Tobacco Harm Reduction Blog

ITS AN FDA WORLD AFTER ALL

2012-05-14T23:50:00.001-06:00

Apr 23, 2012 The FDA released a document that seems to have fallen under the radar of the press and of the general population. A press release reads:

“As our world transforms and becomes increasingly globalized, we must come together in new, unprecedented, even unexpected, ways to build a public health safety net for consumers around the world,” said FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, MD.¹

This corresponded to the release of the, “Global Engagement Report,² detailing the many activities and strategies FDA is using to transform from a domestic to a global public health agency.”¹ It is a must read and a must re-read. Welcome to the New World Order, Big Brother FDA.

This is a 40 page PDF file that illustrates the plan for the integration of the FDA with several other organizations throughout the world in a mission to protect the health and welfare of the people of this planet, while assuring the citizens of the United States of America that their food, medical devices and medicines are up to FDA standards.

The report has a highlighted quote in its early pages that states:

“Over the next decade, FDA will continue to transform from a predominantly domestically focused Agency, operating in a globalized economy, to an Agency fully prepared for a regulatory environment in which FDA-regulated products know no borders.” Deborah Autor, FDA Deputy Commissioner for Global Regulatory Operations and Policy.

At first look this is a worthy and humanitarian ideology, with better, safer, standardized and uniformly regulated jargon that feels warm, fuzzy and just darn nice of us to enter into this project. There are examples of the triumphs of the FDA in the past as it helped wage war on HIV and its less successful interventions such as the melamine tainted animal chows and heparin preparations that were substandard.

In short there is a significant message here that the United States Government is going global and if you don’t meet our standards then you will be banned from importation. This is also to include pharmaceuticals that are now to be intercepted by postal authorities when shipped into the United States for personal use, to assure us that we are not getting substandard medications.

There is also reference to tobacco and smokeless tobacco products in one sentence and inference that they are both responsible for the thousands of deaths that have occurred to lung disease.

The report is a warning to the populace that the FDA is going to regulate and control everything it can through not only border inspection, but through direct intervention on a global scale. The tactics of influencing the regulatory standards of the world are imperialistic at the least. The inference that there is significant doubt as to the validity of offshore research is also made.

In its triumphant ending is the comment that there is to be leverage to assist in the implementation of the American way. This is politely defined as cooperation, but is seen more as political and economic blackmail if looked at from another level.

The bottom line is that this is the beginning of the global microscope of the FDA and a flexing of its muscles to the world. Along with this is the protection and adoption of a best for America nanny state that makes decisions for the populace that are based on its own ideology. The report is highly referenced, the majority FDA or other government publications that on review are fact and data sheets with no traceable foundations other than other government documents.

It is a noble ideal to have regulation and standards that enhance the safety of the populous. It is not a noble ideal to imply that the citizens of the United States of America are not intelligent enough to make any decisions without a regulatory stamp affixed. The generic medications that are available from Canadian Pharmacies would be curtailed and confiscated should this be FDA’s whim.

The regulators need to be overseen and not have a carte blanc check to enter into the world market and decide for us what is good for us and what is not without good reason and fairness.

In reality the ones that will benefit from this are the usual big corporate interests; Big Pharma, Big Tobacco and the Device Manufacturers in the US. There will be a de jure monopoly for some of these companies if foreign manufacturers see upping standards and testing requirements that may be accepted in their countries, but not by the FDA, as too costly, redundant or frankly unnecessary.

If there is risk and harm by all means let us minimize this risk and harm. But to take on a theme of Manifest Destiny to the world in the health, food and medical devices frontier is arrogant and FDA like.

Remember this is the organization that still allows Chantix to be sold.

That in itself is enough said.

(1) http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm301191.htm

(2) http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/UCM298578.pdf

Corporate Ecigs- Big Brother Finally Comes Knocking

2012-04-30T21:49:00.000-06:00

Blu, the leading e-cigarette in the USA today has been bought by Lorillard.

From the standpoint of the research and presence of this brand in the hands of a corporate giant that is well versed in dealing with the ramifications of FDA think speak, this is a potential ally in the making. I heard many things positive, neutral and negative diatribes about this on various talk shows and in the halls of FB:

This is a potential boon to the THR movement and will look to do the research to help prove once and for all that there is a significant Harm Reduction with e-cigarettes.
The market to cigarette users will expand and there could be more people vaping than there will be smoking.
From a humanitarian standpoint and THR, this is a potential vector to help combustible nicotine users change to vaping.

There was also the neutrals who expressed the usual vaping as usual rhetoric:

They are just another player, there should be no fear.
We will just DIY and get our juices and nicotine from China.
We are a small part of the market, why should they care.
It won't happen for 3-5 years anyway.

Well let us read the Lorillard take on this experience:

"blu ecigs is the best-selling e-cigarette brand, with the look and feel of traditional cigarettes – without the tobacco
smoke, ash, or smell. blu ecigs is the market leader in providing innovative technology for an improved consumer
experience that enhances the enjoyment and social aspect of e-cigarettes. blu ecigs will be a separate operating
company of Lorillard and it is Lorillard’s intention to retain blu ecigs’ current management team and its
headquarters in Charlotte, NC."

“blu ecigs are the perfect adjacency for us to participate in the smokeless market, but in a Lorillard way. That is, e-cigarettes offer many of the benefits of other smokeless products but do so in a way that is familiar and enjoyed by current adult cigarette consumers,” said Murray Kessler. “We believe that blu will benefit from Lorillard Tobacco Company's regulatory experience and sales infrastructure which are needed for it, and the category, to reach its potential in a responsible manner." (http://www.lorillard.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Q1-2012-Earnings-Release_FINAL.pdf, page 3).

Well Lorillard benefited:

Then there was the other faction:

Squeeze out of the market, through price or regulation, our current venders.
One company is in bed with BT, so now we all are there.
It will draw people who don't get the satisfaction from Blu to the mod and juice venders
We as vapers are officially associated with BT and as such are linked with the terrorism, lies, underhanded behaviors and become a link in the timeline of corruption.

And then there are the benefactors of smoking:

Antz and their causes, what will this do to their activity.
If the population becomes healthier, what will happen to the ALA and other lung and cancer research groups.
Big Pharma won't have the clout it once had in cessation.
Tax revenues from analog cigs will drop and if this is a Harm Reduction agent the taxation on them should decrease to make them more attractive.

More importantly there is a real possibility that there will be a complete paradigm shift in the perception of THR. Vaping becomes the means to a decline in health risk (speculative and as of yet not FDA approved) with more public awareness- the Medium is the Message.

So what is this marriage- blissful and invigorating or another strike against vaping freedom?

Only time will tell.

Personally, I have my doubts and feel the time for all vapers to unite as a force to continue to show that there is a place for the individual.

Every person grab your mods and ready them, two if by land and one if by sea, the corporations are coming and we need to be organized for our rights.

And now there are two BT companies in the field.

2012-04-28T14:00:00.000-06:00

How does the world of vaping react to the move by Lorillard as it purchases a well distributed e-cigarette company Blu (which has a patent)?

There seems to be a significant apathy mixed with fear of the unknown. This is somewhat typical of many of the legislative fights and the FDA involvement; there is either an aggressive and informed action to be proactive or there is denial. The CASAA's of the vaping world have been the front line for advocacy in tobacco harm reduction. This is a devoted group that has been the forefront of the keep smokeless tobacco's existence and vital importance viable in the battle against the diseases of smoke delivery nicotine products. The role and place they go from here is one that will be vital to the framing of the vaping options available to consumers in the next years.

This is to me a mixed blessing. Finally there is a player in the field that will push forward the research and hopefully will allow the addition of harm reduction product to e-cigarettes. Unfortunately this depends on the approach of the BT company as it does its studies and the FDA's interpretation of the data. Lorillard may show that vaping is safer and a harm reduction method or they may say "their" e-cigarette. patent number XXXXXXXX is safer and leave the process of vaping out of the equation. This would leave us on the event horizon of the vaping black hole.

It is my opinion that there is no trust that needs to be given to Lorillard. There is no financial reason for them to do anything except that which would put their product in a marketable and FDA approved safer cigarette. In fact it is in their best interest to exclude the Provari, Silver Bullet and GLV-2 manufacturers products from their research model and implicitly state that this data is only relevant to their product. This scenario is also identical for e-liquid manufacturers.

What concerns are important to address:

Is this a WalMart like phenomena with the larger and more efficient company with a high profit motive entering the market at the expense of the little guy and his or her product line.
Big and profitability means that there is no need to diversify product line. There will be no incentive for the creativity of the small manufacturer.
Will this mean pre-filled cartridges of limited taste type with connectors that are patented and not adaptable to the current atty's and carto's available.
Price will be up and taxation yet to be determined.
At present there is a fairly well known population of products available for the majority of vapers. With the introduction of a possibly regulated product the mods, juices and equipment we know now will or at least could be forced into a black market like setting and with that there is a loss of the 1:1 contacts we as vapers have and trust.
BT has a history of divisive and extremely close to the vest and proprietary tactics. What is the motivation for this to change?
Do we want to have BT in control of vaping and therefore lose the intimacy of the current vendor population.
Can we trust the FDA to act in the best interest of the vaper? The idea that one (and there will be more) generic delivery system with non-refillable product is easier to regulate is not conducive to the time and expense of allowing the current vendors to continue; the variety of delivery systems and liquids will each need to be monitored and regulated.

I myself am concerned that this is the end of vaping as we know it, and I don't feel fine. Whether the current vendors can band together as a force and approach this as a team is yet to be seen.

We shall see the outcome.

It might be getting close to loading up on DIY supplies, extra mods and bricks of cartos time. But it is not that time yet.

Take off the blinders and realize this is big corporations entering the marketplace and they are not consumer friendly, they are brand friendly.

Personally, my GLV-2 and DIY, Boge cartos and protected batteries would rather fight than switch.

FDA and bait and switch- letter to manufacturers

2012-03-14T20:22:00.000-06:00

http://www.tveca.com/PDF/fda-letter.pdf

Is a link to the marvelous letter sent to elecronic cigarette and juice manufacturers. Quoting the Tobaccolawblog from the the law firm of Troutman and Sanders http://www.tobaccolawblog.com/ :
"The letters note that FDA has authority under the Tobacco Control Act to assert jurisdiction over e-cigarettes, and that FDA intends to do so by issuing appropriate regulations.
The letters request information regarding the following issues:

Customer complaints and “adverse event issues.”
Reports of “consumer misuse.”
Descriptions of product labeling.
Systems in place to review customer complaints and adverse events."

Based on the information requested, it appears that FDA’s letters may have been prompted by a report earlier this year of an e-cigarette exploding in a man’s mouth.

It appears that the FDA is continuing to tally data to produce a case for strict regulation and safety is an issue. There is no mention of any material in these letters pertaining to the positive effects or reports venders are receiving.

Sad that there is only Big Tobacco and Pharma (pharmaceutical companies who make NRT's- nicotine replacement therapies) interests with the money to lobby the FDA.

very sad

Of course Vermont not banning internet sales of ecigarettes- priceless.

For the truth about tobacco harm reduction- there is the one and only CASAA-The Consumer Advocates for Smoke-free Alternatives Association casaa.org.

Inernet Bans in Vermont; Maybe the Domino Effect Was Real

2012-03-13T01:20:00.000-06:00

A note from my heart on H 747

In a State that has Bernie Sanders as a Senator, a true Progressive Party member, and a history of individualism and of course Ethan Allen and Ben and Jerry's, it is hard to imagine that this state would be the first to criminalize the freedom of God fearing Vermont residents for attempting to stop smoking.

I have never been told that I was able to express my thoughts and opinions in a paragraph or two, so I hope that my lengthy diatribe is not out of line. The common good is my passion and the loss of freedom and especially the hardships of this time and its effects on the hard working men and women have made that passion more fervent.

There are many facets to any subject and the most important, in my opinion, is that there is a need to protect those that have not reached the age of consent without causing harm to those of the age of consent. I fully support the Vermont actions to remove tobacco and tobacco products from the hands of children. They are our most precious resource. To never start is to never have to stop.

Bill H 747 addresses that issue well from the standpoint of protecting the child. I wish 56 years ago that such was the case for myself and others of my generation. Smoking in my youth was the water bottle of this era. Nearly everywhere was tobacco and smokers. At 12 or 13 I started and by 25 knew I needed to quit. The advent of replacement therapies gave me hope, as quitting was impossible. I had tried every agent used from gums, patches and medication therapies along with counseling. A month or two after ending the prescribed regimens; relapse.

In 2010 I was introduced to vaping, a simple means of obtaining nicotine (which I literally have been exposed to since conception). The content of the vapor is similar to FDA patches when looking at the residual carcinogenic compounds that are ingested. I have not smoked a cigarette since the first day I vaped and am actually vaping solutions that are near zero nicotine. Smoking is a behavior that is biological and psychological. That is where the 50-75 percent of smokers who keep relapsing when trying to quit fail. Nicotine free for 2 months and then smoke again is counter to any intellectual process. Vaping has improved my health, stamina and dramatically changed my life.

This is not to say that nicotine replacement therapies that are marketed have no place in society, it is not to say that smokeless tobacco does not have a place in society- it is only to say that they did not work for this person.

I do not live in Vermont, but I entertained doing my residency in Burlington when I graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill. The visit was wonderful and people delightful and progressive. If it were not for my wife's pregnancy and a desire to be near family, I would have accepted that position.

I am a retired, ex-smoking physician who has elected to go back to school to teach High School Physics and Biology. I should have known better than to start smoking but in the sixties and seventies that was the norm.

As I am returning to teach it is very apparent that children and adolescents are not developmentally able to make decisions wisely. The millions of people who have successfully stopped inhaling tobacco smoke through vaping are freeing themselves from the 4000 chemicals that include at least 50 carcinogens (nicotine not one of them) and changing, through grassroots efforts, the options for tobacco users. Unfortunately the ending of internet sales will drastically hamper the effort toward harm reduction. We know 400,000 people will die from cancer of the lung each year. Vaping has been quoted by the Boston University Department of Public Health as 98% safer than smoking. It requires credit cards, is costly and there is no evidence that adolescents are using vaping to get their nicotine.

On the other hand the expanse of your state makes vender available personal vaping devices and the liquids unfeasible to most. Internet sale elimination will make citizens that are only attempting to find a potentially safer (and legal) avenue for either use or cessation criminals. It seems counterproductive to a medical mind to block this when prescription medications that are lethal are dropped on front porches daily by health insurance companies and the VA. Internet access is essential for people like me who live in rural areas (I am in New Mexico) and inflict their greatest harm on those of the lower and middle income groups who would have to cross borders and spend their money in other states, when they could order from Vermont Vapers for example.

I urge you and your committee to stand tall and defend those who cannot make decisions and make it criminal to sell or buy any nicotine, alcohol or prescription medication for a minor. I also urge that you allow adults of age to have the ability to engage in a life changing means of tobacco harm reduction that presently requires internet and mail order for its availability.

The only jobs that will be enhanced, in my opinion, are those of the jails that will be filled with good citizens who found a way to stop smoking and postal box sales in towns outside the Vermont borders.

Please keep hope alive for those who have found it by not eliminating internet and mail order sales. People will go back to smoking and the chemical and particulate smoke that carries with it the morbidity of cigarettes will increase health costs and decrease the quality of the life of the citizens of Vermont.

Please keep the statutes that penalize those that would introduce any nicotine product to youth. This is wise and essential. To ban internet availability is to mimic prohibition and can only deter a more hopeful lifestyle.

For more information go to cassa.org.

Thank you,

John Connell, M.D. (and future educator)

Please veto HB 245 Utah Governor Gary R. Herbert

2012-03-08T22:50:00.000-07:00

"Some men see things as they are and ask “Why?”. I dream things that never were and ask, “Why not?" –Robert F. Kennedy. (Paraphrasing his brother JFK).

Don’t ask me why I smoked because I really have no good reason. I started in the sixties when everyone smoked and the thought that cigarettes might be harmful was being undermined by the tobacco lobby and glamorous jingles that I can remember to this day. Don’t tell me I made a conscious choice to start, I was nine years old. Don’t tell me that I was following the crowd; most of my peers didn’t smoke. Don’t tell me I was stupid, I skipped two grades and was taking college classes at 15. RFK was prophetic, the answer is in looking at history and postulating from what is known, then going a step further into the unknown. What if I never had a chance to make the decision?

My parents both smoked 10 years prior to my birth, so the germ cells from which I was eventually conceived were bathed in nicotine; my conception to birth was a nicotine sea as my mother smoked heavily. I was breast fed and lived in a small house with two active smokers. We know that nicotine evokes distinct changes in the brain, in the body and causes dependence. I have never been successfully free of nicotine. But I have been free of smoke. Nicotine patches and gums did something, as I have 10 of my 45 years since the first cigarette smoke free through those agents. They did not work because there was always something missing. I could wean myself down to a quarter strip of a 2 mg gum- but never any further. Why not? Because I stop being able to think clearly and my attention span is absent. I would go six months free of smoke then fall again into the lue haze.

I found e-cigarettes quite by accident, a co-worker switched at first to avoid having to take smoke breaks as vaping was allowed in the workplace. The only awareness the rest of the center noted was he smelled better, as did his office. I ordered them in Dec. 2010 and have not smoked a cigarette since. My doctor visit six months later led to a discussion of how my weight, blood pressure and pulmonary function were dramatically better. I simply told him I was off cigarettes. I saw him last week and again and am now on no blood pressure medications and no inhalers. I told him about the e-cigarette and being a physician expected a lecture. He just smiled and said, my wife started those 6 weeks ago, small world.

Interestingly, before I retired to enter into teaching, I was a psychiatrist and addictionologist. Smoking has three main features. The first is addiction and withdrawal, the second is what some call pleasurable but I call self-medication of mood and attention span problems and the third the behavior of smoking and the physical nature of the act. It explains a great deal to me.

E-cigarettes are vapor producing agents that contain the equivalent level of carcinogens as a patch or gum. Both felt lower than any level dangerous per the FDA. There is no evidence of any risk higher than that of the official nicotine replacement therapies. But most important, there is no smoke. Vapor produce a mist, like a kettle produces steam. Tobacco burns and chemically emits at least 4000 compounds, 40 of which are carcinogens. A cloth put over the spout of a kettle dampens and dries to a show no residue. Put your mouth to a tissue and blow out smoke from a cigarette- brown residue that does not go away.

So let us dream and ask ourselves- exposed to nicotine all his life and probably for 10 years prior to conception, why would a person like me not be helped by this product. And since it is the particulate smoke that lingers in the bronchioles in a maelstrom of carcinogenic material, how is an e-cigarette not a better and more appropriate choice?

Associating vaping with smoking is comparing Utah Basketball to European Rugby. They have a ball, but that is about the only association.

Ban e-cigarette sales to minors, there isn’t much interest anyway. Ban smoking, as an ex-smoker I am in awe of the pungent and lingering odors. But vaping has not been shown to be an entry drug to smoking, it is not the evil empire of tobacco- it is an exit from the tobacco smoking habit. Vapor is rapidly dissipating and not smoke.

And since it was not developed by a Pharmaceutical Company or Big Tobacco, those lobbies oppose them because they were a grass root industry that has formed to help millions across the globe and are more interested in the empathic elimination of smoking, harm reduction and choice.

When we dream of what is not obvious, find a solution and experience the amazing heath changes, we ask “Why not”. When we see there are no toxins and no particulate smoke, we ask “Why not”. When we see it is again American (borrowed from China) ingenuity and the American people seeking a solution to a problem that works for many more than FDA approved replacements, it is then we ask why, why eliminate a product that is less toxic to all. The presence of vapers in public is an enticement for smokers to be exposed to a possible and most probably less harmful agent. Like me they just might try it. With Boston’s Department of Health stating they are 98-99% less toxic than cigarettes, think of the gains.

And the thought of being segregated with smokers in a designated area, is this not placing me in a harmful and toxic environment, the exact point the bill is attempting to free others of experiencing?

Equating vapor and smoke is not science and is not accurate, and accuracy is what leadership is all about. Dream, be leaders and ask, as RFK did- WHY NOT?

ECIGS OCCUPY WALL STREET

2012-03-02T21:15:00.000-07:00

[italics my own]

This article was gleaned from the internet and is unfortunately typical of the focus that is being exaggerated with little proof that a concern, other than the general moral dilemma of minors accessing electronic cigarettes, that is more emotion than reality. In a Wall Street Journal Article Mike Esterl this is unfortunately again the litany of the electronic cigarette foes that is eschewed.

E-Cigarettes Draw Fire From Legislators -- Limits Sought on Nicotine-Mist Devices; Users Say They Eliminate Secondhand Smoke and Help Break Tobacco Addiction

2 March 2012

There's no smoke, but there's plenty of fire.

A growing number of states are taking aim at electronic cigarettes in the absence of federal regulations, intensifying a public-health debate over the fast-growing alternative to traditional cigarettes.

Lawmakers in more than half a dozen states from Arizona to New York have introduced legislation this year that would prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes to minors. Bills in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi and Utah would extend smoking bans in public areas to include e-cigarettes, and politicians in other states have proposed special taxes and halting Internet sales.

[Interesting the point made regarding taxes and bans. A comment in the Utah house included You Tube as one of their sources for information.]

The activity comes as more Americans turn to the battery-powered tubes, which turn nicotine-laced liquid into a vapor mist that is inhaled. Annual sales of e-cigarettes in the U.S. have grown to between $250 million and $500 million since arriving from China five years ago, according to industry estimates. That still represents a sliver of the roughly $100 billion U.S. tobacco market.

A survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicated 2.7% of U.S. adults had tried e-cigarettes by 2010, up from 0.6% a year earlier.

Anti-smoking groups seeking tight regulations on e-cigarettes say not enough is known about their health effects and that scientific studies are scant. They also say e-cigarettes are more likely to attract youth because they come in flavors like chocolate, cherry and pina colada.

[Anti-smoking groups are quite aware of the scant evidence of any direct harm from electronic cigarettes. They are quite aware of the dangers of combustible tobacco and the difference between the two, yet do not see the risk/benefit ratios for reduction of harm. 4000+ chemicals are produced in the combustion of tobacco, 50-60 of them known carcinogens. Nicotine is not one of the carcinogens. Nicotine is a plant alkaloid, where are the ban tomato and eggplant outcries as they are nicotine sources? The FDA approved smoking cessation patches and gums contain trace levels of carcinogens at about the same of slightly higher that of e-liquids. Words are everything! Look at this line from a Nature article (1) http://www.nature.com/nrc/journal/v3/n10/fig_tab/nrc1190_F1.html

Nicotine and carcinogens can also bind directly to some cellular receptors, leading to activation of the serine threonine kinase AKT (also known as protein kinase B), protein kinase A (PKA) and other factors. This, in turn, can result in decreased apoptosis, increased angiogenesis and increased cell transformation. Tobacco products also contain tumor promoters and co-carcinogens, which could activate protein kinase C (PKC), activator protein 1 (AP1) or other factors, thereby enhancing carcinogenesis.

[Bias is the inclusion of personal views, agendas and sometimes the unconscious inference of association. Note the paragraph starts with, "Nicotine and carcinogens..., association with words but not data. The carcinogens are in the combustible products of smoking, vaping is not smoke. In the diagram associated with the above link the figure gives the implied message that nicotine becomes the carcinogen. Nicotine should be replaced by the word smoke. Back to the article.]

In 2009, the Food and Drug Administration warned that e-cigarettes may pose health risks after its laboratory analysis of samples detected carcinogens and toxic chemicals. The agency said in April it planned to regulate e-cigarettes as a tobacco product, but it has yet to issue its proposal. It could be several more months or even years before federal rules are implemented.

"It's a very serious and important issue. We obviously need to learn more about potential health benefits and risks of novel products," said Lawrence Deyton, director of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products. He added the agency is moving "expeditiously" to propose e-cigarette regulations.

[Again the vials of 2009, with trace amounts of diacetyl (within the FDA's) own standards. This is never left out of any article that needs to associate electronic cigarettes with cancer. No further studies have been done and the trace carcinogens are again in league with the FDA approved replacement agents. Can we move on to science. One shot analysis is not scientific research or following the scientific method]

E-cigarette users -- so-called vapers -- and some health experts are urging regulators to tread lightly. They say e-cigarettes help nicotine addicts quit more harmful traditional cigarettes, which release most of the toxins that cause disease through combustion, and eliminate the problem of secondhand smoke.

"We finally found something that worked; we quit smoking, and they want to ban it," said Elaine Keller, president of the nonprofit Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association, a consumer group that has received funding from e-cigarette companies but is mainly supported by e-cigarette users.

"To put some sort of major obstacle in the way of its use would be really unfortunate," said Michael Siegel, a professor at Boston University School of Public Health.

[Slight breath of fresh air, and even quotes CASAA]

Dr. Siegel said inhaling propylene glycol, a respiratory irritant found in e-cigarettes, represents a major health concern. But he also noted the FDA's initial 2009 test and more than a dozen industry-commissioned lab studies indicate e-cigarettes have far fewer carcinogens or toxins and at far lower levels than traditional cigarettes, which are linked to an estimated 443,000 deaths a year.

Even e-cigarette companies support some regulation of an industry that has sprouted hundreds of start-up brands but still lacks standardized oversight. Although a growing number of brands such as NJOY and blu Cigs can be found at major retailers like 7-Eleven, Walgreens and Wall-Mart, many are sold exclusively over the Internet. Since they aren't taxed like traditional cigarettes, e-cigarettes can cost half as much, according to some estimates.

While they support age restrictions, the companies say their products shouldn't be cordoned off like traditional cigarettes or taxed at similar rates.

"We don't believe they are analogous in terms of their impact on society," said Craig Weiss, president of Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Sottera Inc., which owns the NJOY brand.

Lawmakers in Hawaii have moved to ban the sale of e-cigarettes to minors. But they backtracked last month on taxing the products at the same rate as traditional cigarettes after receiving more than 1,000 written submissions, many from e-cigarette users opposing the measure.

In Vermont, state Rep. Bill Frank has introduced a bill that would ban the sale of e-cigarettes to those under 18 years of age and make Internet-based sales punishable by up to five years of imprisonment. "If you're going to get kids hooked on nicotine, they're going to be smoking," Mr. Frank, a Democrat, said.

[And that's the fact Jack! Mr. Frank appears to have implied the e-cigarette is an entry level agent. We as of yet have seen evidence that the e-cigarette is an attractant of the youth (even pina colada). But under 18 or 19 consumption is not supported by venders or those that have switched]

Senators in Utah are weighing a House-approved bill that would extend bans on smoking in public areas to e-cigarettes. New Jersey already has such a law in place, as do some cities, including Boston and Seattle. Many anti-smoking groups say e-cigarettes, which often look like traditional cigarettes, spark confusion in nonsmoking areas, undermining bans.

[Undermining bans.... why is it always a way to circumvent cigarette use. Bias]

"I would rather err on the side of caution," said state Rep. Susan Westrom, a Democrat who sponsored a similar bill in Kentucky, a major tobacco producer. She thinks too little is still known about e-cigarettes.

[And of course since there are significant issues with the multitude of personal stories that are evident in people who could not stop the known carcinogenic cigarette and have switched to e-cigarettes- and reported significant improvements in their self perception of their health. Err to caution- 400,000 deaths per year and no significant change with billions of dollars that go to Pharma for replacement therapies... insanity defined in a new way, ban a promising agent that may help. 70% of smokers want to quit... many cannot. Many do with e-cigarettes, some to abstinence, some to no nicotine vaping. Nice article, at least it included 2 paragraphs from real experts]

Real Life Episodes in Vaping

2012-01-06T03:42:00.001-07:00

It is not unusual to see one person vape or one person berate you for some untrue and mythical quote straight out of FDA "facts".

But to have three in one day is a beautiful thing, so much that I gave one of the three a new Boge atty and a charged 650 mah battery and told him about Route 66, our local vapor who seems to delight in kiosk rebuking.

The first was at work, a new hire who was just gawking at my joy ego. I talked to him and sent him to one of three online sites that we will talk about in the morning. Wanted to know what a Pearveeriw was sic). Suggested to start with a different mod and we'll go over options. Beginning to feel like an AA sponsor.

The second was a good Samaritan using her Iphone to locate the class that they had changed room numbers today. Nothing like being 30 minutes for your first class. We were sitting on the steps outside one of the buildings (my Blackberry won't work on their email. I pulled out my ego-T and she said, where did you get that, all I ever use comes from a convenience store or Walgreens. I had an extra tank and tip and gave here that to puff on while she looked up the unforsaken hall- which turned out to be 2 minutes across the street, but 20 minutes because there is a fence that runs 2 miles to keep the students from Jay Walking.Suggested three websites, which she googled on her Iphone and bought a Halo kit for 70 dollars less than the equivalent in the kiosk.

Best of all as I was walking to my class, I was puffing on the ego-T and a University Policeman stopped me and told me to put the cigarette out (College has select smoking areas that seem to be placed near dumpsters and the like). I told him it was not smoke but vapor and that it was free of the toxic levels of carcinogens. I told him I could put it away, but not out. He started asking me what they were and pulled out a Marlboro Red ( the benefit of being a King you know). I t0ld him to try an e-cig, and gave him joy ego and one of my new cartos. I had Papa Smurf and Home made green tea. He was impressed and offered me a ride across campus- really one mile down and one mile back by fence. I left the ego, my ice tea DIY and the atty by mistake in his campus cop car. He was right there in front of the building my class was in to return it with 1/2 the juice gone. Told him about a couple places, but to keep the atty and battery, Told him to check out route 66 and that I was here Tuesdays and Thursdays. 10 to one he will be there to return them. Wanted some more of the ice tea and if 20 was enough for a 15 ml bottle. I told him 5 ml for 3, and I'd bring him a couple flavors some time. He looked like the cat that had eaten the canary.

I wasn't late for class anyway- they moved it back 45 minutes.

Nice feeling to meet vapors spontaneously. He also said they were thinking of banning the hiring of smokers at the Hospital where he moonlights.

I don't think he will be very active against vapors.

I just feel blessed and inspired. Nice day to all I hope and keep your eye on CASAA!

Now if I could just get the Major of Indianapolis to cooperate......

Marion County- e-cigarettes are Not Smoke

2012-01-04T22:55:00.000-07:00

"Some men see things as they are and ask “Why?”. I dream things that never were and ask, “Why not?" –Robert F. Kennedy. (Paraphrasing his brother JFK).

Canadian Ecigarette Hockey Results

2012-01-04T02:55:00.000-07:00

Hockey Scores- Calgary Alberta:

E-Cig All stars 4- Health Canada 0

In one of the most intriguing and unexpected results of the day the E-Cigarette All-Stars crushed Health Canada in a game broadcast on:

The Rob Breakenridge Show on CHQR AM radio in Calgary.

His guest was Jesse Kline, author of the article E-smoke'em if you got them a boldly written history and expose of Health Canada's stance on the E-cigarette. CHQR aired the talk show subject last night with three callers all expressing their gratitude for quitting combustible and carcinogen laden cigarettes for the e-cigarette, a product that produces a nicotine vapor that has drastically changed the lives of countless former cigarette users- and from their standpoint for the better. The text of the article is linked below. Mr. Breakenridge did a thorough job of questioning and exploring the actions (or more appropriately deemed the inaction of Health Canada in addressing an issue they put on the table in 2009).

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/02/jesse-kline-e-smoke-em-if-you-got-em/

In the segment aired 1/2/2012 entitles, Why Won't Health Canada Allow E-Cigarettes? Mr Breckenridge posed straight and direct questions to Mr. Klein about the

real issues of why this method of nicotine use was being undermined in a country which is thought to be a leader among prevention of disease and harm reduction. In his interview he talked openly with Mr. Klein about the question of why Health Canada would not allow adults to use a product that is tobacco, but in a means that is safer (his words) than smoking. He opened up with the significant differences between the e-cigarette and the smoked tobacco.

Link to podcast http://www.qr77.com/Station/Episodes.aspx?PID=1022

Major points:

Health Canada is taking no action except to prevent the import of nicotine into the country.
It has gone after, through the RCMP's (short form Mounties), producers in Canada and shut them down.
The e-cigarette device is not illegal and 0 nicotine juices are legal.
He points out that there is a high revenue base from taxation of cigarettes that may be diluted by this product.
Demonizing of cigarettes is evident in Canada yet the harm reduction potential of the e-cigarette have been neglected. The patches and gums just do not have the same feel for the smoker and with the advent of a product that seems to mimic smoking nothing except active government resistance is evident.
On one hand the government is taking measures to stop smoking but is hooked on the tobacco money and does not want to go all the way.
Klein reports that the electronic cigarette is used as a replacement method as opposed to the patch that is looked upon as a short term quit.
His conclusion is that the incentive for the government of Canada is not for this to become a real option from a revenue standpoint.

Several callers (not on the podcast) expressed views that this has been helpful and life changing. Greg commented on the effects on health and re-emphasized the illusion that this is somehow not a change in the smoker's world. Another caller related that he had slowly transitioned over several months to e-cigarettes with health benefits, but that he related it to a replacement for the cigarette that he felt was beneficial. The last caller Kristin related that there was evidence of safety, that there was a group CASAA (cassa.org) that was actively involved in attempting to get truthful information about the product,

Overall this was a phenomenal interview with a glimpse into the politics of money verses the general good of the Canadian. It focused on the ability of adults to purchase carcinogen filled tobacco and yet not obtain a harm reduction product.

Read the article, listen to the podcast, and sit back- smoker, e-cigarette user or nonsmoker and judge for yourself the real reason tobacco is smokeable but nicotine not vapable.

Then try to think of a good reason for these not to be available.

Good job Mr. Breakenridge, smashing article Mr. Klein and excellent viewpoints by the callers.

My thoughts- in the next Tobacco Harm Reduction Blog.

MERRY CHRISTMAS- IT'S FOR ATHEISTS TOO

2011-12-25T15:20:00.000-07:00

McCarthyism for the Klan of theists.

The post at right is from Face book with names and the faces removed.

I have seen similar threads from ANTZ posts, but this is Christmas, and this is a recent post.

A very good illustration of the diversity of belief systems. The Muslim sects that take jihad to an extreme are unfortunately how many view Islam. Would not this portrayal of Christianity or the Jewish faith, paganism, rastafarianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism (just threw that in because I love the sound), The Deity based South American Shamanistic beliefs send the same message to others that all members were radical zealots?

The concept of God is plentiful in H(h)is or H(h)er interpretation and expression. The core to almost every religion humankind has adopted is an attempt to explain the unexplainable and give a meaning to death and life.

Merry Christmas- whether Christian or not- is a time of joy and family.

In the New York Times an article declared "God Is Dead" appeared and is dated March 24, 1968. One could say that is true again, in metaphor. God is increasingly moving from the spiritual concept of the Creator, Director, Embracer, Forgiver, and final place of rest after death (those who believe in reincarnation or other endpoints of course are included in the concept) to a textual man written directive. The spiritual belief, written to convey a concept, is becoming a reason to be right and to make non-followers somehow evil and threatening.

I had a very learned friend with a non-religion based Doctorate, who was a devout Southern Baptist say to me, "It says in God We Trust- there is no godhead or Allah or Earth Mother crap- it says God."

Marshall McLuhan is known for coining the expression "the medium is the message". This is a concept that is often misinterpreted as saying the facts are seen as presented and may be biased by language and frame of reference. Albeit this is correct, it is not the intent of the cultural viewpoint of McLuhan, who was a Canadian who wrote profusely in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. He is saying that the actual factual material presented is a sign of the way society, which he foresaw as becoming a "global village", interprets the world. Thus the cultural setting of what is portrayed is really a mixture of what is occurring and the time frame in which it occurs. One can be concrete in thinking and define God as the biblical entity- hence my friend's interpretation, or one can take the stance that God is a metaphor for all forms of interpretation of a common good, a common spiritual ideal that is inherently just and comes from the accumulation of ideas of the global village. In this stance an atheist would look at "In God We Trust" as acceptable in its meaning as the metaphor of God could include scientific studies, the Big Bang and Darwin.

The recent 99% vs 1% of the Occupy [insert locale] movement illustrates the unfortunate splitting of societal and individual views of the world. If 1% of a religious sect is fanatical and poses perverse means of dealing with non-believers, the medium elects them as their model for the global village's interpretation of that sect.

Yet look at the parallels- Lent a traditional Christian time of fasting, Ramadan is a month of fasting, Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippur is 10 days of fasting ending in a day of atonement, Imbolc in Wikkan is awaiting the coming of light (as you interpret this)... These are all times of spiritual reflection, fasting, reflection on belief and attempts to reconcile behaviours with beliefs. All end in some celebration of "faith" or hope. Even atheists have been defined scholarly as not without religion. Their (and I have been a full fledged atheist in periods of my life), let me say my beliefs at that time were that religion was man made and exploitative (inquisition, jihad, holocaust) of differences to obtain power. As I would ask my Muslim brother to understand my celebration now, so should I understand his and accept his. And if agnostic- understand that they are just people. As said in Deteriorata- whether your God is a Cosmic Muffin or Hairy Thunderer- I am not to judge, I can evangelize- but as is in the core of most religious systems- take your beliefs and share them, conversion is the will of the one with whom you speak.

Not all Christians, Muslims, Jews, Pagans, Atheists and so on are fanatics. Unfortunately the ones that get the press usually are extremes. There are have been true spiritual beings that cross all religions that teach through their actions- Gandhi, Pope John Paul II, Jesus, Abraham (Jewish, Islam and Christian traditions share his teachings in their basic texts), Mother Teresa, St. Augustine, St. Francis, the Shaman I spent a day with in Ecuador, Muhammad, Buddha, Lao Tse, Jimmy Carter (amazing man that I have gone to Plains, Ga several times to hear his Sunday School teachings- and that was in my Unitarian/atheistic/science is God time)... and many others.

And of course there are social values that one religious viewpoint may accept and another frown upon. Stem cell research, social dress, eating of certain foods and many others. We do not condemn the stance, it is their stance and one they may follow. The problem arises when interpretations are turned into sanctifications from a religious group and passed into the lives of others as law. My God says this so you, who do not follow my belief system, must do this.

Welcome war and political beverage parties.

Not all Muslims are bin Ladens, all Christians Cardinal Richelieus, all Jews Judas (albeit he may be the most misunderstood person in history and one rendition of his betrayal is that of martyrdom at the request of Jesus).

Hilliary Clinton spoke of the global village- which she stole from McLuhan. Al Gore of the Web, which was developed at CERN but first postulated 30 years earlier by McLuhan. Andy Warhol's famous line that we all will have our 15 minutes of fame is a McLuhan paraphrase.

The place, the idea, the action, the groundwork of the belief and the historical precedents to that belief are all part of the message's reception.

So Merry Christmas- if it upsets you, I apologize but I respect your opinion. I will gladly dance with you at Summer Solstice, aid a pilgrim on his way to Mecca or follow the Jaguar with my Shaman spiritual advisor. But with Christmas be merry with my joy and the meaning behind the celebration. I am not asking all to share a belief, only to share that it is important to me.

As for politically being correct- in a true global village that word would be historically incorrect, but then we have yet to evolve to that point as a world community.

To put it in simple terms- we are at a beginning, always at a beginning. We are also at an ending and at a middle point, it depends on how we see each other and more importantly ourselves.

Rage, rage before the dying of the light

2011-12-18T14:05:00.000-07:00

Why is this man happy?

He's come to believe that that mankind is his business.
He has survived a night of self reflection and been transformed
He has discovered the true meaning of Christmas
All of the above

All of the above (4) is correct.

So, bring on the spirits, I am losing faith in humanity,

The most reported "factual data" seen today in e-cigarette ban material:

Authorities don't necessarily know what's inside of e-cigarettes, but the FDA tested a small sample just a few years ago and found a number of toxic chemicals including diethylene gylcol - the same ingredient used in antifreeze.

at least we won't freeze.
sub clinical and below FDA allowable limit
did you know that dihydrogen oxide is also in those sample. If frozen it can cause severe injury if slipped on and if ingested in large amounts causes severe problems.

The American Lung Association issued its own warning about e-cigarettes. “This is a buyer stay away, a buyer health hazard, potentially."

The great associations love to shroud their data with, Maybes, mights, could. untested
Make statements like Dr. Mike Feinstein, a spokesman for the American Lung Association said, “People are inhaling some type of chemical vaporized compound into their lungs without really knowing what's in it.
You could ask?
Micheal Greens states, "He says with no real data on e-cigarettes, the three-year-old tobacco alternative may actually be more harmful that traditional cigarettes. "The doses of nicotine that you get could conceivably be higher than what you would get in a typical cigarette."
Another "could" word-- and didn't early studies point to lower nicotine
"May" also a used

The first clinical trial that looked at e-cigs, published in BMC Public Health, concluded that “the e-Cigarette can help smokers to remain abstinent or reduce their cigarette consumption. By replacing tobacco cigarettes, the e-cigarette can only save lives. Here we show for the first time that e-Cigarettes can substantially decrease cigarette consumption without causing significant side effects in smokers not intending to quit.”

Noto bore- no coulds, shoulds or maybes.
The word "can help" is used.
This is a study, not a speculation based on personal opinion.

Yet personal experience is a valid and fairly reasonable method for the finding of fact in the e-cig landscape. Listen to the stories of vapors who have gone through years of attempting to stop inhaling the carcinogenic products of the combustible cigarette. The cold turkey failures, the Chantix horror stories and the plethora of patch and gum litanies are their history. The e-cigarette revolution is at hand and the use of these devices is skyrocketing. It's like this is the App for smoking cessation.

Why is old Scrooge smiling- because he has been transformed overnight into a person who feels the glory of success and the freedom from bondage to the cylinder of tobacco doom.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if the misers of the FDA could see the light- that the ingenuity of people have provided a solution that addresses am issue of such dramatic importance.

Are there no NRT's, are there no support groups.
Why must a government entity always seem to need to shut the door on the public good?

What ever happened to the notion of American ingenuity, freedom to engage in personal ventures for the public good and the ability to assume a moderate risk?

Congress and bureaucratic minions, the FDA.

This was spelled out beautifully by a friend in a letter to Congress:

Another area where congress can “flip the switch” to shut off micro-managing people’s lives is in the area of smoking. A relatively new product to hit the marketplace is the e-cig. This electronic device allows people the option of inhaling vapor rather than tobacco smoke. The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) has put up a roadblock under the guise that this product (known to be 1000 times safer than inhaling smoke!) is untested. The real reason for the ban is that this increasingly popular product threatens the loss of millions of dollars in cigarette taxes, taxes that have been ostensibly increased to discourage smoking.

And the band played on. Ball of confusion. That's where the world is today.

The experts know nothing of the vapor and the relief, they see the world through punitive eyes that fill their coffers with money to appease their constituents.

Is their a way to change the minds of the Nanny State of America?

Hopefully there is, and it lies in the vocal power of the masses.

Go to CASAA.org, join, read the Calls to Action and write your Congressman and Senators
Use CASAA's direction.
Sign the petition at: http://actsmoking.epetitions.net/sign_petition.php
Keep informed and keep informing your leaders of the benefits of this product from personal experience.

The pundits with their maybes and coulds are forcing false information into the face of the public.

IOM- what the f---

2011-12-17T07:58:00.001-07:00

How your Government Makes a Good Thing- Bad

2011-12-17T02:11:00.001-07:00

There is a remarkable opportunity, a choice for tobacco users that cannot quit. Smokeless tobacco products are available to consumers. What a great opportunity for death cessation from pulmonary disease. What an opportunity for Anericans who cannot quit! What an opportunity for the FDA.

This is not what is evolving.

The FDA is going to do nothing research wise, not their style. They will await the BT research and ENDS proposal. They will expect the usual trials, clinical research and proof it is better than NRT's on market- or different. BT and Pharma will market as prescription medications in non-refillable (Nicotrol inhaler) cartridges with an approved ENDS. As time evolves there will be the same loosening of Rx status, like Nicorette and it will be available at your local Wal-Mart pharmacy. BT will do same research with slightly different and more secure ENDS that will be marketed as a cigarette replacement at similar prices. There is no interest in freedom, personal choice- there is paperwork and bean counters.

And to the IOM, you are lily livered pompous higher than mighty murderous charlatans. You did not think of this, are embarrassed that it is so successful and won't admit it so in the name of science you will violate your Hippocratic Oath and murder a multitude of humans unnecessarily to save face. Are we grinning ear to ear at the grant money that will come from this that will be spent on brilliant ideas such as nicotine reduced tobacco or vaccinations that will produce another host of Guianne Barre reactions, anaphylaxis and increased carditoxicity as smokers quadruple their tobacco intake to overcome the vaccine's nicotine binding antibodies. It is obvious that there is a belief system inherent in this esteemed organization that tobacco dependence is a willful addiction.

The research community, the IOM and ALA/ACA seem to believe that lung cancer is fear enough to stop smokers.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Bias is obvious, selectivity of investigation apparent and as such you have nothing to gain by exploring vaping or SNUS.

AN EYE FOR AN EYE LEAVES US BOTH BLIND. It is just that vapors did nothing except find an alternative that appears safer. Your vanity and arrogance is obvious.

May you sleep soundly in your beds at night, please do not trip over the poor souls you are dooming to an early demise and by all means put the effort in prevention and saving the children.

At first do no harm. Interpret these words as they are, not as you want them to be.

I suggest you stock up on hand sanitizers and soft soap- they're will be a lot of blood on your hands.

Thankyou Andy Rooney

2011-11-06T19:02:00.002-07:00

Andy Rooney died at the ripe old age of 92. Just found out. Always wondered what he would say about vaping....something like.

You know when I was growing up I had a smoke here and one there. They didn't really do much for me, especially after my Aunt Emily caught George Franklin and me behind the woodshed puffing on granddad’s corn cob pipe. Still can feel that hickory to this day. We didn't think much of cigarettes then, they were just something people did. Somewhere in World War II some scientist noticed that people who smoked died faster. I don't know his name, don't know if he smoked, but he sure put up a ruckus that's with us today.

Used to be real sophisticated to smoke, movie stars, smoke filled rooms that solved the world’s problems.

Maybe that's why the world has so many more problems, people don't have anything to do with their hands anymore, and the Chinese ambassador can't bum a fag from the American consulate. Fag- that what the British call them. Funny those Brits they can get away with words that will put you in jail in the US. Maybe that's why they didn't fight too hard to get this colony back; they knew the kind of people that left Britain to settle here.

Nowadays it's quit smoking and live longer. We have gums and patches, bans and second, third and probably before long fourth and fifth hand smoke. And the world still smokes on.

Then there was this guy Eddie over at CBS that was carrying around a black metal stick and blowing out smoke. He called it vaping, said it was not smoke and he had stopped cigarettes and only used these now. Had nicotine and something that sounded like what my mother used to rub on her elbows to get the callouses off them, Vegetable something. He said it didn't burn anything just made a vapor and he avoided all the carcinogens.

I asked him which tobacco company had come up with this and he said none of them, it was a Chinese guy first (probably said fag to the wrong guy and didn't want to get embarrassed again) and now there were millions of people not smoking, just vaping. The President even used one, didn't get him anything but tabloid pictures.

I thought to myself when medical science and the government fail, it's the little guy that always finds the solution. Well since then everybody and his brother that were on the anti-tobacco bandwagon have been trying to regulate and eliminate these electronic cigarettes. They are going to make a lot of scientists and bureacrats rich or famous making names for themselves taking Eddies way of quitting what he called analogues (sounds better than fags to me) away from him.

That is the American way now. When I was a kid you found a way to get something to help yourself, like the day I realized Mr. Parson had apple trees that he didn't want the fruit from and I could gather as many as I wanted- that was hog heaven. Now if you find something that makes it safer according to Boston Department of Public Health they start talking about experts needing to prove it safe and that it might be dangerous.

Whatever happened to American ingenuity? Whatever happened to being responsible for your own health? It just all amazes me.

Eddie sure looks and sounds better.

My take on it, the government didn't think of it first. I hope that Eddie doesn't have to go back to those smoking again.

If he did I'd have to go cut a hickory branch, but I doubt I'd be going after him... who is the head of the FDA now. I want to know just in case.

Primum non nocere- Harm Reduction

2011-09-07T00:04:00.000-06:00

Primum non nocere or first do no harm.

It is a double entendre that was derived from the collective wisdom of Hippocrates and was frequently spoken of such by Wm. Osler, MD in his foundation of modern medicine. It is actually meant, as I was taught, purposefully to be ambiguous. The doctor-patient-disease relationship was primitive before Osler. His great strive in medicine was to take his students, not to the dissection rooms, but to their bedside. He intentionally believed that the patient would reveal to you both his disease and his symptoms.

The modernization of medicine has brought a new and fierce interpreter of the maxim- the malpractice lawyer. Albeit at times a necessary evil, the art of medicine has been forever weakened by over scrupulous interpretations of physician patient rights and decisions made in the context of that relationship.

The true nature of medicine is based on prevention and harm reduction tactics. Hippocrates original words would fit the Oslerian Model.

To do no harm was in my early days of practice- to evaluate the nature of the complaint and in conjunction with the patient's presentation, to come to a consensus on the best, not always the safest route of care. Take chemotherapy- it may prolong life or be curative- but it causes a degree of harm (hair loss, infection that might shorten a patient's life) but also the art of medicine gives the suffering hope, a better lifestyle and a continued sense of being a part of life and not on a rapid path to death.

What has perverted the patient-doctor co-decision making process is the loss of a once understood notion that medical practice had its risks, the patient knew these risks and that the patient accepted the healer as a person working with all his might to decrease suffering, came from several sources.

1. As Medicine entered the 20th Century, so did the industrial revolution and the notion of profit and regulation.

2. Medical judgment become more scrutinized- not a bad thing in itself, but healing through bedside observation and discussion of a patient's desires, changed to a test result and medication therapies.

3.The country doctor who made house calls and knew his patient, often from birth to late life, was supplanted by specialists and home care or care in the doctors own hospital was replaced by large hospitals, often with profit motives.

4. The individual physician and his manner of care became regulated and standardized- most often by non-medical bureaucrats, the drug became the healer and the physician the dispenser.

5. Former patent medicine companies became pharmaceutical companies, and officially the art of medicine shifted from the hands on approach to the tail wags the dog antics of the now expanding Big Pharma.

6. The barter system of medicine with outcome and relationship more important than payment was lost to the cost of treatment and a new breed of physician that evolved as cities grew and people and authorities demanded perfection.

7. Big Pharma grew and as their profits increased their influence on medical practice accelerated.

8. Medical care became expensive. Regulations increased. And the FDA was born.

9. Societal belief that medicine would stop death increased physician pressures to go to any lengths to prevent that death.

10. The atheism of medicine arose and the notion that death and side effects was doctor based changed the Dr. Patient relationship forever. Malpractice suits rose as the practice of you only pay the lawyer if you win evolves.

11. With the advent of insurance and unregulated cost we see the onset of Big Pharma supported FDA oversight of what they wished to have investigated became hugely profitable.

12. Medicine is no longer physician based; it is fear and protect yourself based. Medicine is technology based instead of patient based.

13.The notion of errors of omission and commission blur and the average MD spends as much, if not more of his or her time creating protective paper trails and reading lab and scan reports.

14. Hospitals begin to direct how care is provided, insurance companies say when where and how much and Pharma and the FDA what can be used.

15. And as costs rise, so does the nature of care change. The doctor is replaced by the group, paraprofessionals and care begins to be directed not at quality, but at quantity of life.

The ideal of at first do no harm now changes in definition. Harm goes from do not prolong suffering and listen to your patient's needs to Morbidity and Mortality reports that base success and failures on statistical and cost outcomes.

The patient becomes a number in a statistical paper put out weekly.

Oh there were those that ranted against the dehumanization of Medicine- Kublai-Ross, the resurgence of the Family Practice movement and evidence based medicine.

So back to Hippocrates paraphrased- physician do no harm. It is dualistic. Do not stop a patient from using snake oil if it helps reduce symptoms and has no evidence of increasing harm over other treatments. At times doing nothing is the best medicine, but most of all the dualistic thoughts of Osler. The patient will tell you what he has and needs. Listen to him, observe her and intervene if harm is evident.

This is where the ANTZ get us. A single finding that is perhaps indicative of a problem and publish it as factual and repeated ad nauseum... They take one vial with DEG and condemn the use of all e-cigarettes. Yet they eat their Big Macs and double the fries.

They strut some women with a lung cancer not associated with smoking out on stage as a victim of her parents smoke filled rooms.

Hippocrates would roll in his grave.

Why is this idea of at first do no harm an important idea- it speaks of duality. Smoking kills, vaping is in reality an unknown- but when one sees is that the vapor feels better. He may still say it is not fully researched, but it is doing something. That is harm reduction.

The "at first do no harm" edict driven into the heads of first year medical students is to say stop vaping, quit cigarettes and I'll see you in a year. That is harm that would be making decisions counter to the big picture. Don't smoke, quit or be gone from my practice. To those who cannot quit- the patch, gum, vaccines, or medications (like Chantix). Most curious is Chantix a drug with a black box warning, reminiscent of a coffin that is FDA approved despite deaths, mental illness and at times irreversible depression and suicide. Smokers are second hand citizens who kill babies in the womb. They have less value. The treatment fails. Cigarettes are legal and another potential survivor bites the dust

Osler would tell us that to know yourself is to better know your patient. He would say that if your patient is doing better-emotionally and physically and for fear of censorship or suit you tell them to quit vaping, then you are not listening to the patient you are projecting bias and fear and doing harm. At first do no harm means, do not mandate first and offer solutions second. Do not imagine anything as fixed truth-treat each individual as a person of needs different from any other. Do not stop the vaper from her untested system and condemn her to return to smoking.

To give her to smoking when the art of medicine gives alternatives that may be less harmful is harm. And then there is nicotine, a calming drug that increases attention span, may help in Alzheimer's disease and gives pleasure. Over 70% of schizophrenics smoke and if you ban smoking in psychiatric wards medication use elevates as do the symptoms of the disease. There is hope as evidence gathers to show nicotine itself is much less dangerous than smoking. The TSNA's in e-cigarettes are comparable to the patch. Oh the ANTZ will tell you of the dangers of second hand smoke and third and eventually 22nd hand smoke, so why do they detest smokeless tobacco. Let us hope, meditate, pray, or just think loudly that an amazing Grace settles in-----and those once were blind might see.

And to the doctor, nurse, counselor, priest, FDA, ANTZ, and WHO: look beyond the obvious, practice Oslerian and Hippocratic dualism- Primum non nocere- at first do no harm, at first understand, always seek healthier methods, accept risk and reduce it, be open, accepting and fear nothing but your inability to separate your own inbred idealizations from the truth of the universe. Smoking kills, Chantix kills, and driving kills bot to mention that the union of the sperm and egg that created you will eventually lead to your death.

As I said to my first interviewer when I applied to Medical School-when asked what I thought best defined life, I responded- it is a risk that we each manage every day of our life- but it is also a gift that we must share with others. The ill we give hope, the infirm of mind kindness and safety and those who have chosen paths we see as self-destructive empathy and as we paraphrase Hippocrates- we shall do them no harm. I would add now that we will endeavor not to judge them, not to stigmatize them, but to try to encourage a less harmful way even if it is not perfect.

10 years since 9-11

2011-09-02T03:02:00.003-06:00

10 Years since 9-11-2001

Our battles are for lives saved in our crusade

to promote Harm Reduction.

Those who forget History are

bound to repeat it.

It is soon to be the 10th anniversary of 9-11. I propose that at
12:11AM EASTERN DAYLIGHT TIME. 11:11AM CDT,
10:11AM MDT: 9:11AM PDT, 11:41AM Newfy Daylight TIME
And whatever it is in Hawaii- we hold a moment of vaping silence
for the memory of the victims, the brave
fireman and Policeman and the families affected. Then,
as my ancensters in Kerry Ireland and Skye Scotland would say
(except they would drink a pint of Guinness or
a wee liter of Glenlivit) Vape one wherever you are as a toast
to the freedom we have here- albeit the ANTZ are
trying to screw it. I will be at my desk at work. And if you
know someone in harms way take a good hit for them too. And for
our British friends- how about 10:11 GMT.

MAKE LOVE NOT WAR

MAKE VAPE NOT SMOKE

THR- WHAT IS THE FDA THINKING?

2011-08-28T15:36:00.000-06:00

A Wolf found great difficulty in getting at the sheep owing

to the vigilance of the shepherd and his dogs.  But one day

it found the skin of a sheep that had been flayed and thrown

aside, so it put it on over its own pelt and strolled down

among the sheep. The Lamb that belonged to the sheep, whose

skin the Wolf was wearing, began to follow the Wolf in the

Sheep's clothing; so, leading the Lamb a little apart, he

soon made a meal off her, and for some time he succeeded in

deceiving the sheep, and enjoying hearty meals.

	Appearances are deceptive.

The FDA has approved a Phase II-B study on 97% nicotine-free

cigarettes based on the following:

Dr. Hatsukami’s study compared the quitting efficacy of a VLN cigarette (containing 22nd Century’s proprietary VLN tobacco), an FDA-approved 4-mg nicotine lozenge, and a low nicotine cigarette (containing 30% of the nicotine of a typical cigarette) in a total of 167 patients treated for 6 weeks (Hatsukami et al. 2010). Point-prevalence abstinence at 6 weeks after the end of treatment was 47% for the group using the VLN cigarette, 37% for the nicotine lozenge group and 23% for the low nicotine cigarette group (p=.0357). Furthermore, the VLN cigarette was associated with greater relief of withdrawal from usual brand cigarettes than the nicotine lozenge. The protocol of 22nd Century’s upcoming Phase II-B clinical trial is similar to that of the University of Minnesota trial. Unlike the low nicotine cigarette, the VLN cigarette was not associated with compensatory smoking behaviors. By the end of the 6-week treatment period, patients in the VLN group (whether they quit or not) on average were smoking 12 VLN cigarettes per day, compared to a baseline of 19 cigarettes per day of their usual brand.

The pub-med abstract:

Abstract

AIMS:

To examine the effects of reduced nicotine cigarettes on smoking behavior, toxicant exposure, dependence and abstinence.

DESIGN:

Randomized, parallel arm, semi-blinded study. Setting University of Minnesota Tobacco Use Research Center.

INTERVENTIONS:

Six weeks of: (i) 0.05 mg nicotine yield cigarettes; (ii) 0.3 mg nicotine yield cigarettes; or (iii) 4 mg nicotine lozenge; 6 weeks of follow-up. Measurements Compensatory smoking behavior, biomarkers of exposure, tobacco dependence, tobacco withdrawal and abstinence rate.

FINDINGS:

Unlike the 0.3 mg cigarettes, 0.05 mg cigarettes were not associated with compensatory smoking behaviors. Furthermore, the 0.05 mg cigarettes and nicotine lozenge were associated with reduced carcinogen exposure, nicotine dependence and product withdrawal scores. The 0.05 mg cigarette was associated with greater relief of withdrawal from usual brand cigarettes than the nicotine lozenge. The 0.05 mg cigarette led to a significantly higher rate of cessation than the 0.3 mg cigarette and a similar rate as nicotine lozenge.

Conclusions:

Observed-

There is a major behavioral part in the act of smoking cessation.
0.03 (97% free) nicotine X-22 products were superior in a SEMI- blinded study.
Post endpoint there was a decrease in the number of X-22 cigarettes smoked in those who did not quit compared to pre-study smoking levels.

Questions-

Why is there an FDA study that is making the assumption that nicotine cessation is the issue.
Is it ethical to use a non-carcinogenic variable (nicotine) as a variable, when the true vectors of carcinogenicity are still part of the X-22.
Is it ethical to report the decrease from 19-12 cigs per day in the 0.03 mg group, it suggests that smoking less would be good and opens a potential message that these may be marketable as beneficial even if cessation does not occur.
Relapse rates- wonder what 3, 6, 9 month follow-ups were (not reported in a study about 2 years old.
Do the X-22 decreased nicotine cigs still have other alkaloids (MAOI active?). These alkaloids have been looked at as why a 2 day withdrawal time frame for pure nicotine is extended to much longer time when cigarettes are involved.

Insanity- We KNOW that tobacco combustion products are the source of carcinogenicity. It is not unexpected that levels of exposure to carcinogens would decrease if less tobacco is consumed.

What is the FDA doing running trials on smoking cessation with the variable nicotine delivered by a tobacco leaf product? Why would it not be more logical to use a tobacco free vehicle as the delivery system? Don't they look happy, reminds me of a 60's tobacco commercial... X-22, 22nd Century's PRESCRIPTION......................

AHHHH! Prescription based smoking cessation aid. Welcome back Pharma and Big Tobacco.

The wolf in sheep's clothing. Nicotine free tobacco (genetically engineered) and packaged to taste, smell and smoke like a cigarette. Prescription requirement will obviously make them very expensive. This appears to be tobacco cessation genocide.

Like lamb's to the slaughter-

This company is currently headquartered in Williamsville, N.Y., whose soccer team we crushed 8-0 back when I was in 12th grade.

Chantix: Could it be Satan, and the new xx22 nicotineless cigarette,

2011-08-25T03:58:00.000-06:00

The photo at the right represents a smoker at 50. It is of a person who had smoked one pack per day for 20 years. There is a slight hyperinflation, maybe- 5 of 9 radiologists stated that in a report that was published years ago in a journal that I am afraid I cannot quote. At least that is honesty, so if you like, go ahead and discount this part of the blog.

It is merely here to point out that the old familiar chest X-ray is a very poor indicator of early lung disease. It is just too nonspecific. If you see the tumor, you are fairly sure that the tumor is in its advanced stages. CT is better, but a recent study suggested that CT may actually increase the number of cancer deaths. 15-20% of all lung tumors are in non-smokers.

So why start a blog on Chantix with the Church Lady and a chest Xray? Because I like the chest X-ray and the Church Lady reflects the title.

Somewhere in the deep core of the mind- there is evolving an understanding of how we unconsciously relate images to:

self reflection
assessment of worth
and envisionment of future self.

There are researchers at the University of Michigan

(go Appalachian State!) who through imaging

techniques are looking at the role of this area in the

effectiveness of cigarette cessation ads. Iterestingly

this is also an area that is ablated when frontal

lobotomy is performed and may have a role in

Schizophrenia.

I would suggest that it also has a role in the effectiveness of pro-smoking material.

This area lights up on scan when a person is affected by a anti-tobacco ad. The follow-up to this is still in the works, but inferences that calming, cigarette ads may alter the envisionment of harm and lessen the cognitive perception of what tobacco does over time are an reasonable hypothesis. The shocking images on tobacco products may serve to affect some smokers through self reflection and envisionment of future harm.

CHANTIX (CHANTOX in my book)

So Chan(p)tix- where does this fit in. Chantix is varenicline, a weaker binding agent at the nicotine receptor and thus is intrinsically an ideal agent to alleviate cravings and displace nicotine, in a competative manner, and therefore decreasing smoking behaviors. It is called a partial agonist as it binds but does produce the brains expected response.

It also has a black box warning on the packaging matreial- risk of depression and suicidal thinking that are not always reversible and now increases cardiac risk 72% in users. It is a dangerous and pathological entity that has no data on population risk (except to put the burden on the doctor to screen for the their patient's mood and cardiac status.

THE POINT

Chantix is the Corvair of Ralph Nader fame.

MMMMMMM- could it be SATAN?

Or are smokers seen in the average ANTZ mentality as disposable. If any other drug had come out with the suicidal ideation and complication findings that Chantix has it would be hauled off the market immediately. Makes sense in the ANTZ mentality- save a few with it (because it does statistically work- barely) and if a few die to get a few off, it is the smoker's fault for picking up the nasty habit. If this were a diabetic or cardiac drug (see initial studies with citalopram and Hismanil), they would be removed for study. Chantix- it's for people who will die anyway. And of course the recent CNN report says; well it helps some, "I had a friend who tried everything else......" and that it seems to help some. So does nicotine.. it helps some people.

I took Chantix, and have been on antidepressants since. I hadn't been chronically before.

The superior race of ANTZ makes no suggestion that this is a problem. The main message is smokers are expendable.

NOW VERY LOW NICOTINE CIGARETTES

In its schizophrenic manner the XX22, a <5% vs marlboro nicotine content agent is being funded by the FDA for Phase IIb studies. Who just punched me in the head, support nicotine free cigarettes in a combustion based delivery system and you get tar and ash. The FDA is looking for a quick fix with solo control on outcome.The FDA has already stated that the tobacco smoke is dangerous. (More to come).

You just cannot argue with a mind fixated on safer cigarettes through the removal of nicotine. Those 4000 chemicals and carcinogens are still there.

What frightens me is not tobacco ads- it is having a significantly discriminatory bias against e-cigs and SNUS that is found in the agency leading the fight against tobacco using the term harm reduction and talking of risk related tobacco taxation (more later).

I'll leave it to the media to express my last point-

Network-the movie Peter Finch

John Cleese on extremism

And I am mad as hell, and extremists beware, your the partial agonists of truth. Multiple studies show e-cigs and SNUS are agents beneficial to the Harm Reduction effort. Drs. who remove their patients from nicotine only or reduced harm agents- you are practicing genocide in some of those you recommend they cease alternative nicotine sources or quit cold turkey.

Remember those who analyze everything they read, whether pro their cause or against their cause will learn from both. The ANTZ and the Harm Reduction Faction have their diehards. Every time you look in a mirror you see yourself as you believe other's see you, we must always remember that the image in the mirror is reversed- it is just a reflection and reflections reverse our features.

Gotta go, need to open a window and say a few words.

AS THEY SEE US

2011-08-24T21:21:00.001-06:00

Echolalia

2011-08-22T03:58:00.001-06:00

One of the greatest victories in science is when your competition can't do anything but recant ancient studies as their only means of validating their point. If I here the words:

Diethyl Glycol
Trace cancer causing agents.
We don't know how safe they are.
There are already nicotine replacement therapies for those who want to quit.
Chantix.
They need to be pulled of the market until we know they are safe.
Mights, possiblies, maybes and coulds.

in any article, paper, newsprint or health reporter's babblings- to word it lightly- I

will be using a large portion of their Cloud to respond.

First- I DO NOT PLAN IN THE NEAR FUTURE TO QUIT NICOTINE.

There I said it, may the tobacco temperance league choke on that line. I enjoy vaping. I enjoyed smoking. I am not planning on quitting. E-cigs were destigned to replace tobacco, not help me quit.

So give it up. If I have to I'll grow it myself (lived in N.C. it isn't that hard) and extract the nicotine myself (I wonder if they will spray my land with Paraquat or will I come up on the Power Company, "he's using too much power, must be growing something" list).

Right now there is a wonderful thing happening in vaping, there are organizations like the newly formed ATACA in Australia, CASAA in the USA and EUUC EK in Great Britain. These groups are the grassroots defenders of our freedom to use less toxic nicotine products. I was humbled and speechless sitting on a Skype call listening to their words, knowledge and bravery.

I listened to an ABC local broadcast on Vaping may be more dangerous than smoking. The only factual statement in the entire story was the Diethyl Glycol in one of 18 bottles of e-juice tested. All the experts said maybe's, could's, presumably and might be less safe. In that story they covered a woman whose Dr. had convinced a 1 year cigarette free vaper to toss out here equipment. If and when she smokes again the coffin nails were fashioned by ABC, her M.D. and the star health reporter.

With e-cigarettes, they don't kill- not one single death related to them. Minds that work this way kill. They look to ban them: completely, through bias and coverage obscura.

Ban e cigarettes as the chart at right predicts- 500 people who have to go back to the "safe alternative", smoking, will die daily. Journalistic murdering spinners of their anti-nicotine bias must get free lunches from the mortuary lobby.

And most experts will tell you nicotine is NOT the problem. It may not be the true alkaloid in tobacco that causes the prolonged withdrawal. That constant line about what is in e-cigs (PG, VG, Nicotine, flavouurng and water). Can you tell me what is in tobacco smoke- 60 known carcinogens and 4000 other chemicals. At least the one's in e-juice are FDA approved individually.

William Osler, MD who founded modern medicine emphatically stated, "of all else, at first do no harm."

That was 150 years ago. How much we have progressed.

And a special thanks for the magnificent recent Ashtray Blog of James Dunworth and his pictorial of the proposed global cigarette labeling changes. Look it up- it is real journalism.

So keep on being informed about the 1 of 18 samples with DEG below the federal toxicity level. That's the Echolalia of the anti's. Echolalia, a disorder where you here the same sound repeatedly.

HAMLET TO NICORETTE

2011-08-22T02:32:00.000-06:00

Hamlet's line, "there's special providence in the fall of a sparrow," relates well to courage and originates from a Biblical passage in the Book of Mark (read on, this is certainly not a sermon). relating an external force to the fate of any venture, decision, or action- be it successful or failure.

The course of vaping is in providential hands, and the proponents courageous people who walk forward into a battle that has already been declared by many as a resurgence of the Big Tobacco (BT) experiences of years back. BT was "busted" for suppressing data showing the harms of smoking and all of tobacco was guilty by association and became the scapegoat for all society's ills. The fall of BT's image after non-disclosure and frank suppression of data is possibly the greatest act of providence, we as vapors, have in our corner.

The ultimate result of the repugnant acts of BT was a mantra that has been repeated for our entire lives, tobacco is bad in any form. A fictional expo As a result we came to believe that the tobacco plant was inherently "unhealthy" and anyone who would use it (Einstein, Lincoln, Twain, the Kennedy's and J. R. R. Tolkien spring to mind) must be stupid, rebellious, evil, dirty, subhumans deserving a slow painful death after years of cancer and heart and lung disease. The smoker was a bane to society, exponentially increasing health care costs, spewing secondary smoke on our beloved children and polluting the earth with the byproducts of tobacco use, specifically filters that won't degrade and the clinging residue of the smoke that layers itself over surfaces.

But amazingly, the TRUTH has been sitting in plain sight for decades: At least 99% of the harms and risks and nuisances and deaths and diseases that are in any way related to tobacco use can be directly attributed to the direct or indirect hazards and byproducts of combustion.

In our community there is an open dialogue of this sort that leaves our comments and data open to public scrutiny. Even before the BT fall from grace, tobacco was seen in a negative light. Mark Twain wrote multiple lines about his experience with tobacco- far before the PM and other companies were even in the sights of the public. What we must realize was said well months ago by Sam Munro when he stated that he still considered himself a smoker. There is no shame in any label one places on oneself or is placed on one by others. Nor is there ant problem with taking the stand strongly that, "I am not a smoker, I vape." It is your internal frame of refeence, and your internal perception of vaping and smoking that is important individually. To consider yourself an ex-smoker when you are vaping is totally correct, to consider yourself a smoker when you only vape is also totally correct. There is a dualistic truth in this concept that is that special providence, that courage. The external world has already moved, if only slightly to see the difference. This is complicated by the visual similarities of smoking and vaping. The important idea here for my own perception is that time will be the test of the outcome of vaping and that we are the pioneers of this practice. It is not my business or care of your perception of whether vaping is a replacement, a change from or a separate form of smoking. What is important is transparency. What is important is that the true difference between the two be validated and spread widely. What is important is that there be unity among vapors in the eyes of the public.

This is not snake oil, it is a real and viable means of harm reduction when using nicotine. It is personal choice on how one obtains nicotine (smoking, gum, vaping), but it is not necessary to potentially argue over the terms we as vapors use to describe ourselves. the providential direction will be that of our work and our belief in the cause- evangelism through personal stories and the conveyance to others of our experience in the manner that Jesus (not preaching) sent forth his believers in small groups to share the message. So when someone says- I didn't know you smoked I reply, I don't- I vape. And from there the discussion and the teaching and the message evolves and is spread. Peace-vape on.

2011-08-11T08:21:00.001-06:00

The ultimate result of the repugnant acts of BT was a mantra that has been repeated for our entire lives, tobacco is bad in any form. A myth sprung from this that has taken a natural plant from the magical and wonderful substance Columbus and other early traveler's to the New World discovered, and one indigenous populations peereived as sacred or at least medicinal to an enslaving and evil entity. As a result we came to believe that the tobacco plant was inherently "unhealthy" and anyone who would use it (Einstein, Lincoln, Twain, the Kennedy's and J. R. R. Tolkien spring to mind) must be stupid, rebellious, evil, dirty, subhumans deserving a slow painful death after years of cancer and heart and lung disease. The smoker was a bane to society, exponentially increasing health care costs, spewing secondary smoke on our beloved children and polluting the earth with the byproducts of tobacco use, specifically filters that won't degrade and the clinging residue of the smoke that layers itself over surfaces.

Amazingly, the simple truth has been sitting in plain sight for decades: At least 99% of the harms and risks, nuisances, deaths and diseases that are in any way related to tobacco use can be directly attributed to the direct or indirect hazards and byproducts of combustion. The carcinogenic and destructive materials came from here

were even in the sights of the public. What we must realize was said well months ago by Sam Munro when he stated that he still considered himself a smoker. There is no shame in any label one places on oneself or is placed on one by others. Nor is there ant problem with taking the stand strongly that, "I am not a smoker, I vape." It is your internal frame of refeence, and your internal perception of vaping and smoking that is important individually. To consider yourself an ex-smoker when you are vaping is totally correct, to consider yourself a smoker when you only vape is also totally correct. There is a dualistic truth in this concept that is that special providence, that courage. The external world has already moved, if only slightly to see the difference. This is complicated by the visual similarities of smoking and vaping. The important idea here for my own perception is that time will be the test of the outcome of vaping and that we are the pioneers of this practice. It is not my business or care of your perception of whether vaping is a replacement, a change from or a seperate form of smoking. What is important is transparency. What is important is that the true difference between the two be validated and spread widely. What is important is that there be unity amongst vapors in the eyes of the public. This is not snake oil, it is a real and viable means of harm reduction when using nicotine. It is personal choice on how one obtains nicotine (smoking, gum, vaping), but it is not necessary to potentially argue over the terms we as vapors use to describe ourselves. the providential direction will be that of our work and our belief in the cause- evangelism through personal stories and the conveyance to others of our experience in the manner that Jesus (not preaching) sent forth his believers in small groups to share the message. So when someone says- I didn't know you smoked I replly, I don't- I vape. And from there the discussion and the teaching and the message evolves and is spread. Peace-vape on.

‎10 Reasons not to Vape

2011-08-09T22:12:00.092-06:00

Humbug!

We all go to the same end

In the most forceful manner I repeat Humbug!

Yes, Humbug I say, Humbug!

I was reading in a post written by a fervent

anti-tobacco megalomaniac who simply stated

that his greatest wish was that every smoker

be given full access to as much tobacco as he or she could tolerate and that they smoke themselves to death as quickly as possible. This would rid the earth of the scourge of the foul smelling creatures that spread their filthy habit throughout humanity.

Humbug!

I will not waste words commenting on a mind that is fixated on selective genocide
except to say that later in his passage he pronounced the inclusion of vapors and
SNUS spitters in his category of less than human tobacco consumers. His picture
put him in his late 50's or possibly early 60's. He also commented that he had
smoked for 20 years and one day just put them down. I congratulate him for
that capability. He is one of a very few that can shed nicotine addiction so easily.
I also congratulate him for being one of the many smokers who I modeled after
to start smoking. In the late 60's tobacco was beginning to be seen as a public
health issue. Availability and acceptance were universal. I smoked in my college
classes, in cinemas, in grocery stores, in hospital waiting rooms,and airplanes.
Slowly there was a limited effort to curtail use that spiraled when Big Tobacco
and other consortiums started to react and produced low tar and nicotine products.

Still the people who were using tobacco quit every New Year's day for several
hours or quit for weeks or months to only find they had added 20 pounds and
were still craving tobacco. Big Pharma to the rescue with gums, lozenges and
inhalers. Success rates minimal.

Then the medications Champix and Wellbutrin. They will get their page later.

In the middle of the last decade a device called the e-cigarette emerged.
Nicotine in a solution heated by a coil and gradually millions of people
throughout the earth found this a way to decrease or stop tobacco burning
as a means of smoking cessation. Now my expert friend and his factions
want to equate e-cigarettes with smoking.

Humbug!

There only common ground is nicotine and a white exhale after inhalation. But
more about that later.

So factions are trying to ban e-cigarettes from the semi-moronic stance that they
both emit white stuff.

I am a list maker by habit and it seems that I must try to find a reason to stop
the dreaded vaping; Here is my top ten list, maybe it'll help me stop a
non-burning act of getting nicotine and I can start cigarettes and the 60
carcinogens (nicotine not one) of them, and 4000 other chemicals. Vaping
is nicotine and a vegetable glycerin or PG vehicle which is touted by Boston
University to be 99% safer than cigarettes.:

Top 10 Reasons Not to Vape

1. They don't fit behind your ear for that cool 50's
look.

2. You can't use. "can I bum a light", as a pick-up
line at a bar.

3. You can't flick them out the car window at night
and see those cool trails.

4. They may cause you to get up late because you
don't wake up hacking up a lung.

5. They don't give you that manly smell to your
clothes.

6. You don't get to carry those really cool Jeff Gordon
lighters.

7. You can't use the excuse that you are too short
winded to help your neighbour move.

8. You don't get Marlboro coupons to trade for that
really neat Marlboro Jacket.

9. They don't burn holes in your clothes so you can't
use that as as excuse for a shopping spree.

10. They are not FDA approved.

Humbug- it didn't work. Guess I'll have to try something
else..... more to come.

Truth, Lies and Poppycock

2011-08-08T00:13:00.007-06:00

Blogs are supposed to opinionated. The are intended to put ideas that are valid out there for the perusal of any eyes to see. They are a person's interpretation of truth and a way of getting a message out to anyone who cares to spend a few minutes delving into another human being's mind.

Poppycock, the are narcissistic and self indulgent viewpoints that feed the ego of the blogger.

They are not subject to prepublication peer review and as such have credence only if they are followed. It is from this frame of reference that this blog resurfaced, was renamed and reinvented.

This blog written to attempt to keep up with the world of THR- Tobacco Harm Reduction. It is framed from a biopsychosocial perspective. That there is an interdependence and undeniably linked relationship between biochemical processes, psychological makeup and social experiences and pressures. THR understanding requires the objective and subjective interpretation of how each individual has biological individuality, thought processes that are unique and sociocultural experiences that are different and that each piece of that mixture causes external interpretation of a situation to evoke its own conclusion. We are not cast from the same mold. In saying that we are also very much alike in this models framework.

Smoking tobacco is a well studied entity that is certainly harmful to multiple body systems. The smoker knows this and continues, the most likely candidate for this continuing pseudo-denial is nicotine and the positive reinforcement of the act of smoking. Pavlovian, behavioral, cognitive and pleasure seeking schema all fall into play. It has shown to be one of the most difficult addictions (define that as you like) to break.

As Mark Twain observed,"...when they used to tell me I would shorten my life ten years by smoking, the little knew the devotee the were wasting their puerile word upon-- the little knew how trivial and valueless I would regard a decade with no smoking in it!."and "As an example to others, and not that I care for moderation myself, it has always been my rule never to smoke when I sleep and never to refrain when awake."

Nicotine is a powerful chemical agent within the brain, it increases alertness and stamina. It also causes nicotinic acetylcholine receptors to up-regulate- increase in number, and thus causes a biological change in the brain that partially accounts for the cessation withdrawal. Millions die globally from tobacco related deaths. Statistical analysis shows us that there is an average number of years lost per cigarette consumed. Ah statistics, a wonderful and important area- but interpretable. Why does one smoker die of a tobacco related disorder and another seem barely phased lighting up at 80. My own father had an up to 3 pack habit and at 79 had lung function tests that showed no significant difference from the norms of his age group. We are all different, we are genetically a maelstrom of diversity.

People with psychiatric disorders tend to smoke more than those without such maladies. Schizophrenics and Bipolar Disorder inflicted individuals smoke far above the normal statistical rate. They appear to be self medicating. Thus psychological makeup plays a role in smoking. One remarkable observation is that many people who quit for years start back despite their memory of the pains of withdrawal.

Socially, if you grow up in a smoking family you are more likely to smoke. Is that genetic as well or simply parental modeling. The average smoker starts mid teens, and usually due to peer pressure from their social groups.

THR is not about simply decreasing risk and harm. It is also about education and prevention of initial cigarette initiation. Education is thus a part of reduction strategies, one that has limited success to date as adolescents see themselves as immortal, I'll quit later and impervious to the negative outcomes.

THR's main focus should be at decreasing the harm from tobacco in those that use but cannot or have the Twain perspective. Tobacco smoke is the result of combustion of the tobacco leaf. Combustion produces a chemical change in many of the compounds in tobacco. The resultant agents have varying degrees of pathological outcomes- some are carcinogenic (at least 60 of the 4000 plus produced on tobacco burning. Nicotine is in itself not the carcinogenic agent. So gums, patches and inhalers with nicotine were sanctioned for cessation. Drugs like Chantix (I will be blogging on that in a future blog) arose. Community support groups, hypnosis, aversion therapies and Nicotine Anonymous have evolved. Quit rates after six months are still very low.One of the problems with these methods is their one sided treatment. There is a complex array of behaviors that encompass smoking. The oral inhalation, throat hit (feeling of tobacco smoke hitting the throat), the hand holding, and many more. These other methods treat the biological but not the psychological aspects of smoking.

In 2006 Vaping was introduced into the smoking world. The use of a non-combustible technique to vaporize a nicotine and propylene glycol or vegetable glycerin solution which was inhaled like a cigarette (to be called analogue in the future) to mimic the behavioral and the biological effects of smoking. Vaporization is a physical change from liquid to droplet vapor, The result the 4000 compounds are eliminated. People at first called it a fad- it is now a potential revolution in THR. The exhaled vapor looks like smoke and the physical appearance of smoking have taken smokers to ex-smokers (although many claim they still consider themselves smokers, just not analogue smokers. Subjective reports from vapors is that they feel better in weeks.

This is not nicotine cessation, it is much like gums or patches. Many continue to vape at nicotine levels that arevape after going to zero nicotine. It is Harm Reduction.

The exhaled vapor looks like smoke but is more like the exhaled are on a December Day in Northern Ontario. It is vapor- not smoke. There is no match and no combustion.

And all was well- except the zero tolerance factions who want nicotine banned in all forms equate the smoke with the vapor, talk second hand smoke talk and a potential life saving agent becomes attacked. Then there are organizations like CASAA.org and many forums that fight for the right to THR.

There is a battle out there and it is filled with have truths and lies. Anti-smoking groups spin THR into perpetuating the habit, influencing the young to start "safer" smoking- which is a speculation, vaping is not 100% safe. Boston University said it was 98-99% safer than smoking.

So enough for now. Twain was prolific on smoking and this last paraphrase speaks it all for smokers- "Quitting smoking is easy. I have done it a thousand times."

And finally from Hippocrates- 'at first do no harm." The anti's that would ban vaping will only push people back to smoking, thus increasing their potential morbidity.