Guests debate proposed FDA e-cigarette regulations

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

New proposed regulations would give the FDA the authority to regulate the electronic cigarette industry.

Aaron Frazier, Utah Vapers and Adam Bramwell, the Utah Department of Health, discuss the impact of the proposed regulations on individuals in Utah.

Link: FDA releases proposed e-cigarette regulations


  • Keith Stammrs

    Nicotine is not the most addictive product on the market, refined sugar is and is far more damaging, nicotine enhances brain function. Electronic cigarettes are saving lives, this new legislation hands the market to Big Tobacco the very group that it was destroying. You are inadvertently have given Big Tobacco a get out of jail free card, they will abuse this market. Unlike the electronic cigarette companies they are not interested in better health just in making money. Believe it or not most electronic cigarette retailers [ excluding tobacco companies] were set up by one time smokers, they believe that the product can help people, promote better health and had a chance to reduce tobacco harm. This legislation is a punch in the moth for a group who have been quietly working hard in the background to build small businesses for themselves, and do something good. You will regret your hasty and harsh actions in the future.

  • João Pargana

    The same propaganda over and over again about the ‘demonic’ nicotine…!

    “There is not a single published clinical trial of nicotine administration to never-smokers for the purpose of determining its potential for dependence. Anyone claiming expertise in the area who tells you there is such a published trial is badly misinformed (or a liar) [2] – and therefore can hardly claim to be an expert, since they don’t know the basics and their knowledge appears based on propaganda.

    Ask for a reference to a clinical trial that examines the potential of nicotine to cause dependence in never-smokers (the only valid method); there is no such trial. All citations lead to trials of smoking dependence or where the subjects are smokers (or ex-smokers). A person who is already dependent due to smoking cannot be used as a subject in a trial to determine the potential of one compound in tobacco smoke to create dependence – this is a basic principle of logic and cannot be avoided.”

    “However, there are around six clinical trials identified so far, of this type, where nicotine was administered to never-smokers, for other purposes. (Administration to ever-smokers is irrelevant.) These trials took place in order to evaluate nicotine’s beneficial effects on medical conditions such as cognitive dysfunction and auto-immune diseases. Despite high doses administered for several months, no subject experienced withdrawal effects, or symptoms of dependence, or continued to use nicotine afterward. In these trials, nicotine was demonstrated to have no potential for dependence. It must be stressed that this is pure nicotine, not tobacco with nicotine or tobacco smoke with nicotine, and the subjects had never smoked: we are only interested in the effects of nicotine, not the effect of a cocktail of synergens or the effect on those already dependent due to previous smoking.”

    “Separately, you may want to consider why no one has ever published a clinical trial that:
    – Administered pure nicotine to never-smokers to examine any dependence potential
    – Showed that, having done so, nicotine has potential for dependence

    …when we know beyond doubt that:
    (a) such trials are regularly carried out
    (b) there is no problem with ethics panels
    (c) such a trial, if it reported dependence, would be fabulously useful to many very well funded pressure groups.

    It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that such trials have indeed taken place but the results were not beneficial to the commercial / political agenda of the funders. After all, nothing would be easier to demonstrate, according to the mythology – and we know such trials are regularly carried out, so there is clearly no problem with ethics panels. This single fact alone is almost enough to demonstrate that nicotine probably has no demonstrable potential for dependence”

    Read the full article here:

Comments are closed.