Page 1 of 18 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 173
Like Tree305Likes

Thread: Comments on the TGA request to change the schedule on nicotine

  1. #1
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Toowoomba (West)
    Posts
    7,897

    Comments on the TGA request to change the schedule on nicotine

    It's possible for the general public/consumers to submit comments on the proposal to change the scheduling for nicotine.

    It's quite likely this would bolster the NNA's proposal and go some of the way to countering the BS stuff from Chappy et al. You don't have to give references to studies, but if you have time and the inclination to do so It couldn't hurt. I think vapers as a group are very well informed on the issues.

    I'm going to do it. I want to talk about the fact that I tried the approved methods to give up smoking many times and that I'd still be smoking today if not for higher concentration nicotine. If everybody who writes picks one argument that the ANTZ are likely to be using (think of the chilluns) and counters it successfully I think this could have a huge impact.

    If you decide to do this, good luck.

    I guess in a few months we will get to see where the TGA stands in all this.

    Ooops, there's link with guidlines and I forgot it. Hang on...

    Here you go:
    How to comment to TGA as a vaper
    Chris: Tobacco free since 17:00 15th March 2013.

  2. #2
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Wollongong
    Posts
    658
    Me too.10 char grumble
    fabricator4 and stylemessiah like this.

  3. #3
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    victoria
    Posts
    5,983
    What a pyrrhic victory this will be for both the NNA AU and the supoorters of them - a great loss to smokers who could switch as well if this goes through

    Chappers, Medhelson, and pharma must be jerking off about now - I would be- the work has essentially been done for them

    If I was NNA AU board member - I would be ashamed to post here formally too - no wonder there is no official spokesperson and a link has to be posted to thier home forum

    (not like underhandedness is not ingrained in them anyways .. as we have again seen in recent days)

    But thanks Nico for trying

    Pity the board members have forgetten that they are consumer stakeholder vapers too and not 'experts' - Perhaps then, it would not have come to calls for vapers and vendors to beg that they not be sold out to medical on the TGA website

    So sad to watch- who would have thought vapers would sell out thier own ...
    Last edited by rebelagainstthemachine; 11-08-16 at 12:39 PM.
    ďBut I donít want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
    "Oh, you canít help that," said the Cat: "weíre all mad here. Iím mad. Youíre mad."
    "How do you know Iím mad?" said Alice.
    "You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldnít have come here.Ē
    Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland






    Comic Database: Steve Hughes... Offended?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHMoDt3nSHs











  4. #4
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Bunbury
    Posts
    384
    I will be submitting as well, this application needs support if it has a chance to succeed.

    One question.

    If <36mg/ml is removed from S7 (should not mean automatic S4 only), does it mean this level of nicotine in e-juice would now be "unscheduled" (consumer product) and be available for sale from any store country wide?

    Why would this be bad?

    Information I have garnered inferrs this is the goal of the application, unless as rebel states, it is duplicitous.

    I do think all members should consider a submission in support, many thousands of such submissions telling our stories could provide a huge blow to, Chimpman and co if the TGA drop scheduling on 36mg making it freely available.

    I do worry but I have said all that in another thread.

    Get typing we have till september 1st
    Smoke free since april 2016

  5. #5
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Toowoomba (West)
    Posts
    7,897
    Quote Originally Posted by Wombats1 View Post
    I will be submitting as well, this application needs support if it has a chance to succeed.

    One question.

    If <36mg/ml is removed from S7 (should not mean automatic S4 only), does it mean this level of nicotine in e-juice would now be "unscheduled" (consumer product) and be available for sale from any store country wide?

    Why would this be bad?

    Information I have garnered inferrs this is the goal of the application, unless as rebel states, it is duplicitous.
    Unscheduled is the goal, yes.

    Having it only get scheduled as S2 or S3 would be one of the unwanted side effects of this, and possibly the thing that is worrying some people, mostly because those who stock S2 and S3 compounds have no idea at all about vaping and what we look for in nicotine quality or flavours. For a pharmacist, for it to have a BP or USP rating would be sufficient (eg NicoPharm crap)

    On the other hand, if high concentration nicotine stays at S7 but <= 36mg/ml gets for example an S2 rating, that would not leave us worse off. We'd be in the same position, but with the possibility of some local supply. It also makes it easier to remove all scheduling later. Substances that have passed through S3->S2->unscheduled are things like paracetamol and ibuprofen which are arguably more dangerous than nicotine. One item that has actually gone S4->S3-->unscheduled is NRT gum and lozenges - but that took a couple of decades.
    Dymo316 and nicoandlaughter like this.
    Chris: Tobacco free since 17:00 15th March 2013.

  6. #6
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Bunbury
    Posts
    384
    Quote Originally Posted by fabricator4 View Post
    Unscheduled is the goal, yes.

    Having it only get scheduled as S2 or S3 would be one of the unwanted side effects of this, and possibly the thing that is worrying some people, mostly because those who stock S2 and S3 compounds have no idea at all about vaping and what we look for in nicotine quality or flavours. For a pharmacist, for it to have a BP or USP rating would be sufficient (eg NicoPharm crap)

    On the other hand, if high concentration nicotine stays at S7 but <= 36mg/ml gets for example an S2 rating, that would not leave us worse off. We'd be in the same position, but with the possibility of some local supply. It also makes it easier to remove all scheduling later. Substances that have passed through S3->S2->unscheduled are things like paracetamol and ibuprofen which are arguably more dangerous than nicotine. One item that has actually gone S4->S3-->unscheduled is NRT gum and lozenges - but that took a couple of decades.
    Agree.

    However if scheduling is removed another application would have to be made to reschedule at S2/S3 (no script Chemist only) another round of submissions against this could succeed in blocking it. In the mean time it would be open slather?

    Paracetamol?

    One of the most toxic substances for the human liver known to man. (Fact)

    you can buy it anywhere.

    It is a crazy world.

    Support this application to the TGA please!!!!
    Last edited by Wombats1; 11-08-16 at 06:45 PM. Reason: Suggested present tense reworded
    Dymo316 likes this.
    Smoke free since april 2016

  7. #7
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Toowoomba (West)
    Posts
    7,897
    Quote Originally Posted by Wombats1 View Post
    However if scheduling is removed another application would have to be made to reschedule at S2/S3 (no script Chemist only) another round of submissions against this could succeed in blocking it. In the mean time it would be open slather?
    No vaper would support moving to sched 2 or 3 because we want local vape shops to be able to carry it.

    I don't think it would require a submission, the TGA could just slot it straight in there. We'd then have to apply to have sched 2 or 3 removed as well. I think the current submission won't mention scheds 2 or 3, only removing schedule 7 for 36mg/ml. This is where the unwanted effects come in, they may move on this, but possibly not in the direction we want them to. Edit: it's in the TGA's power to remove S7 scheduling for 36mg/ml and not apply S2 or S3, and that is what we can hope for.

    There's also the change in the submission from 72mg/ml down to 36mg/ml. I'm thinking the NNA was probably advised that they'd have more chance of getting 36mg/ml changed. We might have to face the fact that this is going to take a little while. The TGA may accept small changes that they can evaluate the results over a number of years. Going straight to high concentration nic might be something they are not comfortable with. I choose to interpret this as the NNA doing what is possible now, under advisement from people who understand the TGA.
    Dymo316 and nicoandlaughter like this.
    Chris: Tobacco free since 17:00 15th March 2013.

  8. #8
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Whyalla, SA
    Posts
    13,095
    Why wouldn't it be in Schedule 7?

    NICOTINE except:

    ...

    d) in solution at <= 3.6% and prepared and packed for inhalation for use with an ENDS device.



    ETA: exactly the same restrictions as tobacco ie none
    Last edited by gtadmin; 11-08-16 at 07:10 PM.
    giruvian, Fatman, Dymo316 and 2 others like this.
    Ignore the Super-moderator tag in my profile, I have resigned from that position but admin have not updated my profile as yet

  9. #9
    AVF Regular
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Toowoomba (West)
    Posts
    7,897
    Quote Originally Posted by gtadmin View Post
    Why wouldn't it be in Schedule 7?

    NICOTINE except:

    ...

    d) in solution at <= 3.6% and prepared and packed for inhalation for use with an ENDS device.



    ETA: exactly the same restrictions as tobacco ie none
    Exactly. We can only hope.
    Dymo316 and OldGrump like this.
    Chris: Tobacco free since 17:00 15th March 2013.

  10. #10
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Whyalla, SA
    Posts
    13,095
    The reasoning behind that is most state govt's are in the process of/have included it in their tobacco regs, so why not have the SUSMP Schedule 7 reflect this especially as all recent and unbiased scientific reports indicate liquid nicotine is far less deadly than tobacco.
    Fatman and DogMan like this.
    Ignore the Super-moderator tag in my profile, I have resigned from that position but admin have not updated my profile as yet

 

 
Page 1 of 18 12311 ... 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 08:45 AM.