Smoking Cessation?

[Newbie]

It's all rather new and amazing to me right now. And what’s really inspiring, is I have totally found myself content to replace analogues with vape. I have 2 cartons of analogues in the cupboard, and no desire to smoke them since I started vaping today.

I would call vape a verifiable cigarette cessation device, even though it can’t be marketed that way.

And I am hearing others far more veteran than me say the same thing. So when you have a consensus of people who say this can transition people away from cigarettes, what more is required to classify it as a smoking cessation.?

[Jeffb]

Good question Newbie. If we classify it as a smoking cessation device, it falls under the FDA's jurisdiction. That is why vaping is refered to as a smoking alternative. I know it seems like semantics but its an important distinction.

[FTJoe]

It's all rather new and amazing to me right now. And what’s really inspiring, is I have totally found myself content to replace analogues with vape. I have 2 cartons of analogues in the cupboard, and no desire to smoke them since I started vaping today.

I would call vape a verifiable cigarette cessation device, even though it can’t be marketed that way.

And I am hearing others far more veteran than me say the same thing. So when you have a consensus of people who say this can transition people away from cigarettes, what more is required to classify it as a smoking cessation.?

Cigarette cessation, smoking cessation, nicotine replacement therapy, really cool way to finally do what I've tried for 30+ years to do, it has a lot of names...

I think there's no choice but to fall under the eye of the FDA. If it was a normal watchdog kind of thing, that would be cool, unfortunately is appears they just want to vaporize e-cigs. I'm not even sure what constitutes a mandate to be under the control of the FDA. I know every NRT before had to, and then went OTC was it was heavily in use. Whole 'nother thread out there with people struggling to define what vaping is...

[WISVAPOR]

Well i Don't want to call it a cessation device...But ..Everybody i know that used to smoke now Vapes.I know people that were 2 pack a day smokers that are 0nic vapors now.

It is what it is ..but i will never call it a cessation device.

Try vaping and after you quit analogs you can make your own decision.

I am almost 10 month free of analogs and never going back!!!

[Lee]

Keep in mind that the purpose of smoking cessation products is to get people off of cigarettes/nicotine. The idea with most of the patches, gum, etc., is that you keep reducing the nicotine levels until the patient can quit completely. E-cigs, while they can allow a person to withdraw from nicotine by reducing the nicotine levels, is more of a substitute for analogs. I would want to keep them from being classified in any way that would allow the FDA to mess with them, other than maybe having a say in safety factors. I don't want to give them a back door for eventually getting rid of them. Because that's what the big tobacco companies want to see happen.

[FTJoe]

Keep in mind that the purpose of smoking cessation products is to get people off of cigarettes/nicotine. The idea with most of the patches, gum, etc., is that you keep reducing the nicotine levels until the patient can quit completely. E-cigs, while they can allow a person to withdraw from nicotine by reducing the nicotine levels, is more of a substitute for analogs. I would want to keep them from being classified in any way that would allow the FDA to mess with them, other than maybe having a say in safety factors. I don't want to give them a back door for eventually getting rid of them. Because that's what the big tobacco companies want to see happen.

Maybe someone here knows what exactly is the charter of the FDA. My wife deals with pharma so she might know but she's traveling. I ask because I really don't think it matters if its meant to get someone off smoking/nicotine, etc. I'm guessing they just want to be involved with a drug delivery system that's new in nature and ultimately, that's what this is (hey, another name in my list). My issue is, they don't do studies, they examine studies and give approvals, so that would leave us out in the cold. I also assume even when something goes OTC, the FA is still involved.

[Newbie]

Keep in mind that the purpose of smoking cessation products is to get people off of cigarettes/nicotine. The idea with most of the patches, gum, etc., is that you keep reducing the nicotine levels until the patient can quit completely. E-cigs, while they can allow a person to withdraw from nicotine by reducing the nicotine levels, is more of a substitute for analogs. I would want to keep them from being classified in any way that would allow the FDA to mess with them, other than maybe having a say in safety factors. I don't want to give them a back door for eventually getting rid of them. Because that's what the big tobacco companies want to see happen.

Very well said, and very valid points.

Anything that anyone can do to keep the FDA or any other agency out of the peoples private affairs requires constant resistance and vigilance. Also we need representation from elected officials who will champion the defense of liberty and small government intrusion.

That's what voting is for. And for those who are fans of vape, but not inclined politically, this is your moment to start paying attention to who you vote for.

Obama skyrocketed taxes on ciggs. He has driven many to vape. How long before he or other politicians see fit to tax vape in a similar "sin tax" sham to fleece the people. All the while taking millions in donations from the tobacco lobby.

Be it that you fail at this, you will be swept up in the biggest smorgasbord of liberty revocation in America's history.

It's happening now, "RIGHT NOW" - - there's some legislator somewhere trying to limit something/everything you do. The result is greater centralized power in government and increased taxation to pay for it.

Ask not what your government can do for you, but rather what your elected representatives are doing to protect you from what BIG government is "doing to you" against your wishes.

[FTJoe]

I guess I just don't understand...here's wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration_(United_States)

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or USFDA) is an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, one of the United States federal executive departments, responsible for protecting and promoting public health through the regulation and supervision of food safety, tobacco products, dietary supplements, prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs (medications), vaccines, biopharmaceuticals, blood transfusions, medical devices, electromagnetic radiation emitting devices (ERED), veterinary products, and cosmetics.

I believe, and its just me thinking (ouch), that as long as there is a drug involved, so will the FDA be involved. Are we saying not to look at any drug because its all personal choice? Or just not at this particular delivery system/NRT? They can't figure out if something is "good" or a scam or bad if they don't get studies. We just don't get to decide that they should look at studies for a stomach cancer drug or Laetrile but not require studies for this. Even the nicotine aside, I wouldn't mind studies on VG and PG inhalation. I know there is an issue with whether the FDA is being fair or not, and I 100% agree they are not, but I'm just not sure how people thing this is not going to come under their control, at least for a while as the gum, patches, etc did.

[TeriJo]

I guess I just don't understand...here's wiki entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration_(United_States)

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or USFDA) is an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, one of the United States federal executive departments, responsible for protecting and promoting public health through the regulation and supervision of food safety, tobacco products, dietary supplements, prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical drugs (medications), vaccines, biopharmaceuticals, blood transfusions, medical devices, electromagnetic radiation emitting devices (ERED), veterinary products, and cosmetics.

I believe, and its just me thinking (ouch), that as long as there is a drug involved, so will the FDA be involved. Are we saying not to look at any drug because its all personal choice? Or just not at this particular delivery system/NRT? They can't figure out if something is "good" or a scam or bad if they don't get studies. We just don't get to decide that they should look at studies for a stomach cancer drug or Laetrile but not require studies for this. Even the nicotine aside, I wouldn't mind studies on VG and PG inhalation. I know there is an issue with whether the FDA is being fair or not, and I 100% agree they are not, but I'm just not sure how people thing this is not going to come under their control, at least for a while as the gum, patches, etc did.

I agree. But banning them because they haven't been studied, which is what they tried to do, is a horrible idea if you ask me. So my vote would be to hold em off til some studies get done - real studies, and published BEFORE the FDA gets to decide anything. And maybe stack up their results against the patch and gum.

[FTJoe]

I agree. But banning them because they haven't been studied, which is what they tried to do, is a horrible idea if you ask me. So my vote would be to hold em off til some studies get done - real studies, and published BEFORE the FDA gets to decide anything. And maybe stack up their results against the patch and gum.

I agree as well, and if this were a "reasonable" government, they would do that recognizing this is probably safer than smoking. There are precedents with cancer drugs in allowing them to temporarily bypass some phases of study. Having said that, if they deem it should be under their control, wouldn't they actually be remiss in not stopping its use until it's studied? I know its not what everyone wants to hear, and I'm not suggesting it should go that way. But I would like controls on the juice, the devices, etc. Listen, they are putting cadmium in kids toys, anyone here feel real secure about what the attys are made of? And that's not something I would expect the FDA to oversee, but the US Consumer Safety group. Its a mess because this is a ground swell movement and not a big corp. So the pharma and tobacco want it stopped as its eating into their profits, they will probably get it done unless the big e-cig companies get something going. Even then, there are two problems, we don't use those popular devices, and they are part of the issue selling to minors in the mall, making false claims, etc. They probably should be stopped!! I know I'm not presenting a solution here, and its a bleak outlook, so I'll wind down...

[TeriJo]

I agree as well, and if this were a "reasonable" government, they would do that recognizing this is probably safer than smoking. There are precedents with cancer drugs in allowing them to temporarily bypass some phases of study. Having said that, if they deem it should be under their control, wouldn't they actually be remiss in not stopping its use until it's studied? I know its not what everyone wants to hear, and I'm not suggesting it should go that way. But I would like controls on the juice, the devices, etc. Listen, they are putting cadmium in kids toys, anyone here feel real secure about what the attys are made of? And that's not something I would expect the FDA to oversee, but the US Consumer Safety group. Its a mess because this is a ground swell movement and not a big corp. So the pharma and tobacco want it stopped as its eating into their profits, they will probably get it done unless the big e-cig companies get something going. Even then, there are two problems, we don't use those popular devices, and they are part of the issue selling to minors in the mall, making false claims, etc. They probably should be stopped!! I know I'm not presenting a solution here, and its a bleak outlook, so I'll wind down...

I know exactly what you mean. I have absolutely nothing against making sure these things are as safe as can be. And doing all that we can to keep them out of the hands of kids, and all the rest. The fear is that once they ban them, because they DO threaten big tobacco, we'll never see them again.

[FTJoe]

I know exactly what you mean. I have absolutely nothing against making sure these things are as safe as can be. And doing all that we can to keep them out of the hands of kids, and all the rest. The fear is that once they ban them, because they DO threaten big tobacco, we'll never see them again.

.

Was replying and lappy power went out. Now on my netbook (triple boot, win 7 mac os/x and ubuntu, have to take a pic sometime). FDA sucks, they are under the direction of congress who is getting paid by pharma to kill this stuff. I have no doubt...

[abitmorevodka]

Very well said, and very valid points.

Anything that anyone can do to keep the FDA or any other agency out of the peoples private affairs requires constant resistance and vigilance. Also we need representation from elected officials who will champion the defense of liberty and small government intrusion.

That's what voting is for. And for those who are fans of vape, but not inclined politically, this is your moment to start paying attention to who you vote for.

Obama skyrocketed taxes on ciggs. He has driven many to vape. How long before he or other politicians see fit to tax vape in a similar "sin tax" sham to fleece the people. All the while taking millions in donations from the tobacco lobby.

Be it that you fail at this, you will be swept up in the biggest smorgasbord of liberty revocation in America's history.

It's happening now, "RIGHT NOW" - - there's some legislator somewhere trying to limit something/everything you do. The result is greater centralized power in government and increased taxation to pay for it.

Ask not what your government can do for you, but rather what your elected representatives are doing to protect you from what BIG government is "doing to you" against your wishes.

Well said, Newbie, well said.

[abitmorevodka]

I do NOT think ecigs, juice, etc. should be banned until studied. People die every day from side effects of FDA-studied-and-approved drugs. The FDA has grown too big and too powerful. Their regulations fill volumes, much like the tax code.

I'm tired of the government telling me what I can or can't do with my own body. We'd be a lot better off having some private organization randomly testing juices, etc. It's in the companies' best interest NOT to allow anything in that shouldn't be in there because we'll stop buying from that company. Also, I don't want them telling me I can't make my own juice.

Let's face it, we're living under a soft tyranny. The EPA regulated carbon - air, if you will. They've taken over water for crying out loud and are talking about banning "recreational fishing." Healthcare? What a scam. That would give them total control over our bodies, who gets treatment and who doesn't. Congress talking about acting like they passed a bill that's never been written or voted on. Totally against the Constitution.

You can't use logic or reason when dealing with these people. They're going to do whatever they want to do. Period. I think our best hope is to keep getting information out to the public, tell them our stories. It's not much, I know... Stossel did a show on the FDA around March 4. It's worth taking a look at. If it's not on YouTube, you can probably find it on the Fox Business channel website.

[TeriJo]

I do NOT think ecigs, juice, etc. should be banned until studied. People die every day from side effects of FDA-studied-and-approved drugs. The FDA has grown too big and too powerful. Their regulations fill volumes, much like the tax code.

I'm tired of the government telling me what I can or can't do with my own body. We'd be a lot better off having some private organization randomly testing juices, etc. It's in the companies' best interest NOT to allow anything in that shouldn't be in there because we'll stop buying from that company. Also, I don't want them telling me I can't make my own juice.

Let's face it, we're living under a soft tyranny. The EPA regulated carbon - air, if you will. They've taken over water for crying out loud and are talking about banning "recreational fishing." Healthcare? What a scam. That would give them total control over our bodies, who gets treatment and who doesn't. Congress talking about acting like they passed a bill that's never been written or voted on. Totally against the Constitution.

You can't use logic or reason when dealing with these people. They're going to do whatever they want to do. Period. I think our best hope is to keep getting information out to the public, tell them our stories. It's not much, I know... Stossel did a show on the FDA around March 4. It's worth taking a look at. If it's not on YouTube, you can probably find it on the Fox Business channel website.

It's not just the FDA, the politicians think we are stupid. And some people are. Otherwise who would have thought you'd have to put LABELS on balloons?

Who thought that babies should play with balloons and plastic bags ... I don't know. Someone must have. So now the assumption is that we are ALL blooming idiots and we must be protected from ourselves.

The fact that it rips liberties away left and right, that's just a BONUS to them.

My mother didn't have to have childproof caps and locks on the cabinet doors, she taught us NO TOUCH. I had locks on the cabinet doors, AND taught mine NO TOUCH. My son figured out the locks by the time he was walking. They were toooo interesting. But the NO TOUCH worked. So did time out and supervision. ...but that's another rant altogether. LMAO