EU draft directive to be presented on wed 19th Dec

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yeah i've never seen that said and I've seen just about everyone who's anyone mention that higher nic juices have higher throathit

kiffy

ZeRoY wrote: »

The e-liquid bases are the ingredients that create the visible vapor and the “throat hit” NOT NICOTINE.

If that's the case Zee why dont I get any major TH from low nic e-liquids.

grindle

kiffy wrote: »

If that's the case Zee why dont I get any major TH from low nic e-liquids.

Because NOT NICOTINE kiffy.

tommy2bad

kiffy wrote: »

What pepper type stuff is that Tommy? sounds promising for low nic vapers like me if I knew what is actually is, what about Vodka? Though I'd imagine both would make a big difference to the original taste.

Just tried some Saxa white pepper in a V Nano and couldn't stop sneezing

Capsium, it's the hot in chillies. Extra bite or one of those uses it to mimic the nic TH.
Actually its bite extra, google tells me
http://www.uvape.co.uk/Bitextra-45-10ml

kiffy

grindle wrote: »

Because NOT NICOTINE kiffy.

My thought's exact a mundo Grinds, so whats E-liquid base got to do with TH as Zee mentions?

grindle

kiffy wrote: »

My thought's exact a mundo Grinds, so whats E-liquid base got to do with TH as Zee mentions?

Just saw the size of this post - beer... Sorry... Palm Royale, since you ask... Yes, it's delicious.
No... Even better than that.
Explained in my (mildly vehement? :pac: ) post, PG allows more throathit because it's less viscous. The more PG, the more throathit because it doesn't soften the blow, but as we've become accustomed to vapour (vastly more than any cigarette could hope to achieve, shisha levels of cloud), that's a big trade-off.
More important than PG is the airhole alignment. If the air isn't hitting a coil dead on a 12 mg juice can get the edge on an 18mg juice that is hitting the coil for throathit.
You'll still have to vape more if you've got a craving (man, it sounds seedy said like that), but if you were to off-centre the airhole to the coil with an 18mg juice, you'd find yourself hitting it a lot less.
There's a satisfaction beyond a nicotine high says "that was a good whack" and you leave it be for a while.
Countering this is the lack of vapour from an off-centre coil, and that's part of the reason I like dual-coils. Best of both worlds, plus I like the little extra of both it delivers.
Dual-coils don't mean twice the vapour unless both coils have airholes on them, and it doesn't mean twice the throathit unless both are outside the direct range of the hole/s, it's somewhere in the middle.
1.5 times the vapour. 1.5 times the throathit.
Twisted wire set-ups are somewhere below that, middling between a single and a dual, but still give a nice enough hit in atties that don't allow duals.
They allow the wattage to be pushed higher than a single coil as well for some reason I've yet to see a reason for. If I'm on a single coil, I'll push 8-9watts, twisted coil, 12-14watts, dual coil 16-18watts.
The vape gets warmer up the scale but it spends less time being sucked on to get the hit wanted, so it's not like it's exactly twice the heat or anything.

Anyway, what a fùcking tangent - after airhole alignment, alcohol is the next best thing for what we call throathit (which is different to cig-throathit).
Closest thing to cig throathit (which I'm vaping right now) is a 12 mg Virginia Prime premixed with a few drops of chilli on a dual coil. Something about that warmth.
Gonna mix chilli with that other tobacco leaf I got recently cos it has a really ciggy taste, although I may have let it steep too long past that stage. :eek:

ZeRoY

kiffy wrote: »

If that's the case Zee why dont I get any major TH from low nic e-liquids.

As said already and confirmed by Grindle Nicotine enhances (better word perhaps?) the TH but does not create it. Thats all i was arguying

You know the more i read on this the more I can see that just about all the ingredients/parts making up a vaping device help for TH!!

ZeRoY

grindle wrote: »

If something has been tested and shows good results, how on earth is it our imperative to disprove that something is wrong?

Just being realistic here. We are no scientists, they dont pull 4mg per ml from a hat .... Im not saying its a lost cause either, hopefully enough vote/voices against will stop such limitations but if it came to it that number will not be reviewed on what users of the vaping devices think but rather on the back of scientific research in the nicotine dosage and its dangers.

grindle

ZeRoY wrote: »

Nicotine enhances (better word perhaps?) the TH but does not create it.

I was saying that nicotine for the most part creates it and is enhanced by everything else. Alcohol and chilli have their own kinds of throathit, but there's a scratch that gets rid of the itch as well as a nice caffeine high from nicotine.
People give up freedoms so easily nowadays.
If there has been no proven, cataclysmically unhealthy, or society-destroying reason to ban something, it shouldn't be banned, whether that be nicotine, porn, drugs, alcohol, fishnet tights, bronies, intellectual dissent or psychedelic rock.

ZeRoY wrote: »

We are no scientists, they dont pull 4mg per ml from a hat ....

No, we're not scientists, but we can listen to scientists that aren't affiliated with either a tax-based system of revenue or those affiliated with revenue generated from those who can not be cured (government and pharmaceutical companies, respectively), and all of those scientists (all of them, not one non-affilliated dissenter yet) have said that ecigs are safe and that the 4mg ruling was effectively plucked out of thin air so that we would continually fail and continue trying more tax-efficient avenues of interest.
Ecigs have been judged HUNDREDS of times safer than cigarettes (at the minimum end of the scale) and between 10-20 times more effective than pharmaceutical NRT...
Gee whizz, I wonder why they want the proven most effective not-yet-heavily-taxed method to be rendered worthless?
In terms of death prevention this is the most revolutionary health "product" since penicillin, sitting nowadays alongside Bill Gates' Polio eradication effort (except this lengthens more lives and costs less money).
I hope you can see why I absolutely despise the mindset that thinks "But sher, it might be the law and that limit is fine with me, so just let it go: Fùck everybody else."
If the government or ANY scientist (please, show me just one) can prove that these should be rendered worthless for any quantifiably worthwhile reason, I'll take it on the chin (but still buy illegally - legal =/= moral).

DrDebaser

Folks having trouble posting at present. I have been in contact with my TD. If this post shows up I will give further details

DrDebaser

Ok seem to be back in control. Essentially after emailing and speaking to my TD he raised a question in the Dail [no 202] asking the minister for health if his attention had been drawn to people's concerns that the Directive will take away their right to use e-cigs.

James Reilly made a written answer. It covers a page or 2 but the salient points are:
The Commission & The WHO note that theres a growing concern about the quality, safety and'regulatory gap' of these emerging products called Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems as they continue to penetrate new markets'

They will only allow products that have a nicotine level exceeding 2 mg per unit or a nicotine concentration exceeding 4mg per ml if they have been authorised as medicinal products.
Nicotine containing products that have a nicotine level below this threshold can be sold as consumer products provided they feature an adapted health warning.
The intention isn't to remove but to ensure products are regulated effectively.
I quote "This proposal is the main health related priority for the Irish Presidency and I am strongly committed to making as much progress as possible".......I am drafting a reply to my TD Iwill try to encapsulate the main arguements.

ZeRoY

grindle wrote: »

I hope you can see why I absolutely despise the mindset that thinks "But sher, it might be the law and that limit is fine with me, so just let it go: Fùck everybody else."

I sure can but I didn't sign up for leading a "coup d'etat" or a revolution, just give up smoking by way of vaping. - to each his own. I will, by the way, write to the MEP I can using the great advices from this thread.

By the way, I totally agree with your arguments, no doubts forces are at play to put aside this new tech despite the fact that it clearly helps many and is a lot safer than smoking.

illicit007

DrDebaser wrote: »

Ok seem to be back in control. Essentially after emailing and speaking to my TD he raised a question in the Dail [no 202] asking the minister for health if his attention had been drawn to people's concerns that the Directive will take away their right to use e-cigs.

James Reilly made a written answer. It covers a page or 2 but the salient points are:
The Commission & The WHO note that theres a growing concern about the quality, safety and'regulatory gap' of these emerging products called Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems as they continue to penetrate new markets'

They will only allow products that have a nicotine level exceeding 2 mg per unit or a nicotine concentration exceeding 4mg per ml if they have been authorised as medicinal products.
Nicotine containing products that have a nicotine level below this threshold can be sold as consumer products provided they feature an adapted health warning.
The intention isn't to remove but to ensure products are regulated effectively.
I quote "This proposal is the main health related priority for the Irish Presidency and I am strongly committed to making as much progress as possible".......I am drafting a reply to my TD Iwill try to encapsulate the main arguements.

If the intention isn't to remove but regulate, why do they need to lower the nicotine levels do much lower than regular cigarettes? E cigarettes are used by many smokers as a healthier alternative to smoking. Lowering the nicotine level makes them no longer an alternative since nic levels are so low you can't compare them anymore hence taking the healthier alternative away. It's bull ****. Nicotine isn't harmful at 4mg or 16mg so why I ask you? Ask your TD that please. Minus the bull **** sentence, best we leave that part out.

ZeRoY

illicit007 wrote: »

It's bull ****. Nicotine isn't harmful at 4mg or 16mg so why I ask you?

Yes and it can exist, like the NRT already lab tested like patches at 24mg or other products found in pharma but this will mean 2-3 years in tests?

grindle

ZeRoY wrote: »

I sure can but I didn't sign up for leading a "coup d'etat" or a revolution, just give up smoking by way of vaping. - to each his own. I will, by the way, write to the MEP I can using the great advices from this thread.

I'm glad you're kind of on the same page, but even the bolded section...

Since when did negating a tax-sponsored and obviously fiscal move that can only harm the citizens of the nation become revolutionary or a coup?
We don't live in medieval or Victorian times.

This is us: "Hey, we're trying not to die, and we're enjoying this at no cost to anyone...thanks."

This is them: "Try not dying by paying us more money please. If you will not pay us more money we will find a way to tax air."

:rolleyes:

ZeRoY

grindle wrote: »

Since when did negating a tax-sponsored and obviously fiscal move that can only harm the citizens of the nation become revolutionary or a coup?

I was being sarcastic there. I meant that I don't necessarily want to get too deep in the politics of the matter.

illicit007

ZeRoY wrote: »

Yes and it can exist, like the NRT already lab tested like patches at 24mg or other products found in pharma but this will mean 2-3 years in tests?

I'll happily wait 2-3 years for them to test and approve 24mg nicotine since they already approved 24mg patches. In the meantime I'll top up my 4mg juice til they get round to it ;-)

But seriously I'd like to hear what their answer to that question is.

But it's like the weed arguements isnt it. It's proven to be less harmful to society than smoke and booze, it could be regulated and taxed, yet for some reason,I still don't undeestand, years ago it was made illegal.

DrDebaser

I just sent a e-mail to Mr Flanagan. I explained that the low level of nicotine will make the whole thing ineffective in the battle to reduce the number of smokers in Europe. [You gotta speak their speak]

I also offered to meet both him and Dr James Reilly to brief them on E-Cigs, their effects, strengths and purpose. We will see.....

Pushtrak

ZeRoY wrote: »

I was being sarcastic there. I meant that I don't necessarily want to get too deep in the politics of the matter.

You've said you'll be contacting an MEP, so there is that going for you... But this sentiment right here? That's the kind of thing politicians love. Politics might not be the most interesting thing, but it's worth keeping an eye out on current events lest it cost you.

In politics, ignorance isn't bliss.

grindle

ZeRoY wrote: »

I was being sarcastic there. I meant that I don't necessarily want to get too deep in the politics of the matter.

I understood, I wasn't expecting you to storm the castle.
But I would expect any rational human not to hand us over on plate by quandering why 4mg/ml and 2mg/capsules aren't good enough, which implicitly means 0.5 ml capsules maximum, which implicitly means I'm gonna have to try to sate myself with 15mls of juice minimum per day which is 3 capsules of juice which will be... I wonder what price they'll be near...?

I'll seriously have to be wishing they serve the juice in caps I can pour into an atty with six coils with a battery that can withstand the pressure at those measurements.

And STILL the most important point to be made is that they shouldn't be allowed to do this anymore than they should be allowed to limit my coffee intake to three units of espresso per day. I.E.: They shouldn't be allowed.
Any allowance made on their behalf is a move against anyone trying not to gain cancer as a potential bonus card in the game of life and a move against anybody's civil liberty to live as they want without causing harm to others.

tommy2bad

Wow Grindle, you are on a roll tonight. Must try some o that beer meself
Now back to the reasoning behind the NCP part of the TPD.
The level is set at 4mg because it the base where the liquid has no pharmacological effect, yes they know this, thats why they are allowing it. Above 4mg the effect can be measured and so, in their world, counts as a medicine product and should be regulated accordingly. Now you might wonder why not amend the medicines regulation to include nic products, after all thats where NRT is regulated. Well it's not because they are stupid or because they think 'it looks like a cigarette so it must be a tobacco product', no, it's because in both Germany and Holland when they tried to go the medicine route the courts of both country's said 'no way hosea, effect alone dose not a medicine make, it must be an effect for the purpose of treating an illness or aleavating a condition or symptom'.
Our clever clogs have thought about this and rather than risk getting shot down again are using the TPD as a back door to get ecigs off the general market and under the control of the pharma controlled medicines boards.
Everything else is just bullsh1t to justifie this.

sent from a bottle of Schenider Weisse (tap 6)

grindle

tommy2bad wrote: »

...it's because in both Germany and Holland when they tried to go the medicine route the courts of both country's said 'no way hosea, effect alone dose not a medicine make, it must be an effect for the purpose of treating an illness or aleavating a condition or symptom'.

This restrictive route of considering it a medicine is a serious error.
Even when pillars like Doodlebug on UKV step in and say "Stop calling it quitting smoking!" I think she deserves a smack in the mouth.
I understand she's trying to err on the side of "Let's make this as legal as they'll allow us.", but to me that's handing them the noose to wrap around our necks.
It deserves it's own category.
It isn't NRT because we're not replacing or reducing our nicotine levels unless we want to. As it should be, as it has no proven significant harm to the individual or the general populous, let alone any proven insignificant harm.
It isn't a tobacco product as it contains nothing burned or innately carcinogenic in the quantities imbibed unless the net is spread wide on that definition, in which case we'll be tomato-less tomorrow.
It already is it's own category. Why they feel the need to cram a square peg into a round hole is blindingly obvious to anyone who can think two seconds of their own thought without referencing the thoughts of paid hacks.

Honestly, the amount of people whose lives can be lengthened and the extra years gained taking second place to letting people die for pharma profits is sickening...
People only getting into ecigs are just saying "Wow, this works? For me! Right now!" without thinking "If we don't make sure this is safe our children or friends of our children will die and future generations will die."
Not an easy statement. They will die.
People won't just stop seeking those little bumps, whether caffeine, weed, or ecigs or alcohol. Make it safe.
Gov: "Nah, let 'em die!"
Only a minority sees how sick this is? There are anti-cigs campaigners who want this eradicated?
What an emotionally and morally destitute world we live in. Makes me incredibly sad.

Now drinking Abbaye De Crespin - Secret Des Moines - Triple

was.deevey

It isn't a tobacco product as it contains nothing burned or innately carcinogenic in the quantities imbibed unless the net is spread wide on that definition, in which case we'll be tomato-less tomorrow.

The unfortunate hole in that statement is that currently nicotine IS a tobacco product - until synthetic nicotine is cheaper to manufacture than extracting from leaves it will remain a tobacco product.

My entire feeling on Tobacco products is that they are Adult targeted products and once its squarely aimed at over 18's there should be no problem with anyone buying Nicotine - certainly not until they target cigarettes first.

grindle

was.deevey wrote: »

The unfortunate hole in that statement is that currently nicotine IS a tobacco product - until synthetic nicotine is cheaper to manufacture than extracting from leaves it will remain a tobacco product.

But the current tobacco law dictates that tobacco products contain leaves, otherwise they're nicotine extracted and must be considered for medicinal review, that's why they're trying to push the directive through, otherwise all NRT would be tobacco.
At some (extremely close to this date) point they're going to make it worthwhile to manufacture your own nicotine from tobacco leaves w/alcohol unless they boost the price of tobacco leaves times ten.
This will obviously result in people dying. (Isn't it so sad that we're saying shit that wouldn't be out of place on the conspiracy forum, but it's true?).
I'll be doing it, working in milligrams upwards until I reach an acceptable level.
It shouldn't even be a discussion, just like prohibition shouldn't have been a discussion leading up to and including the 18th to the 21st amendments in 'Murica.

csi vegas

grindle wrote: »

But the current tobacco law dictates that tobacco products contain leaves, otherwise they're nicotine extracted and must be considered for medicinal review, that's why they're trying to push the directive through, otherwise all NRT would be tobacco.
At some (extremely close to this date) point they're going to make it worthwhile to manufacture your own nicotine from tobacco leaves w/alcohol unless they boost the price of tobacco leaves times ten.

Have you heard of this? Could this be the future, staring us in the face right here? http://www.electronic-cigarette.ie/index.php?products=product&prod_id=213

grindle wrote: »

I'll be doing it, working in milligrams upwards until I reach an acceptable level.

Isn't tobacco awfully expensive to buy as it is though? And do you really think this will be legal (for reasons of revenue)?

Mr. Chrome

O

csi vegas wrote: »

Have you heard of this? Could this be the future, staring us in the face right here? http://www.electronic-cigarette.ie/index.php?products=product∏_id=213


but where would the flavorists find vanilla custard tobacco?;-)

csi vegas

Mr. Chrome wrote: »

O

csi vegas wrote: »

Have you heard of this? Could this be the future, staring us in the face right here? http://www.electronic-cigarette.ie/index.php?products=product∏_id=213


but where would the flavorists find vanilla custard tobacco?;-)

They might add Angel Delight??? Birds powder???

here's a lovely yellow face in tribute to Birds. And here's another

mmm mmm mmm!

DrDebaser

My TD has invited me to meet at the Dail to talk over the E-Cig / Vaping issues. I am happy that at least he's prepared to listen.
Any advice ? [gratefully received]

grindle

Bring the appropriate studies to him, printed.

tommy2bad

Bring kit, cigalike, ego mods whatever you have. Bring bottles of juice, explain how every single product will need a separate authorization and that the cost is about 2million per application process. Tell how most producers are SME's and that to continue in business will require large investment from outside, most probably from tobacco companies who are the only ones, apart from pharma companies that can afford the cost of medical authorization.

Good luck!