E-Cigarettes and the FDA conspiracy to stop them.

a reply to: DerbyGawker

Most people change their coil if it's burnt, not only cause it taste like crap...but it taste like crap! So, I don't think you need to worry about them getting those carcinogens.

Also, no need for the caps, I know nicotine is a poison so is water if drink too much of it. I would suggest before you embarrass yourself any further you do a little more research.

a reply to: flyingfish

I particularly liked how you inadvertently failed to respond to my rebuttal of your assertion that nicotine isn't a poison, then linked me to some superfluous paper citing that nicotine exposure from vapor is moot (but still present).

Because when you take the above into account, it's an unwelcomed exposure to a poison which has compounding health risk when continuous exposure to said poison exists, even at miniscule doses.

Your interpretation of the paper is on par with accepted standards however. It does not counter my assertion that unwelcomed nicotine exposure occurs, in fact it validates it even though the paper does not propose to discuss the matter. It's primary focus is in determining the levels and whether or not they are acceptable for willful exposure (truth in advertising, re: nicotine levels, and other ingredients).

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: DerbyGawker


Most people change their coil if it's burnt, not only cause it taste like crap...but it taste like crap! So, I don't think you need to worry about them getting those carcinogens.

Also, no need for the caps, I know nicotine is a poison so is water if drink too much of it. I would suggest before you embarrass yourself any further you do a little more research.

The caps were quite necessary so the fact that nicotine is a poison stands out to other readers who might actually believe your misinformation regarding the matter.

This is nonsense, and appears you are trying to recant your belief. First you said nicotine was not a poison, now you say that you know it's a poison? Then you erroneously call water a poison because too much can kill you?

I've done my research, and I have no need of advice from someone who doesn't even know what a poison is.

a reply to: DerbyGawker

it's an unwelcomed exposure to a poison which has compounding health risk when continuous exposure to said poison exists, even at miniscule doses.

Nicotine does not build up in the system, it is metabolized very quickly. Stating that it poses concern for health risks in such trace amounts as would be contained in ecigarette vapor is fear mongering because if you've ever eaten tomatos, potatoes or any food in the nighshade family, you've ingested nicotine.

Science Daily

Nicotine
Nicotine is an alkaloid found in the nightshade family of plants (Solanaceae), predominantly in tobacco, and in lower quantities in tomato, potato, eggplant (aubergine), and green pepper.
Nicotine alkaloids are also found in the leaves of the coca plant.

Arsenic is an extremely deadly poison also. But our bodies need trace amounts of it to function. The dose makes the poison. Zinc and iron will kill us if we consume too much. The fluoride dumped into our tap water is poison. Fluoride does build up in the system, though, so drinking your fluoridated tap water poses more of a health risk than the vapor of an ecigarette.

So basically, if you drink tap water that has been fluoridated and haven't suffered illness or death because of it, I'm sure you'll be okay sitting walking by an ecigarette user. If you eat almonds, apples or drink apple juice and you haven't died from arsenic or cyanide poisoning yet, you'll be fine having an ecig user as a friend. If you eat tomatoes or green peppers or potatoes and you haven't gotten addicted to nicotine yet or keeled over dead from nicotine poisoning, I'm willing to bet you'll be safe when sitting near someone using an ecigarette.

I don't quite understand why people talk like nicotine is the most deadly and dangerous substance known to man, that being exposed to unquantifiable amounts is somehow going to cause you to drop dead. Is it because it's addicting? Being addictive doesn't automatically make it evil. Caffeine is addicting. Sugar is addicting. Smart phones are addicting. I actually despise smart phones and I would never own one but I'm not going to sit here and claim that sitting next to someone using one is causing me unnecessary harm due to exposure from the radiation emanating from it and that smart phone users need to keep them inside their own homes and out of public places. Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? That's how ridiculous the argument against ecigarettes sounds to people who use them and whose lives have been changed for the better because of them.

We need to separate nicotine from smoking because while nicotine is the thing that causes people to become addicted to smoking, it is not the thing that makes cigarettes deadly. It's merely the catalyst that keeps the tobacco companies in business. Nicotine isn't even on the list of carcinogens found in cigarettes and second-hand smoke.

Nicotine is not the greatest, safest thing on Earth. I believe there should be regulations against companies that produce juice containing nicotine, most importantly to keep it out of the hands of kids. But we all need to put things in perspective and take a look at our own lives before we go on fear-mongering, spreading misinformation and labeling people as bad people for exhibiting certain behaviors, just because we personally don't like it or find it offensive.

originally posted by: ANNED

originally posted by: morder1

I run my own e-juice store, and make all of the liquids myself. There is only 4 common ingredients in my liquids, and most of the other vendors as well... flavoring, USP grade propylene , vegetable glycerine, and nicotine if the customer wants it.


They want to charge $5000 per approval, which my store for instance, carries over 90 flavors. so for 1 flavor, say cotton candy. you need approval for each level of nicotine you want to sell, which for each flavor, I have 4 nicotine options, and 1 no-nic option. which equals to $20,000 per the cotton candy flavor... Then if I wanted every flavor approved, thats 1.8 million dollars. How can anyone possibly afford that?

The problem is that china does not have laws requiring them to use food grade components.

china has been caught selling things like toothpaste with Ethylene glycol, and vegetable glycerine made from left over vegetable glycerine with methanol from biofuel processing
scienceblogs.com...

Glycerol(vegetable glycerine)from china has also been found to be toxic.
goodnessgracioustreats.wordpress.com...

The problem is under international trade laws the FDA has to test all sources of a product and not just products from a single source or not test at all.

All of my products are made in the US.

I do not sell any products from china.

Although sadly 99% of ecig hardware(the batteries/atomizers etc) are made in china...

a reply to: DerbyGawker

The dose makes the poison. This is why people don't generally think of tomatoes and potatoes as a toxic poison food.

Read under Terminology

So sure, it's a "poison". You also haven't done all your homework because there is a carcinogen in ecigs, the tobacco specific nitrosamines. It's roughly the same amounts that the patch or gum have. Very little, trace amounts.
The LD50/50 on nicotine is bunk too. Please read this link and stop demonizing nicotine:

Nicotine Myths

Also, I will agree with you that people don't need to be filling up restaurants with vapor. Outdoors is fair game though because there is nothing harmful about an accidental whiff of ecig vapor (outdoors). Your argument against indoor use shouldn't focus on nicotine because that's just ridiculous. The only legit arguments against it are invading peoples rights/space (I somewhat agree), and the potential for someone to have an allergic reaction to PG.

a reply to: CoherentlyConfused

I never said nicotine accumulates in the body, I said exposure has compounding health risks.

To your side-arguments:

Comparing unwelcomed exposure to fluoride? Straw-man.
Comparing unwelcomed exposure to smartphones? Straw-man.

No one cares what YOU expose YOURSELF to. They care what you expose OTHERS to. And the only reply I've seen to this, in not so many words is, "but it isn't that much of an exposure, so you should be ok with what I expose you to".

Nicotine is indeed one of the deadly substances in tobacco, it is known to cause heart disease.

I've spread no misinformation, the following assertions are facts.

1. nicotine is a poison
2. nicotine causes heart-disease
3. ecig vapor contains nicotine
4. ecig vapor creates second-hand nicotine
5. 'some' people don't want to be exposed to second-hand nicotine because it's a poison

I've already stated why society accepts certain technologies as necessary evils, they progress society (even caffeine and sugar). Nicotine abuse is not one of the things that advance society. In fact, even at miniscule levels, it's more harmful than low powered rf from smartphones (unless you happen to have your smartphone tucked away next to your testicles or a pocket IN your chest next to your heart) and even more harmful than exhaust from vehicles passing by.

I think people trying to defend ecig use in commons clearly don't understand the acceptable restrictions government can place upon commons. All they're doing is regulating ecigs similarly to cigarettes because they are in fact similar in certain respects. Society will never view substance abuse as acceptable, just accept it. Don't like it? Quit the substance.

originally posted by: BanTv
a reply to: DerbyGawker

The dose makes the poison. This is why people don't generally think of tomatoes and potatoes as a toxic poison food.

Read under Terminology

So sure, it's a "poison". You also haven't done all your homework because there is a carcinogen in ecigs, the tobacco specific nitrosamines. It's roughly the same amounts that the patch or gum have. Very little, trace amounts.
The LD50/50 on nicotine is bunk too. Please read this link and stop demonizing nicotine:

Nicotine Myths

Also, I will agree with you that people don't need to be filling up restaurants with vapor. Outdoors is fair game though because there is nothing harmful about an accidental whiff of ecig vapor (outdoors). Your argument against indoor use shouldn't focus on nicotine because that's just ridiculous. The only legit arguments against it are invading peoples rights/space (I somewhat agree), and the potential for someone to have an allergic reaction to PG.

A poison is what makes a poison, a poison. The dose is what makes it 'immediately' lethal. And thank you for verifying there are in fact known carcinogens from ecig use. Also, I don't read blogs for scientific data, if you want to provide a scientific journal corroborating the LD50 of nicotine, I'm all ears.

And re your vegetable info, You would have to ingest 10lbs of tomatoes to equal 1 cigarettes worth of nicotine, or 100lbs of potato's. But I don't recall ever seeing anyone smoke a tomato or a potato.

But back to the commons matter. No one is demonizing ecig users for vaping outside, cigarette users either. They demonize them for using the product in commons, much like inside a restaurant, when one is in a crowd of others...

Outside business, at bus stops. You know... in commons.

And lastly, it's not just about PG allergy, or nicotine allergy. It's about the unwelcomed exposure to nicotine (in doses much higher than in nature from food). This is why there is pushback on their use in commons.

Regulating the actual product comes from valid public safety concerns, like I said. No one here actually knows what's in their juice. We take the manufacturers word. Therefor we are unable to determine the correct vaping temperature and are unable to control the exact temperature at which the coil is heated. So how can you actually know if it's vaping 100% and not burning 0.01% And as you've so kindly pointed out, since there have been carcinogens detected. You may very well be smoking carcinogens just like in a cigarette but are under the assumption you aren't...

Let's not even discuss the potential for cheap Chinese batteries exploding on us.

Also, I think the bottles the juice come in are very poorly designed as is the refilling method. I've gotten some on my fingers before and they were numb and tingly for quite some time, this is a serious health concern.

So imho, there's absolutely nothing wrong with regulating them and preventing their use in commons.

I'm sorry, but you sound irrationally paranoid.

I simply can't rationally discuss this with someone who thinks that car exhaust is acceptable but the unquantifiable amounts of nicotine that might be in second-hand ecigarette vapor somehow poses a public health risk. By the way, they don't report smog conditions in cities due to smokers, and they certainly don't report it for entertainment value.

I live near Charleston, SC and here, it's against the city laws to smoke anywhere outside or inside, in public, including ecigarettes, yet we can drive up and down the streets all day long and we have no laws concerning vehicle emissions here. Really? Really?

The negligible amounts of nicotine that may or may not be in ecigarette vapor is a non-health issue. Mount Everest has been created out of nothing and it's really quite stupid. As long as oil-powered vehicles keep emitting toxic exhaust fumes and factories continually poison our air, there is no rational argument against smoking or ecigarette use in non-enclosed public spaces.

Make laws to keep it out of the hands of minors, that's all that's needed.

originally posted by: CoherentlyConfused
I'm sorry, but you sound irrationally paranoid.

I simply can't rationally discuss this with someone who thinks that car exhaust is acceptable but the unquantifiable amounts of nicotine that might be in second-hand ecigarette vapor somehow poses a public health risk. By the way, they don't report smog conditions in cities due to smokers, and they certainly don't report it for entertainment value.

You've either haven't read my previous postings or ignored them. I never said vehicle exhaust is acceptable, it too is dangerous, just less-so in the amounts people are exposed to. I've also stated that society accepts it as a necessary evil for social progress. The reason why tobacco vapor isn't reported is because it's simply impossible for the foreseeable future as it's highly localized. Do you honestly think meteorologists should forecast for every possible 3m of space in a region? Be real, there's a difference between the large and small when it comes to pollution. Vehicle pollution compounds to create environmental threats on a large scale, they aren't as harmful as some here would make them out to be in a localized environment unless you're sucking on the tail-pipe of a vehicle.

I live near Charleston, SC and here, it's against the city laws to smoke anywhere outside or inside, in public, including ecigarettes, yet we can drive up and down the streets all day long and we have no laws concerning vehicle emissions here. Really? Really?

Do you honestly believe there are "no laws concerning vehicle emissions here" since all vehicles are regulated on a federal level and states merely enforce them? Do you honestly believe there are no laws?

/sarcasm

I know there is, otherwise we would all still be using leaded gasoline.

Make laws to keep it out of the hands of minors, that's all that's needed.

Keeping it out of the hands of minors is the least of concerns... because,

there is no rational argument against smoking or ecigarette use in non-enclosed public spaces

~1 hour of second-hand vapor exposes others to the equivalent nicotine of 10lbs of potatoes. Just to throw that 'there's nicotine in tomatoes and potatoes' argument back out there. Because honestly, I don't know healthy people who eat 10lbs of potatoes a week, or smoke it, let alone in an hour.

Ecig vapor exposes individuals to higher than natural amounts of nicotine (which poses more of an immediate health risk than vehicle exhaust). This is the reason for banning their use in commons, there is nothing irrational about it.

Then there's the aforementioned discovered carcinogens, risk of additional carcinogens through improperly vaporized substances, and discovered toxic contaminants which necessitates product regulation. Which would also aid in keeping it out of the hands of minors.

The entire industrialised world has to SHUT down...
I dont like the exposure. Infact...I DEMAND it.
No more cars or other pollutant vehicles.
Etc etc etc....

A few years ago there was a study on french fries
and potatochips. It said they were deadly. Infact
you could get cancer...

What it didnt say was that you have to eat KILOS
of it PER DAY... So the fearmongering HAS TO STOP.

All in the agenda. Money and control.

a reply to: DerbyGawker

I like how you didn't even read my sources. How utterly disrespectful.

"The term "poison" is often used colloquially to describe any harmful substance, particularly corrosive substances, carcinogens, mutagens, teratogens and harmful pollutants, and to exaggerate the dangers of chemicals. Paracelsus, the father of toxicology, once wrote: "Everything is poison, there is poison in everything. Only the dose makes a thing not a poison.""

You say nicotine is harmful because it causes heart disease. You say that as if it's a fact. You also say you like to see studies and not blog posts. Ok, where is your peer-reviewed paper that states nicotine BY ITSELF causes heart disease in people who never smoked? Oh right, there are no studies like that. The ONLY long-term studies on nicotine are the Swedish Snus studies. You can not take smoking data and say 'See! Nicotine is dangerous!'. That is innacurate, unethical, and ignorant. So, since we only have Snus data, let's look at it:

Snus Risks

Oh no a blog, you probably won't read it: Heart attacks everywhere

The only truthful statement you can make about nicotine and cardiovascular risk is this:

Given the inconsistencies in the results of these studies, it remains possible that snus users have a slightly increased cardiovascular risk as compared to never tobacco users, even after controlling for other confounding factors. However, all of the large studies of the effects of tobacco use on cardiovascular disease in Sweden are in agreement that “the use of smokeless tobacco (with snuff being the most studied variant) involves a much lower risk for adverse cardiovascular effects than smoking does”.45

Smokeless Tobacco Risks

BUT remember, this is talking about a tobacco product with most of the TSNA's removed. This isn't even talking about straight nicotine use. So, let's say snus slightly increases your risk for cardio vascular disease. Let's say that it slightly increases your chance of dying from a heart attack. That does not mean we can say "Nicotine causes heart disease!!" as if that is a fact. At the very least, that's misleading.

I suggest you read the Nicotine Myths blog in its entirety. Specifically the section titled 'Long Term consumption of substantial quantities' and the notes 7 & 8. Long story short, saying nicotine causes heart disease is a flat out lie because there are no long term studies on just nicotine use in never-smokers.

Stop demonizing nicotine.

double

a reply to: DerbyGawker

Good gravy I've heard of ANTZ = anti-nicotine and tobacco zealots, but never though one would show up on ATS, and claim to be a vaper..LOL.
Your showing us your freshman-level naivety, in actually believing that anything that appears in a journal must be correct. In a lame attempt to make up “rules of evidence” that tends to favor the outcome the regulators prefer. Why don't you post links to all these assertions your claiming? Do think we have not noticed that this obfuscating and hedging is not even about the net health effects, it's about exposure to tobacco-specific toxicants, all without citing a single source?
Unfortunately, FDA and ANTZ like yourself have restricted itself to ivory tower sources of information, while avoiding most of the world’s collective knowledge ignoring most of what is known and inserts alarmism where there is ignorance.

a reply to: flyingfish

Are you still denying nicotine is a poison that leads to heart disease?

Where is your proof that it does? Smoking studies do not apply here. Humble yourself and see that your opinion may in fact be wrong.

a reply to: DerbyGawker
Now you're moving the goal post.

The issue here is not whether nicotine is a substance that may lead to heart disease. With the diet we have here in the States, people eat and drink their way to an early death every day. That's their business.

The issue that you're claiming is that the trace amounts of nicotine contained in second-hand ecigarette vapor could cause health issues to those exposed.

And I haven't seen a shred of evidence for that.

ETA: Oh, and no, there are no consumer-level emissions laws here in SC. No emission tests or inspections are required to drive a vehicle here. I can legally drive a 30 year old gas-guzzling clunker tomorrow as long as I pay the registration fees for it. The school busses we have are in terrible shape and I see them billowing out black smoke all the time, sadly. Yeah, we can spend millions to pass laws against smokers and ecig users but we can't seem to find a dime to be sure our children are riding in safe vehicles on their way to school.

a reply to: CoherentlyConfused

Exactly, there is 0 proof of that.

I don't exactly agree with filling up a small indoor space with vapor, but many studies have already shown "second hand" vapor is safe. All outdoor areas should be fair game.

Oh and Derby stated that 'no one wants to ban them, just common sense regulations' (paraphrasing). This is completely false as well. Many groups have been calling for ecigs to be banned. Hell, the FDA tried to ban them a few years ago.

Second hand study

Look at sailorman's post, three down: e-cigarette-forum

a reply to: DerbyGawker

Are you still denying nicotine is a poison that leads to heart disease?

Are you still pretending that's what I was talking about from this quote?

Smoking cigarettes will kill you, and it's not the nicotine in cigarettes that's poisoning you, it's all the other chemicals too numerous to even type out.

It's obvious from your poor reading comprehension why you're so confused.
Show me proof that it's the nicotine causing all the damage to smokers.

apparently I slipped in a double-post

a reply to: DerbyGawker


So, you have no proof, we all must go buy your assertions?

originally posted by: CoherentlyConfused
a reply to: DerbyGawker
That's their business.

This is what the entire argument is about. What you do to yourself is your own concern, what you do to others is the governments.

originally posted by: flyingfish
Show me proof that it's the nicotine is causing all the damage in smokers.

No thanks, you'll call it "junk science" and say it's sponsored by some conspiratorial agency. You choose not to believe the science, that's fine. The premise of the issue isn't what you believe, it's whether or not you have the right to force your beliefs and use on others, obviously you don't. And you can moan and groan it's some socialist conspiracy or accept the other half of the issue, which is the right to not have others place health risks (perceived or actual depending on whatever science you choose to believe) upon others.

originally posted by: BanTv
a reply to: CoherentlyConfused

Second hand study

Read it, it concludes there are second-hand contaminants, but that the amount of dispersed carcinogens posed no risks. This further reiterates the fact that ecigs do in fact contain second-hand contaminants. The fact they were deemed to pose no risk is speculative.

For all of the samples, average VOC concentrations measured during phases I and II were below the limit of detection with limited exceptions. Ethylbenzene, benzene, toluene, and m/p xylenes (BTEX) were above detection limits.

For most carbonyls, concentrations were found to be low for both phases I and II for samples A-D, with some exceptions, such as acetone, formaldehyde, and acetaldehyde.

Benzene, formaldehyde, and nicotine. Just to name a few. Just because it's less than tobacco doesn't mean it's non-existent. Which is why you restrict it commons as it compounds, especially if everyone elects to do it.