Should we go back to requiring a prescription for delivering nicotine?

[fromderinside]

So here we are with a nicotine delivery system claimed to be without risk. No tars, no carcinogens, just a little heated water and nicotine. without tars and carcinogens

Now Available Without a Prescription http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm143547.htm

 Electronic Cigarette

I'm pretty sure that when push comes to shove the 'smokeless' nicotine people will claim their delivery system is a nicotine addiction cessation system.

I'm not talking about whether this should be part of a war on drugs, just whether this drug shold remain regulated via doctor's prescription.

I think my view is obvious enough. What about you? Should we permit a dangerous drug - by that I mean one that can be delivered in lethal douses to uninformed consumers - to be sold as 'safe' and not protected by doctor barriers?

 

[dystopian]

Shouldn't we make cigarettes themselves (and a host of other things) only available by prescription then? The solution isn't putting up barriers that we don't put up for other, arguably much more dangerous substances (alcohol, for instance). Focus on properly informing the public instead. Make sure there isn't any false advertising happening and so on.

 

[repoman]

if you drank the fluid reservoir I don't doubt you would die by having a seizure and shitting, pissing and vomiting all over the place.

But I am wondering what the cardiovascular effects of nicotine without Carbon Monoxide, tars and so on. I am not looking at the cancer aspect.

I looked to research this for a while, though I don't smoke. Not a lot of good info.

The only thing that remains the same is nicotine which is powerful drug effecting two neurotransmitters. IIRC, it also directly effects the body outside of the brain.

this is a quick link about it:
http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_03/i_03_m/i_03_m_par/i_03_m_par_nicotine.html

 

[bongomaniac]

The health risks from smoking are almost entirely due to the combustion products of tobacco. In itself nicotine appears to be no more harmful than caffeine. I'm not sure why you think that making vaping devices more expensive and less available -- for that is the likely outcome of requiring medical licensing and control -- will benefit anybody other than the tobacco industry.

 

[Derec]

if you drank the fluid reservoir I don't doubt you would die by having a seizure and shitting, pissing and vomiting all over the place.

How big is the fluid reservoir? LD50, the median lethal dose, is 0.5-1 mg/kg. Even for heavier people I am sure there is a lot more in a reservoir than 100 mg. But it is especially dangerous for children because the lethal dose is smaller and because they are more likely to accidentally ingest it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

e-cigs and the like should carry the same restrictions as cigarettes.

 

[bongomaniac]

e-cigs and the like should carry the same restrictions as cigarettes.

Why?

 

[J842P]

The health risks from smoking are almost entirely due to the combustion products of tobacco. In itself nicotine appears to be no more harmful than caffeine. I'm not sure why you think that making vaping devices more expensive and less available -- for that is the likely outcome of requiring medical licensing and control -- will benefit anybody other than the tobacco industry.

That's certainly not true. Indeed, smokeless tobacco would then be a safe alternative but it isn't. However, I don't think nicotine itself is particularly bad, but the bad things in tobacco are not limited to simply the combustion products.

 

[barbos]

The health risks from smoking are almost entirely due to the combustion products of tobacco. In itself nicotine appears to be no more harmful than caffeine. I'm not sure why you think that making vaping devices more expensive and less available -- for that is the likely outcome of requiring medical licensing and control -- will benefit anybody other than the tobacco industry.

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...-up-to-10-times-the-carcinogens-of-cigarettes

New research has revealed that e-cigarettes can contain up to 10 times the amount of carcinogens of regular cigarettes, which has brought the claim that these devices are a healthier alternative to smoking into serious contention.

 

[J842P]

Well, I can't think of any reason why an e-cigarette which didn't produce formaldehyde couldn't be developed. I think there is probably a market for an e-cigarette with a rigorous safety standards, in particular, the sourcing of the nicotine.

Want to get rich with me, barbos?

 

[fromderinside]

Well, I can't think of any reason why an e-cigarette which didn't produce formaldehyde couldn't be developed. I think there is probably a market for an e-cigarette with a rigorous safety standards, in particular, the sourcing of the nicotine.

Want to get rich with me, barbos?

Nicotine can be toxic. For instance, don't smoke while using patch. You could have a heart attack.

Delivery must be regulated. Generating other factors such as smoke and pleasing odor need to be regulated just as does cannabis when put in food. As the study cited by another shows nicotine cigarettes can have up to 10 times the carcinogens of traditional cigarettes.

 

[NobleSavage]

I can't think of a single reason a doctor would prescribe nicotine - unless to wean off a cigarette habit. We have always had smokeless nicotine delivery in the form of chewing tobacco. Anyhow, I think people should have the right to do stupid shit without a doctor or government as long as the product is marked as "This might be very dangerous...".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I can't think of a single reason a doctor would prescribe nicotine - unless to wean off a cigarette habit. We have always had smokeless nicotine delivery in the form of chewing tobacco. Anyhow, I think people should have the right to do stupid shit without a doctor or government as long as the product is marked as "This might be very dangerous...".

I think providing a safe supply for an addict is a valid medical purpose.

 

[bongomaniac]

The health risks from smoking are almost entirely due to the combustion products of tobacco. In itself nicotine appears to be no more harmful than caffeine. I'm not sure why you think that making vaping devices more expensive and less available -- for that is the likely outcome of requiring medical licensing and control -- will benefit anybody other than the tobacco industry.

That's certainly not true. Indeed, smokeless tobacco would then be a safe alternative but it isn't. However, I don't think nicotine itself is particularly bad, but the bad things in tobacco are not limited to simply the combustion products.

I think it is true. The evidence is that steam-cured smokeless tobacco (e.g. snus) presents few health risks compared to tobacco cigarettes and fire-cured smokeless tobacco. In any case the safety or otherwise of smokeless tobacco is not particularly relevant to e-cigarettes since typically the only tobacco derivative used in them is the same pharma-grade nicotine that is used in NRT products.

 

[Axulus]

Shouldn't we make cigarettes themselves (and a host of other things) only available by prescription then? The solution isn't putting up barriers that we don't put up for other, arguably much more dangerous substances (alcohol, for instance). Focus on properly informing the public instead. Make sure there isn't any false advertising happening and so on.

Not only that, but shouldn't we then require a license to purchase household chemicals that can lead to poisoning? Where does the nanny statism end?

- - - Updated - - -

The health risks from smoking are almost entirely due to the combustion products of tobacco. In itself nicotine appears to be no more harmful than caffeine. I'm not sure why you think that making vaping devices more expensive and less available -- for that is the likely outcome of requiring medical licensing and control -- will benefit anybody other than the tobacco industry.

And benefit the medical profession who have more busy work for themselves.

 

[rousseau]

Sure, cigarettes and nicotine and such is fucked up, but also consider how enjoyable it is to smoke a cigarette after a few beers or a bowl.

I think where regulation should be involved in nicotine is making sure youth are as informed as far as possible, and restricted as far as possible until they're not 18, but maybe even 21-22. 18 isn't an old enough age to really make great decisions, although it could be worse. And as for smoking cessation products: just make sure they're consistent, work, and reduce the potential for harm.

Anyway, despite disastrous health consequences, smoking should be a right for people. Sometimes life is about doing really dumb stuff, not maximizing efficiency.

 

[J842P]

Well, I can't think of any reason why an e-cigarette which didn't produce formaldehyde couldn't be developed. I think there is probably a market for an e-cigarette with a rigorous safety standards, in particular, the sourcing of the nicotine.

Want to get rich with me, barbos?

Nicotine can be toxic. For instance, don't smoke while using patch. You could have a heart attack.

Delivery must be regulated. Generating other factors such as smoke and pleasing odor need to be regulated just as does cannabis when put in food. As the study cited by another shows nicotine cigarettes can have up to 10 times the carcinogens of traditional cigarettes.

The study didn't show that e-cigarettes can have "ten times the carcinogens" as regular cigarettes. They showed that one particular e-cigarette of one particular brand produced 10 times the amount of one particular carcinogen (formaldehyde) as a regular cigarette.

- - - Updated - - -

That's certainly not true. Indeed, smokeless tobacco would then be a safe alternative but it isn't. However, I don't think nicotine itself is particularly bad, but the bad things in tobacco are not limited to simply the combustion products.

I think it is true. The evidence is that steam-cured smokeless tobacco (e.g. snus) presents few health risks compared to tobacco cigarettes and fire-cured smokeless tobacco. In any case the safety or otherwise of smokeless tobacco is not particularly relevant to e-cigarettes since typically the only tobacco derivative used in them is the same pharma-grade nicotine that is used in NRT products.

Well, yes, because the way snus is cured removes the things in tobacco that are bad that aren't limited to combustion products.

 

[fromderinside]

Nicotine can be toxic. For instance, don't smoke while using patch. You could have a heart attack.

Delivery must be regulated. Generating other factors such as smoke and pleasing odor need to be regulated just as does cannabis when put in food. As the study cited by another shows nicotine cigarettes can have up to 10 times the carcinogens of traditional cigarettes.

The study didn't show that e-cigarettes can have "ten times the carcinogens" as regular cigarettes. They showed that one particular e-cigarette of one particular brand produced 10 times the amount of one particular carcinogen (formaldehyde) as a regular cigarette.

So why no response concerning other factors about producing look and sensation about smoking that are added to make the nicotine ingestion experience most addictive with e-cigs? My comparison was with cannabis in food after all.

 

[J842P]

The study didn't show that e-cigarettes can have "ten times the carcinogens" as regular cigarettes. They showed that one particular e-cigarette of one particular brand produced 10 times the amount of one particular carcinogen (formaldehyde) as a regular cigarette.

So why no response concerning other factors about producing look and sensation about smoking that are added to make the nicotine ingestion experience most addictive with e-cigs? My comparison was with cannabis in food after all.

I will concede those are legitimate concerns.