
Njoy, sued to prevent them from regulating them as smoking cessation devices, not TO be regulated as tobacco products.
And you still haven't cited which e-juice manufacturers are refusing to do testing, and when this alleged refusal took place. Lots of allegations, and no substantiation. When did that start being accepted on DU, eh?
You talk like its "big tobacco 2.0". It isn't.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)None of them have submitted any safety research to the FDA.
The only reason Njoy escaped regulation is because tobacco products have a special exemption that allows them to avoid normal FDA requirements, and e-cigarettes have now been classified as tobacco products.
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm172906.htm
As the safety and efficacy of e-cigarettes have not been fully studied, consumers of e-cigarette products currently have no way of knowing:
whether e-cigarettes are safe for their intended use,
how much nicotine or other potentially harmful chemicals are being inhaled during use, or
if there are any benefits associated with using these products.
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm252360.htm
Between 2008 and 2010, the FDA determined that certain electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) were unapproved drug/device combination products and detained and/or refused admission to those offered for import by Sottera, Inc. and other manufacturers. Sottera, Inc. challenged that determination in court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in Sottera, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration, 627 F.3d 891 (D.C. Cir. 2010), recently issued a decision with regard to e-cigarettes and other products “made or derived from tobacco” and the jurisdictional line that should be drawn between “tobacco products” and “drugs,” “devices,” and combination products, as those terms are defined in the FD&C Act. The court held that e-cigarettes and other products made or derived from tobacco can be regulated as “tobacco products” under the Act and are not drugs/devices unless they are marketed for therapeutic purposes.
The government has decided not to seek further review of this decision, and FDA will comply with the jurisdictional lines established by Sottera.
beevul
(12,194 posts)My that must have been heavy...moving that goalpost, I mean.
"The manufacturers are refusing to do the testing..."
Recognize those words? You said them. You own them.
Which manufacturers refused to to have testing done?
Simple question.
Answer it.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)And the answer is NONE.
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/PublicHealthFocus/ucm252360.htm
Between 2008 and 2010, the FDA determined that certain electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) were unapproved drug/device combination products and detained and/or refused admission to those offered for import by Sottera, Inc. and other manufacturers. Sottera, Inc. challenged that determination in court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in Sottera, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration, 627 F.3d 891 (D.C. Cir. 2010), recently issued a decision with regard to e-cigarettes and other products “made or derived from tobacco” and the jurisdictional line that should be drawn between “tobacco products” and “drugs,” “devices,” and combination products, as those terms are defined in the FD&C Act. The court held that e-cigarettes and other products made or derived from tobacco can be regulated as “tobacco products” under the Act and are not drugs/devices unless they are marketed for therapeutic purposes.
The government has decided not to seek further review of this decision, and FDA will comply with the jurisdictional lines established by Sottera.
beevul
(12,194 posts)No. The real questions are:
Why do you repeatedly try to paint a "leading" type of picture, one unrepresentative of reality, with your claims?
And when called on it, why do you pretend you weren't called on it?
Do you have an agenda here?
I think we all know the answer to those questions.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)I'm old enough to remember when cigarettes were marketed as a healthy product. Now they're trying the same thing with e-cigarettes.
I agree that they're likely much safer for nicotine addicts who would otherwise be smoking tobacco, and that's why I posted the link to the pro e-cigarette researcher.
But they have not done the research to show that their product doesn't harm non-smokers and they have avoided going to the FDA for approval.
You complain that my links haven't proven my point, though I've linked you to the FDA and to a pro-e cigarette researcher.
Where is your link showing the research that e-cigarettes do not expose non-smokers to risks?
beevul
(12,194 posts)"I'm old enough to remember when cigarettes were marketed as a healthy product. Now they're trying the same thing with e-cigarettes."
Says you.
"But they have not done the research to show that their product doesn't harm non-smokers and they have avoided going to the FDA for approval."
I proceed from the standpoint, that if you want to modify my behavior, or that of anyone else based on the idea that you will be harmed otherwise, then you need to prove that harm will be done to you.
You need to justify restriction, I do not need to justify lack of one.
The burden is on you, as it should be. That's how things work in a free society where all things are allowed except that which is forbidden via due process which hopefully, is based on fact, rather than suspicion, bias, and distain. I also proceed from the standpoint, that if it doesn't effect you any more than any of the other things you choose to be exposed to in your daily life, like cooking dinner over a gas range or a host of other things, that its simply none of your business, regardless of whether you like it or not.
And heres where I get the "suspicion and bias" from:
"they have avoided"
Not "they have not", but "they have avoided". You make it sound like they're hiding. knowing a bit about the industry, how it works, and whats going on within it, ...well, lets just say your choice of words does not accurately describe the state of things.
You are trying to paint a picture here, or at the very least, you sure look like you are. I get a very distinct "I don't like it, and I'm searching for justification to loudly oppose it without looking like I oppose it because I don't like it" vibe from you. And I would bet a pile of gold that I'm not alone in that.
And see this:
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2012.724728
Context: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have earned considerable attention recently as an alternative to smoking tobacco, but uncertainties about their impact on health and indoor air quality have resulted in proposals for bans on indoor e-cigarette use.
Objective: To assess potential health impacts relating to the use of e-cigarettes, a series of studies were conducted using e-cigarettes and standard tobacco cigarettes.
Methods and materials: Four different high nicotine e-liquids were vaporized in two sets of experiments by generic 2-piece e-cigarettes to collect emissions and assess indoor air concentrations of common tobacco smoke by products. Tobacco cigarette smoke tests were conducted for comparison.
Results: Comparisons of pollutant concentrations were made between e-cigarette vapor and tobacco smoke samples. Pollutants included VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs, nicotine, TSNAs, and glycols. From these results, risk analyses were conducted based on dilution into a 40 m3 room and standard toxicological data. Non-cancer risk analysis revealed “No Significant Risk” of harm to human health for vapor samples from e-liquids (A-D). In contrast, for tobacco smoke most findings markedly exceeded risk limits indicating a condition of “Significant Risk” of harm to human health. With regard to cancer risk analysis, no vapor sample from e-liquids A-D exceeded the risk limit for either children or adults. The tobacco smoke sample approached the risk limits for adult exposure.
Conclusions: For all byproducts measured, electronic cigarettes produce very small exposures relative to tobacco cigarettes. The study indicates no apparent risk to human health from e-cigarette emissions based on the compounds analyzed.
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2012.724728
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)tridim
(45,358 posts)I vape about 10 drops from a medicine dropper per day. It's essentially nothing.
The anti-E-cig people must think we vape gallons of the stuff.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)that people can stop smoking without being miserable. They want smokers to suffer, even after they've quit.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)Dr. Siegel analyzes the findings. Read the rest of the story..
That study was done by ANTZ and brought to the state to further their cause to get rid of e-cigs. They lied in how they presented their findings to the health committee. They didn't tell the health committee that they were only trace amounts below the standard of harm. The same that would be found in FDA approved nic inhalers.
here is an other blog post by Dr. Siegel about effectiveness of the e-cigs
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/04/new-study-documents-effectiveness-of.html
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,120 posts)Some places do not allow it. Many a resonant won't or has stop because many people who smoke has seen the e-cigarette and think it is OK to light up. And when told no a scene is made and... well better to ban both for the sake of argument for many businesses.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)If it specifies tobacco, then the electric ones don't apply. If it just says "smoking," then I believe the electric ones are also banned.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)smoking.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)For example, my state, Massachusetts, defines smoking as
The lighting of a cigar, cigarette, pipe or other tobacco product or possessing a lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe or other tobacco or non-tobacco product designed to be combusted and inhaled.
That clearly does not include e-cigs.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)One of the airlines, I don't remember which one, said "it looks like smoking". That kind of stupidity makes me want to scream.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)who will become disruptive if they think they see someone smoking on the airplane, even if it's explained to them.
I've seen this particular form of idiocy firsthand. The one time I was called out for using my e-cig in public was on an MBTA commuter train. I blew a bit too much vapor and someone saw it and told the conductor I was smoking on the train. He came over, confused since there was obviously no smoke in the car, and asked me if I was smoking. I told him no and showed him my e-cig. He said, "Oh, OK," and went on his way. Well, the passenger who complained just would not shut up about it. She did go on and on and on and on, all the rest of the (long) way to my stop, griping that he hadn't made me stop and how much it upset her that I was allowed to do that on the train, et cetera, et cetera.
Now, having some loon ranting and raving is not such a big deal on a commuter train, but folks on airplanes are understandably more uptight about weirdos in their midst, and it would be a big problem. I can't really blame the airlines for wanting to avoid that situation.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)contaminants. It's not automatically harmless because it's vapor instead of smoke.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Only said it wasn't smoke, which is what anti-smoking laws prohibit.
Generally, I'm all for limiting bad habits, especially if they affect others.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)A vapor can be full of contaminants and both smoke and vapor can be breathed into the lungs. And, in the case of e-cigarettes, the nicotine and other chemicals are heated, which forms chemical reactions that have never been adequately tested -- but some researchers have found formaldehyde and other toxins in the off-gas.
Smoke:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/smoke?s=t
the visible vapor and gases given off by a burning or smoldering substance, especially the gray, brown, or blackish mixture of gases and suspended carbon particles resulting from the combustion of wood, peat, coal, or other organic matter.
Vapor:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vapor?s=t
a visible exhalation, as fog, mist, steam, smoke, or noxious gas, diffused through or suspended in the air: the vapors rising from the bogs.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)smoke comes from something burning.
vapor comes from evaporation. or temp change like in fog, mist comes from low lying clouds. In California mist and fog maybe dangerous with all the polutants in the air.
having to do with e-cigarettes and cigarettes there is a huge difference, between a few chemicals and over 4000 chemicals.
You just dont understand THR do you? Tobacco Harm Reduction.
Nobody ever claimed ecigs are 100% safe but are 98 to 99% safer than smoking cigarettes.
smokeless tobaccos are also in the catigory of THR.
NOTHING in life is 100% safe to do or eat.
Its when you can minimize how much of a harm it presents compaired to what your doing is important.
Its just like when people sat in the sun and got skin cancer, people didnt stop sitting in the sun they just applyed sun screen. That is a harm reduction.
Its more dangerous to breath in car exhaust than using an e-cig.
Lets keep this real, there are all kinds of worse hazards city folk take in everyday. Even farts are a gas of a few different chemicals. cleaners and perfume can be harmful to those that are allergic to them. Use house cleaners used long enought and they can cause lung problems. Water can kill you if you dont have enough or if you have to much.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)The question that still has to be determined is exactly what chemicals are produced by what e-cigs and in what quantities.
I'm not taking the manufacturers word on faith, like so many here want to. But I'm not a nicotine addict, so I don't have a vested interest in believing in these products. I'm a person with asthma who has a need for clean air.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)and dont get around cut grass, hay and more things that I could list..
I had COPD from smoking and now its gone from using the ecig, I was choking my own mucus being produced in my lungs. I coughed all the time, after 17 days of using the e-cig I no long cough and the mucus was gone, my lung capacity is getting better as days go by. I couldn't make it up a flight of stairs before starting the e-cig now I can.
my allergies are much much better and my borderline with activity asthma is gone.
I am addicted to nicotine yes but thats not really a bad thing no worse than being addicted to caffeine. I can live with that. If I wanted to I could decrease my dosage of nicotine slowly and go to 0mg of nicotine in my e-cig.
BTW the Propylene glycol is a germicide that is one of the things used in e-juice.
I worked in a pharmacy for 21 years I understand drugs and understand numbers when presented in a study. The vaping community want to know the safety of what they are doing, they dont want to have jumped from the frying pan into the fire so to speak.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and not be exposed to triggers. But quantity does matter.
That's why the point is to reduce triggers and avoid unnecessary exposures. There is no reason I should be exposed to your vapors or your smoke. Go ahead and vape. But keep your e-cigs out of public spaces and work spaces and both our sets of lungs will be better off.
dont ware your perfume around me then cause it triggers me.
see how that works?
I live in a state that have no laws or rules against e-cigs.
But you know im very considate of others and dont vape around them.
You really wouldnt know if I was or not tho....you might smell a sweet fruit smell, no different than perfume.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)"Formaldehyde was also found in the vapour of medicinal inhalators, at levels that overlapped with those found in e-cigarette vapour. Exposure to acrolein, an oxidant and respiratory irritant thought to be a major contributor to cardiovascular disease from smoking, is 15 times lower on average in e-cigarette vapour compared with cigarette smoke. The amounts of toxic metals and aldehydes in e-cigarettes are trace amounts and are comparable with amounts contained in an examined therapeutic product."
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/03/new-study-of-electronic-cigarette-vapor.html
notice its the same things that were found in the FDA approved medical inhalators, such as the nicorette inhaler.
The amounts are below standards set by the federal government. There is probably more chemicals coming of new carpet and new cabinets when they installed.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)"No formaldehyde emissions detected
The Fraunhofer experts conducted a series of test chamber measurements to analyze emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), ultrafine particles and formaldehyde, with particular emphasis on the quantity, concentration and distribution of particles. Tests were conducted using volunteers in an 8-cubic-meter test chamber, where conventional cigarettes were compared with e-cigarettes containing a variety of liquids. To ascertain how the distribution of particles develops over a number of minutes, and the amount of propylene glycol released in the longer term, the vapor was in addition pumped directly into a 10-liter glass chamber. This test was performed on different types of e-cigarette, all containing the same liquid. “In general, the emissions of VOCs and ultrafine particles when smoking an e-cigarette were lower than the equivalent emissions from a standard cigarette”, says Schripp. Furthermore, the researcher and his team were not able to detect any formaldehyde emissions from the e-cigarette. Conventional cigarettes, on the other hand, exceeded the guideline value of 0.1 ppm (parts per million) for indoor air quality under the given test conditions. Vaporized propylene glycol was released into the air from both electronic and tobacco cigarettes, as it is also often used as an additive in tobacco. Pulmonologists fear that this solubilizing agent can irritate the airways when inhaled in large quantities. “While it is true that the electronic cigarette contributes less to indoor air pollution than tobacco cigarettes, it is not entirely emission-free. Consequently, it seems reasonable to assume that bystanders are exposed to the released vapor and thus ‘passive vaping’ is possible”, says Schripp, summing up the results of his measurements. He also criticizes the product labeling strategy, which in many cases provides inexact or inadequate information on the liquids used. As a result, e-smokers often have no reliable way of knowing what potentially harmful substances they are inhaling and exhaling."
http://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/2012/december/putting-electronic-cigarettes-to-the-test.html
This was done in 2012 and since other labs have found that there is no harm in the vapor to bypassers.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)that can irritate the lungs.
Until they do the necessary research, no one can say what is in all of their products. From the limited research that HAS been done, different e-cigarettes contain different chemicals in different quantities in their vapors.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)as smoking cessation devices are any different than ecigs? Other than being marketed by big pharma and costing a fortune? They too expel a vapor, yet clearly you can't ban these in public.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)in the limited study I saw, there was quite a range in the results of the test -- different e-cigs had different results in terms of toxic chemical output and quantity of those chemicals. For example, only some had formaldehyde. Others had other toxic chemicals.
The main difference is that the approved inhalers went to the trouble of submitting the data to show that their devices were safe and effective. Since e-cigs are manufactured differently (and differently from each other), you can't just assume that because the approved inhalers are safe and effective, these other devices would be -- or that because one e-cig is safe and effective, all the rest would be. One of the things I read recently was a manager with one company who welcomed more regulation because he thought that some of his competitors were producing shoddy products and the FDA could stop them.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)that the nicorette inhale puts out the same chemicals in the same amounts as the e-cig right. Most of the hand full of chemicals are from the nicotine itself. What you dont understand is the amount is trace and below standards.
They found the small amount of nicotine that might go into the air when exhaled would be no more than the amount you would get from eating a potato.
Now why would you think a manager of a company would welcome regulations, and that his competitors product is shoddy, im sure it has something to do with getting rid of the compatition. What better way to get rid of the competitors that sell on line but to do away with online sales, or do away with the kind of e-cig they sell. Logic an e-cig company wanted them to do away with flavors because all of there competitors sell many flavors and they dont. Its very cut throat right now to take a share of the market and they will do anything to get the business.
Also associations like the ACA will do anything even throw the kids under the buss to get their way and have e-cig ban.
They have been going to states that have laws coming to make the age 18 to buy and they have been testifying against the law, saying they shouldnt do anything until they find out more about e-cigs. Now everyone else is for the law. They are trying to set things up so the FDA will ban e-cigs.
Believe me there is a whole lot more going on than you will ever know.
Also If I wanted to (I wouldnt be cause im not that kind of person) I could vape right next to you and you would never know. You might think im waring fruit smelling perfume at most.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and the limited data out there show varying amounts of different toxins -- not just nicotine.
Fruity tasting e-cigs is another issue -- a great way to get young people addicted to nicotine who might might never have even tried a smelly tobacco cigarette.
And by young people I mean college students and other young people over 18.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)we have linked clean air studies, I have linked many many studies. Wheather you choose to read them that is up to you.The e-cig community doesnt have to submit anything to FDA, it doesnt work that way. Ive been saying this over and over and you just dont get it.
So you think that once person gets to be an adult they stop liking fruit and sweets? Its the choice of the person if they are over 18 if they want to use an ecig or not. Would be much better than smoking an analog right.
There is no proof that is the case tho, college students are using them to get off cigarettes tho.
Im wasting my time on you here. You are an ANTZ and dont want to hear anything, you have your mind made up. I dont really care what you think, I know what is right. Im sure you really hate smokers but remember we were victims of the tobacco companies. I wish I had never taken that first or second drag when I was 15 years old. I have to live with that the rest of my life. I have to worry for the rest of my life what cigarettes did to me that wont show up for years yet to come. We are not evil people, we are humans that made a bad choice. Now we are trying to correct it. and help others correct it.
What do you do for smokers to get them away from them?You just complain and cry about smokers. you dont help do you?
I do this every day helping people.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)you would be just fine with them? Something tells me you wouldn't. You have already cited an opposition to "fruity" ones. I think you just really have a problem with people doing things you personally don't like.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Electronic Cigarette Parity Amendment Act of 2013"
That's just chuckles.
Smoke isn't and never will be steam, and steam isn't and never will be smoke.
Nor should steam be treated as smoke.
E-cigs/personal vaporizers save lives.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)just like candy cigarettes did years ago.
That it is Kool.
No, it isn't.
And one can have a celery stick or a carrott.
far healthier.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)because kids will pick a celery instead of a cigarette in this imaginary world of yours?
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)they don't need it.
willpower and wellness.
and I think they said there are minute traces in those, so indeed, those are probably just as bad for anyone next to them.
But Joe Camel wasn't cool, and the Marlboro men died a horrendous death.
NutmegYankee
(16,200 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)not the oodles of scientific literature that point to how difficult it is to quit smoking and how many smokers relapse. lets ignore that cos you have a MUCH cooler story
beevul
(12,194 posts)This may not have ocured to you, but America is a land of 310 million people, and the majority of them most likely are more different than you, than they are like you.
I'd call it a gentle reminder, but I can't say that I can see it ever occurred to you to begin with.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)can just walk away from smoking like that.
Let me ask you this all these years later do you still have cravings for the cigarette and you have to do something to have that go away?
I have been using e-cigarettes for almost 5 months and I no longer have trigger cravings, or cravings at all for cigarettes. I dont even have cravings for nicotine. I just get crabby if I dont have enought nicotine.
I congratulate you on quitting, but its not easy for a % of people just walk away. Retraining of the brain is all part of getting away from the mental addiction for good. WHich is what the e-cigarette does.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)genes play a significant role how addicted a person becomes to nicotine and in how hard it is to quit. Therefore, your personal success has little to do with how successful someone else will be at quitting.
Buns_of_Fire
(17,183 posts)I tried some cigarettes that were made of -- believe it or not -- cabbage a long time ago. Besides tasting awful, everyone around me said they smelled like I was smoking pot. (Probably not a good thing, when you're a bonded employee of a financial institution.)
Tyhanna
(145 posts)
Recursion
(56,582 posts)No confusion. Legal anywhere that water is.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Sit in a closed, small, garage for 3 hours with someone smoking either a cig or an e-cig.
Guessing you will come out ok.
Then do the same (mentally) with a car that is running in the same size garage you are in.
Guessing one would not come out at all.
Which do you think is more dangerous? And which do you think most people do without a care each and every day?
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)I thought we were talking about ecigs and whether or not they shoudl be banned?
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)What are we trying to ban any why? If we apply the same logic to other items are we going to follow through with them as well?
Ban cigs because of what they emit - then do the same for things just as dangerous.
e-cigs are nothing more than water vapor, if you ban them then shouldn't you also ban other things which emit water vapor (hot tea, etc)?
The issue is the logic behind things.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Tyhanna
(145 posts)if they were to ban ecigs which I dont think will happen, then cigarettes that are hundreds times more dangerous will have to be ban also.
FDA realizes there needs to be a Threat reduction product or products to combat cigarettes, since cigarettes and nicotine can not be ban there has to be something for people to turn to that just cant quit or dont want to quit.
There maybe a whole new catigory made for Tobacco Threat Reduction hopefully.
yawnmaster
(2,812 posts)Oh wait...
that's a fart.
Ban farts!!!
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)It's harmless, especially when compared to real cigarette smoke.
I think e-cigs should be encouraged, as a way to bring people away from tobacco.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)and it was posted to du. drew a totally different crowd that this hyper judgmental one
Mariana
(14,858 posts)should be jumping up and down with glee that e-cigs are helping so many people to quit. Most people, reasonable people, are happy about it. I suspect the ones who are so negative, with their lame-ass bullshit complaints, don't really hate smoking as much as they hate smokers.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)The manufacturers are not claiming to the FDA that these products are for that purpose, unlike nicotine gum and patches.
beevul
(12,194 posts)How about the millions of people that have gotten off of tobacco for good by using vapes?
If you were interested in the facts, you'd get with real people and hear their stories rather than harping about research on whether or not they help people quit.
I know, I know...Without research it never happened, right?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)using these products. How would you prove this claim without using research?
Real people with real stories = anecdotes. For all we know -- without research -- there are more young people being hooked on the flavored varieties than there are older people using them to quit smoking.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Because under the court decision you're so fond of citing, they aren't allowed to.
"Real people with real stories = anecdotes. For all we know -- without research -- there are more young people being hooked on the flavored varieties than there are older people using them to quit smoking."
Yeah, that's what I thought. You're more interested in the form than the substance.
At least you're consistent.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)People in their 20's can't use these products?
How do you know there aren't more new young users of these products than older users trying to quit? You don't -- not without research.
beevul
(12,194 posts)You said: Even the manufacturers are not claiming that millions of people have quit
And I replied: Do you know why they aren't? Because under the court decision you're so fond of citing, they aren't allowed to.
Get it now? That wasn't so hard was it?
"How do you know there aren't more new young users of these products than older users trying to quit? You don't -- not without research."
Uh huh. When one is involved in something, and chooses to immerse themselves in something, and/or has a spouse that does as well, one becomes familiar with things in a way that someone who didn't could not. Theres a vaping "community". I'm sure you know that, and choose to spew your pejoratives rather than investigate it for yourself.
But hey, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt :
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/
Read for yourself, and try to get some idea for yourself.
Or you could just go on complaining about the lack of research, and pretending that without research and/or documentation, nothing really happens.
Again, your choice.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)to prove how many users are young people who are taking up smoking in this form vs. older people using it to quit.
And are you being purposely obtuse? The manufacturers are not allowed to claim that millions of people have quit BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T DONE THE RESEARCH TO PROVE IT and the FDA won't allow them to cite health claims without research backing it up.
beevul
(12,194 posts)E-gigs CAN NOT be advertised as smoking cessation devices because of that court ruling. ONLY THINGS CLASSIFIED AS NICOTINE DELIVERY DEVICES CAN BE, AND E-CIGS ARE NOT CLASSIFIED AS NICOTINE DELIVERY DEVICES. Read your own cite. Read it. Understand it. Understand the ramifications of it.
Just come out and say it, you aren't interested in anything but research.
And fuck anyone that gets plowed out of the way and goes back to analogues, right?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)So why are you complaining? They and their lawyers asked that their device be classified as a tobacco product so now they are not required to submit safety and effectiveness data.
OTOH, they are still not allowed to make safety and effectiveness claims without submitting that data.
And they are free at any time to conduct the research, submit the data, and get any of their products reclassified.
And you are right. I don't care anything about your anecdotal stories. You want to take their claims on FAITH -- I, as a person who has been subjected to too much second-hand smoke over my lifetime, don't. I have no faith in these companies -- or any other corporations. I care about objective, careful research -- but the manufacturers don't want to provide any. And they don't have to, and that's fine. But they can't make health-related claims without it.
Again, they're being regulated as a tobacco product because that's their choice. The judge ruled just as they requested. If they want another decision, all they have to do is submit the data.
What's the problem? If their product is safe, they can easily prove it. If it's not, then it should be kept out of public spaces.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)To do a scientific study that is ethical and accurate, its very expensive to do. The e-cigarette community have been working together to get studies done. Believe me the community want to know that its safe to use them as much as anyone else.
There are organization that check e-juices for standards of how the manufactures are making them. There are already standards in place in the e-cigarette community, place there by the users of e-cigarettes. Unless you are with in the community you wouldn't know what is really going on.
There are Dr's and Scientist are working on studies that are ethical. But it takes time to get the final out come.
One such study is
http://www.ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/component/content/article?id=80
Dr Farsalinos is one of the leading Dr's. along with others to show e-cigarettes are safe.
Right now we know e-cigarettes are 98% to 99% safer than smoking cigarettes. Nicotine does not cause cancer, does not cause heart disease. We also know there are benefits to nicotine.
Now I could keep this up all night, but I have a feeling you really don't care one way or other. You have no gain from e-cigarettes and you are just arguing about them to argue.
While many will die from cigarettes, 10million e-cigarette users in the world will have reduced their threat because they are getting away from cigarettes. People should be praising e-cigarettes. The 5% of NRT users that will make it away from smoking will live to tell about it, how about the 95% that don't make it away and continue smoking?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)They can conduct the research and submit it to the FDA.
And yes, it could take time. But it's been years since the Court decision. What have they been doing?
IN THE MEANTIME, till they submit the research, they've elected to be classified with other tobacco products, and that means that they are subject to the same public use bans.
On edit:
I just looked at the link. How is that research among vapers going to show us what substances are in the vapors that might affect second-hand users? Where is the research that analyzes and measures the substances?
Tyhanna
(145 posts)Who are these companies you speak of? There are hundreds of companies, and hundreds of e-juice makers. The e-cigarettes are cheaper than buying cigarettes.
They don't have to submit any research to the FDA being an tobacco product, any and all research that is being done is by the e-cig community and for the e-cig community.
Only drug companies have to prove with studies the safety of their drugs or drug devices.
Like I said before the FDA is very limited what they can do as a tobacco product. They can not ban nicotine only Congress can do that and they can not ban tobacco. They are able to regulate for standard and safety.
BTW the levels of nicotine in second hand vapor is less than what you would get from eating a potato. Thats right potatoes, eggplant, red peppers are also in the Nightshade family and have nicotine in them.
The nicotine in the e-cig is FDA approved and is the same Nicotine that you will find in the NRTs, also the levels of chemicals found in e-juice was the same as found in the FDA approved Nicorette inhaler. PG and VG are both FDA approved for internal use, and used in the medical field, drugs, beauty aids, and many more everyday use items.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)...I'm a very satisfied E-cig user. Seems the person you're attempting to enlighten is set in her ways, and as you say, is arguing just to argue.
I speak from two plus years of experience...a nearly 2 pack a day smoker for over 35 years. I haven't had a coffin nail since I switched to my E-Z-Go and have no desire. I tried other ways and this is what's worked for me...and has been embraced by my family and friends. Those who want to prohibit this device's use are ignorant on their positives...they want "retribution" on smokers.
As far as economics...her argument is outright wrong. I used to spend upwards of $60 a carton (I'm told they're pushing $70 a throw these days)...or about $240-300 a month to keep up my habit. Now I'm spending about $50 a month. That's money that no longer goes to big tobacco.
To those who are blind as to the benefits of the E-cig...so be it. There are many of us out here who have success stories and are appreciative of these devices and the people who took the financial risks to help develop and make them available.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)because they've elected to be classified as a tobacco product. And I am referring to ALL of the companies. (If any company wants to make another choice, they can submit research and ask to be approved under a different category.)
But the other point is that as long as they are classified as a tobacco product, they can be subject by jurisdictions to the same bans that affect tobacco products -- and a vapor for these purposes is treated the same as "smoke." Both are gases that can contain contaminants which, as the manufacturers have agreed, are "inherently dangerous."
bighart
(1,565 posts)with any other "tobacco product" as regulated by the government. Why do you suppose that is the case?
Tyhanna
(145 posts)The FDA says that since the e-cig is not a smoking cessation product, no manufacture can make any claims as such. So in other words, nobody in the e-cigarette world that sells e-cigarettes can claim that e-cigarettes will stop your smoking.
BUT.....
Here is a small survey that was done by people that use e-cigarettes.
http://www.vaperlist.com/vaper-survey.html
You might want to check that out.
Being e-cigarettes can not be put in the catigory with NRTs, and are being put with tobaccos many people just dont understand that they are very different than a cigarette. They need to be in their own catigory as a THR. Which is what CASAA is working on to have happen.
There has been allot of studies done by the e-cigarette community on the dime of the community. CASAA will be doing a study this summer that will be more complete.
There are many in other countries that have studied different aspects of the e-cigarette. I believe the clean air study was linked in another thread.
I could also provide many many links to studies and other important information about e-cigarettes.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)I used to work for one of the major national survey companies. (But not Gallup.
(In fact, it was at that company that I inhaled a lifetime's worth of second-hand smoke.)
From what I can see here, this is an entirely self-selected poll -- which means it can't be extrapolated to any larger population.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)Yes this was a small survey, done in the vaping community, posted by an e-cigarette to his link for the survey. The link was put in the largest ecig forum on the internet. This showed a slice of people from different walks of life, young and old and in different stages of using an e-cig. Where this is by no means scientific its shows what is going on with e-cigarettes in the community.
Seems no matter what is linked to you its not good enough for you.
Check out the many links CASAA has on their website for studies, research. There is enough reading in links to last a few days.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)making nicotine-delivery systems submit to the FDA.
If they want to make health claims, that's what they should do.
Otherwise, submit to the restrictions that they accepted (including bans in public spaces) when they SUED for the right to be classified as a tobacco product.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)E-cigs are not drug delivery systems, so the FDA can not treat them like such. I'm not sure you totally understand how this all works. As a tobacco product the FDA can only do so many things, they can put regulations on the e-cigarette for standards and safety. The e-cig community can not claim when selling them they are a smoking cessation product and that they decrease and help you quit smoking.
It would be up to state, county, citys to make laws about if they want them treated like cigarettes. Many states have tried and failed. The most important law would be that a minor can not buy them. There are many states, counties, cities that see the importance of the e-cigarette and have not passed laws against them, leaving it just to pass the minors law.
There is many things going on in how they are going to be handled, even the head of the FDA sees them as a possible threat reduction.
There will be more studies coming out for there is studies in PA and a few other states being done right now. Plus the study that CASAA will be doing this summer.
It feels like no matter what is told to you and no matter how many things are linked to you, nothing but nothing is going to make any difference to you. Ive seen many like you that just will never see the good e-cigarettes can do for those that just cant get away from smoking, or those ones that don't want to stop smoking.
I myself, smoked for 40 years and I'm now smoke free with no cravings for 4m 23d. I'm very proud of being able to say that after trying every single FDA approved NRT and even cold turkey a few times just to go back to smoking. I don't let people like you get me down. I know not always are the FDA approved drugs good, Chantix is a very dangerous drug and the manufacture has payed out millions in payouts to damaged people, there are still 2000 pending right now. Having worked in a pharmacy for 21 years I have seen may FDA approved drugs that were dangerous.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and you agree with me on this, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Which are the "many" states that have tried and failed to regulate these things? My state has tried and succeeded.
You are wrong to say I don't recognize the good these might do IF they prove to be safe and effective. I'm just saying that they haven't provided the data proving that they ARE safe and effective. And they haven't provided the data showing there is no risk to second and third-hand vapers -- so public bans under the category of "tobacco products" continue to be justified, even if some locales don't choose to include them.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)Offically the FDA has not made a ruling on e-cigarettes yet.
The states are starting to regulate them, counties and cities.
You do have to understand the popularty of them has just been within the last few years, with a huge growth in the last year.
They have been out for 10 years, and in that time nobody has died from direct use of an e-cigarette.
The technoligy has gotten better just over the last 3 years or so. More kinds to offer people. Research and development is still happening. So in that so are studys and surveys. 2.5million use e-cigs in this country, and other 7-8million in the rest of the world.
OK, RI, SC, VA are some ones that have tried just this year. We see nothing wrong with the minors law, and we expect some regulation will come from the FDA, but making bans threw ignorance is wrong for anything. There are many counties, cities, states that exclude them and dont see them as a tobacco product. Because they are really not at tobacco product. But by having the judge make that judgement it keep them from being ban and having to have extensive and very expensive studies done as a drug devise. No company was prepaired to do those kinds of studies. The fund raising just for CASAA to do a study has been long and hard. We dont get money from the government, all the money comes from within the community.
ANTZ, AHA,WHO,ACS, or any people that dont use them. How do all those before listed grps get money? for any reseach and studies?
As a group if many people with many more we are hoping will get on board using e-cigs we would like to see a new catigory made for THR. This is still at grassroots, most companies are starter companies and dont have the capital to do anything like studies. Any studies done is not for the FDA but for those within the community. They do not have to do studies for the FDA, it just doesnt work that way.
I would think as a fellow human you would want to see it helping people. I would think anything that could help people get away from smoking a very important thing and would be promoted not just by the people that use them but by the people out there that dont want to see people die from smoking.
Remember nobody had died from direct use of e-cigarettes in 10 years. Everyone ive seen storys from and believe me ive seen hundreds, feel better, have better lung use, better blood pressure, (took mine yesterday 118/69) more energy, better over all health.
We are not forcing them on you, we are not doing anything to you with them, so Im not sure why you acting this way. Vapor last 11 seconds in the air, cigarette smoke last upto 30 min in the air. We have already provided you with studies of air quality, but you have to read the PDF to see all the numbers, but reading the numbers probably wont help you unless they are explained to you. So that is why you read the short version. Its there in black and white. The ANTZ have funded studies also and give a negative light to e-cigs but if you examine those numbers the chemicals are well below threat to anyone. And well below the standards excepted by the government and FDA. Even the study done by the FDA the numbers were well below the excepted standards.
This is fear from ignorance, educate yourself....we did.
truegrit44
(332 posts)logical post!
I also do not understand why people want to look down on smokers and not even give them a break when they are trying to quit, does it make them feel better about themselves........do they feel better when they see a poor old alcoholic laying in the street, because they are so perfect that they lead their lives so pure and perfect.
For pete's sake doctors are now suggesting the use of them to help quit.
And they do work! I have been a smoker for 40 years and they are the only thing that worked for me. Some of these comments sound like repub's talking about Obamacare, heaven forbid we should help someone that needs it.
Like some of the more logical people on here have stated .........walk thru a parking lot and try to tell me their is less exposure to pollutants than standing in the area of an e-cig. How about the folks that spend hours every weekend standing over their smoking bbq's.
Get real people!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts) RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)If the answer is determined to be yes, then it should apply. From what I understand, though, nicotine alone is not any more harmful than caffeine.
However, I cant help but wonder what other byproducts lay within the vapor. It is not simply water and nicotine, so I'd say it's worth looking into.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)but the limited studies others have done have found small levels of nicotine, but various other toxins (such as formaldehyde). It isn't simply H2O.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Context: Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) have earned considerable attention recently as an alternative to smoking tobacco, but uncertainties about their impact on health and indoor air quality have resulted in proposals for bans on indoor e-cigarette use.
Objective: To assess potential health impacts relating to the use of e-cigarettes, a series of studies were conducted using e-cigarettes and standard tobacco cigarettes.
Methods and materials: Four different high nicotine e-liquids were vaporized in two sets of experiments by generic 2-piece e-cigarettes to collect emissions and assess indoor air concentrations of common tobacco smoke by products. Tobacco cigarette smoke tests were conducted for comparison.
Results: Comparisons of pollutant concentrations were made between e-cigarette vapor and tobacco smoke samples. Pollutants included VOCs, carbonyls, PAHs, nicotine, TSNAs, and glycols. From these results, risk analyses were conducted based on dilution into a 40 m3 room and standard toxicological data. Non-cancer risk analysis revealed “No Significant Risk” of harm to human health for vapor samples from e-liquids (A-D). In contrast, for tobacco smoke most findings markedly exceeded risk limits indicating a condition of “Significant Risk” of harm to human health. With regard to cancer risk analysis, no vapor sample from e-liquids A-D exceeded the risk limit for either children or adults. The tobacco smoke sample approached the risk limits for adult exposure.
Conclusions: For all byproducts measured, electronic cigarettes produce very small exposures relative to tobacco cigarettes. The study indicates no apparent risk to human health from e-cigarette emissions based on the compounds analyzed.
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/08958378.2012.724728
Theres some research for you.
Does it have to be funded by GASP for you to read and/or believe it?
I guess you'll be against that ban now, right?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)to the FDA and get their product reclassified.
No, this study alone is not enough of a reason to allow these e-cigs in public spaces. But it's a start.
On edit: somewhere today I read that one of the manufacturers strongly supports doing more research because they are concerned that there are bad products out there that ARE subjecting smokers and others to risks. So in an ideal world, research would be done that would show that some of these products ARE safe. But it's too early for any of them to make this claim yet.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Things don't need a reason to be allowed in public. Things need reasons, justification, to be prohibited in public.
Those are the facts, whether you recognize them as such, or not.
If you doubt that, feel free to post a poll here in GD asking whether things need a reason to be allowed, or a reason to be prohibited, and what the default nature of any given thing is - allowed or prohibited.
Go ahead, do it. Just don't expect answers you'll like.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)We don't have to make NEW laws to ban these things. Everything is in place with our preexisting clean air laws, and tobacco bans from public spaces.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"We have clean air laws that form the basis of the public bans."
Do you think those clean air laws were made up out of thin air or were they justified? DuH. Those "clean air laws" were justified when they were enacted. Nobody came into the legislative session and said "hey, I think we need clean air laws, lets just arbitrarily make it X". No, standards were developed. Its up to those that wish to prohibit e-cigs in public, to make their case to what ever legislature they happen to be lobbying, that e-ciggs surpass those standards. Good luck with that. If what you want instead of that, is for standards to be lowered so that e-cigs cross the threshold, then you make your position and what your position is based on quite transparent.
"We don't have to make NEW laws to ban these things. Everything is in place with our preexisting clean air laws, and tobacco bans from public spaces."
Everything may be in place to ban them, but not to justify it.
That's what you want right? A ban without scientific justification that meets well established external harm parameters.
I mean...that's what you're arguing against here, needing justification to ban them. You don't think any should be needed.
Of course, you go up in front of any legislature with a handful of bias and 5 year old studies, and those of us who disagree with you point out that all you have are bias and 5 year old studies, and point out other studies which show, like the clean air one I linked you for example, and what do you think is going to happen, eh?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)will tell them they don't have a case.
They INSISTED on being classified as a tobacco product -- and their own top attorney says their product is "inherently unsafe" -- so they and their customers are stuck complying with laws that regulate tobacco products that off-gas into the air.
Again, because their own legal argument is that their product is inherently unsafe.
Maybe they should stop contradicting themselves.
No ones filed suit because those clean air laws make sense and are scientifically sound - those two things are the reason nobody would have a case.
"They INSISTED on being classified as a tobacco product"
Such spin. How can you produce spin like this and think nobody could see it?
They sued NOT to be classified drug delivery devices.
If you can't even be honest about that, why should anyone consider anything you say on this subject to be of even minimal value?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)That was why they wanted them classified as tobacco products; because tobacco products are allowed to be marketed under a special classification even though they are without benefit and are inherently dangerous.
They haven't produced the data to the FDA showing either that there are benefits to e-cigs or showing the degree of risk. Until they do, they'd rather live with the tobacco classification. Because they had a choice, and that's what they chose.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)What you dont get is the e-cig industry does not have to prove to the FDA anything, that only happens when is classifed as a drug devise or drug.
The e-cig industry has done much research and continues to do so for the benifit of the community.
You keep saying the same things over and over in many post, I dont believe you know jackdidally about what you are arguing there. And in the end are starting to really look like the fool.
I have many links of information you might want to check them out for your self.
http://www.casaa.org/Lab_Reports__ecigarettes.html
http://www.casaa.org/Survey_Studies.html
http://www.casaa.org/Legal_Docs__E-cigarettes.html
http://www.casaa.org/Scientific_Opinion__THR.html
http://www.casaa.org/Clinical_Research.html
This should keep you busy if you really care to read them.
All your negativity proves to me you dont really care about those who smoked and are trying to get away from smoking.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)What YOU don't get is that NICOTINE is already regulated. Because it is a toxic, regulated drug, they DO have to prove that their nicotine device is safe and effective.
But they don't want to. They'd rather just get it classified as a tobacco product, because tobacco products are the only products that escape some of these regulations. So that's what they sued to do, and they succeeded.
These companies can submit their research to the FDA, including any CASA research that is appropriate. And then they can request a reclassification out of the tobacco products category. But so far I haven't seen any indication that they plan to do so.
Wrong, nicotine is not regulated. Anyone can buy nicotine. Where do you come up with this stuff? Congress is the only thing that can do anything with nicotine. Cigarettes and nicotine can not be ban. SO if e-cigarettes are treated as cigarettes then they also can never be ban.
What you dont understand is CASAA and a few of the organization are working with the FDA and have had meeting already, that is not in the news. FDA will regulate e-cigs and see e-cigs as a possible harm reduction tool.
They will help in creating standards for the e-cig. and safety threw standards.
You are so off course here I cant believe you are keeping this up. Its not a game, smokers lives are at stake that can be saved. I take this very seriously, its e-cig users helping others to get away from smoking that have a hard time doing so. And we are being treated like the skurge of the earth. I believe using alcohol is way more dangerous than using an e-cig.
BTW never did find where you had a link of the lawer saying the e-cigs are dangerous that you said you put up, so I dont believe you ever did.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)don't mean they're not regulated. Antihistamines are also sold over the counter AND they're regulated.
Here's the link, but I'm not going to post it again. And since this seems so unlikely to you, let me explain it. The reason this attorney is making this argument is because he's trying to get them to put nicotine in the same category as tobacco products, which are allowed to be sold even though they are without benefit and inherently safe.
http://www.njgasp.org/NPR_ecigs_08-05-09.pdf
The industry has sued the FDA, claiming it should not be regulated like a drug.
Walt Linscott, an attorney for Smoking Everywhere — one of two major importers of electronic cigarettes, cigars and pipes — says the e-cigarette is a tobacco product. And it should be regulated as such.
"It is a cigarette, and cigarettes inherent by their design and nature are not safe," Linscott says.
________________________________
Also, did you know that at one point some company tried to sell "nicotine water"? And the FDA stopped them because they can and do regulate nicotine.
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/press_releases/post/id_0517
Jul. 2 2002
Washington, DC — Today's decision by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to stop the sale of "nicotine water" recognizes that nicotine is a dangerous and powerfully addictive drug that should be regulated to protect consumers.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)Any adult can buy nicotine, there is no regulation on it.
The nicotine water would fall under the control of the FDA threw food, and yes they can regulate that.
You have either no understanding of all this or your just throwing things out here to confuse things. Caffeine gum was also stopped from being produced to. Lots of things under the catigories of food and drugs are declined approval every day.
What the FDA can do with tobacco products and nicotine is much different when its not in a food or drug.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)The nicotine water was regulated (and banned) by the FDA as a DRUG.
The FDA does control all legal sales of nicotine, because nicotine is a toxic drug; although fewer regulations apply to tobacco products, which the e-cigs claim to be. Tobacco products can be without benefit and inherently dangerous and still be legally sold.
I'm not "throwing things out here to confuse things." You are just confused.
Just because a product like nicotine can be purchased by any adult does NOT mean it's not regulated.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)"But NicoWater underwent additional scrutiny because its maker was promoting the bottled water as a dietary supplement, and the FDA isn't allowed to regulate supplements nearly as strictly as it does medications.
Because nicotine is legally sold over-the-counter in FDA-approved smoking cessation aids, federal law prohibits it also being sold as a dietary supplement, FDA lawyers concluded Tuesday -- meaning NicoWater can't sell"
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-514046.html
do you understand what they are saying there?
People can still buy and sell as long as they dont claim its a dietary supplement or drug ( that hasnt gone threw testing) but as a tobacco product it can be and there is no restrictions on buying bulk nicotine for manufacturing. And you can buy over the counter approved nicotine products.
There is nothing about nicotine that is illegal at all.
A person can not make any claim selling nicotine that its a food supplement, or smoking cessation.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Not.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)so he has a bias in favor of the e-cig industry.
If you don't like gasp as a source, just google his name for a different one.
But I trust gasp far more than I do the e-cig people. If it weren't for gasp and similar groups, we'd still be battling clouds of smoke in our workplaces, restaurants, and planes.
jamiea99
(16 posts)especially when consistently and deliberately misleading.
There aren't sound, considered regulations for low-risk tobacco products and the FDA has not acted on applications for modified-risk products within the poorly constructed laws that exist (around an industry that wasn't recognized in the U.S. when the law was written).
They didn't have a choice. The choice to stop doing business is not a choice.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)I still want to see this link you said you put up, I want to read what the lawer said.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Here's the particular quote:
The industry has sued the FDA, claiming it should not be regulated like a drug.
Walt Linscott, an attorney for Smoking Everywhere — one of two major importers of electronic cigarettes, cigars and pipes — says the e-cigarette is a tobacco product. And it should be regulated as such. "It is a cigarette, and cigarettes inherent by their design and nature are not safe," Linscott says.
But as the company engages in a legal battle with the government, its very own telemarketers could be presenting a different picture to consumers, including marketing claims online. A Smoking Everywhere representative making a sales pitch said the product had been approved as safe by the FDA.
Linscott says that was a mistake that has been corrected.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)Walt Linscott was at a hearing in NY when he said that. And tho I didn't go threw all the text from the hearing, don't believe that is total context of what he was saying its just a small snipet of his quote. This is old news and long over.
I don't understand why you are so hung up on if they are classified as tobacco or not.
And also when presenting a fact you should back it with proof as a link to where you found this fact.
This little tidbit you think is so important came from NPR, you found it on Gasp. NPR did not add a link to where they got the quote from and in what context is was said. I love how NPR and other news outlets feel they don't have to back up what they use as quotes.
It was taken from this legis.suffolkcountyny.gov/clerk/gmeet/2009/GM081809.pdf?
This company you are so hot about is no longer in business, and they were not the company that got the judge to rule on the tobacco thing, they only got the product freed up that the FDA illegally confiscated, Its not within the FDA to do that kind of thing.
A year later an other company that is still in business got the judgment to have it classified as a tobacco.
So get your facts straight.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)The fact that this attorney made this statement is entirely in keeping with the lawsuit the other company pressed to prevent the FDA from classifying e-cigs as nicotine-delivery systems, which is what the government wanted to do. The e-cig manufacturers wanted to have it classified as tobacco instead.
And the reason I'm "hung up" on this is because its classification as tobacco is what should and does allow communities to ban it under the same laws as they ban other tobacco products. If they want it not to fall under these bans, they should submit the research to the FDA proving that second and third hand users aren't harmed by it.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)The "reason" they wanted it as a tobacco classification is because if it were made as a drug device years of testing would have to be done on it before the FDA would approve it as a NRT. Its helping people now, and has been since before 2009. They have been in this country since 2007.
Its old news because we have moved on to other challenges, what happened in 2009 is over. What the judgement was in 2010 is done, we move on. Unlike you.
Even the FDA is not hung up on it being a tobacco product. Do you realize smokeless tobacco products are not even treated like cigarettes and they are in the same category. You could be standing right next to someone with snus in their cheek and not even know it. FDA are even possibly looking at a category of alternative tobaccos, reduced threat tobaccos. See they understand we have the rights to choose to use these products and they can not be ban. They have no control over the batteries, they are just a tool, they would only have the abilty to regulate the juices. And what about those juices that have no nicotine in them? Then there is no tobacco product involved. Many used juice that has no nicotine in it.
What would you do if you saw a person with a nicotrol inhaler, they put off the same thing that e-cigs do in their vapor, they are FDA approved.
You could be standing next to me and not even know I was vaping. You are carrying this out way to far. There are enough studies already done to know they are 99% safer than smoking cigarettes and the study that shows there is no threat to second party. And an other study that also shows no threat to second party. I don't think you even read any of the studies presented to you.
E-cigarettes are an alternative to smoking... Im going to say it now...get over it, it has nothing to do with you...millions (10 million in the world )of people will live longer because they are using an e-cigarette instead of smoking. People that use e-cigarettes are polite and don't usually exhale vapor around others.
We are stuck to vape around smokers and inhale second hand smoke which is what we are trying to get away from. We are no longer smokers, we are non-smokers and don't want to be around smoke anymore, I guess you just don't understand that.
Laws made out of ignorance are bad laws.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)I ask you for proof of a link didn't mean I hadn't heard of it. I know pretty much all there is to know right now about the history and events of e-cigarettes.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)if you are so worried....
Tyhanna
(145 posts)here is a study you were asking for...
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)Obviously tobacco, but no smoke. Can you get 2nd hand cancer from smelling the breath of somebody chewing tobacco?
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)1. eat organic
2. eat food mostly plants not too much
3. work out regularly
4. limit alcohol intake etc
like there is a lot of angst about second hand vapor but i wonder if everyone who is angsting does the rest of the stuff that they can do to keep themselves healthy.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Mariana
(14,858 posts)I believe some of the people opposing e-cigs are doing so because they hate smokers and want them to suffer, even after they've quit.
Fortunately, it seems that most people have your attitude. The ones who get off on inflicting misery on former smokers are a minority.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Hell,...look at footage of the moon landing. All of the guys in Mission Control had an ash tray at their work station.
Now if you light up people act like you just pissed on their children.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)people who have STOPPED smoking. WTF is up with that? I thought that's what they wanted, for everyone to stop smoking!
On another thread a while ago, a poster was asking advice about e-cigs because she wanted to quit smoking. Some asshole told her not to bother, she should just keep on smoking. What kind of person tries to discourage someone from quitting? That takes some serious hate.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
jamiea99
(16 posts)but they are a fanatical minority rolling in dough from the tobacco settlement and pharma companies. Their life-long careers and continued funding are contingent on inflicting that misery and stoking that fear. Electronic cigarettes and other low-risk/harm reduction/alternative products equal more employment opportunities for this group.
gulliver
(13,186 posts)It's such a huge, hands-down win across the board that it just needs to happen. Think how much health care costs could drop, for example, if all smokers went to e-cigs. They turn cigarettes into the equivalent of coffee.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
onehandle
(51,122 posts)A lady with a kid near him asked him to put it out and he laughed at her, so I got the conductor.
The conductor told him to put it away and he did so. The conductor stayed nearby him for two stops until the guy started cursing under his breath and got off at an early stop.
Don't expect them to be widely accepted if they ever go beyond the novelty stage.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)If anyone asks me not to use mine around them I'll respect that and either put it up or move away from them. So far, that hasn't happened to me. I also try to be discreet and refrain from blowing huge clouds of vapor around when I'm in public. In my experience so far, most people don't even notice, and the ones that do are more curious than anything else.
Buns_of_Fire
(17,183 posts)There are manufacturers who offer batteries that look just like cigarettes with ends that glow orange (like a cigarette) and cartomizers that look like the standard filter end of a cigarette.
For what it's worth, I decided to go with a BLACK metal battery, that glows BLUE, with a BLACK cartomizer. I didn't want it to look anything LIKE an "analog" cigarette.
And, like you, the only real notice I've gotten is when someone wonders how I could take a puff and then just casually drop it in my pocket.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)I looks like a pen. However, I also got some black covers for the LED's, so there's no glow to attract attention. A bit of electrical tape stragically placed over the end would accomplish the same thing, and it wouldn't interfere with the operation of the device.
union_maid
(3,502 posts)I'm using Echo and Ego minis when I'm out now. They don't resemble cigarettes at all. And they're short enough to fit in a fist if you just use a regular cartomizer on them. No one even has to know. And that's why total bans will never work.
I do think that things like Njoy, which from a distance, probably do look like cigarettes complicate things. Of course, those are the types of things most of us start with. What I'm using now would have seemed intimidating to me just a very few months ago.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)if no one bought or used the shapes and colors that look like real cigarettes, at least in public.
beevul
(12,194 posts)
(mine is blue)
I got pulled over for expired tabs a week or two ago, on the way to renew them, and the cops says "What is that in your lap?". He thought it was a MJ pipe of some sort. LOL. There is absolutely no mistaking it for a cig.
Tyhanna
(145 posts)If I were next to you on a train you would never know I was using an e-cig, I dont have to exhale the vapor. At most you might smell a little tiny bit of a fruit smell. The vapor disapates even in the lungs after about 11 seconds.
Why would you want to condem those that have quit smoking by using the e-cig, and try to push them back to smoking? It just doesnt make any sense to me why people are condeming those that are trying something that works for many to get them away from smoking, where all the FDA NRTs have failed. and the 99% failure rate of cold turkey. NRTs have a 95% failure rate. So far in data that has been created from studies and surveys e-cigs have only a 15% failure rate. And its the only thing on the market that will brake the mental addiction that is seperate from the nicotine addiction.
Novelty stage? hum 2.5 + use ecigs in US and is growing.
7million + use ecigs in the EU and other countrys
so about 10 million in the world use e-cigs that used to be smokers.
In 10 years nobody has died from direct use of e-cigarettes. How many die from alcohol related use? How many have died from smoking related use?
I wonder if they thought the same thing about the car?
Mariana
(14,858 posts)they really want them to suffer, even after they've quit. That's what it's really all about with some of these people.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Tyhanna
(145 posts)What is that suppost to mean?
Im a e-cig user and have been for almost 5 months, smokefree for that long also.
I am an avocate for THR, and fight to get the truths out. If that means I sound like im trying to sell something, yes Im trying to get rid of untruths being pasted around by the ANTZ, and trying to help people get away from smoking.
Yes im selling a consept of no more people being hurt by cigarettes. No more people picking up a cigarette!
I wonder if you have ever helped a person leave cigarettes?
Logical
(22,457 posts)BEcause you switched to a healthier cig does not mean you need to use them in more places!
Tyhanna
(145 posts)we went threw quiting cigarettes we dont want have to be around them. Getting the second hand smoke.
If I knew I would have to do that then why quit smoking? That could also drive people new to vaping back to smoking, it takes about 3 months before you can say your free of the craving. Before that you are still craving the cigarette. Its retraining the brain at every trigger.
I think non-smokers should have to stay away from us.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)It makes them happy to think smokers are suffering, even the ones who have quit. There are even a few (not many, thank goodness) who would prefer that you continue smoking, rather than use e-cigs to stop smoking painlessly.
Logical
(22,457 posts)I no longer smoke, so I am a non-smoker now, vapor is not smoke, its vapor.
union_maid
(3,502 posts)In my county they're treated like cigarettes. They're not like them, but I understand how hysterical people tend to be and just roll with it. Personally, I've done my own research. My asthmatic sister says she'd know if there was any irritant in them. My vaping near her doesn't bother her at all. She thinks it's a great thing, in fact. My other personal test is that I stealth vape in the ladies' room at work sometimes. We have co-workers who can detect perfume from across the building and have a reaction to it. Not one has notice a thing in the ladies' room. For myself, after vaping for a few months I will never go back to cigarettes. It's been one of the best things that's ever happened to me.
There are actually lots of studies being done all the time and most of them find that the vapor is not signficantly harmful. The main reason that Njoy sued not to have the product classified as a cessation device is that it would have given the FDA the power to take it off the market for years while it was tested, not only for safety, but for efficacy. Neither manufacturers nor consumers of vaping products want that. Everyone expects some regulations to be forthcoming soon.
One recent study is linked here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.12235/abstract
There are lots of others and just a little research will turn them up.
Mariana
(14,858 posts)such that it requires "lighting" and "combustion" to be subject to the smoking ban. Therefore, it does not include use of e-cigs.
There's a poster on this thread trying to argue that because e-cigs are classified as "tobacco products" they're subject to smoking bans. That is false. In my state, the smoking ban doesn't ban tobacco. Smoking anything - tobacco, marijuana, maple leaves, lawngrass, whatever - is banned in public places.
union_maid
(3,502 posts)The language was added to our local smoking ban in 2009. If they hadn't added the language to include electronic cigarettes they would not have been included. I think it's unfortunate that they're called "cigarettes" at all. Of course, that's what got smokers' attention to begin with, so it's a double edged sword. Now that they're out there, "personal vaporizers" would be a more accurate term and if it was used more we might be able to have a less charged dialogue about it.
jamiea99
(16 posts)but it's not at all likely because government entities all over the western world are strongly addicted to the revenue from cigarette taxes, as seen in this question from an Italian parliamentarian (as well as recent smokeless taxes passed in multiple U.S. states):
According to a recent report by ANSA (Italian news agency) of 21 April 2013, in the first two months of 2013 alone, Italy’s coffers registered a loss of EUR 132 million, corresponding to a fall in revenue from duty on tobacco of approximately 7.6%. Of course, this shortfall cannot be completely blamed on the increasing use of electronic cigarettes, but it is certainly partly responsible.
In light of the above, can the Council state what action it intends to take to address the differences in tax revenue materialising in State coffers following the proliferation of electronic cigarettes, which currently appear to be free from any form of duty?
We're Losing Revenue! Quick, Let's Tax E-Cigs!
Response to The Straight Story (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
