Are you addressing me or Dredd?
I don't like seeing any thread closed. If it's not spam and no one is cussing out someone else or using derogatory ethnic or religious slurs or posting goatse or whatnot, I say keep it open.
The FDA war on cigarette alternatives
"I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." - the Laughing Man
Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
It really boils down to simple protectionism and abuse of monopoly power. Like so much of the FDA nonsense which requires we in the states to buy our pharma from Canada, or outright disallows potentially life saving treatments for terminally ill patients to "protect" them.
Sure,tobacco monopolies always will be against E-sigarettes,because this thing can terminate tobacco addiction at all. Speaking more precisely,it converts addiction to indiffenence.
Anyway, I'm trying it now (bought last friday). Nice thing,reminds me hi-tech portable hookah :)
Quote: Original post by jwezorek
I read it mentioned (see here for instance) that there is a peer reviewed study showing that e-cigarettes aren't actually delivering any nicotine. The slant of the study was basically: if people want to inhale flavored water vapor fine but e-cigarettes are actually no better than placebos at aiding smoking cessation.
Anyway, I was wondering if this study was for real or junk science payed for by tobacco companies. Just seems like once you got the device designed and built such that you can actually get a drag of water vapor off of it; it wouldn't be terribly hard to lace the water vapor with nicotine but maybe I don't understand what is involved.
If the device can deliver marijuana and Cialis (so says the mighty Google), I don't see how it would be unable to deliver nicotine.
Vapor Rush
You either believe that within your society more individuals are good than evil, and that by protecting the freedom of individuals within that society you will end up with a society that is as fair as possible, or you believe that within your society more individuals are evil than good, and that by limiting the freedom of individuals within that society you will end up with a society that is as fair as possible.
Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom
Here is a part of the original FDA quote:
"The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today announced that a laboratory analysis of electronic cigarette samples has found that they contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze."
Sourced from an FDA press release. So, they did indeed say that.
FDA E-Cigarette study final report. They found Diethylene Glycol in a single one of the the 18 cartridges tested.
Diethylene glycol on Wikipedia.
Propylene glycol on Wikipedia. "In electronic cigarettes, as a vaporizable base for diluting the nicotine liquid" is in the 'Applications' section. It's also E-number E1520.
Richard "Superpig" Fine - saving pigs from untimely fates - Microsoft DirectX MVP 2006/2007/2008/2009
"Shaders are not meant to do everything. Of course you can try to use it for everything, but it's like playing football using cabbage." - MickeyMouse
Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious MaelstromWhat have the FDA actually done in this instance, other than publish their report? They didn't ban them.
typical over step of monopoly powers of the FDA.
Richard "Superpig" Fine - saving pigs from untimely fates - Microsoft DirectX MVP 2006/2007/2008/2009
"Shaders are not meant to do everything. Of course you can try to use it for everything, but it's like playing football using cabbage." - MickeyMouse
Quote: Original post by superpigQuote: Original post by Dreddnafious MaelstromWhat have the FDA actually done in this instance, other than publish their report? They didn't ban them.
typical over step of monopoly powers of the FDA.
That was July 2009.
Jan 2010: Judge Orders F.D.A. to Stop Blocking Imports of E-Cigarettes From China
Feb 2010: FDA granted appeal
From the sound of it, they're not nearly as bad as cigarettes, and have less (none?) of the second-hand smoke/vapor effect. And if they really don't transfer nicotine, then the FDA's argument that it'll lead to more smokers evaporates.
You either believe that within your society more individuals are good than evil, and that by protecting the freedom of individuals within that society you will end up with a society that is as fair as possible, or you believe that within your society more individuals are evil than good, and that by limiting the freedom of individuals within that society you will end up with a society that is as fair as possible.
Quote: Original post by superpigQuote: Original post by Dreddnafious MaelstromWhat have the FDA actually done in this instance, other than publish their report? They didn't ban them.
typical over step of monopoly powers of the FDA.
They declared the product "illegal" and are attempting to solidify their jurisdiction so that they may ban them. Your source says as much.
"Let Us Now Try Liberty"-- Frederick Bastiat
Quote: Original post by PromitQuote: Original post by Dreddnafious MaelstromI find it more interesting that you have confused the Lounge with your personal blog, and posted a source from an extremist site to rail up essentially a discussion for you to espouse your personal, poorly thought out opinions about government.
I found this article interesting as regards the typical over step of monopoly powers of the FDA.
Then again, that's pretty much all you've ever used the Lounge for, so we'll move on to the place you linked. (But unlike others -- Eelco for example -- you're a productive member in other ways and I do want to make that clear before moving on to be quite insulting.)
Oh man, I think I havnt posted here in years; it warms my heart that im still remembered.
Yeah, that reminds me, we used to have interesting discussions in this place. The GDnet lounge has been invaluable in my formative years (I remember my first post in the lounge being about me siding with lessbread against felisandra (sp?); I used to be such a well educated european). Indeed, I found the discussions in the lounge with people of a similar background and way of thinking to be interesting for a far longer time than answering the same questions about matrix transforms over and over again; sue me.
Yup, those days are gone. Cant have people disagreeing over stuff, we have to think of the children.
Bah, I roll my own. Although, if it weren't illegal, I would have tried E-cigarettes.
:/
:/
Quote: Original post by SilvermystQuote: Original post by jwezorek
I read it mentioned (see here for instance) that there is a peer reviewed study showing that e-cigarettes aren't actually delivering any nicotine. The slant of the study was basically: if people want to inhale flavored water vapor fine but e-cigarettes are actually no better than placebos at aiding smoking cessation.
Anyway, I was wondering if this study was for real or junk science payed for by tobacco companies. Just seems like once you got the device designed and built such that you can actually get a drag of water vapor off of it; it wouldn't be terribly hard to lace the water vapor with nicotine but maybe I don't understand what is involved.
If the device can deliver marijuana and Cialis (so says the mighty Google), I don't see how it would be unable to deliver nicotine.
Vapor Rush
Maybe this is what they foresaw. E-cigarettes being used with nicotine cartridges. Maybe nicotine cartridges would be harder to regulate than tobacco. I can see the advertisements now: Blow on your E-pipe, so she can blow on your pipe. Buy it now!
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement