Some men see things as they are and ask
‘Why?’.
I dream things that never were and ask,
‘Why not?’.
–Robert F. Kennedy
Our FDA does not dream- it associates and it appears to conclude a tobacco linked entity is tobacco, it sees things as they are in a concrete manner, It always asks Why? It forgets that our government agencies are servants of the people- they are not God and not placed there to put the people in servitude. Regulation is defined by the Oxford Dictionary: a rule or directive made and maintained by an authority. Democracy is a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state. In a democratic state regulations are a mandate of the people, they are based on preservation of the public good. Democracy must be based on an unbiased and malleable frame of reference that bends to the situation it faces. The concept of the reasonable man and how the system of laws and regulations must be fluid, just and not oppose that which appears obvious.

Marijuana, opiates, alcohol, barbiturates and other psychotropic agents, as viewed by the reasonable man, may cause harm to others if ingested or available in an unregulated manner. Caffeine on the other hand in the eyes of the reasonable man, does not show evidence of harm to others if ingested. Nicotine, in itself would fall into the caffeine class, if extricated from the common vehicle from which it is obtained, tobacco. Tobacco as a vehicle for the ingestion of nicotine does pose a problematic question. Tobacco, when burned, has evidential studies showing harm to others if passively exposed to “secondary smoke” and more recently “third hand tobacco residue”.

Tobacco and tobacco cessation products are perfectly legal and regulated. The products produced to treat tobacco abuse have evolved into a profitable industry whose products are used many times as maintenance rather than cessation agents. Various medications bupropion relabeled as Zyban, Chantrix, Champix and others have been utilized to aid in smoking cessation. Tobacco smoke and the thousands of chemicals associated with curing and combustion of leaves has obviously become a public health issue. People willingly continue the habitual use of tobacco despite cancer, pulmonary and atherosclerotic side effects.

So the FDA assumes nicotine is the problem and asks why add another nicotine vehicle to the publics armamentarium. They ask why allow people a another means of obtaining nicotine. Would not RFK had said why not?

Nicotine is a mild stimulant which improves attention, concentration and has been shown to decrease tumor growth in certain genetic breast cancers. Nicotine is pleasurable and not in itself tumorigenic. Electronic cigarettes may avoid many of the risks of tobacco, have yet to be shown to be any great health issue and address many of the issues related to tobacco. Yet the FDA has taken hold of these maintenance devices and had associated them with tobacco (not by their choice).

Smoking must be seen as a multifactorial behavior. There is the acquisition of Nicotine, there is the hand and mouth behavior of smoking, there is the “smoke blowing and inhaling” and there is the association of the behavior with the formal oral smoke production.

Alcohol is a good example of the paradox of a substance. In limited quantities it is pleasurable and has been shown to have positive health effects. In excess it can be an agent that impairs judgment, can endanger the public (DUI) and can lead to lethal physical conditions, both acutely and chronically.

Nicotine is a substance that has a fairly low LD50 that is still much higher than common use. It has been added to gums, inhalers, SNUS, and inhalants in efforts to counter withdrawal and lead to tobacco smoke elimination.

The advent of the electronic cigarette adds a dimension to nicotine administration that markedly limits exposure to second hand smoke and the numerous toxins in tobacco. It replaces “tar” nicotine delivery from traditional tobacco with vapor inhaled nicotine in a VG/PG medium. Is it safe? A difficult question. Is it tolerated by smokers? the answer must be yes. Should it be regulated? Yes- but not for the reason one would expect. It should be monitored for purity and lack of toxic additives. Vendors should have guidelines for certain impurities and test for diacetyl contaminants.

Is it a cessation device-no. Can people stop vaping and therefore lead to abstinence-yes. The reasonable man would think this. As as obese man change his diet to lose weight, so a vapor could decrease nicotine content and lessen nicotine exposure. Is that the premise for this product-no.

Personal testimonials speak for the benefits in individual experiences. I have personally chewed nicotine gum, used patches, nasal sprays and Chantix. The gum actually increased my nicotine use as it was accepted and I used it more frequently, Chantrix caused severe mood swings, nasal sprays led to nosebleeds and frustration and patches caused severe skin reactions,

Six months ago I started vaping. I have not had an “analogue” cigarette since. I breath better and do not snore at night. I don’t wheeze, I don’t cough and I feel more energy and do not lose my breath going up stairs. My personal experience is matched by the observation of others.

So would not RFK dream and say why not? I think yes.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Cucumbers were recently recalled for Salmonella. This is the job of the FDA.

If the liquid vehicle for nicotine from a vendor showed impurities- it too could be recalled.

My life has changed for the better. What will come of this- it is unclear. We must be open minded to research into replacements and their effects. Cessation and abstinence is always a goal, but a goal takes steps and steps take time.

John Connell