Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Grumpy Old man, Living inPerth Northern suburbs
    Posts
    6,590

    Paper disscussing Nicotine sceduling

    Hi people

    Found this link to this document dated August 2011

    http://www.tga.gov.au/pdf/scheduling...-interim-a.pdf

    Its a long document but the relevant pages for nicotine start at page 72. The reference to ecigs is around page 89.

    Food for thought?
    Because I trust no-one Who tells me FACTS with no proof

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Clagiraba, Queensland
    Posts
    10,965
    I couldn't see any references on the page 89 mentioned. It looks like they want to free up usage of nicotine, but are still not keen on e-cigs. Grabbed a couple of interesting sections to quote.

    A Member raised concerns regarding the similarity of the inhalator and other products containing nicotine for inhalation which were not approved for human therapeutic use by the TGA. Members noted reports of misuse of nicotine vaporiser products (e.g. e- cigarettes). Members noted that unlike the inhalator, e-cigarettes visually resembled a cigarette. Members also noted e-cigarettes delivered nicotine through a vaporising system where it would be primarily absorbed through the lungs. In contrast, delivery of the nicotine dose via the inhalator facilitated absorption through the oral mucosa.
    Members clarified that e-cigarettes should be captured by Schedule 4 when for human therapeutic use or by Schedule 7 if for non-therapeutic use. Members noted that apart from the oromucosal inhalators there were no other nicotine ‘inhalation’ products listed on the ARTG. Members agreed that it would be appropriate to delete the Schedule 2 entry for nicotine.
    Members again confirmed that this general exemption for nicotine human therapeutic preparations for oromucosal use was not intended to extend to products which deliver the nicotine dose through a vaporising system (e.g. e-cigarettes).
    In order of useful: Provari V2 and V1, vamo, eGo twist, Katana v3, Hex, Orion v2, LavaTube, eGo x 6, VMAX, 510N, Tick V2, Tick V1, noEgo 18650, noEgo 14650 , Indulgence x 2, 905 6v mod, KR808D



  3. #3
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where the spectre of Bjelke-Petersen still looms...A Banana Republic inside a Banana Republic
    Posts
    2,023
    Members also noted e-cigarettes delivered nicotine through a vaporising system where it would be primarily absorbed through the lungs. In contrast, delivery of the nicotine dose via the inhalator facilitated absorption through the oral mucosa.
    Err wut???
    Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

    Quality Australian Made eJuice: Bunyip Vapes



  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Clagiraba, Queensland
    Posts
    10,965
    yeh, seems like they are aiming at something doesn't it ..
    I don't quite like where it is.
    In order of useful: Provari V2 and V1, vamo, eGo twist, Katana v3, Hex, Orion v2, LavaTube, eGo x 6, VMAX, 510N, Tick V2, Tick V1, noEgo 18650, noEgo 14650 , Indulgence x 2, 905 6v mod, KR808D



  5. #5
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where the spectre of Bjelke-Petersen still looms...A Banana Republic inside a Banana Republic
    Posts
    2,023
    Well considering the inhalers have similar ingredients and work in a similar fashion one has to wonder how they can make that distinction
    Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.

    Quality Australian Made eJuice: Bunyip Vapes



  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Gold Coast
    Posts
    494
    Why can the legislators just not be pleased that a substantial number of Australians are now ex smokers even if they are taking nicotine in through their lungs rather than their oral mucosa. If they can point out why this a dangerous we might listen but at the moment all we see is one smoke screen after another to protect the status quo.

  7. #7
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Grumpy Old man, Living inPerth Northern suburbs
    Posts
    6,590
    Quote Originally Posted by valleyjohn View Post
    Why can the legislators just not be pleased that a substantial number of Australians are now ex smokers even if they are taking nicotine in through their lungs rather than their oral mucosa. If they can point out why this a dangerous we might listen but at the moment all we see is one smoke screen after another to protect the status quo.

    I am not sure its ever been confirmed how we absorb the nicotine in our situation. I seem to remember there was some debate. I am sure SAS hes the information to hand!! In any case the amount of Nicotine actual reaching the lungs is small compared to the amount we are inhaling.
    Because I trust no-one Who tells me FACTS with no proof

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Melbourne VIC
    Posts
    1,992
    Quote Originally Posted by Robray View Post
    I am sure SAS hes the information to hand!! In any case the amount of Nicotine actual reaching the lungs is small compared to the amount we are inhaling.
    TADA! I would have been here sooner, but I was eating pizza

    I covered this a bit last year when it all went down:

    Poison Standard Update
    A New Summary

    I'll try and summarize what happened as simply as I can.

    1. The Schedule 2 listing for nicotine was only ever intended for the nicotine inhaler. Since studies of this product have shown that almost all of the nicotine absorbed using this product is via the oral mucosa, and the previous defination would have included e-cigs, the pricks at the TGA decided the put the inhaler into Schedule 4 Exception and dump the S2 listing completely.

    2. There is not currently enough information available (scientific data) to verify exactly where a vaper absorbs the nicotine. Health NZ have suggested that the nicotine molecules are the wrong size to even make it passed the throat (thus the throat hit) and it is also absorbed via the oral mucosa. This all makes sense, as you can vape like a cigar (not inhale) and still get a nic hit.

    Unfortunately, as the original patient says that the e-cig is designed to delivery nicotine to the lungs, this is how the TGA currently views the product. Another great example of health authorities not bothering to do any real research bothering reaching a conclusion.

    3. The last thing the TGA wants is to "free up usage of nicotine" as they are paid via the fees paid by big pharma. This in itself largely explains their opposition to e-cig legalisation. It would literally costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a single nicotine based e-cig product approved for "human therapeutic usage" and therefore a "cessation aid".

    4. Inhalators work completely differently to e-cigs. Rather than vaporization via heat, it's a chemical reaction that releases the nicotine when inhaled on. E-cig liquid is actually almost the same as nicotine spray (not available in Australia) although nic spray has extra chemicals present like hydrochloric acid to maintain the high pH level.

    I think that covers it all. Any questions from the class?

  9. #9
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Grumpy Old man, Living inPerth Northern suburbs
    Posts
    6,590
    Thanks for that SAS

    I knew you would come across with the answer. Surly the original patent claims are out of the window based on the NZ findings? You are right about the cigar analogy. Having said that I always inhaled!!!
    Because I trust no-one Who tells me FACTS with no proof

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Melbourne VIC
    Posts
    1,992
    The NZ testing wasn't really in-depth enough to provide a solid answer. Even Dr Laugesen said the same thing when I asked him about it.

    There has been tests done to show that a) crappy disposable styles deliver almost zero nicotine to the blood stream while b) decent rigs used by experienced vapers can reach the same nicotine concentration as smokers do. Studies on NRT have shown that they DO NOT reach the same levels, but the question then becomes is that because:

    1. NRT tastes like crap and nobody even likes using them a little, let alone chain-usage or
    2. Because a decent rig will deliver nicotine to the lungs, thus a quicker uptake than oral usage.

    As usual, such testing is rather expensive to be definitive and who's going to pay for it?

    I'd love to see a blood cotinine study down comparing smokers with inhaling vaping vs oral only vaping in, say, 5 minute increments. The results of that should be solid enough to start drawing conclusions.

    EDIT: Scratch that. It looks like to takes too long for our bodies to metabolize nicotine into cotinine for that to work. Cotinine testing only really tells you if somebody is absorbing nicotine above dietary intake, and how much, not how quickly. Should have known it wouldn't be that easy...
    Last edited by soundasleep; 05-02-12 at 10:38 PM.

 

 
Page 1 of 2 12 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 © 2020 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
All times are GMT +11. The time now is 11:23 AM.