Uma

Exactly! Which is why big Pharma and big tobacco is the last ones we want to see in control of these. They must stay a free market, with minimal regulating. ECF has organized Twitter Boms, I hope everyone who can join in, has done so. Be sure to read the entire thread for tutorials and updates. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/eu-legislation/498245-help-twitterbomb-nightly-1st-december-9pm-utc.html

NICOTINE STUDIES Long term effects: weight loss. . Ouch to the politicians setting up obesity taxes eh. (Changelabsolutions) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8614291/ Direct effects of pure nic, outside a traditional cigarette. AOK http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21617206/ Addiction: unadulterated, mild dependency, like caffeine. http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/tobacco/en/l-2/4.htm Tumors: NADA! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11165334/ One of the studies shows Nicotine helps restore brain damage.

Love how she commented about it being a free market product, ... It sounded so ... American!

Gotta love clean, white clouds vs the blue arsenic and ethanol smoke clouds. .

Grimm Green reviews the Richman Hybrid, plus does a rebuild using SS mesh wick & cotton. (He doesn't quite have the SS/cotton wick down yet, lol, but he got it going). The hybrid looks sweet!

That was great! A little confusing, perhaps, but the message about ZERO NICOTINE OPTIONS, SHOPPERS SHOPPING, and PEOPLE MINGLING, rocked. The part about the idiotic FDA banning ... PRICELESS. Thanks for sharing! I wish we could comment. Maybe it will hit YT...

Please sign https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Chicago_Mayor_Rahm_Emanual_Stop_over_regulation_of_Ecigs/?sMjavgb&mobile=1

Because it "looks" like smoking to the brain dead.

Some insurance companies are charging $50.00 extra per month, if the insurer uses nicotine. Greed and force. Big Pharma trying to force smokers onto big Pharma products, plain and simple. The culling is nigh.

Steve's finished outline. http://free.yudu.com/item/details/1515019/EPHA-Briefing-note-review :thumbs up:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3850892/#!po=70.6897 The entire article is quotable. For instance "The dream of a tobacco-free, nicotine-free world is just thata dream. Nicotines beneficial effects include correcting problems with concentration, attention and memory, as well as improving symptoms of mood impairments. Keeping such disabilities at bay right now can be much stronger motivation to continue using nicotine than any threats of diseases that may strike years and years in the future." Plus it covers all the science stuff... Dr. Polosa ROCKS!

A French magazine has Hon Lik included in the man of the year runnings! Let's show our appreciation for him, by clicking on his picture to vote for him. It would be fantastic if he wins, but even the top five would be awesome. Show some love at http://www.lemonde.fr/style/article/2013/12/06/m-le-magazine-votez-pour-la-personnalite-de-l-annee-2013_3527157_1575563.html

Ahhh, the first "mod". Still well loved by many.

I know, right! Let's keep our fingers crossed...

This just in today. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/eu-legislation/500232-consultants-eu-commission-proposals-under-microscope.html The consultants of the EU commission proposals-under the microscope [EPHA Briefing] Regulation of Nicotine Containing Products (NCPs) including electronic cigarettes - European Public Health Alliance http://www.epha.org/a/5868 Here is an amazing analysis of the proposals-and their legal foundations (or lack of) From Steve1962 UKVapers Comments on EPHA Briefing note: Regulatory Options for Nicotine Containing Products (NCP’s) in the EU, December 2013 Introduction This commentary has been produced as an analysis of the above EPHA briefing note with particular regard to potential implications for the use of novel methods for the consumption of nicotine on consumers. It aims to highlight any inaccuracies, misuderstandings or failures of logic. In order to undertake this review it has been necessary to understand that in recent years a new method of nicotine consumption has become available. In this respect it is important to bear in mind that the recreational use of nicotine, by adults, is not an illegal act. In fact the recreational consumption of nicotine is aligned with the other legally sanctioned drugs, caffeine and ethanol (ethyl alcohol) or simply ‘alcohol’. Before the invention of a method to permit the inhalation of nicotine vapour the most widespread means of consumption was through the combustion of the dried leaves of nicotine containing plants (Tobacco), the smoke of which was then inhaled. The historical monopoly of this method of nicotine consumption has lead to a certain degree of confusion in relation to the terminology employed in the current debate. The following clarifications are a necessary pre-requisite to understanding the arguments involved. There is confusion between Tobacco (a nicotine containing plant) and the substance nicotine. This has mainly arisen because, before the development of new technologies, tobacco was overwhelmingly the commonest means of recreational consumption of nicotine. This, however, is no longer the case and the terms should be used with a greater level of discrimination between them. Both the use of nicotine vapour and smoking tobacco involve the inhalation of the active substance (nicotine) but they are not the same activity, smoking involves combustion and inhalation of a mixture of a large number of chemicals (some of which are known carcinogens, and others such as carbon monoxide have adverse effects on human physiological systems), whereas the use of nicotine vapour does not. These points are significant in that the focus of the majority of public health campaigns has been ‘tobacco smoking’. As demonstrated above the vapourising of nicotine is a distinct and separate activity involving neither tobacco or smoking. Confusion has arisen as a result of superficial similarities in the two activities. Being a ‘tobacco smoker’ can no longer be considered synonymous with being a ‘nicotine consumer’, as these new methods of consumption are now becoming widely adopted. Analysis The following commentary aims to correct and clarify, where necessary, the briefing document. Not all sections are repeated in full, as in some cases previous comments have made subsequent sections redundant. In particular this relates to statements which are conditional on previous assertions which have failed to pass any test of logical analysis. Such cases are noted. The numbering below follows that of the original document. Where necessary, parts of the briefing document have been copied in full. These sections are in red. Formatting has been altered to permit the insertion of a commentary (in black) to allow the progression of the analysis to be easily followed. 1. The existing legal framework for Nicotine Containing Products (NCPs) 1.1 Facts and tendencies of Nicotine Containing Products (NCPs) The future legislation of nicotine containing products (NCPs) is part of ongoing discussion on the revision of Tobacco Products Directive (TPD).The term nicotine containing products (NCP) requires clarification. In advance of the development of new technology for the consumption of nicotine, tobacco was the primary source for recreational nicotine consumption. At that time the only other Nicotine Containing Products were used as therapeutic devices (Patches, gum etc.) to act as an aid to reduce the incidence of Tobacco Smoking (note terminology). There were no Nicotine Containing Products (i.e. non-tobacco) available for recreational use this is not now the case, and the consumption of nicotine by vapourisation for recreational use is established. By analogy any regulation on Alcohol Containing Products would need to be implemented irrespective of end use, leading to perfumes (containing alcohol) and wine (containing alcohol) being covered by identical Regulation. Therefore there is a clear need to define the end use of a substance in regulation rather than its constituent. "Electronic cigarettes" (e-cigarettes) or electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) are nicotine containing products (NCPs) which look like cigarettes but they are in fact nicotine inhalators.These products are, in fact one example of the use of the new technology used for the recreational consumption of nicotine. Others, such as ‘personal vapourisers’ bear no physical resemblance to cigarettes. The appearance of the devices described and the term e-cigarette was employed by early manufacturers to gain a market share of recreational nicotine consumption. The name, and appearance of the devices was, at that time, an intentional marketing decision rather than a functional requirement. An e-cigarette contains pure nicotine to be inhaled. It normally does not contain tobacco therefore they cannot be considered tobacco products, even if the nicotine is retrieved from tobacco plants as with all pharmaceutical nicotine. The nicotine in these devices is diluted – the term ‘pure’ in this context does not relate to ‘concentrated’ (in the sense that ‘pure alcohol’ equates with 98% ethanol), rather it indicates that the recreational use of these devices does not result in the inhalation of the additional chemical components found in the combustion of tobacco. With this clarification the above statement is accurate. It should also be noted that the statement confirms that these products are not Tobacco Products. Due to this agreed point it is logically concluded that these products should not be placed within the scope of the Tobacco Products Directive. There are many types of e-cigarettes, with nicotine delivered through replaceable cartridges that are available in various concentrations (e.g. 16 mg, 11 mg, 6 mg and 0 mg). The device can be adjusted to various levels of nicotine as per the needs of the user. Other forms of the new technology use different delivery systems, and the concentration of nicotine is infinitely variable. The use of the term ‘needs of the user’ has connotations of therapeutic use. It should again be emphasised that the inhalation of vapourised nicotine is the recreational use of a legal substance. By analogy one could say alcohol is available in different strengths ‘as per the needs of the user’, which implies a condition of passive consumption. ‘According to the users desire’ is a phrase more indicative of the way in which these devices are employed. Information provided from manufacturers regarding how many cigarettes is equivalent to one cartridge varies between 15 and 20m nevertheless, some manufacturers claim that the nicotine content is many times lower to that of a classic cigarette. The presentation of the product varies between manufacturers and retail sellers.1 Manufacturers have attempted to benchmark nicotine in new technologies with tobacco, again to obtain market share of recreational nicotine consumption. However, to all intents and purposes such comparisons are unhelpful in any objective debate, as Tobacco contains many other chemical components. Recent estimates indicate that the electronic cigarette market is growing rapidly in the European Union, and that the total value of the market in 2011 was €400–500 million. Additional statistics confirm that the use of electronic cigarettes has grown markedly in recent years: 7% of citizens of the European Union have reported that they have at least tried electronic cigarettes,2 and in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the number of electronic cigarette owners is expected to rise from a small number in 2006 to over 1 million by 2013.It should be noted that this represents predominantly recreational use of a legal substance. And better news, the Consultancy are now consulting with 'Vapers' Read more here http://ukvapers.org/Thread-EU-Wanting-Help-Important http://ukvapers.org/Thread-EU-Wanting-Help-Important

Changelabsolutions already has many next plans laid out, with the same battle plan they used on smokers, then Vapers. First is sugar. They call it an obesity plan. Say what? Sugar makes kids hyperactive, gets them off the couch and onto their skateboards and bikes, basketball courts and swimming holes. Sugar makes for skinny, not fat, in a normal metabolism kid. Next is the Fat, carbs, battle plan. Surprise surprise. Take away smokes, sugar, leaves only chips and dip, which do put on the weight. All of the above have the same plan, leading to the same excessive taxing. There is already bullying, shaming, ridicule going on if caught with a cookie, a soda, or a hot dog. The prepping stages, if you will. It's a hate propaganda, set in motion for an "ideal" world. Sound familiar? Yep, to me too. Fight these morons wherever you can!!! How dare they bully us, let alone our children, all in the name of "save the children". We all know that "save the cheerleader... ooops, I mean children" slogan is really a "tax 'em high" slogan, as well as a New World Order slogan. IMHO anyway.

I know right. It's appalling how they fight the safer alternatives so hard. Millions of lives vs millions of dollars... But they're too greedy to realize that these millions of lives actually have money to spend again, to stir the economy back to par, if they'd just let us be. In other words, in the long run, they'd be richer off than they are now with temporary cash incentives they receive to date.

EU is planning breach of constitution(s) The following press release was sent out by the German Vapers association IG-ED e.V. in German on Dec. 1st, 2013 and can be found in German here: http://ig-ed.org/2013/12/eu-kommission-plant-verfassungsbruch-oder-wie-demokratie-zur-posse-verkommt/ I just finished the translation for international communities -- for your info or, if you want to circulate it or bring it to the attention of your national press, fine, go ahead. Best regards, Hazel ~~~~~~~~ EU is planning breach of the constitution Or: how democracy degenerates ever more into a farce A recently leaked EU commission document of unverified origin shows that the EU commission plans to curb the democratic right to free speech in a coup de main at the next trialogue meetings between 3rd and 16th December. What is it about? Over the last 2 years, the EU has been working on a revision of the tobacco products directive (TPD2). At the recommendation of the WHO framework of the tobacco control (FCTC) they now also want to regulate the e-cigarette within the tobacco directive; in order to bring the consumption under the same regulations control mechanisms which previously already have been applied to the consumption of tobacco and to forbid them step by step. Thus, a non-tobacco containing product, which hasnt been approved as a medical product, shall be treated in a tobacco directive more restrictively than the tobacco product itself though it doesnt even contain any tobacco. However, this contradiction doesnt bar the EU Commission from sticking to their plans. The e-cigarette is a new product, widely unknown to the Members of European Parliament, and before it can even develop any noteworthy market potential, one strives to rather prohibit them on the quiet with the help of deceptive media campaigns and debatable statements of experts, the latter often being merely self-appointed. What they didnt envisage though were well-informed, partly scientifically experienced, and convinced users of the e-cigarette (generally known as vapers), who had a first-hand experience of the positive effects of the switch from tobacco to e-cigarettes. They couldnt put anything over on them; moreover those users ensured popularity, technical progress, scientific researches and finally initialized a transboundary consumer initiative against the prohibition efforts. As a consequence, the European Parliament contradicts the plans of the EU-Commission and leaves the e-cigarette within the tobacco directive TPD2 wrongly so, and contrary to the distinct advice of JURI, the European Legal Committee as a non-tobacco product, however also decides for a moderate regulation which the vapers could have accepted for the time being, even though gnashing their teeth. As the Parliament has to find an agreement with both the European Commission and the Council, the Commission engineers a new scheme: in a very predictive paragraph, the citizen shall be deterred in the future to gather their own information, to build pan-European information channels or even, to use existing ones. Under the cloak of the ban on advertising, the Commission claims brazenly to remove the right to free information as well as the freedom of speech! In the new claims regarding the TPD2 and hidden within the ban on advertising there is a passage which reads: d) any form of public or private contribution to radio programmes with the aim or direct or indirect effect of promoting electronic cigarettes is prohibited; e) any form of public or private contribution to any event, activity or individual with the aim or direct or indirect effect of promoting electronic cigarettes and involving or taking place in several Member States or otherwise having cross-border effects is prohibited; This means nothing else but a factual ban of e-cigarette forums, blogs, facebook groups, youtube channels, as well as consumers associations and interest groups related to the e-cigarette! The Vaping Community is well linked-up Europe-wide, they help each other with technical problems, invent novelties, discard useless junk, and above all agitate politically against the regulation frenzy of the EU as in the above-mentioned consumers campaign. Interest groups and consumers associations like the IG-ED e.V. in Germany (www.iged-org/) are organized by languages and not by national borders, and subsequently would then be forbidden to ever speak out in any media at all. This is a clear violation of the fundamental democratic right of freedom of expression! Possibly, this would never have been known to the public, if the EU-Commission had not tried to sell its further claims as a compromise. The truth however, is that they are trying to defend the sinecures of the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries against the e-cigarette: they lay down rules which exclude any of the existing and well-working products and therefore destroy everything which adversely affects their own concepts. By cheer chance by these rules only completely outdated and disputable products of the tobacco industry would get a chance, an industy which currently has begun to edge into the booming market. Noticeably, the pharmaceutical industry seems to be reserved and probably will not enter the market until it can feel safe enough to do so. Some examples: -- Ban of refillable atomizers and of liquid refills The technical development and progress has gained momentum by leaps and bounds in the past few years. From the initial cartridge technology, vapers have long moved on to sophisticated and well-performing tank atomizer systems. In these however, the tobacco companies have only little interest; afer all you can reutilize them nearly without limit, and therefore then own a permanently enduring product which is not desirable as seen from the perspective of competition and profiteering. The pharmaceutical industry, on the other hand, knows how to fill little cartidges a million times. They only have to know what extactly they will be allowed to fill them with. -- Ban of nearly all flavours which arent also used in NRTs Without any scientific reasoning and therefore, meaningless. Mostly the argument is urged that tasty liquids beguile kids to vaping and subsequently, smoking. Several studies have already conclusively falsified this assumption. -- Limitation of nicotine concentration in liquids at 20 mg/ml Not backed up by science. On the contrary, studies show that sometimes even higher concentrations of nicotine might be recommendable for the switch from tobacco to vapor. The boundary value suggested by the EU Commission has been set merely gratuitiously and lacks any scientific basis. -- Limitation of nicotine volume in liquids at 10 mg/ml per packaging unit The only purpose of this rule would be to enable a complete ban of everything but the (completely outdated) cartridge systems of the tobacco industry. -- Ban of cross-border trading as well as internet trade Obviously the Commission is eager to regress the EU back in to the 1960s. -- Steady output of nicotine Why should a harm-reduced product be able to do something which the really harmful product cant do either? For the time being, there is no semi-luxury product available which would fulfill the requirement of a steady output of the effective agent, something that is typical and normal for pharmaceuticals only. So then, why should this be any different in the distinctly harmreduced alternative to cigarettes? Here, the EU Commission is doing blatantly and tastelessly the very thing that Commissioner Tonio Borg falsely accused some EU-MEPs of: lobbying for the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries. Regardless of any health consequences the Commission is trying to destroy a useful product in order to codify the tobacco industry monopoly on nicotine as well as to continuously guarantee the pharmaceutical industry their safe revenues which they generate with almost ineffective nicotine substitutes. Scientific findings pro e-vaping are constantly being ignored and maliciously negated. Critical and informed users and citizens would be gagged in the future and quite obviously be deprived of their basic civil rights. In general, the freedom of speech is being limited in this way only by political systems that previously had appeared to be extinct in European culture. But the European Commission manages to turn democracies gradually and insidiously into a European dictatorship ("Eurokratur"). . © IG-ED e.V. December 1st, 2013 --- free for publishing in your country; we would be grateful for indication of source

I know, right. Lots of people need the nicotine, that's why we have a nicotine receptor in our brain. When we have the right dose, it creates well being. The ANTZ say that's the problem with nicotine, it causes well being. Here's another article about TSET paying towns to ban eCigs. . http://watchdog.org/115737/e-cigarette-law/# Changelabsolutions has the plan map for banning eCigs. CLS is funded, partnered, owned, whatever, by Robert Wood Foundation aka J & J aka Pfizer Big Pharma. Model for banning eCigs in your town http://changelabsolutions.org/sites/default/files/CA.ECigDeviceOrdinance-CHECKLIST-FINAL-201307011_0.pdf Taking licensing to the next level. FIGHT THE CITY COUNCIL LICENSE PROPOSALS!!! http://changelabsolutions.org/sites/default/files/Final%20TRL%20presentation_20130628.pdf One can go on all day about their push to have everyone on Chantix....

I want!! I don't care how it's said, just as long as it's said. The oh so politically correct can shove it up their chimneys.

This article by Forces International explains the hierarchy of the anarchy very clearly. http://www.forces.org/News_Portal/news_viewer.php?id=2303 BTW, changelabsolutions solutions (RWF aka Pfizer) has set into motion the play x play for taxing sugar. (They say it causes obesity, but all us parents know it causes hyperactive brats that get told to take it outside and play), BTW, fat tax is next. Political Bullying coming soon to every kid near you for one thing or another. Demonize, ridicule, rally, tax.

The ANTZ seem more upset over our habit than of our health. They don't care about health, just money and control. Beautiful, powerful article!!!

Exactly! This article has the most beautiful Questions & Answers I've witnessed yet. It also exposes more truths behind TSET using funding to literally bribe towns into banning eCigs. TSET is in a panic over the loss of smoke settlement funds. http://cherokeecountygop.wordpress.com/2013/11/29/e-cigs-vaping-do-our-policy-makers-ask-real-questions-before-deciding/

Awesome! Bill Godshall just posted this today. It's a fact filled letter, by Joel Nitzkin with links, concerning why eCigs should be considered ok. http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/media-general-news/499462-joel-nitzkin-urges-us-preventive-services-task-force-consider-thr-products-addition-fda-approved-drugs-counseling.html ECF media forum, titled, "Joel Nizkin urges us preventive services task force consider THR products addition FDA approved drugs counseling" (Sometimes links I post to there don't work)

This just in. Dr. Farsalinos discovered a letter sent to MEP's in EU, in an attempt to sway the MEP's to ban eCigs. Dr. Farsalinos and others immediately write to the MEP's and correct the misguidance (lies) of big Pharma. http://ecigarette-research.com/web/index.php/2013-04-07-09-50-07/142-scandalous-propaganda-from-a-pharmaceutical-company Of note, Dr. Farsalinos addresses the nicotine dosage lies in this too.