[ExI] (no subject)

Rafal Smigrodzki rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
Mon May 16 01:49:45 UTC 2016

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:05 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 11, 2016 4:34 PM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
> rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Tell me where did I lie.
> >>
> >>
> >> "The references you adduce provide no information in support of FDA's
> attack on vapes."
> >>
> >> That's the main one.  You provided follow-up cherry picking a few
> points, suggesting there was nothing else, but that statement said there
> was no supporting information, yet there was.  In addition to the many
> health problems noted, things like "The electronic cigarette cartridges
> that were labeled as containing no nicotine had low levels of nicotine
> present in all cartridges tested, except one." state that e-cigarettes tend
> to have false advertising too, which would be reason enough to go after
> them.
> >
> > ### How low were the nicotine levels? Enough to produce a
> pharmacological response?
> Again: false advertising like this by itself would be enough to support
> regulatory action.
### If this were true, claiming you sell fat-free milk or lead-free
gasoline could put you in prison. All kinds of products contain lots of
substances while being explicitly sold as being free of such substance. So

So, you don't know what were the nicotine levels, do you?


> >
> > ### There is nothing in that memo that supports FDA's attack on vapes.
> Give me a specific quote which in your opinion provides support for FDA's
> power grab.
> I have already done so.  You pretended it was something else.
### You did not quote anything from the memo which would support the ban.

Give it a try, if there is something substantial you will easily find it,
it's a short memo.


> The lack of reliability is not an attribute of the research itself.  Stop
> blatantly lying.
### The BMJ says the research is not reliable. Stop accusing me of lying.


> > Wasn't this article the one you highlighted as being most convincing?
> Irrelevant.

### Oh, very relevant. It tells me you hastily grabbed together a few
references that vaguely go with what you think you know. You didn't read
them before posting, or else you would have noticed they are worthless. Or
did you?


> We're not talking variance between different products.  30% referred to
> the difference between what a given product actually contained and what its
> manufacturer claimed.  Last I checked, the standard was somewhere under
> 1%.  So, no, 30% is not reasonably good.
### For the addicts it is reasonably good. They do not need a +/-1%
accuracy of nicotine assay in their vapes.

I think you are just pretending that you want protect the addicts from
getting up to 25% more nicotine in their vapes.

Seriously, why do you want to have a life-saving innovation banned? Do you
want the addicts to die?


> I said "garbage quality", not just "garbage".  I referred to the degree to
> which it is possible to know its composition, relative to the FDA's normal
> standards for drugs.
### The FDA should not be allowed to attack vapes, whatever the pretext
they use to attack this life-saving innovation.

Here is Reason Magazine on this subject:

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160515/adc1f41e/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list