Is SuperChris actually Chris Choi trolling us?
Ha, no I am not Chris Choi, although I am trolling you.
Ok, it is semantics, to an extent. But to argue something is not medicinal is purely defined by the semantics. All definitions by their very nature ARE.
I know the good points of vaping. I have read them and looked through a great deal of information. I agree with your final conclusion. I have merely stated that it is perfectly reasonable for others to disagree with us and consider it a medicine. This added to the fact that it does, on a lot of levels, look to be a medicine means you have to be able to argue why it is not.
all the examples I listed could be classed as preventative and the reference to exercise isn't weak at all.. it's outlandish I'll grant, but that was just to point out the flawed parameters with which you were seeking to define 'medicine'.
My extreme examples seem to bother you, but I don't see why. They fit into your definition of a medicine (something that is not necessarily a cure and something that has a preventative action). But I note that you continue to add parameters to try and justify your pedantry. Now you insist that a medicine must contain a drug. Any other parameters you'd like to add at this point, rather than waiting for a response and thinking up yet another proviso to try and validate your argument?
I presume that you'd like to disbar any/all forms of alternative methods from your definition to fit in with rapidly expanding definition parameters?
This is not strictly speaking true. In my very first post I posted the definition of medicine as
a drug or other preparation for the treatment or prevention of disease.
I insisted from the very start that it must contain a drug. I have not recently changed my argument, and have remained consistent all the way through. Your extreme examples don't
bother me, I just don't agree with them for the reasons I stated.
Is it pedantic to argue points using the recognised dictionary definition, quoted in my very first post as a basis, and using comparable ideas to back it up? I don't think so.
Let me explain. You seem to be working from a false premise... namely that the 'powers that be' in this country can be reasoned with and persuaded to adopt reasonable, well thought out, sensible policies.
How depressing is that thought! Are you seriously saying they can't be reasoned with and persuaded? Then why bother fighting this then? Lets just stockpile now and forget about the whole fight.
I agree with this next statement in it's entirety:
As you may be aware, the MHRA has already announced that they intend to introduce medical regulation, regardless of what happens in europe. If you are also aware that the MHRA is largely funded by big pharma corporations that rely on keeping people in a cycle of (smoking, buying their woefully inadequate NRT products, long term 'relapse' and a return to smoking again) to make profits, you will see the potential for conflict of interest and corruption.
Put in the simplest term, if 'they' are motivated enough to protect their income streams it won't matter how much we lobby or educate them. They'll simply steamroller over any opposition and go ahead with it anyway. Ultimately, that could end up in a long, drawn out legal battle but in the interim, whilst a defacto ban was still in place, how many current/potential vapers would be forced to return to/continue tobacco smoking due to inferior, ineffective products? Hence my often repeated advice to vapers to make themselves as independent as possible by learning to make their own devices, learning how to make coils, learning how to mix juice and stocking up. All of these things would empower vapers and help them to weather an effective ban.
And the reason I am now mounting this campaign of argument is to show how, what they say, can be defended. I AM NOT SAYING THEY ARE RIGHT. I AM NOT SAYING I AM RIGHT. I am saying that the argument can be made, can you realistically counter it? That interim period, if it comes to that, will be our opportunity to mount a legal challenge and whatnot. I worry that we will choose to say that vaping cannot be classified as a medicine, and I think this will lead to us losing the argument; because it can be defined that way.
You may be having fun, supposedly playing devil's advocate but how would you fare when the tables are turned I wonder?
You say it's reasonable to classify vaping as a medicine.. how would you justify the measures contained in the latest leak? (single use catridges, nicotine level restrictions, measured dosages etc).
I'd say that's the angle you need to be viewing this from because for the first time ever, 'they' have lost the moral high ground and need to justify their proposed regulations in a manner which would ultimately have stand up to legal scrutiny.
I entirely agree with you again. I would not try to justify them. They are unjustifiable. Why would I want to? They are based on defending the profits and vested interest of rich companies and the tax income of nation states. It is not defensible and the fight against it must continue. The MOST worrying thing is the proposal to shut down sites like this one. That concerns me more than ANY of the other regulation. That is scary as hell, it opens the floodgates to so many other avenues of freedom being closed.
I have not given a personal opinion on vaping in all of this. I do not think it should have medical regulations placed on it. I do not think it is dangerous. I do not see the need for extra regulation in this area at all. I am a vaper. I do enjoy it. I do not want to be stopped.
