Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22
Like Tree43Likes

Thread: E-cigarettes - tobacco products or a separate class of product?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,064

    E-cigarettes - tobacco products or a separate class of product?

    We've done some extensive covering of why e-cigarettes and e-liquids should not be regulated as medical products.

    In the US, e-cigarettes are regulated as tobacco products. CASAA has put forward their reasoning behind this.

    Kristin Noll-Marsh, vice president of CASAA writes;

    nicotine isn't regulated in the U.S. by what form it takes, but instead by "intended use."

    If the nicotine is contained in a product with an "intended use" as a smoking cessation or other treatment, it is then regulated as a "drug" and must go through clinical trials, studies, etc., and the product must meet strict manufacturing protocols before release to the public.

    If the nicotine is contained in a product with an intended use of "recreational" (ie. intended for human consumption but not as a treatment of any kind) it is regulated as a tobacco product. (A third classification is a pesticide, but that form of nicotine is not allowed for human consumption.)
    This is all well and good, and it helps CASAA establish both snus and e-cigarettes to be classified as "modified risk tobacco products" or something to that nature. The problem however, that CASAA frequently run into is when organisations and institutions decide to implement "tobacco free policies". And because e-cigarettes are classified as a type of tobacco product, they get included in the ban.

    Vaping should never be included in non-smoking area policies. Indeed, there may be places where most of us agree that e-cigarettes should not be permitted, such as crowded in door areas. However, by bundling ecigarettes into tobacco regulation, it gives institutions such as Universities justification to include vaping in their banning policies, when without it, they'd no justifcation. And in the end, all that CASAA can reply is; "people can stealth vape, so it will be unenforcable".

    Personally, I hate stealth vaping. But more to the point, Big Pharma win both ways. If ecigs are regulated medicines, they achieve a monopoly. If ecigs are regulated as tobacco, then they achieve a monopoly in places such as hospitals, universities and workplaces where people spend 8 to 10 hours a day.

    Here's an example ;



    Kristin Noll-Marsh continues;

    There is no reason to believe that separate e-cigarette regulation would be treated any differently by these people. In fact, a brand new category could prove to be a gift to the anti nicotine and tobacco zealots, as it could give them a blank slate for far more restrictive regulation than currently available to them for tobacco products. The point being, tobacco product or not, we would still be in the position of arguing that there is nothing wrong with recreational tobacco and nicotine use either way.
    I just don't think this is the case. My opinion is that electronic cigarettes and nicotine liquids should be regulated as their own, recreational class of product, in a similar way to Caffeine. They should not automatically be subjected to medical, nor tobacco policy regulations.

    What's your opinion?


    Last edited by mavinry4; 14-09-13 at 01:52 PM. Reason: added in video example
    GirlyPantz, Old Dog, spud and 1 others like this.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Canberra, ACT
    Posts
    492
    I'm not one to argue over the semantics of politics and legislation. If cigarettes, patches, lozenges, sprays and gums are readily available to anyone over 18, then so should vaping devices and juices.

    Such a simplistic view, I know, but does it really need to be overcomplicated?

  3. #3
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Bunbury, WA
    Posts
    5,951
    is that video for real? or are they having a lend? surely it's a joke?

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Caffeind View Post
    I'm not one to argue over the semantics of politics and legislation. If cigarettes, patches, lozenges, sprays and gums are readily available to anyone over 18, then so should vaping devices and juices.

    Such a simplistic view, I know, but does it really need to be overcomplicated?

    I think the intended use is something important to include in policy.

    for example ;





    Big Pharma have claimed that it doesnt "level the playing feild". But no one has ever said that Big Pharma can't produce and sell their own lines of recreational nicotine gum or liquid sprays. I think e-cigarettes and all non-combustion nicotine products that are not intended for relieving a person from their nicotine dependence be regulated under the same policy.

  5. #5
    Retired Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    NE Tasmania
    Posts
    4,375
    So you can't smoke or use an ecig or even snus on campus, but waving around a quickmist or quitmist inhaler is perfectly okay.
    Won't someone think of the consistency?!

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by kay67kay View Post
    is that video for real? or are they having a lend? surely it's a joke?
    lol, I thought it was a joke too. So cheezy. So that's what Schreeche has been up to since leaving Bayside High.
    GirlyPantz and Old Dog like this.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by mrsgruffy View Post
    Won't someone think of the consistency?!
    Best. play on words. ever.
    GirlyPantz likes this.

  8. #8
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Bunbury, WA
    Posts
    5,951
    Quote Originally Posted by mavinry4 View Post
    lol, I thought it was a joke too. So cheezy. So that's what Schreeche has been up to since leaving Bayside High.
    I kept waiting for the punch line, but it didn't come :/
    GirlyPantz and Old Dog like this.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Canberra, ACT
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by mavinry4 View Post
    I think the intended use is something important to include in policy.

    for example ;





    Big Pharma have claimed that it doesnt "level the playing feild". But no one has ever said that Big Pharma can't produce and sell their own lines of recreational nicotine gum or liquid sprays. I think e-cigarettes and all non-combustion nicotine products that are not intended for relieving a person from their nicotine dependence be regulated under the same policy.
    Well, perhaps depending on the packaging they can be classed as either. Release the same product with different packaging.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    3,064
    Quote Originally Posted by Caffeind View Post
    Well, perhaps depending on the packaging they can be classed as either. Release the same product with different packaging.
    I have no issue with that, given that their medical products have a decreasing amount of nicotine, whilst their non-medical products have a constant and not increasing level of nicotine. I'd even be willing to purchase and see how good Big Pharma can make their ejuice, given that they also compete on pricing as well.
    Caffeind likes this.

 

 
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2019 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 03:06 AM.